Author Topic: Do you believe in DIRECT?  (Read 47049 times)

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Do you believe in DIRECT?
« on: 01/07/2008 09:38 AM »
I've heard there are some DIRECT naysayers. I'm one of them and I know about Dr Stanley (head of ESAS) being the other naysayer. Maybe even Mike Griffin (NASA big boss) could be in the club.
I think it could be interesting to find how many people actually believe to what "DIRECT team" is trying to tell us.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #1 on: 01/07/2008 09:43 AM »
I have to admit that DIRECT is very educative study and generally a very good effort. However, I have to vote for the first option to join The naysayers club.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3801
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 738
  • Likes Given: 1395
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #2 on: 01/07/2008 10:51 AM »

I've said it before in other threads -- I have two good friends who are (fairly) senior personnel at JSC and they reiterated to me again only recently that they and many of their colleagues believe that ARES 1 is a joke and a Kludge. I Quote: "An almost fetishistic design by someone who should have known better -- Ares 1 has little or no chance of working as advertised". 

Also, at Fuddruckers Restaurant not all that long ago, I ran into an ex-Shuttle Astronaut whom I hadn't seen in 11 years and had a good conversation with him. He had some business at JSC that afternoon. When I mentioned Ares 1 as a concept, he just rolled his eyes...

Look: any Ares 1 supporters out there (outside of NASA) who bash 'Direct' and other alternatives -- how much more anecdotal evidence do you really need, that this thing, Ares 1, is a dog? It barks, guys!! Don't you get it?! This is from the horse's mouths, from people with Phds in Engineering -- people who design spacecraft and systems for a living. People who work and walk the halls of one of NASA's most important centers. And it's for this reason that many of them are keeping quiet -- they may not actually lose their jobs for speaking out against Ares 1, but they may very well become pariahs, at least under the current regime, or miss out on promotions etc. These people have kids in college and mortages -- they don't want to jeopardize these things.

If something isn't done soon to improve the prospects for a new crew launcher system, then the next Presidential Administration, particularly one gentleman, will cancel America's Return To The Moon. For those of us who have pushed for decades for humans to leave Low Earth Orbit....

The consequences are too dire to stomach again. God help us...  :(

"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #3 on: 01/07/2008 11:21 AM »
The question is invalid. Belief is not required, only objective study. Indeed, is the word "belief" intended to mean "support" or perhaps even "trust" (as in do we trust the numbers in the proposal)?
Wouldn't it be more useful to ask whether Direct is supported? Belief implies that folks are drawing an opinion without looking at the data. Also - belief won't make any difference to whether or not the proposal is taken up by NASA - they are logical folks acting within a polical environment, so politics and engineering reality will decide.
The question is not useful so I decline to vote or add voting options.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #4 on: 01/07/2008 11:21 AM »
DIRECT is merely one of a number of architectures that would be "better" than ESAS at fulfilling VSE. Some are better technically, some are better financially, some are better politically. The problem with Ares I/V begins with its bait-and-switch orgins. The original proposal called for the reuse of the existing 4seg SRBs, the development of the existing SSMEs into STMEs, and the evolution of a 5-engine core out of the existing ET. Once ESAS was accepted, we suddenly found out the architecture was "too expensive" and a similar-looking but otherwise all new architecture (now called Ares I/V) was substituted, with 5-seg SRBs, RS-68 engines, and an all-new core whose only point of commonalty with the ET is the orange insulation. At this point, DIRECT is more similar to the original ESAS architecture than the annoited Ares I/V. And it's not so much that DIRECT is especially wonderful, as that it is simply the best presented of the many alternatives that are better in many respects than Ares I/V. Look at it this way: Jupiter 232 would not be harder or more expensive to develop than Ares V, and would be ready sooner because there's no need for Ares I. If, for whatever reason, the US decided to keep ISS alive past 2016, a de-lunarized Orion on any EELV-class rocket (Atlas, Delta, Ariane, F9, whatever) could do that job. And let's face it, almost all of the known viable presidential candidates will cancel ESAS, some will cancel VSE, and a few will even cancel ISS. In some sense, VSE and ESAS failed when the current administration failed to fund a crash program to develop its plan, leaving it, instead, to whoever wins the 2008 election. If Bush & Co. had jumped on it in 2003, with a plan to have a capsule flying on whatever rocket in 2008, then VSE and probably ESAS would stand a good chance of surviving whoever takes office next January. As it is, there's virtually nothing in place, and it will be easy for whoever wins to say, "Okay, we'll keep shuttle flying to ISS through the end of 2012." And then there'll be another election. And, of oourse, the loss of another shuttle in that time frame could spell the end of the US manned space program, absent a viable replacement.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #5 on: 01/07/2008 11:22 AM »
No real surprise, but I voted "If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes".

BTW, William - you bring up an excellent point - EELV CLV's.   I think they're a good idea.   I've said on more than one occasion that there is room for them along-side DIRECT.   I would like a human-rated launch architecture covering each of the 20mT, 50mT and 100mT realms.   That would give us the maximum possible flexibility for the 21st Century.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #6 on: 01/07/2008 11:56 AM »
Quote
Nathan - 7/1/2008  12:21 PM

The question is invalid. Belief is not required, only objective study.

Yes, objective study would be great but is there something like that?

Quote
Indeed, is the word "belief" intended to mean "support" or perhaps even "trust" (as in do we trust the numbers in the proposal)?

It's generally the same. You trust in something you believe and  you support what you trust if you are honest.

Quote
The question is not useful so I decline to vote or add voting options.

It's for the purpose to find how many naysayers and supporters are visiting this forum and how many of them are willing to admit that.
If you don't vote I think you could be just undecided or didn't read that study. Please, add appropriate option and vote for it.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #7 on: 01/07/2008 12:18 PM »
I think “Undecided” is a valid position to take. After all, this poll really represents a “snapshot in time”. Most “undecided’s” eventually make a choice, but not until well into the process. Let people take whatever time they need to "decide" without pressuring them to choose one or the other.

And not everyone leaves a comment, either. Notice that "at this point" there are only 6 posters, but there have been 16 votes cast. We know they are all different people too because the NSF forum doesn't allow multiple votes from the same person.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #8 on: 01/07/2008 12:20 PM »
Quote
William Barton - 7/1/2008  12:21 PM

Look at it this way: Jupiter 232 would not be harder or more expensive to develop than Ares V, and would be ready sooner because there's no need for Ares I.

Agree 100%.
There won't be much difference between Jupiter 232 and Ares V if ever developed. They are very similar launchers.
The difference is that Ares V needs somewhat more development and can deliver more cargo.

NASA has chosen Ares V/1 approach because they believe that a LOT OF CARGO IN SINGLE LAUNCH is needed for the Moon and Mars. NASA also believe that Ares V derrived vehicle (Ares 1) will result in VERY SAFE launcher.

DIRECT delivers less cargo and less safe vehicle. For less money??? We don't know. ESAS says no (overall architecture and capabilities) and there is no other reliable source (if you don't believe "rumour factory").

If this NASA belief fails in LOT OF CARGO IN SINGLE LAUNCH or VERY SAFE launcher than all architecture collapses.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #9 on: 01/07/2008 12:21 PM »
I voted for sensible peer review.

Ares is a quick way to a dead end, spaceflight wise.  I cannot trust the future administrations will not cancel it AFTER we loose the STS and before Ares can fly.  It takes too long to mature and fly and will amost certainly be riddled with the sorts of problems that you find when you start over with a new launch system.

DIRECT will speed us along the path to a replacement, hopefully before anyone can deep six it.  I'm sure there will be things that need to be worked out or re-thought but you're using the proven components from STS which have history.



-John
"We'll remember the Shuttle days with fondness 20 years from now when we still don't have a replacement.  The something we had was better than the nothing we wound up with."


www.apollosaturn.com

Offline rumble

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Conway, AR
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #10 on: 01/07/2008 12:45 PM »
The options basically read like this:
1)  Direct is BS
2)  Direct is GOLD and is flawless
3)  Direct is seriously flawed
4)  Direct is a good proposal but needs to be refined before blueprints can be drawn.

Easy.  Option 4.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #11 on: 01/07/2008 01:04 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 7/1/2008  7:22 AM

No real surprise, but I voted "If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes".

BTW, William - you bring up an excellent point - EELV CLV's.   I think they're a good idea.   I've said on more than one occasion that there is room for them along-side DIRECT.   I would like a human-rated launch architecture covering each of the 20mT, 50mT and 100mT realms.   That would give us the maximum possible flexibility for the 21st Century.

Ross.

To this non-engineer SF writer, the EELV proponents have a solid case. I think it points in two directions in the long run. 1. To an EELV class RLV, when flight rates get to that point. 2. To an evolutionary EELV-derived program. The Delta evolution is obvious (the Delta V that would be something like the supposed Arev IV core). I think the evolved Atlas would be better, but I also think we'd need to get away from non-US engines. That would beg for a restart on the RS-84. In the meantime, an Orion CM with LEO SM that could ride up on any EELV would be a fine companion to a Jupiter heavy lifter, and all of it doable in a 4-year time frame. If someone with a little sense and a pro-space outlook gets elected this fall (fat chance, I'm afraid), we could have Orion/EELV/ISS and Orion/Jupiter/LLO/NEO by 2012. I'm sorry to say I'm not holding my breath.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #12 on: 01/07/2008 01:06 PM »
Quote
JIS - 7/1/2008  8:20 AM

Quote
William Barton - 7/1/2008  12:21 PM

Look at it this way: Jupiter 232 would not be harder or more expensive to develop than Ares V, and would be ready sooner because there's no need for Ares I.

Agree 100%.
There won't be much difference between Jupiter 232 and Ares V if ever developed. They are very similar launchers.
The difference is that Ares V needs somewhat more development and can deliver more cargo.

NASA has chosen Ares V/1 approach because they believe that a LOT OF CARGO IN SINGLE LAUNCH is needed for the Moon and Mars. NASA also believe that Ares V derrived vehicle (Ares 1) will result in VERY SAFE launcher.

DIRECT delivers less cargo and less safe vehicle. For less money??? We don't know. ESAS says no (overall architecture and capabilities) and there is no other reliable source (if you don't believe "rumour factory").

If this NASA belief fails in LOT OF CARGO IN SINGLE LAUNCH or VERY SAFE launcher than all architecture collapses.

Even if Jupiter and Ares V cost exactly the same to develop and fly, DIRECT is still going to be cheaper than ESAS by saving on not developing Ares I. We already have Atlas V and delta IV to do Ares I's job.

Offline monkeyb

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #13 on: 01/07/2008 01:07 PM »
As nothing more than a layman on rocket science I go with option 4. There will be other concepts which could work and work better, still, Direct looks like a good model of how VSE could work as a viable alternative to the current Ares model.

Offline spacediver

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #14 on: 01/07/2008 01:30 PM »
If you all wonder about that one vote for option 2...

That was me!
I voted before option 4 was available.
Naturally there will be (minor) changes to the Jupiter vehicles if NASA ever decides to go that way, insofar I'd now also vote for option 4.

Spacediver

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1789
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #15 on: 01/07/2008 01:30 PM »
Direct is a good, grassroots idea. It needs to be refined and completed by NASA. I don't know that it will, but then anything after Nov this year is guesswork. I'll go with option 4.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8515
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1026
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #16 on: 01/07/2008 01:34 PM »
Quote
bad_astra - 7/1/2008  9:30 AM

Direct is a good, grassroots idea. It needs to be refined and completed by NASA. I don't know that it will, but then anything after Nov this year is guesswork. I'll go with option 4.

01-20-09, after that it is anyone's guess.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #17 on: 01/07/2008 01:40 PM »
Quote
rumble - 7/1/2008  1:45 PM

The options basically read like this:
1)  Direct is BS
2)  Direct is GOLD and is flawless
3)  Direct is seriously flawed
4)  Direct is a good proposal but needs to be refined before blueprints can be drawn.

Easy.  Option 4.

I wanted those options to be understand more like:
 
1) There are serious bugs in Direct logic and numbers and therefore won't be accepted by NASA.
2) Direct is GOLD and is flawless
3) Direct will be accepted by NASA, but will need significant changes
4) Direct is a good proposal but needs to be refined before blueprints can be drawn.

'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5153
  • Liked: 973
  • Likes Given: 344
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #18 on: 01/07/2008 01:55 PM »
Quote
MATTBLAK - 7/1/2008  1:51 AM
And it's for this reason that many of them are keeping quiet -- they may not actually lose their jobs for speaking out against Ares 1
I have nothing against DIRECT, and voted for it, but this sounds awfully like a conspiracy theory, which i have become to dismiss immediately, unless some solid proof is supplied.
Without any actual evidence of voice suppression in this matter, i would guess they are quiet because they feel theres nothing to shout about.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #19 on: 01/07/2008 02:37 PM »
Quote
pad rat - 7/1/2008  3:10 PM

I voted #4, but I don't like "Direct". Nor do I like Ares. In fact, I don't even like ESAS and think it's very likely that the lunar missions will be canceled by either the next or some future administration.

Why I don't like Direct:
1) Supporter's assertions - it will cost *this* much, it will fly by *this* date. Designs at this stage of development simply cannot make such statements of fact, particularly if NASA is involved. And before anyone protests that no such claims have been made, go back and read some of the strident statements made by some in the argument for "Direct". A lot of them sure sound like guarantees to me. Can "Direct" work? Sure it can, it's not revolutionary.

I think you should have voted 3) as you raised a serious doubt about DIRECT numbers. I think we can't count you as a true "believer".  

Quote
2) Do we need it? I don't think so, because it forces a continuation of the NASA manned spaceflight paradigm. NASA needs to divest itself of its self-imposed requirement (belief?) that only it can operate human launch services. Commercial alternatives exist, or would exist if given a chance by NASA. Maintaining a NASA launch capability for the sake of preserving some jobs is just plain stupid in the grand scheme of things. The weight of that workforce is holding back what the US could achieve if it allowed industry to do what industry does best, and stuck to doing what government should do.

Sorry for being off topic but I don't know whether this would conform to the presidential directive. NASA has to develop a successor of STS till 2015 and fly to the Moon till 2020. Griffin can't remain administrator if he refuses to obey. He just adopted proven way how to do what he was asked for.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #20 on: 01/07/2008 02:45 PM »
Quote
JIS - 7/1/2008  10:37 AM

Quote
pad rat - 7/1/2008  3:10 PM

I voted #4, but I don't like "Direct". Nor do I like Ares. In fact, I don't even like ESAS and think it's very likely that the lunar missions will be canceled by either the next or some future administration.

Why I don't like Direct:
1) Supporter's assertions - it will cost *this* much, it will fly by *this* date. Designs at this stage of development simply cannot make such statements of fact, particularly if NASA is involved. And before anyone protests that no such claims have been made, go back and read some of the strident statements made by some in the argument for "Direct". A lot of them sure sound like guarantees to me. Can "Direct" work? Sure it can, it's not revolutionary.

I think you should have voted 3) as you raised a serious doubt about DIRECT numbers. I think we can't count you as a true believer.
JIS. What are you doing? You don't ask somebody to vote and then critisize what they choose. You created option 1-3 and pad rat didn't like them. Period.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

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 #21 on: 01/07/2008 02:52 PM »
This whole thread is based on one person's negative bias. What a joke. It's beneath this forum.

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #22 on: 01/07/2008 02:58 PM »
Quote
clongton - 7/1/2008  3:45 PM

Quote
I think you should have voted 3) as you raised a serious doubt about DIRECT numbers. I think we can't count you as a true believer.
JIS. What are you doing? You don't ask somebody to vote and then critisize what they choose. You created option 1-3 and pad rat didn't like them. Period.

Sorry for that. But this wasn't a criticism. Its Pad Rat’s right to vote as he wants and he doesn’t need to explain anything. However, his explanation suggests that he was inconsistent with his vote. He doesn’t believe (trust) in DIRECT numbers, but actually opposing some major parts of it. Nevertheless, it’s his right to vote as he wishes.

Also, please don't take this poll offensively. I think the result is very interesting for everybody.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #23 on: 01/07/2008 03:28 PM »
Quote
pad rat - 7/1/2008  4:14 PM

I voted for this:

If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes

The numbers I doubt do not change the technical viability of the system. It can work as presented as there is nothing revolutionary about the concept. I just doubt the cost and IOC date projections.
......

I think that costs, schedule and technical feasibility are equally important for architecture success.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline Giovanni DS

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
    • ChibiOS/RT Project
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 164
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #24 on: 01/07/2008 03:34 PM »
Quote
JIS - 7/1/2008  5:28 PM
I think that costs, schedule and technical feasibility are equally important for architecture success.

How to kill Ares with a single sentence.

Voted 4 anyway.

Offline Quintus

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #25 on: 01/07/2008 03:35 PM »
I voted for Option 4. I have watched the story unfold over the months and have gradually become convinced that Direct is the best way forward. Not being an engineer, scientist or space professional, it has taken me longer to come to a settled conclusion. I think the proposal has a very strong internal logic and I now hope and pray for the 'miracle' that sees it adopted as the replacement for the current plan.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1789
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #26 on: 01/07/2008 04:14 PM »
Quote
kevin-rf - 7/1/2008  8:34 AM

Quote
bad_astra - 7/1/2008  9:30 AM

Direct is a good, grassroots idea. It needs to be refined and completed by NASA. I don't know that it will, but then anything after Nov this year is guesswork. I'll go with option 4.

01-20-09, after that it is anyone's guess.

I'm not that paranoid yet. I'm sure the current pres will begin the peaceful transition.

Actually, I think the post-Bush Constellation program will be amazingly like.. OSP!
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline fcrec

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #27 on: 01/07/2008 05:05 PM »
As with just about any machine there are those who admire it for it's form or function. Ares I is certainly gets no high marks for it's form (she sure is a butt ugly beast!) but form (i.e. beauty) is not really important..it's function that walks the dog when it comes to launch vehicles. But it looks like function may not be happening for ARES either. I know, don't jump to conclusions but there is simply too much negative news about Ares I to ignore.
DIRECT provides an alternative.  I'm no rocket scientist  but I do know that having a plan B is just plain good management. Is DIRECT perfect? No. Is it fully designed and engineered to the point where absolutely no errors could exist? No But it is something to have in your back pocket if the bad things floating around about ARES turn out to be true. If not DIRECT as a  plan B, NASA should create their own alternative just to have in case. All of that said, I chose the fourth option. A lot of very good people have devoted an unbelieveable amount of time and effort to doing for NASA upper management what they should have been doing for themselves (developing a plan B). To Ross and the DIRECT crew: Thank you for all that you have done. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. To those who detract: prepare your own plan B. You'll be thanked as well.

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #28 on: 01/07/2008 05:31 PM »
Based on the criteria given I'd voted that DIRET is a good proposal...  But like all proposals there will be significant changes between what exists today and if it actually flew.  While I'd agree that the DIRECT team can be credited for a good system level development exersize, there's alot of work to go.  These would be worked out in the Concept, Preliminary, and Final design cycles and to expect no changes is pure fantasy.  This is still rocket science folks, and a lot of challenges will be presented if DIRECT ever is developed.

Now that doesn't put in the boat of being a pure believer...  I'm still an EELV supporter and have remianing doubts if a NASA super heavy lift vehilce is neccessary.  But that's because I believe the next administration will not make the neccessary investments, and we'll end up with no manned spaceflight capability.  But considering we are living in the current adminstrations direction, Jupiter/DIRECT represents the best application of existing technology & infrastructure.  It apprears to apply the best from Saturn (J-2), Shuttle (SRB and ET), DeltaIV (RS-68), and Atlas (WBC), while minimizing costs and scheudle risks.  There's a reason why prior to Columbia the most prefered super heavy lift vehicle kept the shuttle ET and SRB stack geometry.  Ares I is a mistake driven out of the Columbia investigation that improperly blaimed launching crew & cargo together (had nothing to do with the failure).  Ares V expansion to 10m was a managment and system enigneering mistake that improperly placed too little value in existing infrastructure.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #29 on: 01/07/2008 05:31 PM »
Having worked as an aerospace engineer for 20+ years, if Ross, Chuck, Steve, & the Team have actually been carrying 20-50% margins for some cost & performance variables, then Direct has a real chance of coming in within the time & budgets presented. Sure things may not be exactly as presented by the time a Jupiter program actually flew, but intrinsically, it will be closer to the mark than Ares will be to the proposals made when it was started.

I've worked on enough programs where, because of a bad choice early on, or additional requirements added too late, you are continuously trying to put 10 pounds of fecal matter in the 5 pound container. These programs always have the same feel to them: the continuing chasing from one problem to another, the never-quite-getting all the boxes ticked at the same time, the steady decline in capability and performance, the one solution causing a new and different problem, lack of margins too early, the erosion of real mission requirements. Not to mention the steady drift in schedule & budget. They have a consistent feel that is evident even from a distance. Ares I exhibits this syndrome in spades.

Option 4. It makes sense. Direct makes sense. Ares I doesn't.

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #30 on: 01/07/2008 05:44 PM »
Quote
tankmodeler - 7/1/2008  1:31 PM

Having worked as an aerospace engineer for 20+ years, if Ross, Chuck, Steve, & the Team have actually been carrying 20-50% margins for some cost & performance variables, then Direct has a real chance of coming in within the time & budgets presented. Sure things may not be exactly as presented by the time a Jupiter program actually flew, but intrinsically, it will be closer to the mark than Ares will be to the proposals made when it was started.

I've worked on enough programs where, because of a bad choice early on, or additional requirements added too late, you are continuously trying to put 10 pounds of fecal matter in the 5 pound container. These programs always have the same feel to them: the continuing chasing from one problem to another, the never-quite-getting all the boxes ticked at the same time, the steady decline in capability and performance, the one solution causing a new and different problem, lack of margins too early, the erosion of real mission requirements. Not to mention the steady drift in schedule & budget. They have a consistent feel that is evident even from a distance. Ares I exhibits this syndrome in spades.

Option 4. It makes sense. Direct makes sense. Ares I doesn't.

Paul
We have been carrying them. It’s just that we have been very reluctant to make that a matter of public record before now knowing full well that should DIRECT be adopted, there will be changes – it’s inevitable. Plus in spite of all the thousands of hours that have been put into the analysis for this current design, a full-up NASA development effort is going to identify new things, good and bad, that need addressing. Hopefully they will be a wash and we can actually increase the ultimate performance. But we built in those margins just to make sure that in the end we would be able to actually deliver what we advertise.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #31 on: 01/07/2008 06:13 PM »
Quote
TrueGrit - 7/1/2008  1:31 PM
 Ares I is a mistake driven out of the Columbia investigation that improperly blamed launching crew & cargo together (had nothing to do with the failure). .

It wasn't due to Columbia, it goes back to Challenger.  And separating crew & cargo is a good rule, where the cargo is not related to the crew's mission, (just like Challenger)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #32 on: 01/07/2008 06:27 PM »
Quote
Jim - 7/1/2008  2:13 PM

Quote
TrueGrit - 7/1/2008  1:31 PM
 Ares I is a mistake driven out of the Columbia investigation that improperly blamed launching crew & cargo together (had nothing to do with the failure). .

It wasn't due to Columbia, it goes back to Challenger.  And separating crew & cargo is a good rule, where the cargo is not related to the crew's mission, (just like Challenger)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7924#M229566
Because of the way it’s designed, the entry-level Jupiter-120 can carry a full Orion crew and a full Shuttle-mass cargo, while still keeping crew and cargo totally separate iaw the CAIB requirement. As soon as the Jupiter-120 is fielded, it’s a direct replacement for Shuttle. Fly it without crew and it will fly 2x Shuttle’s capacity on each flight.

Edit: A cargo-only flight would need to include the mass of some type of mission stage to maneuver the payload. This would lower the total net payload by the mass of the mission stage.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2065
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #33 on: 01/07/2008 09:00 PM »
After due thought, I had to vote for I am not qualified to offer an opinion.  BUT, as I have learned that most proposals change after they are accepted by the government, I have to think that  current option 4, it would need major changes to be accepted by NASA is most likely.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3020
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 208
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #34 on: 01/07/2008 09:54 PM »
On the surface, DIRECT seems to be at least worthy of serious consideration to me.  I wish we would get some political leadership willing to support something truly ambitious, though.  Unfortunately, I see no Kennedy-like leadership on the horizon.

Offline davo-g

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #35 on: 01/07/2008 10:51 PM »
As a slightly-informed amateur in these matters (and being a student of literature, drama and theology to boot) I really have to vote that I am not qualified to state a preference: the numbers look wonderfully convincing for DIRECT, but who am I to know whether they are realistic?

Having said that, what I have read here and seen of the Ares programme and the DIRECT proposals, I can cetainly say which programme is more convincing, and which captures the imagination. Yet surely in matters like this we must rely on more than appearance? As someone else commented in this discussion, form must come second to substance. If Ares works and takes a new generation to the moon, then for many of us of this generation, that will be the image of a successdul architecture.

The fact that I think Ares I looks like an upside-down easy-grip pen would be irrelevant. The Jupiter rockets really look the business, but even as an amateur I know there is more, far more, to this business than good looks.

And yet I do have one more point in favour of DIRECT. It is something that is not really talked about over here, I would guess because we in the UK have a very minor role in space exploration (more's the pity, but with a bank balance like ours what do you expect?) however I am sure everyone on this site will feel that tug of the growing new space race. DIRECT claims it can get to the moon 'safer, simpler, sooner.' My grandfather tells me that in engineering terms there is fast, there is good, and there is cheap, and you can opt for any two out of those three. Safe is needed, and simple helps make things safe, but if you want to win the race, you're going to need bucket-loads of 'soon.'

With the Apollo programme there were, I believe, two factors that made it a completed and successful programme. 1: It was the legacy of arguably the most charismatic political leaders of the last century. 2: It was a race. My point is this: if the American public believe in the return to the moon, and have that patriotic fervour that fired them before, then you can do this; the politicians would get on board very quickly, believe me. If not, then this will be an uphill battle every step of the way back to Mare Tranquilitatis.

I belive in the return to the moon, and I'd rather America got there first. Again.

David Gardiner
Westcott House
Cambridge


Offline JonSBerndt

  • Principal Systems Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • Westminster, CO
    • JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Software Library
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #36 on: 01/07/2008 11:10 PM »
Quote
mike robel - 7/1/2008  4:00 PM

After due thought, I had to vote for I am not qualified to offer an opinion.  BUT, as I have learned that most proposals change after they are accepted by the government, I have to think that  current option 4, it would need major changes to be accepted by NASA is most likely.

Chuck or Ross - maybe you could remind us to what degree DIRECT is a derivative of the NASA/MSFC LV24/25 concept? Reading some of these responses, it seems that some of the "pedigree" of DIRECT is being overlooked.

Jon
Jon S. Berndt
Aerospace Engineer
The opinions expressed herein are of course solely my own.

Offline imfan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #37 on: 01/07/2008 11:12 PM »
Rumble got it right>
4) Direct is a good proposal but needs to be refined before blueprints can be drawn.
Now it is only a concept and that is the way we should look at it. It needs to be developed as every concept, but at this stage it makes sense. ESAS did make sense too back then, but my impression is that is not the case anymore. I dont say that DIRECT is a universal cure for all problems, but at least the logic behind "not as bad ass launcher, but still bad ass launcher and no useles launcher" is understandable fto me.

Offline Scotty

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Merritt Island, Florida
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #38 on: 01/07/2008 11:43 PM »
Direct is based on NASA MSFC's NLS studies done many years ago.
The Direct Team did not dream up Direct, they took what NASA abandoned and improved upon it.
Direct is NASA's idea, and NASA proved via extensive study, that Direct would work.
On the other hand, a few ex-astronauts and ATK dreamed up ARES I.
NASA is rapidly finding out that ARES I is a total turkey, that should be abandoned because is is not Simple, Safe or Soon.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3801
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 738
  • Likes Given: 1395
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #39 on: 01/07/2008 11:57 PM »
Quote
savuporo - 8/1/2008 1:55 AM
Quote
MATTBLAK - 7/1/2008 1:51 AMAnd it's for this reason that many of them are keeping quiet -- they may not actually lose their jobs for speaking out against Ares 1
I have nothing against DIRECT, and voted for it, but this sounds awfully like a conspiracy theory, which i have become to dismiss immediately, unless some solid proof is supplied.Without any actual evidence of voice suppression in this matter, i would guess they are quiet because they feel theres nothing to shout about.

I have been asked by the men in question to NOT mention their names. What am I going to do -- betray friends and damage their careers? Of course bloody not!! And Ross can confirm to you that at least some have already had their careers damaged by going against Ares 1.

There is no conspiracy theory on this, it's a fact. I'll happily fall on my sword if anyone's reputation is damaged or identity compromised.  :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #40 on: 01/08/2008 12:11 AM »
I think Mike Griffin better start believing in DIRECT sooner rather than later because the chances of the most anti-Space Presidential candidate winning are getting stronger day by day and we probably won't even get Ares I let alone Ares V then ! Political reality is calling Mike and time to ensure Heavy Lift is assured before you sign off !

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #41 on: 01/08/2008 02:13 AM »
I think people really have to look at what the US "might" get for the next 30 years:

1.  Direct---Takes the US to the Moon and beyound.
2.  EELV:  Great rocket---but to take the US to the moon?  Is it time for lego.
3.  Ares I:  Stuck in LEO for the next 30 years.

I am not saying Direct is the end all, but REALLY think what spend money today, we might be flying for the next 30 years.  If you want Ares fine, but in 5 years don't complain when we don't get it's big brother and we are stuck flying in LEO.

As to the point about people fearing for their jobs.  I agree---people will not want to upset the cart.  I work for the public service.  There are tons of rules about people not being discriminated againist for upsetting the boss.  You upset the boss, you will be BLACK LISTED.  You will not be getting ANY promotion, they will send you to the most remote spot that they can send you.  Your career will be over.  You may think I am joking, that it does not happen.

Then, go down to the local govt. office (SSI, DPSS, etc) and ask any worker what might happen if he goes against his/her Director/Big Boss.  That worker will have no nice toys to play with.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12958
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2834
  • Likes Given: 430
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #42 on: 01/08/2008 02:37 AM »
As a hard-core space geek (who has written his own trajectory simulation programs for the Saturn V and Space Shuttle) and who has read the 130 page AIAA paper, its as obvious as the nose in front of my face that Direct is a much cheaper and easier solution for NASA in comparison to Ares-I/V. I voted number 4.

To those who don't "believe" that Direct is better, I suggest you go read Werner von Braun's book "The Mars Project". There you will learn nearly all you need to know for writing your own trajectory simulation program like I did. If you want to show that Direct won't work, do your own maths and crunch your own numbers. Go put in the hard yards that others have done. If you then find their numbers wrong, present your results. We'll all be interested in what you have to say.

Here's a summary of my analysis of Direct that I posted in another forum.

I read the whole paper (just about all of the 131 pages) and it is obvious that Direct is a much simpler and cheaper solution than Ares-I/V. Direct uses one vehicle that can launch either medium (41.8 t into 78x222 km, 28.5º orbit) with the Jupiter 120 or heavy (95.3 t into 56x222 km, 28.5º orbit) with the Jupiter 232. Note that 1 t = 1000 kg.

The main elements of Direct are the

1) Current 8.4 m diameter external tank (ET) modified to accept two or three crew-rated RS-68 engines operating at 100% thrust at the base and a forward skirt at the top
2) Existing four segment solid rocket boosters (SRB)
3) New Earth departure stage (EDS) with two J2-XD engines with standard turbo-pump

The Jupiter 120 has two RS-68 engines and no upper stage, while the Jupiter 232 has three RS-68 engines and an upper stage.

The main elements of Ares-I/V are

1) New 10 m diameter main stage with five crew-rated RS-68 engines operating at 106% thrust.
2) SRBs modified with five segments.
3) New EDS with one J2-X engine with modified turbo-pump for increased thrust
4) New Ares-I upper stage with one J2-X engine

Ares-I uses one modified SRB and the new upper stage. Ares-V uses the new core, two modified SRBs and the new EDS. Ares-I/V will require extensive pad and vehicle assembly building (VAB) modifications to accept two very different vehicles. The footprint for both Jupiter 120 and 232 vehicles are the same and is also similar to shuttle since the same ET diameter tank is used. This implies much less modifications are required to the pads and VAB.

Current performance for the Ares-I is 25 t (the same as Delta-IV Heavy) and 130 t for Ares-V. The Ares-V will first launch the Lunar surface access module (LSAM) and wait for the Ares-I to launch the crew exploration vehicle (CEV). The CEV docks with LSAM and the EDS fires to go the Moon. If the CEV fails to launch due to delays, the EDS and LSAM are lost. The total payload mass in LEO is 155 t. The trans Lunar injection (TLI) payload is 59.4 t.

In Direct, a Jupiter 232 is first launched only carrying the EDS. The payload here is 98.3 t of propellant. A second Jupiter 232 is launched carrying the CEV, LSAM and 20.5 t of liquid oxygen (LOX) in a tank under the LSAM. This stack docks with the EDS and the LOX is transferred to the EDS. The EDS stage is lengthened by 0.87 m for the additional liquid hydrogen. If the second Jupiter 232 fails to launch due to delays, then only the EDS is lost, saving an expensive LSAM. The total payload mass into LEO is 190 t, 22.5% greater than Ares-I/V. The TLI payload is 70.4 t, 18.5% greater than Ares-I/V.

For an Apollo 9 like test mission, where the LSAM and CEV are tested in low Earth orbit (LEO), Ares-I/V requires that both an Ares-V and an Ares-I launch. For Direct, a single Jupiter 232 is launched carrring the CEV, LSAM and extra LOX. The docking and LOX transfer can be practised with the EDS that was also launched.

For missions to LEO, the Jupiter 120 can carry the CEV, along with an additional 24 t of payload, replicating the capability of the existing shuttle system. This extra payload can also be used for carrying extra payload to the International Space Station, servicing missions to the Hubble Space Telescope, new larger space telescopes, and other new missions to the inner and outer planets.

In the early 1960's, Werner von Braun and the NASA team made much more difficult choices. They had to decide to use liquid hydrogen in the upper stages while that technology was in its infancy as well as deciding to use Lunar orbit rendezvous which was even more risky since that had never been done before. With Direct, the new technology is LOX transfer, in which there will be plenty of time to practice. The gain is a much more capable launch system that will be much more cheaper and easier to develop. Unfortunately, the current NASA management seems to be stuck in its ways.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6041
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2019
  • Likes Given: 691
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #43 on: 01/08/2008 04:14 AM »
I voted #4.  I don't think we need or even want a Shuttle Derived solution, but that doesn't mean that I think DIRECT won't work with some relatively minor changes.  

I've also seen the same information that the DIRECT team used for their mass numbers for the Jupiter upper stage.  The datasheet they used was based on several years worth of work by LM and NASA on developing a follow-on upper stage to the existing Centaur stage.  The numbers agree, and are conservative.  If you use their mass relations they gave you can back out the current mass of existing Centaur stages to a high degree of fidelity, and using the new FSW techniques they've been perfecting over the last several years, they expect to be able to beat many of those numbers handily.  As far as I can tell, the numbers Chuck and Ross used for that stage are pretty solid.

I'd still prefer a commercial propellant depot, no heavy lift vehicle, and NASA getting out of the earth-to-orbit launch business and acting as a customer instead.  But that isn't because I think DIRECT is technically broken or that their cost estimates for DIRECT are out of whack.  It's because I actually want to see a real, thriving cislunar economy.  

~Jon

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #44 on: 01/08/2008 04:16 AM »
When it's all said and done, what I'm afraid is going to happen is:

1) Ares I is cancelled after considerably more time, effort, and money is wasted when the schedule slips completely off the right side of the page and costs become obviously headed out of hand, and performance results become more and more dubious.  

2) This will spell the certain death of Ares V, as there will be NO money or confidence that it can be developed and by that time the shuttle hardware and infrastructure will be gathering dust and becoming museum pieces.   This will spell the death of heavy lift for the foreseeable future.

3) Orion will be so gutted by it's constant starvation diet trying to make the pointless Ares I work that it won't be capable of going anywhere.  It will be slapped on an EELV so the US can claim to be a spacefaring nation; after all we HAVE to have a capability that the Russians and Chinese have, but it will be hollow; more 'guys in a can' in LEO for the next 30 years.  

4)  The WORST thing that could happen is if by some miracle Ares I actually flies, but no money left for Ares V, LSAM, EDS, etc.  There won't even be money left to develop something like a Delta or Atlas upgrade to 50-70 ton launchers that actually COULD reduce the number of launches to something feasible.  

5) In the end, Ares I is going to cost SO much to develop what a Delta IV Heavy can already do that there just won't be any money to design and build LSAM's, 33 foot cores, EDS's; let alone any lunar base elements.  If by some miracle Ares I doesn't eat it all up, Ares V will, and the launch costs will prove SO high that there just isn't any money left to do anything.  All dressed up and nowhere to go, so to speak.  

6) If Ares I schedule slides off the right side of the paper, or the costs become exhorbitant, so much time and effort will be wasted that the shuttle infrastructure all starts gathering dust or turns into museum pieces, and the capability for something like DIRECT, which COULD have been done, will be lost forever.  Truer words were never spoken; that if NASA wants heavy lift, they have to develop the heavy lift vehicle FIRST.  With Ares I/V architecture that is NOT possible, (political suicide) but with DIRECT it IS possible, which would make the whole thing possible, since your first rocket, with a few gradual development programs, can get you to the moon.  Ares I sucks these resources away into a black hole to do something we can already do on another vehicle.  

I think in a couple years or so we'll be right back where we started, chalking up the VSE alongside Bush I's SEI and other dead space programs, and staring at Ares I and V plans alongside other cancelled projects like Dyna-Soar, X-33, OSP, NLS, Shuttle-C, etc. and wondering how we ended up with Gemini on Geritol instead of Apollo on Steroids.  Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but everything is circular, and I see the same old same old all over again, all talk, big dreams, little $$$, slipping schedules, unrealistic expectations, huge expenses, deteriorating performance, increasing problems, and wasted opportunities.  But then what should one expect... it is the government after all...  (sigh)  JMHO!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #45 on: 01/08/2008 05:39 AM »
Quote
savuporo - 7/1/2008  8:55 AM

Quote
MATTBLAK - 7/1/2008  1:51 AM
And it's for this reason that many of them are keeping quiet -- they may not actually lose their jobs for speaking out against Ares 1
I have nothing against DIRECT, and voted for it, but this sounds awfully like a conspiracy theory, which i have become to dismiss immediately, unless some solid proof is supplied.
Without any actual evidence of voice suppression in this matter, i would guess they are quiet because they feel theres nothing to shout about.

No conspiracy. Simple logic which you can apply to most jobs with major corporations.

I believe a lot of pro-Direct votes here relate to the commendable communication of those behind it. It's hard not to feel involved (a basic foundation of this site) and passionate about seeing what is a paper rocket growing out of its Marshall ashes.

Take Ares I. NASA feed the public with dismal efforts of PR, and continue to take the view that it's their job to protect information leaking out, rather than spreading the info and getting public interested.

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #46 on: 01/08/2008 06:03 AM »
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 8/1/2008  3:37 AM

The main elements of Direct are the

1) Current 8.4 m diameter external tank (ET) modified to accept two or three crew-rated RS-68 engines operating at 100% thrust at the base and a forward skirt at the top
2) Existing four segment solid rocket boosters (SRB)
3) New Earth departure stage (EDS) with two J2-XD engines with standard turbo-pump

The Jupiter 120 has two RS-68 engines and no upper stage, while the Jupiter 232 has three RS-68 engines and an upper stage.

The main elements of Ares-I/V are

1) New 10 m diameter main stage with five crew-rated RS-68 engines operating at 106% thrust.
2) SRBs modified with five segments.
3) New EDS with one J2-X engine with modified turbo-pump for increased thrust
4) New Ares-I upper stage with one J2-X engine

....

In Direct, a Jupiter 232 is first launched only carrying the EDS. The payload here is 98.3 t of propellant. A second Jupiter 232 is launched carrying the CEV, LSAM and 20.5 t of liquid oxygen (LOX) in a tank under the LSAM. This stack docks with the EDS and the LOX is transferred to the EDS.

Oops. You haven't mentioned that Direct needs a new element:
4) New extra tank carrying liquid oxygen, extra docking adapter and support for propellant transfer. Will it be carried all the way to lunar orbit or will be jettisoned? Also docking manouevre of 90t stack will require more propellants and stronger RCS than just 20t Orion.

Also the use of RS-68B is actually an advantage as it improves reliability and keeps commonality with future EELV. It will be wise for DIRECT to accept this option. Otherwise it would have to human rate both versions. It's step in the right direction.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline texas_space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Ex Terra, Scientia
  • Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #47 on: 01/08/2008 07:32 AM »
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 7/1/2008  9:13 PM

I think people really have to look at what the US "might" get for the next 30 years:

1.  Direct---Takes the US to the Moon and beyound.
2.  EELV:  Great rocket---but to take the US to the moon?  Is it time for lego.
3.  Ares I:  Stuck in LEO for the next 30 years.

I am not saying Direct is the end all, but REALLY think what spend money today, we might be flying for the next 30 years.  If you want Ares fine, but in 5 years don't complain when we don't get it's big brother and we are stuck flying in LEO.

This hits the point exactly.  What we do now is what we're likely to be "stuck" with for the next 20-30 years.  So get it right now or be ready to hear much complaining later.

Ares-I may work technically, but it's a lousy waste of money and time.  This gets you the Moon and other places, but only if you get the Ares-V too (good luck with that).

EELV's have promise, but I think to truly make it viable (ie fewer launches) that will require new development to get more than 25T to orbit.  So much for commercial off the shelf.

DIRECT probably needs work to turn into reality, but I believe that it has the best chance to enable human exploration of the solar system in the 21st century.  So I voted for it under option 4.  If we get to the Moon and other places with a different system, then great!  But I tell you, I don't see it happening.
"We went to the moon nine times. Why fake it nine times, if we faked it?" - Charlie Duke

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #48 on: 01/08/2008 07:45 AM »
Quote
JonSBerndt - 7/1/2008  7:10 PM

Quote
mike robel - 7/1/2008  4:00 PM

After due thought, I had to vote for I am not qualified to offer an opinion.  BUT, as I have learned that most proposals change after they are accepted by the government, I have to think that  current option 4, it would need major changes to be accepted by NASA is most likely.

Chuck or Ross - maybe you could remind us to what degree DIRECT is a derivative of the NASA/MSFC LV24/25 concept? Reading some of these responses, it seems that some of the "pedigree" of DIRECT is being overlooked.

Jon

We did have access to all of the LV-24/25 trade studies done for ESAS.   They are, in large-part, based on NLS before it (the trade studies for both share quite a bit in common - though LV-24/25 is quite a bit updated) , but we didn't really know all that much about NLS itself until this last summer and it's only very recently that I've personally seen specifications and trade studies on NLS to review.

Anyhow, the LV-24/25 trade studies formed the primary backbone for developing all of DIRECT v1.0 - although I put my hand up as responsible for making the stupid mistake of using an engine which does not yet exist there and allowed FUD in.   Although we now have *proof* that we were actually correct, its way too late now - the disinformation did it's intended job of discrediting us at the end of 2006.

But we flipped that on its head and addressed each of the points made against us in order to come up with something better.

DIRECT v2.0 went right back to the original drawing-board, again including LV-24/25 at its heart.   We started with nothing more than a passing resemblance to the previous version, and the utter determination to pack the whole system - performance, cost and schedule alike - with extra margins everywhere we could.   And this time, we made quite sure not to bank on any costly "leaps of technology" wherever possible.   The one exception being that we need to use the evolved version of the Apollo J-2 - the J-2X - eventually for our Upper Stage.   Although even here we only baselined to the lower specification 274,000lb thrust J-2X"D" version, not the full 294,000lb thrust version currently baselined for both Ares-I and Ares-V.   While we have no reason to believe the 294,000lb version is unlikely, we still aren't trying to prove anything and just don't need the higher-stressed variant of this engine to make our concept work.

We assume the SRB's remain *absolutely* unchanged from the ones flying today.

We assume the RS-68 is precisely the same as the ones flying today, even though a more powerful version is in development - we aren't stupid enough to count those chickens until they are actually hatched - when the 106% variant of the RS-68 is actually ready for flight testing, we will switch to it, but until then we want to make sure we can do what we claim even if it gets itself canceled for any reason and that performance boost is denied.   Engine performance increases are really nice.   Engine performance decreases hurt - a lot.

So we now have a system which deliberately aims to re-use as much existing hardware, manufacturing, processing and launch infrastructure as possible with either no changes, or with the minimum possible extent of changes in order to reduce costs and speed development while still ticking the appropriate performance, cost, schedule, workforce, political and national pride boxes.   We believe we have a solution with a green check mark in every one of those requirement boxes now.   No, it's not a "clean sheet" design.   No, it's not anything totally spectacular.   It's simply what we have, turned into what we *need* with the minimum of effort to get the job done.


But the real "pedigree" comes from the 57 dedicated engineers, from NASA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne, United Launch Alliance and a few other contractors too.   All of whom have volunteered their valuable skills and time, free of charge or recognition, and at possible risk to their careers, to help us put together the DIRECT proposals.   They have, and always will be, the real talent here and it has been an absolute privilege to talk to, work with and learn from, all these amazing people - every single one.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #49 on: 01/08/2008 08:12 AM »
Well said Luke.   I think you're dead on the mark.

Sadly, with the current reticence of management to shift away from the gads-awful Ares-I, I think you are also predicting the future all-too accurately.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #50 on: 01/08/2008 08:58 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 8/1/2008  8:45 AM

DIRECT v2.0 went right back to the original drawing-board, again including LV-24/25 at its heart.   We started with nothing more than a passing resemblance to the previous version, and the utter determination to pack the whole system - performance, cost and schedule alike - with extra margins everywhere we could.  

If you have LV-24/25 numbers maybe you can explain why the performance of ESAS LV-29 is so pathetic compared to DIRECT configuration.
LV-29 is using 4seg SRBs, core with 3 x RS-68 and second stage with 4 x J-2s. Lift capability is 108mT to LEO. Net payload 92mT.
I looks like the only difference is less J-2 engines and higher payload. In reality the difference must be in dry weight of stages. It would be interresting to compare these numbers. Do you have these numbers and can you show them?
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #51 on: 01/08/2008 09:00 AM »
Quote
rsp1202 - 8/1/2008  12:52 AM

This whole thread is based on one person's negative bias. What a joke. It's beneath this forum.

I'm with you. Can we add that as an option?
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #52 on: 01/08/2008 12:07 PM »
Quote
JIS - 8/1/2008  2:03 AM

Also the use of RS-68B is actually an advantage as it improves reliability and keeps commonality with future EELV. It will be wise for DIRECT to accept this option. Otherwise it would have to human rate both versions.
JIS;
You should know better. There won’t be 2 versions of the RS-68, only one. Currently, the RS-68 is flying hardware, and the RS-68B, as you call it, is a paper engine. If and when that engine becomes real hardware, the existing RS-68 will be retired and then the new one will be used exclusively by all launch vehicles that employ the RS-68.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #53 on: 01/08/2008 12:50 PM »
Quote
clongton - 8/1/2008  1:07 PM

Quote
JIS - 8/1/2008  2:03 AM

Also the use of RS-68B is actually an advantage as it improves reliability and keeps commonality with future EELV. It will be wise for DIRECT to accept this option. Otherwise it would have to human rate both versions.
JIS;
You should know better. There won’t be 2 versions of the RS-68, only one. Currently, the RS-68 is flying hardware, and the RS-68B, as you call it, is a paper engine. If and when that engine becomes real hardware, the existing RS-68 will be retired and then the new one will be used exclusively by all launch vehicles that employ the RS-68.

Yes, I agree. Sorry for not making it clear. NASA and AF want RS-68B. This is the version to be manrated. RS-68 is not going to be manrated. RS-68B includes changes to turbine nozzles, injector, ablative nozzle, different start-up etc. The effect is that they have 106% thrust level, longer burn time and they are manrateable. RS-68B for Ares V will be manrated (extra equipment) and have some minor mods to fly in the bundle.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #54 on: 01/08/2008 04:03 PM »
just to note...  Delta IV Heavy with the upgraded RS-68's will acheive 27,000kg to ISS.  Two fairly simple developments beyond this would the additonal of GEM's and the development of the ULA advanced upperstage concept which would increase performance to ~40,000kg.  Beyond that I think the you need to go to either a 5-body booster, or more preferable 7-m booster with twin RS-68s.  But this is where Jupiter/DIRECT starts to look more appealing...

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #55 on: 01/08/2008 04:36 PM »
Quote
TrueGrit - 8/1/2008  12:03 PM

just to note...  Delta IV Heavy with the upgraded RS-68's will achieve 27,000kg to ISS.  Two fairly simple developments beyond this would be the addition of GEM's and the development of the ULA advanced upper stage concept which would increase performance to ~40,000kg.  Beyond that I think the you need to go to either a 5-body booster, or more preferable 7-m booster with twin RS-68s.  But this is where Jupiter/DIRECT starts to look more appealing...
Which is exactly why we decided to set the bottom tier performance level of the Jupiter at about where the top tier performance of the EELV was. For example the Jupiter-120 has an *advertised* capacity to send 47mT into LEO. This was a deliberate decision to *NOT* compete with the EELV family. The nation has invested considerable treasure in the development of that family of launch vehicles and the DIRECT team is hopeful that a properly led VSE would maximize the use of the EELV performance envelope by assigning flights to it that are well suited to its capacities such as launching Orion on LEO missions with a SM properly sized for that, resupplying propellant depots located in several places in support of multiple kinds of VSE missions, logistics resupply to orbital outposts and the lunar surface and continuing to send probes, orbiters and robotic landers to the lunar surface and to the planets and their moons. Unlike the Heavy-Lift-Only crowd *and* the EELV-only crowd, we believe there is a role for both and the nation is best served by utilizing, to the maximum extent possible, the capabilities of both the EELV and the Heavy Lift.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 864
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #56 on: 01/08/2008 04:43 PM »
I voted for number 4.   I'm not in the space industry, but I was responsible for making sure a SAC bomb wing kept its planes flying and on SIOP alert when I was in the AF.  I always had a credo that if it looks like it should fly, it generally should fly.

The DIRECT concept builds on 25+ years of Shuttle experience, so much of the vehicle has been flight proven and it minimizes the design changes from STS, while ARES 1 is a completely different story.  If we want to minimize the manned spaceflight gap, we should go with what we know and minimize the risks, especially in the current budget environment.  It's not really that new, as shuttle derived concepts have been bandied about for years.

My only concern with this answer is that a "peer-reviewed" process could become just another bureaucratic dead end that kills a potentially successful flight program.  It's been done before.

Finally, anything we do regarding the manned spaceflight gap should minimize any reliance we have on Russia.  I know we have developed an excellent record of cooperation, but the political winds can change in a heartbeat, and we will be left out in the cold.  It should definitely NOT be something we plan on doing.

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #57 on: 01/08/2008 05:11 PM »
I've got to disagree with the idea that cargo and manned were a cause of either shuttle failure.  The whole purpose of manned spaceflight isn't to see if we can get there.  We've got get beyond the concept of manned spaceflight being one based on "flag planting", and one based on advancing our knowledge.  Whether it be monitoring the climate, to investigating growing crystals in microgravity, or investigating the geology of other planetary bodies.  The goal of having people in space isn't an end in and of itself, but what they can do once there.  For example look at the pilots who fly P-3's into a hurricane...  The plane outiftted for science, not for the thrill of playing daredevil.  The Columbia mission cargo was exactly that, one of scientific investigation...  Whether what they were doing couldn't be better done by a unmaned vehicle, or was worth their lives isn't the question.  The fact is there is some science that is worth the risk, and some that is best done by a human in the loop.  Therefore by designing a vehicle who's only purpose is to put people in space completely forgets the reason why we're are investing billions of tax money on the space program.  Ares I not only redundant with existing capability, but completely forgets about the whole purpose of having a public space agency...  To return that investment back to the general public.  Without science package to go along with man in space it's nothing more than daredevil ride...  And like bungee jumping not something for the government to be investing in.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #58 on: 01/08/2008 06:48 PM »
Quote
TrueGrit - 8/1/2008  10:11 AM

I've got to disagree with the idea that cargo and manned were a cause of either shuttle failure.  The whole purpose of manned spaceflight isn't to see if we can get there.  We've got get beyond the concept of manned spaceflight being one based on "flag planting", and one based on advancing our knowledge.  Whether it be monitoring the climate, to investigating growing crystals in microgravity, or investigating the geology of other planetary bodies.  The goal of having people in space isn't an end in and of itself, but what they can do once there.  For example look at the pilots who fly P-3's into a hurricane...  The plane outiftted for science, not for the thrill of playing daredevil.  The Columbia mission cargo was exactly that, one of scientific investigation...  Whether what they were doing couldn't be better done by a unmaned vehicle, or was worth their lives isn't the question.  The fact is there is some science that is worth the risk, and some that is best done by a human in the loop.  Therefore by designing a vehicle who's only purpose is to put people in space completely forgets the reason why we're are investing billions of tax money on the space program.  Ares I not only redundant with existing capability, but completely forgets about the whole purpose of having a public space agency...  To return that investment back to the general public.  Without science package to go along with man in space it's nothing more than daredevil ride...  And like bungee jumping not something for the government to be investing in.

Let's also keep in mind that science while of some value, isn't in itself going to lead to sustainable activities in space. For that you need someone making money from doing something in space.
Karl Hallowell

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #59 on: 01/08/2008 07:01 PM »
Quote
khallow - 8/1/2008  2:48 PM

Quote
TrueGrit - 8/1/2008  10:11 AM

I've got to disagree with the idea that cargo and manned were a cause of either shuttle failure.  The whole purpose of manned spaceflight isn't to see if we can get there.  We've got get beyond the concept of manned spaceflight being one based on "flag planting", and one based on advancing our knowledge.  Whether it be monitoring the climate, to investigating growing crystals in microgravity, or investigating the geology of other planetary bodies.  The goal of having people in space isn't an end in and of itself, but what they can do once there.  For example look at the pilots who fly P-3's into a hurricane...  The plane outiftted for science, not for the thrill of playing daredevil.  The Columbia mission cargo was exactly that, one of scientific investigation...  Whether what they were doing couldn't be better done by a unmaned vehicle, or was worth their lives isn't the question.  The fact is there is some science that is worth the risk, and some that is best done by a human in the loop.  Therefore by designing a vehicle who's only purpose is to put people in space completely forgets the reason why we're are investing billions of tax money on the space program.  Ares I not only redundant with existing capability, but completely forgets about the whole purpose of having a public space agency...  To return that investment back to the general public.  Without science package to go along with man in space it's nothing more than daredevil ride...  And like bungee jumping not something for the government to be investing in.

Let's also keep in mind that science while of some value, isn't in itself going to lead to sustainable activities in space. For that you need someone making money from doing something in space.

If anyone ever successfully demonstrates a way to make money from manned space travel, we won't have to worry about sustainable activities in space again. They'll just happen (like comsats, for instance). In addition to thinking up comsats, Arthur Clarke once wrote a story suggesting a good way to make money from manned space travel would be producing and broadcasting pornography from space. Sort of like making money off the Internet...

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #60 on: 01/08/2008 07:43 PM »
Quote
brihath - 8/1/2008  11:43 AM

I voted for number 4.   I'm not in the space industry, but I was responsible for making sure a SAC bomb wing kept its planes flying and on SIOP alert when I was in the AF.  I always had a credo that if it looks like it should fly, it generally should fly.

The DIRECT concept builds on 25+ years of Shuttle experience, so much of the vehicle has been flight proven and it minimizes the design changes from STS, while ARES 1 is a completely different story.  If we want to minimize the manned spaceflight gap, we should go with what we know and minimize the risks, especially in the current budget environment.  It's not really that new, as shuttle derived concepts have been bandied about for years.

My only concern with this answer is that a "peer-reviewed" process could become just another bureaucratic dead end that kills a potentially successful flight program.  It's been done before.

Finally, anything we do regarding the manned spaceflight gap should minimize any reliance we have on Russia.  I know we have developed an excellent record of cooperation, but the political winds can change in a heartbeat, and we will be left out in the cold.  It should definitely NOT be something we plan on doing.

Absolutely true... reminds me of "trust, but verify"...  maybe the modern version should be "cooperate, but have similar capability".   That's why I'd love to see RS-84 finished so we'd have our own kerosene engine for the Atlas V if needed.  We could certainly find plenty of use for it if we had it.  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #61 on: 01/09/2008 12:18 AM »
I voted for no. 4, for a number of reasons. Chief among them are:

1. VSE is almost certainly doomed under the next president. A clean sheet proposal (DIRECT 2.0 or EELV) might just save it.

2. This is only anecdotal evidence, but I have seen that there is plenty of support from engineers and other technical types for DIRECT. Some people are willing to risk their careers for it.

3. As an armchair rocket enthusiast, the DIRECT 2.0 numbers look good to me. Throw in what kraisee has said about the oodles of performance margins, I really can't see why it is not a viable proposal.

4. As mentioned previously, DIRECT 2.0 builds right on the proven STS infrastructure and removes the most problematic element, the orbiter.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline veedriver22

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 260
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #62 on: 01/09/2008 01:34 AM »
I would vote for #4 and #6.  Since only one vote is allowed I went for #4.

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #63 on: 01/09/2008 03:03 AM »
I picked option 3 because of the old adage "no war plan ever survives contact with the enemy."  Things always look easier when you start with the paper proposals and don't reveal all of their challenges until you start bending metal.  The same is true for ESAS, which has changed significantly since Summer 2005.

While DIRECT appears to be pretty straightforward, I can foresee problems arising in manufacturing and test.  No showstoppers, mind you, but things that would delay it from being "safe, simple, soon."
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3020
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 208
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #64 on: 01/09/2008 03:30 AM »
NASA never seems to actually complete a program or deliver all that is promised.  So, I see Ares V going the way of the AMS, ISS hab module, propulsion module, CRV, etc.  I've always thought that with the current approach, we'll get Ares I launching a bare bones Orion with minimal LEO capability, and that's about it.  (Of course, now it looks like Ares I might not even work at all.)  I think it would be wise to get as much capability up front as possible, and not count on future enhancements down the road.

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #65 on: 01/09/2008 01:31 PM »
Much depends on who gets the POTUS seat in 09.  Programs from previous administrations tend to be poisonous to new ones.  Whoever gets in will most likely take a step back from VSE.  I just hope that there's a little political pressure from the space contractor constituents to keep *some* kind of a program running.  DIRECT would be a good choice.

I'm just fearfull that exploration will be pushed aside for the numerous new government freebies that are likely to appear no matter who gets control.
-John
"We'll remember the Shuttle days with fondness 20 years from now when we still don't have a replacement.  The something we had was better than the nothing we wound up with."


www.apollosaturn.com

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #66 on: 01/09/2008 02:49 PM »
Quote
John Duncan - 9/1/2008  9:31 AM

Much depends on who gets the POTUS seat in 09.  Programs from previous administrations tend to be poisonous to new ones.  Whoever gets in will most likely take a step back from VSE.  I just hope that there's a little political pressure from the space contractor constituents to keep *some* kind of a program running.  DIRECT would be a good choice.

I'm just fearfull that exploration will be pushed aside for the numerous new government freebies that are likely to appear no matter who gets control.

That's too much of an oversimplification. What happens is new administrations tend to put their own stamp on things. Kennedy didn't cancel Mercury/Gemini, but routed everything into MOL and Apollo. Nixon canceled MOL, but only finished off Apollo once Mars was off the table and STS was chosen. STS wasn't cancelled by Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton (I?). Bush II has scheduled STS for the axe to make way for Constellation. ISS may not be Reagan's Space Station Freedom, but it's still a space station, and not cancelled by Clinton.

What happens to VSE (and COTS) is going to vary by candidate, but I think once they get into office, they're going to have to rethink whatever vague plan they may have now. Even Obama is going to have to realize that the only way to get an education budget out of NASA is by cancelling the entire US space program. It probably hasn't occured to him that cancelling VSE and continuing STS/ISS isn't going to save a penny. Of the viable candidates, I think McCain is most likely to continue ESAS as-is. Clinton might put her own stamp on VSE by switching to DIRECT if she could somehow become aware of it. The big danger is, she'll decide to keep ISS running until 2030.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2789
  • Liked: 445
  • Likes Given: 375
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #67 on: 01/09/2008 02:56 PM »
I was going to vote no.4 but settled on no.3 out of a sense of general pessimism. I believe that the DIRECT team have addressed every issue that they can think of, but I can't help thinking that there will remain as yet unknown issues to address if DIRECT was to be developed- and that these would be essentially political and economic, not technical.
Waiting for joy and raptor

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8174
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #68 on: 01/09/2008 05:03 PM »
Run any issues through this forum and see if anyone can suggest solutions.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #69 on: 01/09/2008 07:04 PM »
I voted for four but if it was multiple choice I’d have done 4, 5, and 6.  :laugh:

I fear the Constellation is going to prove to be a dud like so many of NASA’s recent manned space flight efforts of the last few decades and I believe that if it is that it will take ESAS/VSE with it. While I agree with Pad-Rat’s points on the ESAS I disagree with his solution, a space power system. The American public and I have been hearing about this since the fifties and there is no real broad interest or commercial viability in the concept. There maybe eventually but not now nor is there any real broad interest in another moon program. Maintaining four men in a hut at the south pole of the moon at six billion dollars plus annually is not going to be sustainable, like Apollo it will eventually be canceled.

There is a space objective that might capture the interest of the American people that NASA is neglecting though, something that has been the subject of several movies and many programs on the Science Channel and Discovery. Something that Congress has repeatedly asked NASA to look into and that certainly meets Pad-Rat’s criteria of “genuine relevance to the American taxpayer's everyday life” at least perceptually. In fact Representative Rohrabacher recently introduced HR4917 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.04917: to get NASA moving on this subject (without funding of course).

I am speaking of NEO detection, interception, and defense. A major manned and unmanned program from NASA for this purpose would, I believe, galvanize support from both the public and the politicians. The spin offs of such a program are very positive; much better international perception of our goals in space, plays well with the Earth Firsters, offers more opportunity for commercial/international participation, and, to return to the topic of this thread, DIRECT would be an ideal LV for this purpose.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #70 on: 01/09/2008 08:09 PM »
To all those who have either selected or are considering selecting option 3 (If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul), would you mind telling us what the things are that you believe would be so affected? That will provide us with the opportunity to take a look at them and then provide you with a considered response. Perhaps we have overlooked something. If so, we would certainly like to know about that.
Thanks
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #71 on: 01/10/2008 01:21 AM »
Quote
clongton - 9/1/2008  2:09 PM

To all those who have either selected or are considering selecting option 3 (If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul), would you mind telling us what the things are that you believe would be so affected? That will provide us with the opportunity to take a look at them and then provide you with a considered response. Perhaps we have overlooked something. If so, we would certainly like to know about that.
Thanks

There are no issues I know of surrounding DIRECT, but there's a general fear on my part that there's something I'm missing.  I think of all the "off the shelf" solutions that have been proposed in the aerospace industry and how much they have changed between initial and final implementations.  I think of all the work that was required to adapt the F-86 Sabre into the carrier-based Fury, or the required work to make the A-7 out of the F-8.  In the end, you're left with a system that's quite different from the one you started with.

In terms of changes to DIRECT, I tend to favor the heavy-lift configuration (244) that has 4x RS-68's on the first stage and a 10m, 4x J-2X upper stage (similar in size and performance to the S-II.)  I also think that the upgraded RS-68's (A and B models) should be baselined as soon as practical.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline PaulL

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #72 on: 01/10/2008 01:51 AM »
Quote
clongton - 9/1/2008  3:09 PM

To all those who have either selected or are considering selecting option 3 (If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul), would you mind telling us what the things are that you believe would be so affected? That will provide us with the opportunity to take a look at them and then provide you with a considered response. Perhaps we have overlooked something. If so, we would certainly like to know about that.
Thanks

The reason I choose option 3 is not that the Direct rockets are bad, but rather the proposed use of them does not match the current NASA philosophy. There is no way NASA will include propellant refuelling/transfer in space on its reference mission to the moon. Also, NASA wants to be able to send as large as possible unmanned payloads to the moon.   On that point, the current J-232 rocket payload capacity is probably below what NASA wants.

If NASA were to switch from ARES to Direct, I would see them transforming the Direct plan to match the Ares I/V concept: Ares I being replaced by the J-120 which is simpler/safer than the J-232 for manned flights and boosting the J-232 payload capacity as much as possible (with 106% RS-68 and J-2X engines for example).  They could even possibly upgrade the J-232 to a J-242 in order to gain an extra 6-7 mT of LEO payload.  A J-120/J-242 lunar mission using upgraded engines should be able to surpass the payload capacity of the Ares I/V moon mission.

PaulL

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #73 on: 01/10/2008 04:37 AM »
Wow! Overwhelming support for DIRECT! 99 Votes - [72.79%]


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #74 on: 01/10/2008 09:28 AM »
Quote
PaulL - 9/1/2008  9:51 PM

Quote
clongton - 9/1/2008  3:09 PM

To all those who have either selected or are considering selecting option 3 (If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul), would you mind telling us what the things are that you believe would be so affected? That will provide us with the opportunity to take a look at them and then provide you with a considered response. Perhaps we have overlooked something. If so, we would certainly like to know about that.
Thanks

The reason I choose option 3 is not that the Direct rockets are bad, but rather the proposed use of them does not match the current NASA philosophy. There is no way NASA will include propellant refuelling/transfer in space on its reference mission to the moon. Also, NASA wants to be able to send as large as possible unmanned payloads to the moon.   On that point, the current J-232 rocket payload capacity is probably below what NASA wants.

If NASA were to switch from ARES to Direct, I would see them transforming the Direct plan to match the Ares I/V concept: Ares I being replaced by the J-120 which is simpler/safer than the J-232 for manned flights and boosting the J-232 payload capacity as much as possible (with 106% RS-68 and J-2X engines for example).  They could even possibly upgrade the J-232 to a J-242 in order to gain an extra 6-7 mT of LEO payload.  A J-120/J-242 lunar mission using upgraded engines should be able to surpass the payload capacity of the Ares I/V moon mission.

PaulL

Just to confirm that while the AIAA paper strongly recommends a propellant depot architecture, with the performance of two Jupiter-232's, we can still easily out-perform Ares-I/V even without any propellant transfer technology at all.   While Ares can not close it's lunar performance targets at all (13mT shortfall currently), 2 Jupiter-232's can close them correctly - with all our margins - both NASA's regular ones, and our own arbitrary ones included.

We went for developing PD at the start simply because it would give NASA so many advantages that its quite amazing.

I thought you (and perhaps others) would like to be aware.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #75 on: 01/10/2008 09:36 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 7/1/2008  8:29 AM

Quote
JIS - 7/1/2008  2:16 AM

All I wanted to hear is how you get those numbers and if you compared them with other systems which actually went through detailed analysis. ESAS numbers were proved to be quite optimistic taking some estimated weight and applying just overall margin.


Quote
...

Try to look at Jupiter elements weight like core, fairing and EDS and find whether they are comparable with elements from operational launchers or launchers which went at least through some basic NASA analysis. I tried that and wasn't convinced.
I'm citing what I was told by one Direct proponent: "You don't need to be genius to do that."
Until then I simply can't BELIEVE your numbers and have to leave this thread.

Without our arbitrary 10% structures margin, but still including the full GR&A Weight Growth Allowance (WGA), our Core Stage would actually mass 64,412kg, not 69,369kg as presented in the AIAA paper.  

....

At this point, I would refer the gentle reader to the NLS-1 papers I mentioned previously.    Being a similar configuration, but powered by three SSME-class engines, and without a large Upper Stage, it's Core Stage would have massed 54,621kg (including 1.4 factor, very similar GR&A's and standard WGA) - some 15 tons lighter than Jupiter's Core, yet still based on LWT, not SLWT.   Bringing in much of SLWT mass savings to NLS to bring the two "as manufactured" systems into technological comparison, Jupiter's Core is specified to mass about 18mT more than the NLS Core would have.   Again, I would like to find ANYONE who doesn't think this is sufficient additional "bracing" (considering most of the strength is derived from the pressurization of the tanks, not the actual structure itself) to support the extra weight above?


OK. I tried again to compare available data for cores using two SRBs attached at intertank. I choose to compare cores as there are multiple studies which actually did some analysis instead of just applying some factors.  

Jupiter
Usable props: 1595 klbs
engines: 3 x RS-68
total thrust: 2253 klbsf
dry weight: 153 klbs (69mt)

NLS
Usable props: 1693 klbs
engines: 4 x STME
total thrust: 2600 klbsf
dry weight: 179 klbs

ATK proposal of CaLV
Usable props: 1588 klbs
engines: 4 x RS68B
total thrust: 3136 klbsf
dry weight: 221 klbs

ESAS CaLV
Usable props: 2215 klbs
engines: 5 x SSME
total thrust: 2345 klbsf
dry weight: 195 klbs

Ares V
Usable props: 3078 klbs
engines: 5 x RS68B
total thrust: 3920 klbsf
dry weight: 301 klbs

It doesn't need much effort to find that Jupiter core could be "reasonably" right. Unfortunately I can't find any numbers for cores with lower thrust and the same amount of propellants (there are such cores in ESAS for example).
However, the core is not what I was particularly criticizing as its properties are well known from many studies and ET is actually flying today.
Also the core, fairing, interstage and SRBs weight is order of magnitude less important for payload than US structures, payload adaptors etc. which are more difficult to analyze.  
I think that similar comparison for other DIRECT elements can be quite useful for all non believers to help them to believe. Alternatively, you can put forward some preliminary load and stress analysis performed on Jupiter.  
 
Quote
Frankly, I'm sick-to-the-back-teeth of people whining about things they "can't believe", people who seem to have very little grasp of the realities and who very often "conveniently" forget things which we've told them specifically about over and over again.

It could be your fault too. There were many claims made by you which have proven to be misleading or false. I appreciate that there might be many other claims being 100% accurate but I can’t simply believe in everything I’m being told.    

Quote
If you have serious technical concerns or questions, bring them, in fact we welcome them because we're always on the hunt for anything we might have missed.   But this *constant* negative "can't work" attitude is mind-numbingly tedious and excruciatingly annoying.   Please quit it.
Ross.

The above example with cores was very easy and simple one. After all it’s just payload capability which can be affected. I have no doubts that Jupiter can be designed, built and fly.
More serious are doubts about mission architecture, schedule and costs. Especially when they significantly differ from NASA numbers.
It is quite surprising to me that some people are questioning cost estimates but are happy to support DIRECT as the whole.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #76 on: 01/10/2008 09:39 AM »
Quote
CFE - 9/1/2008  9:21 PM
I also think that the upgraded RS-68's (A and B models) should be baselined as soon as practical.

We have already worked out all the performance combinations for the various engine combinations.   We know what they can do, and how they would affect the performance of the Lunar architecture.   But those engines don't yet exist.   That means they are still subject to possible cancellation.   One theoretical scenario might be that the 106% RS-68 development program USAF is paying for could be canceled if ULA were to down-select to Atlas in two years time.

We simply don't want to find ourselves in a position of promising 'x' performance, based on a higher performance engine, but then find we are denied the additional performance and have to bring our promised performance numbers *down* later.

We would far rather promise the smaller performance based on existing performance systems, and then be able to increase our performance numbers as newer, better, tech becomes available.

It means the additional performance is never an essential component in the path to success.   Additional performance becomes simply an extra benefit which we can make great use of later.

I think the 106% RS-68 will only be guaranteed around about the time of the very first test flight (somewhere around 2010 or so IIRC).   Until then, we consider it a valuable egg still awaiting to hatch into an even more valuable chicken :)

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #77 on: 01/10/2008 09:59 AM »
Quote
JIS - 7/1/2008  12:56 PM

Quote
The question is not useful so I decline to vote or add voting options.

It's for the purpose to find how many naysayers and supporters are visiting this forum and how many of them are willing to admit that.
If you don't vote I think you could be just undecided or didn't read that study. Please, add appropriate option and vote for it.

I think that it is unlikely that the result of poll is going to change significantly. About
80% active visitors strongly suport DIRECT and believe this is the right direction.
There were few people rising questions but there is generally strong support. Even I have admited that there is no technical objection to stop Jupiter working. But Direct is not only about launch vehicles.

The major finding for myself is the confirmation that many people oposing Direct do not want to take part in the discussion. I can understand that.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #78 on: 01/10/2008 11:32 AM »
Quote
JIS - 10/1/2008  5:59 AM

The major finding for myself is the confirmation that many people opposing Direct do not want to take part in the discussion. I can understand that.
JIS;
Not to put too fine a point on this, but how can you know that?
You appear to be basing your statement on the fact that not many people have voiced opposition to DIRECT. It is equally possible that there simply are *not* many people who oppose it as well. You are citing the fact that not many people voted in opposition of DIRECT as *confirmation* that a large number of people do not wish to vote. The fundamental rule of a poll is you don't get to count votes that are not cast, nor are you allowed to draw conclusions from un-cast votes, because fundamentally you have absolutely no idea how many, or even *IF* there are any un-cast votes.

Your "confirmation" is invalid.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #79 on: 01/10/2008 12:00 PM »
Chuck,
I think everybody on the board knows what's really going on here.   They aren't stupid.   I think this 'poll' is a total waste of everybody's time and I really don't think we should continue to 'entertain' this rubbish any further.

If JIS is dis-satisfied that's his call.   He tried to push the issue, we pushed back.   Feeling hurt, he tried to call for what is essentially a "vote of no confidence" - an effort which didn't work and if anything actually seems to have helped solidify the competing position.

At this point I'm pretty sure every reader here knows everyone's motives and has made their own judgments and 'spin' tactics like those you responded to aren't convincing anyone.

JIS clearly looks like he will never be satisfied with our efforts, so I just don't think there is any point in engaging in further discussion with him at this point.   His comments and actions have clearly placed him as an agitator and opponent to DIRECT, and clarified that his comments and questions are not meant to be constructive - merely destructive.

With purely negative motives behind his actions there is zero benefit to us from engaging him any more.   It is time to simply try to ignore him in reference to anything DIRECT-related from this point onwards.

Should he persist, or attempt to pursue a vendetta in the future for being embarrassed by being called-out for his actions, I suggest we rely upon the forums moderators and managers keeping things under control.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #80 on: 01/10/2008 12:11 PM »
Quote
clongton - 10/1/2008  12:32 PM

Quote
JIS - 10/1/2008  5:59 AM

The major finding for myself is the confirmation that many people opposing Direct do not want to take part in the discussion. I can understand that.
JIS;
Not to put too fine a point on this, but how can you know that?
You appear to be basing your statement on the fact that not many people have voiced opposition to DIRECT. It is equally possible that there simply are *not* many people who oppose it as well. You are citing the fact that not many people voted in opposition of DIRECT as *confirmation* that a large number of people do not wish to vote. The fundamental rule of a poll is you don't get to count votes that are not cast, nor are you allowed to draw conclusions from un-cast votes, because fundamentally you have absolutely no idea how many, or even *IF* there are any un-cast votes.

Your "confirmation" is invalid.

I based my statement on 17 votes not 100% happy with Direct and 8 sceptical votes. I tried to explain my position but I can see very little benefit in doing so here. There is just no point doing this so I understand people who don't bother.
Usually, the discussion is about making something to happen or learn something. There is nothing for DIRECT opponents to gain. Is there anything to learn?

'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #81 on: 01/10/2008 12:18 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 10/1/2008  1:00 PM

With purely negative motives behind his actions there is zero benefit to us from engaging him any more.   It is time to simply try to ignore him in reference to anything DIRECT-related from this point onwards.

Should he persist, or attempt to pursue a vendetta in the future for being embarrassed by being called-out for his actions, I suggest we rely upon the forums moderators and managers keeping things under control.

Ross.

If my comments are find to be inappropriate by forums moderators I would like to know that.
I think that ignoring DIRECT by myself could be a good solution how to end this matter. I did it for some time and it worked.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #82 on: 01/10/2008 12:19 PM »
Quote
JIS - 10/1/2008  5:59 AM
The major finding for myself is the confirmation that many people oposing Direct do not want to take part in the discussion. I can understand that.
Excuse me???!!

I'm sorry, but Chuck is absolutely right on this and "concluding" that a lack of votes against Direct is Proof that there are a lot of people who just don't want to vote against it is ludicrous and borders on delusional. Whatever value & conclusions you may be able to make based on this poll _have_ to come from the actual data collected. If you don't collect it, it doesn't exist.

The best you can say is that  with only 131 responses (to this time) and X hundred members on NSF, this issue doesn't appear to greatly interest the majority of members. That's it. It's the last fact you can squeeze out of the poll. There's no way you can infer any leanings of the people who are too disinterested to vote. On the other hand, if  the number of regular members is under about 300, you can actually infer that a) the matter is of reasonably high interest (as polls regularly get less than 20% response) and b) that the results do accurately reflect the beliefs of the members of NSF (because the results are greatly skewed to Direct's favour).

It's been too long since my statistics courses for me to do the math (I'm sure someone here could) but it would be easy to establish the probablilitiy of the results being accurate if we knew how many regular members there were.

Looking at the responses and declaring that the majority of naysayers are declining to respond to a confidential survey just is not supported by your own survey.

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #83 on: 01/10/2008 12:34 PM »
Quote
tankmodeler - 10/1/2008  1:19 PM

On the other hand, if  the number of regular members is under about 300, you can actually infer that a) the matter is of reasonably high interest (as polls regularly get less than 20% response) and b) that the results do accurately reflect the beliefs of the members of NSF (because the results are greatly skewed to Direct's favour).

I agree. My other point was that those voting against don't want to be more involved. Maybe their reasons are irrational.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #84 on: 01/10/2008 12:38 PM »
Quote
JIS - 10/1/2008  8:18 AM

Quote
kraisee - 10/1/2008  1:00 PM

With purely negative motives behind his actions there is zero benefit to us from engaging him any more.   It is time to simply try to ignore him in reference to anything DIRECT-related from this point onwards.

Should he persist, or attempt to pursue a vendetta in the future for being embarrassed by being called-out for his actions, I suggest we rely upon the forums moderators and managers keeping things under control.

Ross.

If my comments are find to be inappropriate by forums moderators I would like to know that.
I think that ignoring DIRECT by myself could be a good solution how to end this matter. I did it for some time and it worked.

Also JIS has yet to provide any evidence that he is an expert at anything to make any conclusions

He did a poll to find other people who think like him and when there wasn't that many, he tried to come up with other explanations

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2789
  • Liked: 445
  • Likes Given: 375
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #85 on: 01/10/2008 12:43 PM »
Quote
CFE - 10/1/2008  2:21 AM

Quote
clongton - 9/1/2008  2:09 PM

To all those who have either selected or are considering selecting option 3 (If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul), would you mind telling us what the things are that you believe would be so affected? That will provide us with the opportunity to take a look at them and then provide you with a considered response. Perhaps we have overlooked something. If so, we would certainly like to know about that.
Thanks

There are no issues I know of surrounding DIRECT, but there's a general fear on my part that there's something I'm missing.  I think of all the "off the shelf" solutions that have been proposed in the aerospace industry and how much they have changed between initial and final implementations.  I think of all the work that was required to adapt the F-86 Sabre into the carrier-based Fury, or the required work to make the A-7 out of the F-8.  In the end, you're left with a system that's quite different from the one you started with.

This is essentially why I choce option 3. I really like DIRECT, and I think the basic idea of it is inherently better than the Ares designs. However, I think it is naive to suggest that DIRECT would happen without major modifications. Further, I believe that these changes would be the result of as yet unknown issues- primarily political or economical ones, not technical ones. I believe this because I trust that the engineers involved in the proposal are capable of addressing the technical issues, because they are known issues. The other issues will not follow scientific logic and cannot be addressed in advance.

I'd also like that add that as one of the seventeen people who JIS is counting as being 'anti-DIRECT', I am very much, and have always been, very supportive of the proposal- I am simply a little sceptical, too.
Waiting for joy and raptor

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #86 on: 01/10/2008 12:48 PM »
IMHO, the only ones JIS can count on as being in his corner are the ones that actually selected option 1. NONE of the other options imply any non-support for DIRECT, only questions of one kind or another.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #87 on: 01/10/2008 01:42 PM »
Quote
Jim - 10/1/2008  1:38 PM

Quote
JIS - 10/1/2008  8:18 AM

Quote
kraisee - 10/1/2008  1:00 PM

With purely negative motives behind his actions there is zero benefit to us from engaging him any more.   It is time to simply try to ignore him in reference to anything DIRECT-related from this point onwards.

Should he persist, or attempt to pursue a vendetta in the future for being embarrassed by being called-out for his actions, I suggest we rely upon the forums moderators and managers keeping things under control.

Ross.

If my comments are find to be inappropriate by forums moderators I would like to know that.
I think that ignoring DIRECT by myself could be a good solution how to end this matter. I did it for some time and it worked.

Also JIS has yet to provide any evidence that he is an expert at anything to make any conclusions

He did a poll to find other people who think like him and when there wasn't that many, he tried to come up with other explanations

Actually, I voted option 1 only to join the club of naysayers - remember? I was given a label naysayer so I joined the club. You can find my opinion described on the first page of this thread.
Otherwise we don't need to play an expert game. You can either say what is true and can prove that or not.
Also you can believe that something is true or not.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline James Lowe1

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
  • New York City
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #88 on: 01/10/2008 03:26 PM »
Quote
tankmodeler - 9/1/2008  8:19 AM


The best you can say is that  with only 131 responses (to this time) and X hundred members on NSF, this issue doesn't appear to greatly interest the majority of members. That's it. It's the last fact you can squeeze out of the poll. There's no way you can infer any leanings of the people who are too disinterested to vote. On the other hand, if  the number of regular members is under about 300, you can actually infer that a) the matter is of reasonably high interest (as polls regularly get less than 20% response) and b) that the results do accurately reflect the beliefs of the members of NSF (because the results are greatly skewed to Direct's favour).

Paul

We average a couple of thousand members on the forum on any one day. About four times that in guests and many multiples are on the news site, that don't come through to the forum.

So take an average "on line right now" snapshot of the 300. Only the members can vote and most are here for other topics (look how fast the post tanking test STS-122 thread jumped to 65,000 reads in the matter of a few weeks or so).

Your likely to have a strong feeling for or against Direct to a) look and find this thread, b) vote on it.

So it's actually only a few percent of the forum's readership that have voted.

Regardless, as with the electoral polls, where millions vote, the polls work off about 1000 people, so it still has representative qualities, and from that, most *interested* people appear to be impressed/supportive of Direct.

Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #89 on: 01/10/2008 05:06 PM »
I support DIRECT, and voted in this poll for the most sensible choice - Option 4.

But after looking over some of the seemingly anti-JIS comments in this thread and the main Direct thread, I have to say that I'm glad that JIS has contributed to the Direct discussion in the way that he has. It is the critiques of this proposal and the resulting conversation on the Direct thread that have really made it stronger in the past, and that continue to make it stronger now. Anytime someone like JIS comes up with a good, serious  "but what about this issue..." question for the Direct team, we get great discussion and responses here that really show how much stronger this proposal is than the competing ideas.

Chuck, Ross, Stephen, Antonio, and, yes, JIS - please keep up the good work on DIRECT. I hope that JIS keeps participating in the Direct thread, and that the Direct team keeps responding to his and others' constructive criticism.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #90 on: 01/10/2008 05:24 PM »
Quote
James Lowe1 - 10/1/2008  11:26 AM
We average a couple of thousand members on the forum on any one day. About four times that in guests and many multiples are on the news site, that don't come through to the forum.

Cool, so I'd say that...
Quote
The best you can say is that  with only 131 responses (to this time) and X hundred members on NSF, this issue doesn't appear to greatly interest the majority of members.

is closest to the mark.

Quote
Your likely to have a strong feeling for or against Direct to a) look and find this thread, b) vote on it.
Agreed.

Quote
Regardless, as with the electoral polls, where millions vote, the polls work off about 1000 people, so it still has representative qualities, and from that, most *interested* people appear to be impressed/supportive of Direct.
Also agreed.

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #91 on: 01/10/2008 06:31 PM »
I think that this poll is a good representation.

In my observation lots of people who come to a forum are just not interested in rocket engineering and in deep factors that affect the price of rocket building - the people are just not into it.
There are just few people who are interested in these things and IMHO they took a vote.
Please tell me if somebody does not like DIRECT when he/she saw this poll why he/she would miss an opportunity to say “no”?

That is why I think that this poll is a good representation of what people (who are interested in rocket engineering and in deep factors that affect the price of rocket building) think.


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #92 on: 01/11/2008 10:34 PM »
Constructive criticism is, and always will be, welcome regarding DIRECT.

However "constructive criticism" was not what JIS was engaged in.

While months of constant claims of "can't believe you" and "it will never work" are certainly criticism, they couldn't be termed constructive.   The purpose of all JIS' questioning has not been to help identify weaknesses in order to help us to improve the proposal, it has been to find weaknesses to utilize as justification why JIS must be right and we must all be wrong.

We put up with it for months.   Sometimes you just need to bite your tongue and just put up with people like that.   For a while it could even be 'flipped' into a good thing too because from time to time he gave us opportunities to explain bits of DIRECT in more detail - always valuable for new readers.

But his endless negative attitude simply chapped my a$$ the other day, so I called him out on it - publicly.   He clearly didn't like that and I embarrassed him.   He made this poll to try to rally support around him, but it backfired spectacularly.   Paraphrasing Cmdr. Jeffrey Sinclair in the TV show Bablyon 5: "You should never hand someone a gun unless you're sure where they'll point it".

But let it be known that even given this very clear and unveiled animosity JIS has shown towards the DIRECT Team's efforts, he is still most welcome to bring his questions back to the DIRECT thread any time he likes.

JIS has asked some pretty good things now and again - valuable things which have sometimes made us "check again" to make sure we are indeed covered correctly.   Such things are well worthwhile for us - it keeps us on our toes :)

But I beg him to please check the negative bashing attitude at the door in future.   Questions are very welcome, but that constantly-negative attitude is just not by anyone on the DIRECT Team.

I'm extending an olive branch over this matter - if JIS is willing.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline CEV Now

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #93 on: 01/12/2008 05:15 AM »
I voted "If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul"

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #94 on: 01/12/2008 02:55 PM »
Quote
CEV Now - 12/1/2008  1:15 AM

I voted "If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul"
Just curious, but do you have a specific thing that you think needs a major re-think or is it more a case of "they _must_ have missed _something_ major, so this is a safer bet". I can understand the latter, certainly. I don't feel that way, but I understand it.

Feel free not to answer if you think the discussion might get contentious, or even PM me. I'm just curious about people's thinking process on these things.

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #95 on: 01/12/2008 03:00 PM »
Hmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38.
When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.
IMHO there is something fishy in this.


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #96 on: 01/12/2008 03:21 PM »
Quote
Yegor - 12/1/2008  11:00 AM

Hmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38.
When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.
IMHO there is something fishy in this.
Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before opening their mouths. Listening a while helps to remind us of context and little details we may have forgotten. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.

Nothing fishy about it at all. Some folks, while supportive, are either unsure of the magnitude of changes required to implement DIRECT, or have specific concerns that have not yet been adequately addressed to their satisfaction, so they feel safer with this option. That's totally fine. It would just be nice if they would express those concerns so that we get a good chance to address them.

There are a lot of new forum members that are supportive of DIRECT but don't have the history behind them of how we got from there to here. Most of the time their concerns have already been addressed but they don't know where to look. We would appreciate the opportunity to point them in the right direction to find the appropriate discussion, and to take it further if they wish.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JonSBerndt

  • Principal Systems Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • Westminster, CO
    • JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Software Library
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #97 on: 01/12/2008 03:55 PM »
Quote
clongton - 12/1/2008  10:21 AM

Quote
Yegor - 12/1/2008  11:00 AM

Hmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38.
When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.
IMHO there is something fishy in this.
Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.

It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.

Jon
Jon S. Berndt
Aerospace Engineer
The opinions expressed herein are of course solely my own.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #98 on: 01/12/2008 04:20 PM »
I could concur with the 'major overhaul' if the general concensus is trying to say "the DIRECT guys have done a good job so far, but NASA will have to do it all over again anyway so that they have total confidence in their numbers".

While we believe we have found the optimum design, we are under no illusion that NASA will just "take our word for it" WRT numbers.   We have always assumed that NASA will *HAVE* to cover all the same ground we have, for themselves, and may very well select different results from comparisons than we did.

I have been considering that under the 'sensible, peer studied changes' description because it is exactly what we have expected will have to happen from day 1 of the DIRECT proposal.

But it may be that others are possibly considering that factor as under a different category because it ma not be completely clear that we *are* actually expecting that.

It would be nice (for me) to hear if that's actually what is going on with the voting over the last 24 hours?   I ***totally*** understand that reasoning.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #99 on: 01/12/2008 04:26 PM »
I would be equally interested to know (PM me if you don't want to talk publicly!) if the reasoning *is* something else...

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #100 on: 01/13/2008 06:08 AM »
I think NASA would save a lot of face if they went back to the 8.4 m core but still called their heavy-lift rocket "Ares V."  I guess it would really be an "Ares IV" if you can only fit four RS-68's on the 8.4m core.  I'd like for NASA to adopt the basic concepts behind DIRECT, even if they don't overly admit it.

At this point, it looks like Ares I is invulnerable to cancellation (unless a major technical issue derails it.)  But DIRECT can be tapped in the event that Ares I experiences a show-stopping technical problem (J-120 can be rebranded "Ares II" and developed as a quick replacement,) and to reduce the cost of heavy-lift infrastructure if "Ares III/IV" is developed in place of Ares V.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3801
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 738
  • Likes Given: 1395
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #101 on: 01/13/2008 07:50 AM »

You could fit 5x RS-68s on an 8.4m corestage. But; I'd worry about their exhaust impinging on the SRB plumes and the outer four impinging on the center engine's output and efficiency, which reportedly did happen to an extent to the 10-meter diameter Saturn V. In relation to this, NASA's Ares V team has reportedly changed the engine layout to a "ring" configuration (see attached) to minimise this prospect. Not to mention that 5x RS-68s would drain an 8.4m stage's propellants pretty damn quickly. Would an 8.4m, 5-engine corestage have to be stretched ridiculously to get a decent propellant burntime? Or could you get around that by having a more powerful, capacious upper stage and/or third stage?

I'd think having 4x RS-68s with the maximum, practical stretched corestage might be a good compromise, along with the standard 4-segment SRBs. To get closer to their original payload requirement NASA would likely then need the lately-discussed, second upperstage with its 3x or even 4x J-2X. Would this second, upper stage have a short burntime, because of the need to restrict it's height for the VAB limitations, with the final, 1x J-2X EDS on top?

Incidentally, I still think the 3x RS-68 Jupiter 232 is the best compromise, particularly if those RS-68s become optimised, regeneratively-cooled versions.

"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Trever

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #102 on: 01/13/2008 02:11 PM »
Let me start by saying that I believe the J-232 to be superior to development of Ares 1 & V.  However, some of the hype and free descriptions some Direct supporters are stating are IMHO over the top.  I would like to specifically comment on comparisons of the J-232 upper stage to Atlas’s Wide Body Centaur (WBC) concept.  These comments were made in the 25 T vs 100 T thread, but I believe are more on topic in this thread:


Quote
Yinzer,
Don't forget that we've been proposing to use a "Wide Body Centaur" for the Upper Stage of Jupiter-232 anyway. So such a development investment is broadly "equal" for either program. The physical size of a new stage makes almost no difference in terms of development cost.

That decision would mean the only major development cost delta between Atlas and DIRECT would be the re-development of the External Tank into the Core for Jupiter and the development of the J-2X which is already well underway.

Ross.

Edited by kraisee 7/1/2008 1:33 AM


Quote
Quote
yinzer - 7/1/2008 3:23 AM

Referring to the Jupiter Upper Stage as a "Wide Body Centaur" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? It's three times the diameter of the existing Centaur and twice that of the Lockheed-proposed WBC. This will make it harder to have the stage be structurally stable when sitting on the launch pad like the Lockheed one is supposed to be. It's also going to have something like five times the installed thrust. New engines. More extensive pad modifications (an Atlas WBC can use the same launch pad as the Common Centaur), etc.

We sourced numbers and details directly from Lockheed's Centaur Development Team for it.

Jupiter's U/S is an 8.41m diameter version of Lockheed's Wide Body Centaur, with J-2X engines instead of RL-10's. Lockheed provided us with details and confirmed that the design is quite viable.
(EDIT: and masses an awful lot less than what we are actually claiming too!)

We have been planning an ICES variant of the WBC ever since we started work on v2.0 of the DIRECT proposal because it offers the best boiloff characteristics of any stage and boiloff was a very high priority for us.

Though, at 8.41m diameter, our U/S will not fly on any existing Atlas.

Ross.

Edited by kraisee 7/1/2008 6:32 AM


One of the intriguing aspects of WBC was its straight forward development.  It was a new tank integrated with existing subsystems on the existing Atlas booster.  I’m talking about almost all subsystems being identical to today’s flight certified Centaur subsystems:
Avionics: FTINU, remote data unit, batteries, telemetry, etc
Pneumatics: pressurization valves, vent valves, regulator, tank pressure transducer, PU delta pressure transducer, helium bottlesetc
Propulsion: RL10A-4-2, Inlet valves, EMA’s, gimbals, hydrazine bottles, RCS thrusters, etc.
Flight software

These systems are in production today, for the most part were updated with the development of Atlas III or V and the engineers who own and understand these systems today would own these systems on WBC.  WBC, flying on the existing Atlas booster, provides environments very similar to today’s environments, keeping environments and component usage within existing qual limits.


The same can not be said for J-232.  Ascent environments, driven by the 5 SRB’s, drive qualification requirements for Atlas.  J-232’s two SRB’s produce 5.2m lb of thrust, more than triple Atlas’s 5 SRB’s with 1.5m lb of thrust.  Then on-orbit, the RL10 provides a very benign vibe environment.  Two J2-S’s, each with 10 times the RL10 thrust, are likely to provide vibes that are well above existing Centaur.  These extreme environments are incompatible with existing hardware qual levels, implying significant redesign and requal.  Also the scale of the J-232 upper stage and its two J2-S’s imply the need for larger flow areas than could be provided by Centaur hardware.

As far as I’m aware, the Atlas program has never taken a serious look at the implications of flying a WBC on an in-line SDV such as J-232 and thus I have no idea where the Direct team would have gotten good cost estimates.

One can say similar things about a lot of the rest of the J-232 concept.  For example, the RS68 is an engine designed to fly with the environments of up to 3 side by side engines, or a single engine surrounded by 4 small SRB’s.  It is likely to require significant redesign and certainly requalification to fly 3 RS68’s near two 2.5m lb SRB’s.  This is not today’s RS68 or even the RS68A or even a human rated RS68 flying on Delta.


The above is not intended to mean that the J-232 can’t be developed, just that there are significant technical hurdles to its development.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #103 on: 01/13/2008 02:54 PM »
Quote
Trever - 13/1/2008  10:11 AM

As far as I’m aware, the Atlas program has never taken a serious look at the implications of flying a WBC on an in-line SDV such as J-232 and thus I have no idea where the Direct team would have gotten good cost estimates.

Thank you for sharing your concerns.

The upper stage of the J-232 is not only based on a variation of the WBC/ICES, it was designed in conjunction with efforts of members of the Atlas Advanced Systems Development team at LM. We contacted them and asked for their participation in the design effort. They agreed and looked very carefully at it, making suggestions, asking questions, offering alternatives, adjudicated discrepancies, ran analysis after analysis, etc, etc; everything you would expect design team participants to do. In the end, it was they who judged the design to be a workable variant to the WBC/ICES. It was they who provided us with the performance numbers, anticipated costs and masses, and it was they who did the analysis to provide the pmf. Note please that the assistance we received was not an official LM effort and the ones that helped did so on their own time in a completely unofficial manner.

Quote
One can say similar things about a lot of the rest of the J-232 concept.  For example, the RS68 is an engine designed to fly with the environments of up to 3 side by side engines, or a single engine surrounded by 4 small SRB’s.  It is likely to require significant redesign and certainly requalification to fly 3 RS68’s near two 2.5m lb SRB’s.  This is not today’s RS68 or even the RS68A or even a human rated RS68 flying on Delta.
We were in constant communication with P&WR personnel as we went forward with this design effort. The flight environment was carefully analyzed and it was their determination that in the environment of the Jupiter-232, the engine would function as designed with no changes needed excepting those that would be expected for man-rating.

Quote
The above is not intended to mean that the J-232 can’t be developed, just that there are significant technical hurdles to its development.
I hope I have answered your concerns to a reasonable level of satisfaction about those 2 cited areas, but your statement seems to indicates that there are others. Would you mind detailing them for us?

Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #104 on: 01/13/2008 03:18 PM »
Quote
Trever - 13/1/2008  10:11 AM

 I’m talking about almost all subsystems being identical to today’s flight certified Centaur subsystems:
Avionics: FTINU, remote data unit,
snip  
Flight software


This may cause issues.  These components, on an Atlas, control the whole vehicle, booster and upperstage.  They are not upperstage specific.  

I believe Direct uses an Instrument Unit type avionics system.  It flies on the last stage of the vehicle whether it is the core or upperstage.

Adding another avionics system increases cost and complexity

Offline Trever

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #105 on: 01/13/2008 04:56 PM »
Quote
clongton - 13/1/2008  9:54 AM
The upper stage of the J-232 is not only based on a variation of the WBC/ICES, it was designed in conjunction with efforts of members of the Atlas Advanced Systems Development team at LM. We contacted them and asked for their participation in the design effort. They agreed and looked very carefully at it, making suggestions, asking questions, offering alternatives, adjudicated discrepancies, ran analysis after analysis, etc, etc; everything you would expect design team participants to do. In the end, it was they who judged the design to be a workable variant to the WBC/ICES. It was they who provided us with the performance numbers, anticipated costs and masses, and it was they who did the analysis to provide the pmf.

Chuck, I've asked the folks that led the WBC development what they provided to the direct team.  They agreed that they had provided Ross some very basic info regarding WBC.  They never did any specific anaylsis of an in-line SDLV, other than a simple mass estimate using simple scaling equations.  They were never provided environmental data to look at existing component qual levels.  They never looked at the implications of the larger out flow rates associated with the J2-S. They never did a cost estimate of a WBC not flying on an Atlas or Atlas derived LV.

With regard to the RS68 I hope you are correct.  Engines do not tend to operate well in conditions for which they weren't designed and changes, even minor ones tend to be very expensive.  An error on this could mean the difference in billion of dollars non-recurring.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #106 on: 01/13/2008 05:02 PM »
A problem with Direct is that the proponents can claim almost anything since they can say work and data is secret and thus inscrutable.

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 14
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #107 on: 01/13/2008 05:31 PM »
A problem with Direct is that the proponents can claim almost anything since they can say work and data is secret and thus inscrutable.

I belive that Direct has been very open with thier numbers and data.  If you want thier numbers just ask them.  Just remembert that they cannot give you thier contacts.  Now--looking at NASA---have they given thier numbers for Ares I and Ares V?  Nope.   :angry:  I did a Freedom of Information Request for the Appendixs that came from the ESAS Study--No response.  You can do one yourself and see what you get?  Ask NASA for their currant numbers on Ares I, and tell us your response.  

I believe NASA engineers are the best out there.  They have been told to make a PIG fly and they will make it fly.  Is it the best solution?  I don't think so!

Ten years from now when people look at Ares I, what do they think they will say? They will say how did NASA commit $10B+ and to a vicheal that may be flying for 10+ years in that 6 month study?  And even when they relized that the study had got things wrong, why did they not go and re-evaluate the program?  

Ares I might be a classical study why big engineering and IT projects fail---not willing to re-evaluate you assumptions and the choices that you have made, when you relize early that you have major problems.

Offline Scotty

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Merritt Island, Florida
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #108 on: 01/13/2008 05:44 PM »
Meiza, I beg to differ with that statement.
The Direct Team has been far more open with their data than NASA has been with its data.
Direct has admitted errors, and corrected them (even after proving many times the the preceived errors were not errors in the first place, as example the 430 to 435 isp RS68).
Modern times with the availability of the internet, and the wide spread ownership of computers, has made doing anything and keeping it secret very difficult.
NASA has discovered this basic truth the hard way.
Still, the Direct Team is obligated to protect its information sources, as many people have placed their jobs and careers at risk by feeding data to the Direct Team.
It is very easy for someone who is not risking anything, to demand to know the exact source of the data.
Like it or not, that will just not happen.

Offline Trever

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #109 on: 01/13/2008 06:04 PM »
I agree that the Direct people have been extremely open with their data and do have a good idea.  I also truly appreciate the need to protect data sources and thank the Direct folks for doing that.  

The NASA Ares team constantly is asking for data, but very rarely are they willing to share data.  The majority of formal data leaving NASA is scrubbed for political correctness first.

I think Direct is a good enough idea that it doesn't need to be over sold.  I don't think that anyone believes that Directs environments will be similar to Atlas or Delta.  These high environments increase development costs and risk.  Have the Direct folks adequately covered this development?  They might have.  They are assuming development costs 2 to 3 times higher than Atlas or Delta, and on par with what it took to develop Ariane.  My qualm was claiming development of a WBC for Direct would be of the same cost as for Atlas.  

I do wish the Direct team well in their efforts to get NASA to change course.  I really hope that it doesn't take waiting for a new president and NASA administrater before NASA is willing to admit that a change of direction is required.

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #110 on: 01/13/2008 06:17 PM »
Huh, of course they have to keep some things secret.
There are other things too that have gotten people into uneasy situations. I'm NOT demanding they should reveal their sources. The politics and shoot the messenger culture is as bad as it is.

And still, this doesn't conflict with anything I've said. It continues to stay being a problem and I have simply noted its existence.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #111 on: 01/13/2008 06:23 PM »
Trever could you clarify a couple of points for me?

Your concern about the environment that the RS68s would be operating in would seem to apply to both the DIRECT and Constellation program wouldn’t it? The environment that the Jupiter 120 and 232 would be operating in would seem to be, if anything, somewhat more benign that that of the Ares V. While the DIRECT Team is claiming that they can operate with the existing RS68 and accelerate the fielding of the Jupiter 120, even if they are incorrect wouldn’t the delay and additional cost of developing the enhanced RS68 still be less than the current Constellation program?

Your concerns about the claims of the DIRECT Team’s EDS may be valid, but even if they need to return to a clean sheet design they are in no worse a situation than NASA is with their Ares EDS development. If the claims can be taken as accurate for the performance of the Jupiter 230 and for the overall cost savings of the program wouldn’t DIRECT actually leave NASA with sufficient margin in lift, time, and cost to address these EDS concerns?
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #112 on: 01/13/2008 06:28 PM »
For those who selected;
“If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul.”

…. could you elaborate on the areas in the DIRECT v2 proposal that would require a ‘major overhaul’.  Unlike what happened to Skip recently we believe that informed disagreement makes a concept stronger not weaker.  It’s our secret weapon don’t tell NASA upper management.


For those who selected;
“NASA Politics Will Not Allow It.”

….. could you elaborate as well?  While I agree it would be mighty plate of crow at this point what about the context of those appointed to fix the current mess.  How married would they really be to the current approach?


“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #113 on: 01/13/2008 06:46 PM »
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 13/1/2008  10:31 AM

A problem with Direct is that the proponents can claim almost anything since they can say work and data is secret and thus inscrutable.

I belive that Direct has been very open with thier numbers and data.  If you want thier numbers just ask them.  Just remembert that they cannot give you thier contacts.  Now--looking at NASA---have they given thier numbers for Ares I and Ares V?  Nope.   :angry:  I did a Freedom of Information Request for the Appendixs that came from the ESAS Study--No response.  You can do one yourself and see what you get?  Ask NASA for their currant numbers on Ares I, and tell us your response.  

I believe NASA engineers are the best out there.  They have been told to make a PIG fly and they will make it fly.  Is it the best solution?  I don't think so!

Ten years from now when people look at Ares I, what do they think they will say? They will say how did NASA commit $10B+ and to a vicheal that may be flying for 10+ years in that 6 month study?  And even when they relized that the study had got things wrong, why did they not go and re-evaluate the program?  

Ares I might be a classical study why big engineering and IT projects fail---not willing to re-evaluate you assumptions and the choices that you have made, when you relize early that you have major problems.

The reason NASA won’t release the appendix is because among the 40,000 configurations run something nearly identical to the Jupiter-120/232 approach is in there.  NASA upper management only publicly showed strawman configurations in the public ESAS report to support the conclusion they already had before the ESAS study was even started.

Maybe Congress should request the appendix?

“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Offline Trever

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #114 on: 01/13/2008 06:55 PM »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 13/1/2008  1:23 PM

Trever could you clarify a couple of points for me?

Your concern about the environment that the RS68s would be operating in would seem to apply to both the DIRECT and Constellation program wouldn’t it? The environment that the Jupiter 120 and 232 would be operating in would seem to be, if anything, somewhat more benign that that of the Ares V. While the DIRECT Team is claiming that they can operate with the existing RS68 and accelerate the fielding of the Jupiter 120, even if they are incorrect wouldn’t the delay and additional cost of developing the enhanced RS68 still be less than the current Constellation program?

Your concerns about the claims of the DIRECT Team’s EDS may be valid, but even if they need to return to a clean sheet design they are in no worse a situation than NASA is with their Ares EDS development. If the claims can be taken as accurate for the performance of the Jupiter 230 and for the overall cost savings of the program wouldn’t DIRECT actually leave NASA with sufficient margin in lift, time, and cost to address these EDS concerns?

I fully agree with you Norm that Direct is better off in these regards than Ares V.  I concur that direct makes more sense than the current course.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8174
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #115 on: 01/14/2008 12:50 AM »
Quote
SMetch - 13/1/2008  7:28 PM

For those who selected;
“If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul.”

…. could you elaborate on the areas in the DIRECT v2 proposal that would require a ‘major overhaul’.  Unlike what happened to Skip recently we believe that informed disagreement makes a concept stronger not weaker.  It’s our secret weapon don’t tell NASA upper management.

If starting Direct is delayed until the Shuttles are decommissioned then the people available in NASA and its contractors will rather different this will result in big changes to the programme and hardware available.  The next president could also mess up the aims.

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #116 on: 01/14/2008 02:34 AM »
Quote
JonSBerndt - 12/1/2008  11:55 AM

Quote
clongton - 12/1/2008  10:21 AM

Quote
Yegor - 12/1/2008  11:00 AM

Hmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38.
When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.
IMHO there is something fishy in this.
Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.
It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.
Jon
The majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.
Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.
1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.
2. Totally different distribution.
3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.
IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #117 on: 01/14/2008 02:41 AM »
Quote
Yegor - 13/1/2008  10:34 PM

Quote
JonSBerndt - 12/1/2008  11:55 AM

Quote
clongton - 12/1/2008  10:21 AM

Quote
Yegor - 12/1/2008  11:00 AM

Hmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38.
When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.
IMHO there is something fishy in this.
Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.
It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.
Jon
The majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.
Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.
1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.
2. Totally different distribution.
3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.
IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.
Hmmm. That's possible.
Chris. Is there any way to check the validity of this suggestion? Put this way it sort of does sound a little odd.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6639
  • Liked: 913
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #118 on: 01/14/2008 03:32 AM »
The disease:  STS is expensive, unreliable, and unsafe, by inherent design.

The patient:  NASA's human spaceflight program.

The cure:  Ares I and Ares V.

The result:  Known:  The patient will be "laid up" for at least 5 years.  Even then, only partial health will be restored.  Speculation:  The long down time will cause the General Manager to fire the sick quarterback, relegating the team (patient) to years or decades of "rebuilding" (also known as failure).

Since a successful completion of "the cure" will seriously cripple the patient *for sure* and possibly kill the patient as well, I deem the cure to be a failure even if it's successful, and chose an alternative treatment.

Option 4 for me.  No trade study is perfect, even if it includes significant engineering effort.  Even the very best will require sensible revisions during implementation.

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #119 on: 01/14/2008 04:24 AM »
I voted option 4 – “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes”.


Online Chris Bergin

Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #120 on: 01/14/2008 03:42 PM »
Quote
clongton - 14/1/2008  3:41 AM

Quote
Yegor - 13/1/2008  10:34 PM

Quote
JonSBerndt - 12/1/2008  11:55 AM

Quote
clongton - 12/1/2008  10:21 AM

Quote
Yegor - 12/1/2008  11:00 AM

Hmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38.
When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.
IMHO there is something fishy in this.
Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.
It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.
Jon
The majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.
Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.
1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.
2. Totally different distribution.
3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.
IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.
Hmmm. That's possible.
Chris. Is there any way to check the validity of this suggestion? Put this way it sort of does sound a little odd.

No way of checking, sorry to say.

Offline Oberon_Command

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #121 on: 01/14/2008 05:35 PM »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 14/1/2008  8:42 AM

Quote
clongton - 14/1/2008  3:41 AM

Quote
Yegor - 13/1/2008  10:34 PM

Quote
JonSBerndt - 12/1/2008  11:55 AM

Quote
clongton - 12/1/2008  10:21 AM

Quote
Yegor - 12/1/2008  11:00 AM

Hmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38.
When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.
IMHO there is something fishy in this.
Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.
It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.
Jon
The majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.
Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.
1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.
2. Totally different distribution.
3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.
IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.
Hmmm. That's possible.
Chris. Is there any way to check the validity of this suggestion? Put this way it sort of does sound a little odd.

No way of checking, sorry to say.

Could you try checking the IPs to see if there's a large number that have the same IP?

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #122 on: 01/14/2008 05:41 PM »
Quote
Oberon_Command - 14/1/2008  6:35 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 14/1/2008  8:42 AM

Quote
clongton - 14/1/2008  3:41 AM

Quote
Yegor - 13/1/2008  10:34 PM

Quote
JonSBerndt - 12/1/2008  11:55 AM

Quote
clongton - 12/1/2008  10:21 AM

Quote
Yegor - 12/1/2008  11:00 AM

Hmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38.
When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.
IMHO there is something fishy in this.
Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.
It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.
Jon
The majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.
Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.
1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.
2. Totally different distribution.
3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.
IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.
Hmmm. That's possible.
Chris. Is there any way to check the validity of this suggestion? Put this way it sort of does sound a little odd.

No way of checking, sorry to say.

Could you try checking the IPs to see if there's a large number that have the same IP?

We can, but not one who posted for what.

Offline Oberon_Command

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #123 on: 01/14/2008 06:10 PM »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 14/1/2008  10:41 AM

Quote
Oberon_Command - 14/1/2008  6:35 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 14/1/2008  8:42 AM

Quote
clongton - 14/1/2008  3:41 AM

Quote
Yegor - 13/1/2008  10:34 PM

Quote
JonSBerndt - 12/1/2008  11:55 AM

Quote
clongton - 12/1/2008  10:21 AM

Quote
Yegor - 12/1/2008  11:00 AM

Hmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38.
When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.
IMHO there is something fishy in this.
Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.
It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.
Jon
The majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.
Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.
1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.
2. Totally different distribution.
3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.
IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.
Hmmm. That's possible.
Chris. Is there any way to check the validity of this suggestion? Put this way it sort of does sound a little odd.

No way of checking, sorry to say.

Could you try checking the IPs to see if there's a large number that have the same IP?

We can, but not one who posted for what.

Well, if someone DID create many user profiles, shouldn't they all show the same IP regardless of where they've posted?

Offline Giovanni DS

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
    • ChibiOS/RT Project
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 164
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #124 on: 01/14/2008 06:17 PM »
How many new users that day ? more than usual ?

Offline Verio Fryar

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #125 on: 01/14/2008 06:18 PM »
I voted option 3 "If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul". While I think the Direct team has done a great job, NASA is going to have different approaches and priorities. That could change a lot of design decisions. NASA could decide using RS68B and J2X instead the vanilla RS68 and J2XD. This alone could change the size or number of engines of the upper stage.

In every project that I have worked (software) there are lots of important details that get overseen during the preliminary design. Then during the detailed design, sometimes you have to "overhaul" parts of the architecture in order to add the forgotten details.

Offline DLK

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Monrovia, AL
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #126 on: 01/14/2008 07:31 PM »
I voted for #4, the premise being that the design has deliberately avoided the introduction of as much untested hardware as is practical (i.e., RS68B, J2X, 5-segment SRB, etc., J2X has been moved out of the 'orbital access' critical path, since it's not used on J-120). Anything new/untested added to the concept risks sabotaging the schedule (particularly J-120), which is one of the primary drivers behind DIRECT. While the devil is always in the details, I don't foresee the need for a bunch of jerking-around on this design (or at least the level of jerking-around that they're apparently having to do on ARES-1 now...).
-Dan

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #127 on: 01/14/2008 10:12 PM »
Since results of the poll can be manipulated I suggest voting by putting a post with your choice into this thread.
You do not need to do so if you already stated your opinion.
Then we can count posts in a couple of days.


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #128 on: 01/14/2008 10:14 PM »
Quote
Yegor - 14/1/2008  6:12 PM

Since results of the poll can be manipulated I suggest voting by putting a post with your choice into this thread.
You do not need to do so if you already stated your opinion.
Then we can count posts in a couple of days.
Option 4
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline mattrog

Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #129 on: 01/14/2008 10:35 PM »
Quote
Yegor - 14/1/2008  11:12 PM

Since results of the poll can be manipulated I suggest voting by putting a post with your choice into this thread.
You do not need to do so if you already stated your opinion.
Then we can count posts in a couple of days.

option 4

Offline pierre

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Turin, EU
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #130 on: 01/14/2008 11:01 PM »
I voted option 4 too, mostly because I think it's pretty much impossible to do big changes to J120 and J232 without ending up with something that isn't DIRECT at all anymore (e.g. a 10m core). And NASA should ASAP stop buying paper and start buying rocket fuel.

But, IMHO, even if someone has voted multiple times it's not a big deal: this is only a small poll on a web forum, certainly not a scientific poll anyway.

Offline Scotty

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Merritt Island, Florida
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #131 on: 01/14/2008 11:10 PM »
Option 4

Offline C4NP

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #132 on: 01/15/2008 03:57 AM »
Option 4  I have not voted priviously.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #133 on: 01/15/2008 05:47 AM »
I'm still voting Option 4.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Seattle Dave

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #134 on: 01/15/2008 05:58 AM »
I voted 3, simply because if anyone thinks an 80 page PDF only requires a peer study is deluded. I think this explains the low votes, as a lot  of people like Direct, but there aren't any real options here without sounding negative about Direct.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #135 on: 01/15/2008 06:07 AM »
There has always been the "add your own" option.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #136 on: 01/16/2008 06:51 AM »
Quote
clongton - 14/1/2008  3:41 AM

Quote
Yegor - 13/1/2008  10:34 PM

Quote
JonSBerndt - 12/1/2008  11:55 AM

Quote
clongton - 12/1/2008  10:21 AM

Quote
Yegor - 12/1/2008  11:00 AM

Hmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38.
When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.
IMHO there is something fishy in this.
Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.
It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.
Jon
The majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.
Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.
1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.
2. Totally different distribution.
3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.
IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.
Hmmm. That's possible.
Chris. Is there any way to check the validity of this suggestion? Put this way it sort of does sound a little odd.

I think that 20 votes doesn't make any substantial difference. The outcome is the same. All active people voted in few days. Passive users voted later or never. The feedback from those active people here is clear.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #137 on: 01/16/2008 07:12 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 11/1/2008  11:34 PM

Constructive criticism is, and always will be, welcome regarding DIRECT.

However "constructive criticism" was not what JIS was engaged in.

While months of constant claims of "can't believe you" and "it will never work" are certainly criticism, they couldn't be termed constructive.   The purpose of all JIS' questioning has not been to help identify weaknesses in order to help us to improve the proposal, it has been to find weaknesses to utilize as justification why JIS must be right and we must all be wrong.

We put up with it for months.   Sometimes you just need to bite your tongue and just put up with people like that.   For a while it could even be 'flipped' into a good thing too because from time to time he gave us opportunities to explain bits of DIRECT in more detail - always valuable for new readers.

But his endless negative attitude simply chapped my a$$ the other day, so I called him out on it - publicly.   He clearly didn't like that and I embarrassed him.   He made this poll to try to rally support around him, but it backfired spectacularly.   Paraphrasing Cmdr. Jeffrey Sinclair in the TV show Bablyon 5: "You should never hand someone a gun unless you're sure where they'll point it".

But let it be known that even given this very clear and unveiled animosity JIS has shown towards the DIRECT Team's efforts, he is still most welcome to bring his questions back to the DIRECT thread any time he likes.

JIS has asked some pretty good things now and again - valuable things which have sometimes made us "check again" to make sure we are indeed covered correctly.   Such things are well worthwhile for us - it keeps us on our toes :)

But I beg him to please check the negative bashing attitude at the door in future.   Questions are very welcome, but that constantly-negative attitude is just not by anyone on the DIRECT Team.

I'm extending an olive branch over this matter - if JIS is willing.

Ross.

I never take internet discussion personally. It is just fight of ideas.
So, I can pretend picking up your olive branch you was hitting my virtual head with.
I know that you spend a lot of time with DIRECT and you have to take it personally. I'm afraid I'm spending too much time with this. It's time to give it rest.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline anonymous1138

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Denver, Colorado area
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #138 on: 01/16/2008 10:46 AM »
Quote
Seattle Dave - 15/1/2008  12:58 AM

I voted 3, simply because if anyone thinks an 80 page PDF only requires a peer study is deluded. I think this explains the low votes, as a lot  of people like Direct, but there aren't any real options here without sounding negative about Direct.

Two things:

1) You apparently haven't been following the DIRECT story very closely, or you would know what the "80 page PDF" is built on top of,
2) ... which is a lot of work that had already been done on the NASA MSFC LV24/25 concept, and before that, the NLS (if I recall correctly).

Additionally, as with the ESAS, every page in the summary report represents a whole lot of work. Referring to the DIRECT proposal as only an "80 page PDF" is just uninformed.

With this poll, there is a lot that is left to interpretation, such as what constitutes "major overhaul"? The ESAS should have undergone a major overhaul when key aspects of it were found later to be invalid, or configurations were changed. Perhaps the question amounts to: Is the DIRECT proposal more viable than the ESAS one? If you take the longer, wider view of defining the word "viable", then DIRECT is more viable by a considerable amount, and appearing more so on a daily basis, in my opinion.

Note: I was not involved in the DIRECT proposal, but I've worked in the aerospace industry for a long time.

I voted for #4.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #139 on: 01/16/2008 07:37 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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
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: 1772
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #147 on: 01/18/2008 11:06 AM »
Option 5

Offline Paul Howard

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 13
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: 1663
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 8
  • 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: 50
  • Cape Town, South Africa
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
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: 305
  • 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: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
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: 2
  • 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: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
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: 305
  • 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: 2
  • 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: 305
  • 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: 212
  • 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!

Online 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) ;)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #160 on: 01/18/2008 12:33 PM »
Quote
Space101 - 18/1/2008  8:15 AM

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 patronize 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.
Calm down. No one is patronizing anyone. You’re reaction indicates that you have taken offense, when none was intended.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #161 on: 01/18/2008 01:01 PM »
Could it be we have some trolls here who want human spaceflight to stop?  I'm shocked at the verocity of some the posts.  This should be organized discussion, on a civilized level, not a dog fight.

-John
"We'll remember the Shuttle days with fondness 20 years from now when we still don't have a replacement.  The something we had was better than the nothing we wound up with."


www.apollosaturn.com

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #162 on: 01/18/2008 01:04 PM »
Quote
Space101 - 18/1/2008  8:19 AM

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.

You just saw it.

I don't have to prove it to you, I see it everyday

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #163 on: 01/18/2008 01:06 PM »
Quote
Space101 - 18/1/2008  8:15 AM

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.

You aren't going to see a "ground swell" since it isn't the company line.  It is an underground support,

Also it isn't just for Direct, it is for anything but the "stick"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #164 on: 01/18/2008 01:13 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.

NASA already did back it as a good idea as far back as the late 70's.   Direct is not a new concept.   NASA and its contractors came up with the "direct" configuration long ago.   The only real change the Direct team has done is to switch the SSME's for RS-68's

Offline To The Stars

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #165 on: 01/18/2008 01:30 PM »
Voted NASA Politics Will Not Allow It. Direct will never be anything more than a presentation.

Offline Mr Impossible

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #166 on: 01/18/2008 01:31 PM »
Option 3. I was impressed by the ESAS presentations. DIRECT's was lacking.

Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #167 on: 01/18/2008 02:11 PM »
Quote
Jim - 18/1/2008  6:13 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. 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.

NASA already did back it as a good idea as far back as the late 70's.   Direct is not a new concept.   NASA and its contractors came up with the "direct" configuration long ago.   The only real change the Direct team has done is to switch the SSME's for RS-68's

Exactly, it’s the current plan that has little in common with past NASA concepts on what a Shuttle Derived launch system really is.  The business case is even better now because of the availability of the RS-68 engines.

The not invented here odd ball is the Ares-I/V.

“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #168 on: 01/18/2008 02:12 PM »
Quote
Mr Impossible - 18/1/2008  6:31 AM

Option 3. I was impressed by the ESAS presentations. DIRECT's was lacking.

What specifically was it lacking?

“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #169 on: 01/18/2008 06:33 PM »
Ok, sorry.
Let's go and explore space.

Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #170 on: 01/19/2008 02:13 PM »
Voted 4.

Offline Sid454

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #171 on: 01/19/2008 05:45 PM »
After hearing about the latest issues with ares I the oscillation issues and this is not something easily fixed alike the satrun V oscillation.
I feel direct needs to be considered seriously as an option also in light if potential issues with funding ares needs to be abandoned in favor for direct launcher.
If we only get ares I we are screwed and might as well just keep flying space shuttles or kill constellation/orion all together and give all the money to COTS right now.
 But if we choose direct launcher even the jupiter 130 is powerful enough to perform lunar missions using three launches the main change needed would be going to a hypergolic storable propellant LSAM.
 Going from the jupiter 130 to the 232 is a lot easier and cheaper then going from ares I to ares V so the jupiter 232 is a lot less likely to get cut then ares V.
Also direct does not depend on the J2X which I feel is pretty much a waste of R&D money as the EDS can work just as well if not better using a cluster of RL60s.
In light of recent event including the oscillation issue Griffin really should consider alternatives as I see no reason at all to continue development of ares I.
Direct launcher in my view also is safer then ares I as the main engines are ground started so if anything goes wrong the launch can be scrubbed before the SRBs are ignited this has saved several shuttle missions in the past.
Also no second stage air start event this gets rid of one very nasty scenario where the second stage J2 fails to ignite and the crew gets subjected to a steep high g reentry and splash down in the deadly north Atlantic.

Offline Sid454

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #172 on: 01/19/2008 05:50 PM »
I voted four too any plan will require tweaking to implement but direct is far less lacking then ESAS which I found lacking since day one.
A possible change could be using a common vehicle who's performance is between the jupiter 130 and the jupiter 232.
Though the jupiter 130/232 combination seems a pretty close to perfect mass split to me.

Offline Sid454

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #173 on: 01/19/2008 06:01 PM »
Quote
Jim - 18/1/2008  8:06 AM

Quote
Space101 - 18/1/2008  8:15 AM

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.

You aren't going to see a "ground swell" since it isn't the company line.  It is an underground support,

Also it isn't just for Direct, it is for anything but the "stick"

I feel the stick has got to go as it's going to doom the program or atleast end up killing a crew heck I'd even choose an EELV or falcon 9-H  over the stick and this is on safety.

When you factor in costs all you can say why are they building ares I is it welfare for ATK?.

When I look at direct and compare it to ares I just can't see why they choose ares.
 Heck ATK will  still make the same amount of money off direct and unlike ares it would not end up failure if the CLV gets canceled.

With ares if ares V gets cut the entire constellation program becomes a technical failure" it didn't get us back to the moon "and will become a black mark on NASA's reputation. :angry:

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #174 on: 01/20/2008 06:16 PM »
That's what alot of people cannot see.  Ares V stands a good chance of getting cut...when you plan something so far out and it takes so long...congress will cut it to death--a small saving one..another next year...AresV will cost so much and pushed so far to the right in schedule you will be luckly to see it by 2020--and that's pretty sad!  In my mind, the ESAS reports needs to be 'tweaked'r or axed!  If the program is broke at the start--why invest a couple more years into the system and billions of dollars.   This reminds me of classic IT project management some of the hugh cost overruns they have.  They see within the 1st 6 months that there assumpations were wrong, but instead of going back and relooking at whole project to abandon or start again--they keep on pouring good money after bad.  Ten years later--they look at the system and wonder what went wrong?  What went wrong--you failed to cut it and start again when you had the chance.

Offline MB123

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #175 on: 01/26/2008 04:47 AM »
Whoever can design a launcher with just enough capacity to get Orion into orbit will be the winner.

Bring the costs down:
-Get rid of the SRBs on DIRECT - vehicle won't get off the ground

-Get rid of the liquid fuelled engines on direct - vehicle won't get into orbit

-Add a liquid fuelled second stage to DIRECT, lean out the first stage, and you've got Ares I

-Use 2 or 3 RP-1/O2 style engines (3-off F-1 engines would be just a little bit more thrust than a shuttle SRB, and give the stage some control should engine gimbal control be used) on the first stage of Ares I??


Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #176 on: 01/26/2008 06:03 AM »
Jupiter-120, just operating it's main engines constantly at around 75-80% would result in placing about 25mT into LEO.

The exact same hardware also allows for a 20mT payload w/ an Orion if NASA ever *needs* it, and also creates a relatively inexpensive 50mT pure cargo launcher too.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #177 on: 01/26/2008 12:26 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 26/1/2008  2:03 AM

Jupiter-120, just operating it's main engines constantly at around 75-80% would result in placing about 25mT into LEO.

The exact same hardware also allows for a 20mT payload w/ an Orion if NASA ever *needs* it, and also creates a relatively inexpensive 50mT pure cargo launcher too.

Ross.
Slam dunk
Winner!
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #178 on: 01/26/2008 12:38 PM »
Quote
MB123 - 26/1/2008  12:47 AM

Whoever can design a launcher with just enough capacity to get Orion into orbit will be the winner.



They is not the problem.  They already exists.  Atlas V phase II has a perfect vehicle.

Must use the SRB's and LH2

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #179 on: 01/27/2008 04:58 AM »
Except for the Russian engine isn't popular with the politicians.

If Atlas could get the RS-84 as an 'upgrade', I think they'd have a really formidable solution with Phase II.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline ronatu

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #180 on: 02/22/2008 10:41 PM »
What to discuss here???
NASA Politics Will Not Allow It.
Basta.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3801
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 738
  • Likes Given: 1395
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #181 on: 02/23/2008 05:27 AM »

Quote
kraisee - 27/1/2008 4:58 PM Except for the Russian engine isn't popular with the politicians. If Atlas could get the RS-84 as an 'upgrade', I think they'd have a really formidable solution with Phase II. Ross.

Yes. It's not too late to revive RS-84, just unlikely.

"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Tags: