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...
Nathan - 7/1/2008 12:21 PMThe 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)?
The question is not useful so I decline to vote or add voting options.
William Barton - 7/1/2008 12:21 PMLook 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.
kraisee - 7/1/2008 7:22 AMNo 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.
JIS - 7/1/2008 8:20 AMQuoteWilliam Barton - 7/1/2008 12:21 PMLook 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.
bad_astra - 7/1/2008 9:30 AMDirect 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.
rumble - 7/1/2008 1:45 PMThe options basically read like this:1) Direct is BS2) Direct is GOLD and is flawless3) Direct is seriously flawed 4) Direct is a good proposal but needs to be refined before blueprints can be drawn.Easy. Option 4.
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
pad rat - 7/1/2008 3:10 PMI 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.
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.
JIS - 7/1/2008 10:37 AMQuotepad rat - 7/1/2008 3:10 PMI 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.
clongton - 7/1/2008 3:45 PMQuoteI 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.
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.
pad rat - 7/1/2008 4:14 PMI voted for this:If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changesThe 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.......
JIS - 7/1/2008 5:28 PMI think that costs, schedule and technical feasibility are equally important for architecture success.
kevin-rf - 7/1/2008 8:34 AMQuotebad_astra - 7/1/2008 9:30 AMDirect 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.
tankmodeler - 7/1/2008 1:31 PMHaving 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
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). .
Jim - 7/1/2008 2:13 PMQuoteTrueGrit - 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)
mike robel - 7/1/2008 4:00 PMAfter 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.
savuporo - 8/1/2008 1:55 AMQuoteMATTBLAK - 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 1I 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.
savuporo - 7/1/2008 8:55 AMQuoteMATTBLAK - 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 1I 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.
Steven Pietrobon - 8/1/2008 3:37 AMThe 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 top2) Existing four segment solid rocket boosters (SRB)3) New Earth departure stage (EDS) with two J2-XD engines with standard turbo-pumpThe 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 are1) 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 thrust4) 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.
HIP2BSQRE - 7/1/2008 9:13 PMI 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.
JonSBerndt - 7/1/2008 7:10 PMQuotemike robel - 7/1/2008 4:00 PMAfter 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
kraisee - 8/1/2008 8:45 AMDIRECT 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.
rsp1202 - 8/1/2008 12:52 AMThis whole thread is based on one person's negative bias. What a joke. It's beneath this forum.
JIS - 8/1/2008 2:03 AMAlso 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.
clongton - 8/1/2008 1:07 PMQuoteJIS - 8/1/2008 2:03 AMAlso 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.
TrueGrit - 8/1/2008 12:03 PMjust 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...
TrueGrit - 8/1/2008 10:11 AMI'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.
khallow - 8/1/2008 2:48 PMQuoteTrueGrit - 8/1/2008 10:11 AMI'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.
brihath - 8/1/2008 11:43 AMI 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.
John Duncan - 9/1/2008 9:31 AMMuch 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.
clongton - 9/1/2008 2:09 PMTo 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
clongton - 9/1/2008 3:09 PMTo 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
PaulL - 9/1/2008 9:51 PMQuoteclongton - 9/1/2008 3:09 PMTo 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.ThanksThe 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
kraisee - 7/1/2008 8:29 AMQuoteJIS - 7/1/2008 2:16 AMAll 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?
JIS - 7/1/2008 2:16 AMAll 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.
...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.
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.
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.
CFE - 9/1/2008 9:21 PMI also think that the upgraded RS-68's (A and B models) should be baselined as soon as practical.
JIS - 7/1/2008 12:56 PMQuoteThe 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.
JIS - 10/1/2008 5:59 AMThe 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.
clongton - 10/1/2008 12:32 PMQuoteJIS - 10/1/2008 5:59 AMThe 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.
kraisee - 10/1/2008 1:00 PMWith 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.
JIS - 10/1/2008 5:59 AMThe 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.
tankmodeler - 10/1/2008 1:19 PMOn 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).
JIS - 10/1/2008 8:18 AMQuotekraisee - 10/1/2008 1:00 PMWith 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.
CFE - 10/1/2008 2:21 AMQuoteclongton - 9/1/2008 2:09 PMTo 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.ThanksThere 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.
Jim - 10/1/2008 1:38 PMQuoteJIS - 10/1/2008 8:18 AMQuotekraisee - 10/1/2008 1:00 PMWith 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 conclusionsHe 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
tankmodeler - 9/1/2008 8:19 AMThe 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
James Lowe1 - 10/1/2008 11:26 AMWe 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.
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.
Your likely to have a strong feeling for or against Direct to a) look and find this thread, b) vote on it.
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.
CEV Now - 12/1/2008 1:15 AMI voted "If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul"
Yegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… 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.
clongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… 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.
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.
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
Quoteyinzer - 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
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.
Trever - 13/1/2008 10:11 AMAs 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.
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
clongton - 13/1/2008 9:54 AMThe 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.
HIP2BSQRE - 13/1/2008 10:31 AMA 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.
Norm Hartnett - 13/1/2008 1:23 PMTrever 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?
SMetch - 13/1/2008 7:28 PMFor 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.
JonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… 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
Yegor - 13/1/2008 10:34 PMQuoteJonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… 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.JonThe 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.
clongton - 14/1/2008 3:41 AMQuoteYegor - 13/1/2008 10:34 PMQuoteJonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… 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.JonThe 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.
Chris Bergin - 14/1/2008 8:42 AMQuoteclongton - 14/1/2008 3:41 AMQuoteYegor - 13/1/2008 10:34 PMQuoteJonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… 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.JonThe 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.
Oberon_Command - 14/1/2008 6:35 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 14/1/2008 8:42 AMQuoteclongton - 14/1/2008 3:41 AMQuoteYegor - 13/1/2008 10:34 PMQuoteJonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… 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.JonThe 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?
Chris Bergin - 14/1/2008 10:41 AMQuoteOberon_Command - 14/1/2008 6:35 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 14/1/2008 8:42 AMQuoteclongton - 14/1/2008 3:41 AMQuoteYegor - 13/1/2008 10:34 PMQuoteJonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… 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.JonThe 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.
Yegor - 14/1/2008 6:12 PMSince 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.
Yegor - 14/1/2008 11:12 PMSince 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.
kraisee - 11/1/2008 11:34 PMConstructive 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.
Seattle Dave - 15/1/2008 12:58 AMI 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.
kraisee - 16/1/2008 3:37 PMHahaha. Shows they haven't even bothered to look at the paper - its 131 pages! -Ross.
kraisee - 16/1/2008 12:37 PMHahaha. 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.
Space101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMAnd 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.
Space101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMI 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.
Space101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMI 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
clongton - 18/1/2008 6:55 AMQuoteSpace101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMAnd 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.
Yegor - 17/1/2008 3:33 PMTotal 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. JIS3. 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. PaulL4. CEV Now5. Verio Fryar6. Seattle Dave4. If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes: 36 Votes – (75.5%)1. MATTBLAK2. kraisee3. John Duncan4. rumble5. monkeyb6. spacediver7. bad_astra8. savuporo9. pad rat10. Giovanni DS11. Quintus12. fcrec13. TrueGrit14. tankmodeler15. JonSBerndt16. imfan17. marsavian18. HIP2BSQRE19. Steven Pietrobon20. jongoff21. luke strawwalker22. texas_space23. brihath24. Lampyridae25. veedriver2226. Norm Hartnett27. jml28. Lee Jay29. DLK30. clongton31. mattrog32. pierre33. Scotty34. C4NP35. anonymous113836. imcub37. Yegor5. I am not qualified to offer an informed opinion: 1 Vote – (2%)1. davo-g9. DIRECT is better than Ares I/Ares V: 2 Votes – (4%)1. William Barton2. 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. rsp12022. Nathan
Jim - 18/1/2008 7:10 AMQuoteSpace101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMI voted 3 ("If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul")This is a fun study, and has its cheerleaders, but only from armchair engineers. TIncorrect. Many NASA and USA engineers do
Space101 - 18/1/2008 8:15 AMExcuse 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.
Space101 - 18/1/2008 8:19 AMQuoteJim - 18/1/2008 7:10 AMQuoteSpace101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMI voted 3 ("If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul")This is a fun study, and has its cheerleaders, but only from armchair engineers. TIncorrect. Many NASA and USA engineers doI look forward to seeing the proof of that.
Space101 - 18/1/2008 8:15 AMIf 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.
Space101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMI 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.
Jim - 18/1/2008 6:13 AMQuoteSpace101 - 18/1/2008 7:46 AMI 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
Mr Impossible - 18/1/2008 6:31 AMOption 3. I was impressed by the ESAS presentations. DIRECT's was lacking.
Jim - 18/1/2008 8:06 AMQuoteSpace101 - 18/1/2008 8:15 AMIf 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"
kraisee - 26/1/2008 2:03 AMJupiter-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.
MB123 - 26/1/2008 12:47 AMWhoever can design a launcher with just enough capacity to get Orion into orbit will be the winner.
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.