Quote from: Will on 01/16/2009 05:49 pmAnd why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expert
And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?
Quote from: Jim on 01/16/2009 05:59 pmQuote from: Will on 01/16/2009 05:49 pmAnd why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expertAnd this, I suspect, more than anything else is why NASA brass are reluctant to adopt alternative solutions. It would require them, after the fact, to admit that the path they've chosen is not the most efficient. It would require them to partially abandon their goal to "reconstitute" design expertise within NASA and cede this ground to the contractors. I believe that this is the biggest admission/change/hurdle NASA faces with the switch to Direct than any perceptions of "NIH syndrome" or "Griffin's Dream Rocket."Again, I personally believe that this is only a perception, and not a reality. In Apollo, good ideas seemed to come from industry as well as NASA. Why can't it be the same today?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=thPage 2 Direct 2.0 was mentioned in December, along with Ross in the new york times.neat!
But that concept has gained few followers, and in April, Richard Gilbrech, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration systems at the time, testified before the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that “we can’t justify, based on laws of physics, the performance” claimed by the plan’s proponents.
another note, today is Dr. Griffin's last day at NASA, now maybe we'll get that review we have all have been hoping for.
Quote from: gladiator1332 on 01/16/2009 08:16 pmanother note, today is Dr. Griffin's last day at NASA, now maybe we'll get that review we have all have been hoping for. Fingers crossed. Griffin submitted his resignation, not because he wanted to, but because all of Bush's appointees were required to. Obama has not yet announced a new Administrator, permanent or interim, and it's always possible that he'll keep Griffin in place until he does. Let's hope not. It's time for all of President Bush's appointees to leave and make way for the new administration.
Quote from: cgrunska on 01/16/2009 08:04 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=thPage 2 Direct 2.0 was mentioned in December, along with Ross in the new york times.neat!QuoteBut that concept has gained few followers, and in April, Richard Gilbrech, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration systems at the time, testified before the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that “we can’t justify, based on laws of physics, the performance” claimed by the plan’s proponents.Really? Few followers? They basically just frame Direct as a dead-end in that article. And they use a quote when NASA looked at old data, not the new and updated Jupiter data. And most of the editor's selections for comments call for the ending of manned spaceflight, and for NASA to focus on unmanned probes. Thanks for posting the link, I think we need to go in there and set the story straight.
Guess i jumped the gun there. I stopped reading it and posted it here, and then work got busy! Oh well. The new article pretty much eradicated that quote from the new york times with that lead designer guy stating it's possible. I sure hope we don't botch outer space for another 40 years. That'll just be depressing.
Quote from: cgrunska on 01/16/2009 09:30 pmGuess i jumped the gun there. I stopped reading it and posted it here, and then work got busy! Oh well. The new article pretty much eradicated that quote from the new york times with that lead designer guy stating it's possible. I sure hope we don't botch outer space for another 40 years. That'll just be depressing.That's okay, I was excited when I first saw the NYT article, too. What I didn't like was the provocative title, "The Fight for NASA's Future", paired with a NASA PR office puff piece article. They give DIRECT two sentences, say it has little support, then dismiss it with the typical condescending quote from a NASA rep saying is not possible under the laws of physics. Bah.Thank goodness the PM article came out with a story that actually tries to address the subject in a rational and impartial manner. While they do slant the article with the David-vs-Goliath angle, in the end they leave it up to the reader to make up their own minds, based on the info presented. That's good journalism.Mark S.
Quote from: zinfab on 01/16/2009 06:12 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/16/2009 05:59 pmQuote from: Will on 01/16/2009 05:49 pmAnd why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expertAnd this, I suspect, more than anything else is why NASA brass are reluctant to adopt alternative solutions. It would require them, after the fact, to admit that the path they've chosen is not the most efficient. It would require them to partially abandon their goal to "reconstitute" design expertise within NASA and cede this ground to the contractors. I believe that this is the biggest admission/change/hurdle NASA faces with the switch to Direct than any perceptions of "NIH syndrome" or "Griffin's Dream Rocket."Again, I personally believe that this is only a perception, and not a reality. In Apollo, good ideas seemed to come from industry as well as NASA. Why can't it be the same today?I think you are looking at history through rose colored glasses. Lets not forget that NASA was argued into the Apollo LOR mission profile by one engineer. Even during the Apollo heyday of good ideas you had NASA being dragged into the right thing to do. And the pure O2 environment for Apollo wasn't the best idea.NASA made mistakes back in its glory days and had to be argued into architecture changes then as well.
Hey,Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.It can boost about 45ton into LEO right? Roughly twice the weight of Orion? Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?
What size and type of unmanned missions would be possible to Mars or to the outer solar system using a Jupiter 120 or 130 along with an existing US as a launch vehicle that would not be possible using the launch vehicles currently available. I'm thinking that some of the later unmanned test flights could be used to send missions to deep space.
Quote from: Will on 01/16/2009 05:26 pmWith Ares NASA picks a design, does a detailed review of it and hands it to the contractors to execute, That's the way it used to be, but not under Mike Griffin. Under his leadership, NASA is not "picking a design and doing a detailed review of it". They are doing the actual detail design using designers that have never done it before with no design input from the contractors with the experience. Don't get me wrong, these are smart designers, among the best in the world. But there is design and there is design. What Griffin has done is similar to taking a bunch of exceptionally good jet fighter aircraft designers, putting them in a room behind locked doors and telling them to design a nuclear-powered submarine. They don't know how. Will they come up with a working design? Yes. Will it be anywhere near as technically good and cost efficient as what they could get from industry directly? Not a snowball's chance in hell.
With Ares NASA picks a design, does a detailed review of it and hands it to the contractors to execute,
As I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:1) Is two launches better than 1.5?
What are 1.5 launches? Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.1+1 = 2 launches. I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.F=maQuote from: Will on 01/17/2009 03:11 amAs I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:1) Is two launches better than 1.5?
What are 1.5 launches? Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.1+1 = 2 launches. I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.F=ma