Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3  (Read 1123337 times)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #100 on: 01/14/2009 11:59 pm »
Let's bring it back to DIRECT folks.
There are other threads for your discussions of non-DIRECT topics.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #101 on: 01/15/2009 12:14 am »
I just wanted to jump in here, and say that I expect to have the plans and notes for the Jupiter Models ready to publish pretty soon.

:)

SWEET :)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #102 on: 01/15/2009 01:37 am »
Is there any updated preliminary drawings of the various pad elements? Also will the various press-lines and cable trays still exist on the Jupiter cores in the positions they do on the STS ET?

I was working on some of that imagery before the Rebuttal came along.   I've postponed that work until after this new round of performance analysis determine which configuration we will be using.   The change in J-232 EDS capacity will alter the infrastructure.   And if we were to re-baseline to the J-231 option, that would change it more.   I'm going to wait until these questions are fully determined.

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

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #103 on: 01/15/2009 01:45 am »
Is there any updated preliminary drawings of the various pad elements? Also will the various press-lines and cable trays still exist on the Jupiter cores in the positions they do on the STS ET?

I was working on some of that imagery before the Rebuttal came along.   I've postponed that work until after this new round of performance analysis determine which configuration we will be using.   The change in J-232 EDS capacity will alter the infrastructure.   And if we were to re-baseline to the J-231 option, that would change it more.   I'm going to wait until these questions are fully determined.

Ross.

Would a switch to the J-231 improve LOM/LOC numbers? I mean that is the big criticism against 232 right now.

I'm guessing the details you are waiting on include more on this?
« Last Edit: 01/15/2009 01:54 am by gladiator1332 »

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #104 on: 01/15/2009 03:14 am »
That illustration of the Direct launch with STS in the foreground is really great, but its made me wonder: will the bottom 2/3rd of the insulation on Direct get blackened like in the Delta4Heavy?  Or would the pad minimize that H2 fireball?  Might look a bit shocking to the uninitiated public as in the first D4H launch seen so well in Ben Cooper's pix:
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4-Heavy.html

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #105 on: 01/15/2009 03:30 am »
Thanks for jumping in there Ross.  Just trying to have an informative conversation, and no, I haven't been reading this forum prior to about a week ago, so I didn't have the time or energy to read through the 500 some odd pages in the first two threads in their entirety.

Understandable.   You just came in at a time when there are certain personal attacks being raised and our supporters are naturally in 'defense mode'.

It can sometimes be particularly tricky to determine, on a text-based forum like this, whether someone is open to the idea but is asking questions about perceived weaknesses or whether they are simply in opposition and are merely trying to raise trouble.

We have had a lot of both types over the years.

If you're searching for answers I am only too glad to go back over previous topics, because I'm sure there are other "new faces" who are eager to understand too.

Not sure I ever did say so before, but welcome to the site.


Quote
And thanks for all the great info Ross.  You've been very helpful in a lot of questions I've had.  I still like the idea of the big Ares V booster for future flexability, but you've made some really great arguments here for the pro's of DIRECT.

I do my best to try to help.


Quote
Again, I wonder if going with the Falcon 9 Heavy for the CLV, and then Ares V for the rest of the stack, and future missions of other things like telescopes, or new Space stations.
If 90% of the money going into Ares 1 were then shuffled to Ares V, and the other 10% shuffled to SpaceX to help with Falcon 9 Heavy development, man-rating, and adaptation to carry Orion (which should be relatively easy).

NASA isn't willing to put its eggs in the Space-X basket yet.   While they have made a most excellent start in this business, they have a long way to go still before they will be considered reliable.   My personal perspective is that they bring a breath of fresh air into the industry.   I've spoken with people at ULA and they agree -- they're hungry for the competition because it will result in new investment in new technologies and better solutions and they want that sort of challenge because it will make all their products better too.   Whether any of the New Space companies are successful or not, they are re-invigorating the entire industrial aerospace world.

I welcome the day of the fifth successful Falcon 9 launch in a row.   I believe that day will mark an important milestone in demonstrating the system's reliability.   When that will be, only time can tell, but I hope it is sooner rather than later.   But for me, until that day there are no guarantees regarding Space-X's success.   I hope they can do it -- I really do -- but I don't think it would be wise for anyone to bet the whole bank on it, not yet -- Space-X is still the Padawan Learner, not yet a Master.


Quote
Now you are back to the commonality of just 1 vehicle, the Ares V, which solves one of the big issues the DIRECT team has been mentioning, about two vehicals, and two manufacuring paths.
Perhaps the Ares V could even have an Ares IV varient, same core and boosters, but fewer RS-68's on the end cap sorta like Jupiter.
Save a little money for sub-max payloads.

I partially agree.   The problem I have with the whole 2-launch Ares-V architecture + A.N.Other CLV (be that EELV or New Space) is that the cost for that Ares-V in a world where Ares-I never gets built is still nothing short of gargantuan.

It's a $25 billion up-front cost for the single rocket.    Plus the individual price tag of $1,400 million each is a phenomenal amount to be asking to support any Lunar architecture.

Even the Shuttle costs closer to half that.   Shuttle would certainly cost a lot less if there were a way to remove the 6-months of hard maintenance work involved on each Orbiter between each flight.   And that's exactly what we're trying to do with Jupiter-120.   We remove the costs involved in maintaining a 100 ton reusable space-plane and its very complex engines, and re-develop the rest of the hardware into something which we can use much more cost-effectively.

It's never simple, but our entire approach is fundamentally 2-fold:   "Don't fix what ain't broke" and "K.I.S.S -- Keep It Simple, Stupid".


For example;   The current 4-segment SRB's have a proven track record.   I believe that the next Shuttle launch should see the 250th safe and successful back-to-back manned use of the 4-segment SRB since they were re-designed following Challenger.   They have essentially proven that they work very reliably indeed.   I would contend that the *ONLY* reason to modify them is if your launcher *must* have more performance.   We don't believe that is necessary for the Jupiter.


The SSME on the Orbiter is a fantastic engine.   It has demonstrated only 2 in-flight anomalies out of 369 manned launches (not counting Challenger).   That's a demonstrated reliability of 99.46% -- which is a testament to the design and the staff who so carefully maintain those units.   The only problem with the SSME is that they cost a lot.   To build, each one costs over $60 million (some estimates suggest up to $90m) and every time they are used they require over $5 million worth of maintenance.   On Jupiter we are planning to use the existing RS-68 from the Delta-IV.   This engine was designed to be much simpler, lower pressure, lower efficiency, but higher total thrust.   And cost was the main driver.   Currently they produce disposable RS-68's for around $12 million each.   A human-rated version would be more -- somewhere in the $20m range and will require some development work (PWR est. 3 years and $200-250m, although DIRECT has allocated $1bn to cover overruns and to try to expedite the process).   Luckily for us, the USAF are already implementing a number of improvements for the Delta-IV Program as part of the 108% thrust RS-68A development program and those engines are due to enter service around 2012.   Jupiter doesn't plan to wait for that upgrade though.   The initial versions of Jupiter-120 would initially use the existing 102% thrust RS-68 so as not to cause any delays in the schedule for getting Orion operational.   The upgraded versions would be phased-in as soon as they are mature enough.   Overall this approach of re-qualifying the RS-68 is considerably less costly and less complicated than building a new engine like Ares-I demands.


The Core Stage is obviously based on Shuttle's External Tank.   There will not actually be much of the hardware which won't be modified at least slightly.   The tank barrel sections will all be made using precisely the same processes used at present to make the LH2 tank (note that the LOX tank will be made using the LH2 tank tooling, not the current ET tooling) but the panels will all be redesigned and strengthened in order to support the extra loads.   The Tank Domes will all be made using the existing tooling, but will need to accommodate the wider diameter pipework than at present.   The Interstage will be modified to also support the extra loadings, again using the same tooling used today, but producing stronger panels with more ring-frame stiffeners.

While the Fwd Skirt/Interface will be a new item, it is the Aft Thrust Structure which will be the largest "new" part.   But every new stage requires a Thrust Structure with associated plumbing.   Make no mistake, the Ares-I's Upper Stage also requires one of these, and while smaller and only supporting a single engine, the cost and time required to develop one Thrust Structure doesn't actually vary much dependent on the physical size.


From the manufacturing side, by retaining the majority of the same tooling you save a lot of time (~1 year ripping out the old ET tooling and completely replacing it with all-new equipment) and a lot of money too -- and you also create the very real option of having no 'down time' between the two projects -- which is an important factor in trying to save the workforce at Michoud.


From the launch processing side, all but one of the work platforms inside the VAB can continue to be utilized "as is".   The top platform currently surrounding the pointed end of the External Tank is the only work platform which must be replaced to support the new Jupiter configuration.   Ares-I requires brand new platforms throughout, and Ares-V requires a whole different set in addition -- and they won't be able to share facilities.   DIRECT is planning to make the VAB High Bay's 'common' enough that either Jupiter-120's or Jupiter-232's can be processed in any available bay.   Again, this approach of re-using what we have and minimizing the costly changes both reduces the time needed to implement and also the cost.


And finally the Pad and MLP.   Without the 5-segment or 5.5-segment SRB's the Jupiter-232 is not touching the upper weight limits for either the Crawler Transporters or the Crawlerway.   And with only the standard SRB's and three RS-68's we aren't approaching the maximum thrust levels of the Pad structure either.   This means that the basic foundations of the launch infrastructure are not necessarily going to need to be replaced to support the new program.

Now, having said that there are still unanswered questions regarding how structurally sound the LC-39A and B pads actually are.   They have been sitting in a salt-water environment for over 40 years now and there are questions of whether they will need work or not.   It's too early to say right now, but it is a pretty safe bet that sooner or later they will.

Now, given the sheer size and weight of the Ares-V, that program will be forced to do such modifications before ever attempting to roll the first one out.   That's an unexpected cost which the Ares Program has recently had to accept.

For DIRECT, because neither of the launchers pushes the structural loads in anywhere near the same way, it is quite possible that this could be implemented after the Jupiter's begin flying.   That means less near-term cost -- and that directly translates to more money available for speeding up the initial deployment of Jupiter-120/Orion.   The Pad work will need doing sooner or later, but we would rather remove it from the critical path between the Shuttle retirement and the roll-out of the new vehicle.

Ares-I requires a brand-new Mobile Launcher and associated Service Tower because its configuration has nothing in common with the Shuttle.   Actually Ares-I will eventually require a second ML/LUT too.

Ares-V will ultimately require three new Mobile launchers and towers too.   The determination has already been made that the three old Shuttle MLP's are not suitable for converting for that purpose so they will be scrapped and replaced.

The Jupiter is intended to fly from a converted Shuttle MLP and will re-use the existing Fixed Service Structure located at the Pad.   Converting the existing facilities instead of replacing them is a smaller, less costly job than building everything a-new.   Ultimately it may be preferable to replace the aging MLP's entirely, but again that is a decision -- and a cost -- which can be deferred until much later and need not affect the Orion deployment schedule.

Overall, the intent behind DIRECT is to cut development costs here, cut costs there and reduce the total amount of work needed to get flying to a more realistic and affordable level.

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

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #106 on: 01/15/2009 03:31 am »
I thought I heard that it is possible to engineer the fireball out of the engine, however, it is more for appearances, as the fireball poses no risk to the vehicle itself.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2009 03:35 am by gladiator1332 »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #107 on: 01/15/2009 03:55 am »
Personally, try to design the Orion and SM so that either the F9H or the Delta 4H could carry it up, then you have some redundency and "safety factor" in how you get it up there.

I'm in full agreement with that notion.

The Atlas-V, the Delta-IV, the Falcon-9 and even the Ariane-V and current Proton launchers are all designed to be able to lift similar sized payloads using a fairly common payload adapter design -- one which was originally based on the Ariane's.

I see no reason at all why the interface for Orion should take a substantially different approach.   As long as the launcher can lift it, and as long as the Health Monitoring systems use the same interface between Launcher > Spacecraft I think it should be a generic 'standard' which all systems can attempt to meet.

Apart from anything else, the current ISS specification of the Orion has half the SM propellant tanks as the Lunar -- and that drops its "inserted" (to -11x100nmi, 51.6deg) mass down to 17,860kg -- and *that* is within the current performance envelope of every single one of those launch systems -- except perhaps the Ariane, I'm not sure it can lift quite that much to that orbit.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2009 03:57 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #108 on: 01/15/2009 04:06 am »
I thought I heard that it is possible to engineer the fireball out of the engine, however, it is more for appearances, as the fireball poses no risk to the vehicle itself.

That is absolutely correct.   The vehicle already has to have a good TPS system to handle the far worse "Plume Impingement" heating effects experienced during flight than is ever produced during the current RS-68 start sequence.   "Appearance" aside, it is not actually a safety concern.   And in fact anyone who watched a Saturn-V launch (even just on video) will note that too had an almost identical-sized flame-ball on ignition -- the only difference is that it "looks" much smaller than Delta simply because the size of the Saturn dwarved it completely.

But, as you say, the USAF-funded RS-68A upgrade development program is already working to fix the root cause anyway.

My own understanding is fairly rudimentary on the issue (so forgive me if I am not 100% accurate here) but I gather that the "flame ball" on Delta-IV is caused by the fact that the LH2 flow is started some 5 seconds before the flow of LOX starts -- specifically to ensure the internals of the engine never experience an oxygen-rich environment, which would be very bad indeed.   Anyway, with so much surplus fuel hanging around at the moment of ignition, it all burns at once -- very spectacularly.   It doesn't actually harm the vehicle, although it does 'singe' the foam quite a bit sometimes :)

Apparently the 'fix' for it could be as 'simple' (cough!) as putting some engines on the test stand and experimenting with different timings for opening the valves and finding a shorter lead-in time for the fuel -- then testing the hell out of the new setting to be absolutely *sure*.

But there are also some hardware changes which are being integrated into the RS-68A too -- although I don't know any details about those.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2009 04:10 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #109 on: 01/15/2009 04:11 am »
Great image! Would Philip mind if I posted this on the Direct facebook group?

I think he'd be delighted.

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: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #110 on: 01/15/2009 04:15 am »
Would a switch to the J-231 improve LOM/LOC numbers? I mean that is the big criticism against 232 right now.

I'm guessing the details you are waiting on include more on this?

Exactly :)

With one less engine, the LOM/LOC is likely to improve.   Although the LOM will also take a hit because the US would no longer have engine-out capabilities during ascent nor TLI.

I'm still awaiting the numbers on it, but I suspect you'll see a smaller improvement in LOM and a slightly larger improvement in LOC.   Still, I doubt it will be a radical shift in the numbers.

Of course, our current safety analysis is being done with the new methodologies implemented since they were altered at the Ares-I IS-TIM in Nov 2007 -- and that change in methodology resulted in doubling the Ares-I's LOC numbers from 1: 1,256 to over 1 : 2,400.

So I'm really just as much in the dark as y'all are right now.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2009 04:18 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #111 on: 01/15/2009 04:20 am »
Doesn't the Ares V upper stage / EDS have two J2X's as well? or has that changed...

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #112 on: 01/15/2009 04:25 am »
Who is Charles U Farley?

Edit:  Interesting.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_Up_the_Volume_(film)
« Last Edit: 01/15/2009 04:28 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #113 on: 01/15/2009 04:27 am »
That illustration of the Direct launch with STS in the foreground is really great, but its made me wonder: will the bottom 2/3rd of the insulation on Direct get blackened like in the Delta4Heavy?  Or would the pad minimize that H2 fireball?  Might look a bit shocking to the uninitiated public as in the first D4H launch seen so well in Ben Cooper's pix:
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4-Heavy.html

At this point we're not sure.

As I just described, there are a number of potential 'fixes' in the pipeline -- some of which are applicable to the current variant of the RS-68 (re-working the ignition timings).   That might solve the problem at source.

If not, we have been considering a variety of physical barriers to prevent the flame-ball coming upwards.

Certainly, a high-volume water deluge system like that used by Shuttle would help.   Another idea is to place a set of small jet-powered "blowers" which would direct large quantities of airflow downward through the exhaust chamber and into the flame trench, designed to carry a lot of the LH2 away.   We could create some form of physical barrier mounted in the exhaust chamber which prevents the flames coming back upwards but which is blown away as the rocket lifts from the Pad.

Naturally, there are pro's and con's with all of the options, but we're investigating them all.

Given that it is not a safety concern, for now our baseline is 'just live with it', although we do hope that by altering the 'timings' we can reduce it to a negligible amount.

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

Offline MJ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #114 on: 01/15/2009 04:28 am »
Greetings Fellow Optimists,
I am a newbie to these proceedings, brought into the fold by the PM article, so please bear with me. I have no engineering expertise, but I do have 24 years in government service. I also possess a mixture of proud nostalgia and anticipation for what this country's space program has done and has the potential to accomplish. You can therefore imagine the blinding headaches I get when I read of NASA's bureaucratic mindset. In my profession, I have seen many absurd programs implemented simply because management decided it was the best course of action. Period. End of discussion. It's the mindset that will fix what ain't broke and can't seem to keep it simple. To the point, could someone please answer these questions: is Ares past the point of no return in NASA's playbook?  If that's the case, what can we as ordinary citizens do to support the Jupiter option? Is there anyone we can write to regarding this issue? Hell, if a letter-writing campaign can pull Star Trek out of the trash bin ...

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #115 on: 01/15/2009 04:29 am »
Who is Charles U Farley?

According to the Urban Dictionary it means:

spoonerism of a societal taunt "F*** You Charley", meant to express contempt or defiance.

Dare I ask why?   No.   Never mind.   I don't want to know.

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

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #116 on: 01/15/2009 04:31 am »
Who is Charles U Farley?

According to the Urban Dictionary it means:

spoonerism of a societal taunt "F*** You Charley", meant to express contempt or defiance.

Dare I ask why?   No.   Never mind.   I don't want to know.

Ross.

Yeah, turns out it was from an old film called Pump up the Volume, wow that was quite an Easter-egg.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #117 on: 01/15/2009 04:31 am »
Just to comment on the reliability of Atlas V - and the reliability of these people to build the JUS, it would be a good idea to peruse this document:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Atlas/Evolved_Atlas_To_Meet_Space_Transportation_Needs_2005-6815.pdf

Although technically an EELV paper, when you read this, one can understand why Chuck and Ross talk about their years of experience. Nothing particularly amazing, just a lot of factoids and good reasons.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #118 on: 01/15/2009 04:44 am »
Greetings Fellow Optimists,
I am a newbie to these proceedings, brought into the fold by the PM article, so please bear with me. I have no engineering expertise, but I do have 24 years in government service. I also possess a mixture of proud nostalgia and anticipation for what this country's space program has done and has the potential to accomplish. You can therefore imagine the blinding headaches I get when I read of NASA's bureaucratic mindset. In my profession, I have seen many absurd programs implemented simply because management decided it was the best course of action. Period. End of discussion. It's the mindset that will fix what ain't broke and can't seem to keep it simple. To the point, could someone please answer these questions: is Ares past the point of no return in NASA's playbook?  If that's the case, what can we as ordinary citizens do to support the Jupiter option? Is there anyone we can write to regarding this issue? Hell, if a letter-writing campaign can pull Star Trek out of the trash bin ...

Letter-writing didn't save Enterprise, har har har.

Greetings, optimistic newcomer! I'll field this one seeing as Ross hasn't answered yet. Basically, it is not too far from done and dusted - projects can be killed off at any stage. The Commanche was axed just before going into production, for example. X-33 got as far as engine testing and structural articles.

However NASA needs its people with the experience around to carry on the flame. They can't be fired and rehired, less than 10% of the Apollo vets came back, which is partly why NASA is making a screw-up of Constellation right now. Nobody knows how to make things "like they did in the old days." Rocket science is also rocket art, in a way.

It all really depends on what the new NASA Adminstrator thinks, and what Obama tells him to do. Handwritten letters to your senator or whatever will do the trick. The Direct amazing peoples and girls have been pushing hard for it and it's starting to pay off.

If I were you, I'd buy a mug or T-shirt from their website and walk around. People will ask questions and you can get talking about it. Somebody will overhear. Join the Direct Facebook group. Put it up as wallpaper. Direct just oozes cool and style even though it's just another orange rocket. Oh, and don't go flaming people no matter how much you're tempted. Direct is also a different approach (or should be) - openness and receptiveness to criticism.

Ironically, I sense Direct whipping up more public enthusiasm thanks to Phil's fantastic artwork than the whole of Constellation has to date. "What? We're going back to the moon? Whatever."

Get people excited like it's Season 2 of Firefly and it'll be Apollo fever all over again!
« Last Edit: 01/15/2009 04:48 am by Lampyridae »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #119 on: 01/15/2009 04:51 am »
Greetings Fellow Optimists,
I am a newbie to these proceedings, brought into the fold by the PM article, so please bear with me.

Welcome to the site MJ.   Lots to see and do regarding the space programs all around the world here -- not just DIRECT conversations.   Enjoy it.

Quote
I have no engineering expertise, but I do have 24 years in government service. I also possess a mixture of proud nostalgia and anticipation for what this country's space program has done and has the potential to accomplish. You can therefore imagine the blinding headaches I get when I read of NASA's bureaucratic mindset. In my profession, I have seen many absurd programs implemented simply because management decided it was the best course of action. Period. End of discussion. It's the mindset that will fix what ain't broke and can't seem to keep it simple.

I like that:   A Government Serviceman who is able to cut to the heart of the real underlying issues in less than 3 minutes.   Real Kudos to you.


Quote
To the point, could someone please answer these questions: is Ares past the point of no return in NASA's playbook?

They're not even close.

They have a mock-up vehicle aiming for a test flight some time (October 9th is the latest I'm hearing) next year -- the Ares-I-X.   It "looks" like an Ares-I, but in reality there is nothing actually in common with the Ares-I.   It's upper stage and spacecraft are steel canisters designed only to appear correct and to approximate the mass of the real structures.   The First Stage is an old Shuttle 4-segment SRB which has an 'extender' cylinder placed on top to make it look like a 5-segment SRB.   It uses the same TVC from Shuttle, not the new one from Ares-I and it uses a custom-made avionics package which will never be used again.   It is being processed in the VAB without the Ares-I work platforms, it is being launched from a Shuttle launch platform while Ares-I's are still being designed and construction has barely started.

Yet all of the publicity material would have you believe that this is the first Ares-I launch.   General consensus of opinion here is that its mostly a political stunt to try to "prove" the program is making progress, although the real 5-seg SRB won't fly until 2013 and the real Upper Stage won't make its debut until the following year.

That's when it would be too late to change, because that's when all of the money will have been spent.

That third flight will also be the first chance anyone will really get to know if it might really work or not too.


Quote
If that's the case, what can we as ordinary citizens do to support the Jupiter option?  Is there anyone we can write to regarding this issue? Hell, if a letter-writing campaign can pull Star Trek out of the trash bin ...

Letters are a great way to show your support.

Show your support to your Congress representatives in both the House and the Senate.   Write to the chairman of the Appropriations committees in charge of NASA's budget.   Write to the obvious "Space" movers and shakers.

Rule of thumb:   A hand-written letter is worth 100 typed letters.   A typed letter is worth 100 e-mails.   An e-mail is worth 100 signatures on a petition.   A petition signature is worth 100 electronic signatures on an e-petition.

So few people write hand-written letters any more that they have become almost "unique" today.

I know of one company who received a complaint from a customer on "hardcopy" recently.   The letter ended up being passed up the chain because nobody knew what else to do with it, they just weren't setup to deal with written complaints any more.   The letter ended up on the CEO's desk -- and believe me, the complaint was dealt with then!

Please write a letter.

We have a button on our website (www.directlauncher.com) which will help you find the name and address of your own political representatives.


In addition to that, if you work *anywhere* where 'space' people often work -- print some of Philips wonderful DIRECT imagery (also on the website) and stick it up in your office for all to see.   Show off your personal support of DIRECT and get everyone else to start thinking about it too.   Just a simple picture someone sees every day over the water-cooler can get people thinking.   And we also have a set of wallpapers for your computer desktop too.

Actually there's a really good idea... See next message...

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2009 05:33 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1