kraisee - 26/10/2006 9:08 PM One thought I have had - with 48.9mT of spare lift capability in the SLA under the CEV, I wonder if flights going without cargo couldn't instead carry a large 48mT water tank just under the CEV itself? That would provide one heckuva "bullet proof vest", located immediately under the CEV, in case of problems "back there".
ryan mccabe - 26/10/2006 11:52 PMIn the commercial sector, perhaps NASA could offer to place several Bigalow modules in orbit for little to no cost. That gives Bigalow somewhere to send his Atlas-launched crew vehicle, and makes the whole venture considerably more plausible. In return, NASA greatly increases the probability of private space access.So, perhaps if you want your DIRECT vehicle to work, see if Bigalow will endorse it.
kraisee - 26/10/2006 11:42 PMHere's a novel concept which DIRECT could offer as a performance upgrade.It is basically a "cargo bay" squeezed in between the Crew Module and Service Module of the CEV.Consider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.Ross.
Jim - 27/10/2006 6:22 AMNASA can't use it for commercial sector. Not allowed by law.
ryan mccabe - 27/10/2006 9:24 AMQuoteJim - 27/10/2006 6:22 AMNASA can't use it for commercial sector. Not allowed by law.What prevents that law from being changed? I doubt the law was written with any consideration of a vehicle like the DIRECT concept where so much extra mass could be made available. The possible scenarios (limited ones, at that) where commercial payloads could be flown would be very different than any situation NASA carried commercial payloads on the Shuttle. I don't see the point in having a Wright Amendment for space...
rumble - 27/10/2006 8:00 AMName: Should DIRECT be the Ares II?