Author Topic: Do you believe in DIRECT?  (Read 70493 times)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12048
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7331
  • Likes Given: 3744
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #20 on: 01/07/2008 02:45 pm »
Quote
JIS - 7/1/2008  10:37 AM

Quote
pad rat - 7/1/2008  3:10 PM

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

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

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

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #21 on: 01/07/2008 02:52 pm »
This whole thread is based on one person's negative bias. What a joke. It's beneath this forum.

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #22 on: 01/07/2008 02:58 pm »
Quote
clongton - 7/1/2008  3:45 PM

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

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

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

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #23 on: 01/07/2008 03:28 pm »
Quote
pad rat - 7/1/2008  4:14 PM

I voted for this:

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

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

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

Offline Giovanni DS

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
    • ChibiOS/RT Project
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 286
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #24 on: 01/07/2008 03:34 pm »
Quote
JIS - 7/1/2008  5:28 PM
I think that costs, schedule and technical feasibility are equally important for architecture success.

How to kill Ares with a single sentence.

Voted 4 anyway.

Offline Quintus

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #25 on: 01/07/2008 03:35 pm »
I voted for Option 4. I have watched the story unfold over the months and have gradually become convinced that Direct is the best way forward. Not being an engineer, scientist or space professional, it has taken me longer to come to a settled conclusion. I think the proposal has a very strong internal logic and I now hope and pray for the 'miracle' that sees it adopted as the replacement for the current plan.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #26 on: 01/07/2008 04:14 pm »
Quote
kevin-rf - 7/1/2008  8:34 AM

Quote
bad_astra - 7/1/2008  9:30 AM

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

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

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

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

Offline fcrec

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

Offline TrueGrit

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

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

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #29 on: 01/07/2008 05:31 pm »
Having worked as an aerospace engineer for 20+ years, if Ross, Chuck, Steve, & the Team have actually been carrying 20-50% margins for some cost & performance variables, then Direct has a real chance of coming in within the time & budgets presented. Sure things may not be exactly as presented by the time a Jupiter program actually flew, but intrinsically, it will be closer to the mark than Ares will be to the proposals made when it was started.

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

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

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12048
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7331
  • Likes Given: 3744
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #30 on: 01/07/2008 05:44 pm »
Quote
tankmodeler - 7/1/2008  1:31 PM

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

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

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

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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #31 on: 01/07/2008 06:13 pm »
Quote
TrueGrit - 7/1/2008  1:31 PM
 Ares I is a mistake driven out of the Columbia investigation that improperly blamed launching crew & cargo together (had nothing to do with the failure). .

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

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12048
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7331
  • Likes Given: 3744
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #32 on: 01/07/2008 06:27 pm »
Quote
Jim - 7/1/2008  2:13 PM

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

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

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

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #33 on: 01/07/2008 09:00 pm »
After due thought, I had to vote for I am not qualified to offer an opinion.  BUT, as I have learned that most proposals change after they are accepted by the government, I have to think that  current option 4, it would need major changes to be accepted by NASA is most likely.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 435
RE: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #34 on: 01/07/2008 09:54 pm »
On the surface, DIRECT seems to be at least worthy of serious consideration to me.  I wish we would get some political leadership willing to support something truly ambitious, though.  Unfortunately, I see no Kennedy-like leadership on the horizon.

Offline davo-g

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Gardiner
Westcott House
Cambridge


Offline JonSBerndt

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • Westminster, CO
    • JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Software Library
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #36 on: 01/07/2008 11:10 pm »
Quote
mike robel - 7/1/2008  4:00 PM

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

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

Jon

Offline imfan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #37 on: 01/07/2008 11:12 pm »
Rumble got it right>
4) Direct is a good proposal but needs to be refined before blueprints can be drawn.
Now it is only a concept and that is the way we should look at it. It needs to be developed as every concept, but at this stage it makes sense. ESAS did make sense too back then, but my impression is that is not the case anymore. I dont say that DIRECT is a universal cure for all problems, but at least the logic behind "not as bad ass launcher, but still bad ass launcher and no useles launcher" is understandable fto me.

Offline Scotty

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Merritt Island, Florida
  • Liked: 1950
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #38 on: 01/07/2008 11:43 pm »
Direct is based on NASA MSFC's NLS studies done many years ago.
The Direct Team did not dream up Direct, they took what NASA abandoned and improved upon it.
Direct is NASA's idea, and NASA proved via extensive study, that Direct would work.
On the other hand, a few ex-astronauts and ATK dreamed up ARES I.
NASA is rapidly finding out that ARES I is a total turkey, that should be abandoned because is is not Simple, Safe or Soon.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Do you believe in DIRECT?
« Reply #39 on: 01/07/2008 11:57 pm »
Quote
savuporo - 8/1/2008 1:55 AM
Quote
MATTBLAK - 7/1/2008 1:51 AMAnd it's for this reason that many of them are keeping quiet -- they may not actually lose their jobs for speaking out against Ares 1
I have nothing against DIRECT, and voted for it, but this sounds awfully like a conspiracy theory, which i have become to dismiss immediately, unless some solid proof is supplied.Without any actual evidence of voice suppression in this matter, i would guess they are quiet because they feel theres nothing to shout about.

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

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

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0