Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3  (Read 763458 times)

Offline jarmumd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 235
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #60 on: 01/14/2009 04:06 pm »
What's the difference? Do you personally have the engineering qualifications to pass judgement on either the JUS design or his unqualified support for it? There are only a handful of design engineers in the world with his level of expertise. If you are one of them then I would like to meet you.

I think that everyone will agree that supporting someone's opinion without actual numbers is foolish.  I don't claim to have his level of expertise, but physics is physics and numbers don't lie (they are only interpreted).  My issue is not that the design (centaur) is invalid, rather than unless it has had a detailed loads analysis done with detailed finite element models of the actual hardware, then it's just opinion.  If you have done this analysis, please let me see your documentation (I am hoping it is in the rebuttal).

Futhermore, I think it would help DIRECT's credibility if someone could compile a list of documents which prove DIRECT's viability.  The NLS documents are a great example, if you have more LM upper stage documents proving DIRECT's suitability it would help to know that they exist (and are compiled in one place for easy reading).

Marc

Offline jarmumd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 235
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #61 on: 01/14/2009 04:13 pm »
But why and how is pressurization relevant? Surely you can tell us now... it's not as if Chuck can declare it one way or the other depending on your answer at this stage.

If the stability of your structure is dependent on pressurization, then if the internal pressure fails, your structure may fail.  And if it is necessary the entire time after assembly, that is an issue.  Or if pressurization fails during ascent.   Or that when you apply a design concept to a much larger scale, things don't always work the way you expect them to.

I'm sure this has been answered, so forgive me, but does the DIRECT lunar architecture have enough margin for a heavier upper stage?  how much can it grow before things get bad?

Marc

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7778
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 2015
  • Likes Given: 469
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #62 on: 01/14/2009 04:16 pm »
Or if pressurization fails during ascent.

This isn't just an issue with pressure-stabilized tanks. Lose pressurization of tanks in powered flight and you could get cavitation in the pumps, premature engine shutdown and LOM.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2009 04:17 pm by ugordan »

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #63 on: 01/14/2009 04:17 pm »
It has implications for ground processing. Pressure stabilization is an important ingredient of current and past Centaur stages. If he believes and will state that the JUS can achieve Centaur-like mass fraction without any use of pressure stabilization in ground handling, that's important information for a layman evaluating the practicality of the design.

If he is assuming that there *will* be some use of pressurization, that's important information as well. 

But why and how is pressurization relevant? Surely you can tell us now... it's not as if Chuck can declare it one way or the other depending on your answer at this stage.


Because it gets you a lighter stage, but introduces operational headaches. Enough so that Lockheed moved away from it for the Atlas V core, in spite of accepting a performance hit.

One possibility is that Kutter is assuming a semi-structurally stable design: one in which the tank is able to support its own weight without pressurization on the plant floor, but needs pressure to support a payload on top of it.

If this was the case, it would make the JUS more credible, since that would account for some of the mysterious mass savings.

Offline ah_mini

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #64 on: 01/14/2009 04:22 pm »
I think that everyone will agree that supporting someone's opinion without actual numbers is foolish.  I don't claim to have his level of expertise, but physics is physics and numbers don't lie (they are only interpreted).  My issue is not that the design (centaur) is invalid, rather than unless it has had a detailed loads analysis done with detailed finite element models of the actual hardware, then it's just opinion.  If you have done this analysis, please let me see your documentation (I am hoping it is in the rebuttal).

Futhermore, I think it would help DIRECT's credibility if someone could compile a list of documents which prove DIRECT's viability.  The NLS documents are a great example, if you have more LM upper stage documents proving DIRECT's suitability it would help to know that they exist (and are compiled in one place for easy reading).

Marc

I have no connections do DIRECT, so cannot speak for the actual team, but I imagine a request such as yours will not be granted in its entirety.

Typically, complex pieces of engineering carried out by private enterprises contain boatloads of proprietary info that no company will ever let go public. If you want access you have to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), and breaking an NDA is a very bad thing. I find it a stretch to believe that companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin would want detailed numbers on their upper stage performance posted on Internet forums.

This is the dilemma facing "public interest" projects like DIRECT. They need as much publicity as possible to stand a chance in the face of much larger, resource-rich organisations, but at the same time they cannot betray their backers. The end result is that there are always doubters who claim (sometimes with justification) that the cause being presented is mere smoke and mirrors.

I believe that DIRECT's ultimate aim is a peer review of all the options (Ares, DIRECT, EELV, etc) carried out by impartial people with appropriate credentials. These people could sign NDAs and thus see all the data.

Andrew
« Last Edit: 01/14/2009 04:22 pm by ah_mini »

Offline zinfab

  • Space Junkie
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #65 on: 01/14/2009 04:22 pm »
I was fairly certain that in this context, pressurization implied "balloon tank" which Ross and Clongton assured us was NOT a part of the JUS. This is a departure from the "standard" Centaur.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #66 on: 01/14/2009 05:24 pm »
I was fairly certain that in this context, pressurization implied "balloon tank" which Ross and Clongton assured us was NOT a part of the JUS. This is a departure from the "standard" Centaur.

It could also imply something that isn't a true balloon tank that can't even support its own weight, but still relies on pressurization. Falcon 1 is described as "pressure assisted stabilized". It can be transported unpressurized, but relies on pressure to survive flight stresses. Wide Body Centaur might be something in between.

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #67 on: 01/14/2009 05:34 pm »
I think that everyone will agree that supporting someone's opinion without actual numbers is foolish.  I don't claim to have his level of expertise, but physics is physics and numbers don't lie (they are only interpreted).  My issue is not that the design (centaur) is invalid, rather than unless it has had a detailed loads analysis done with detailed finite element models of the actual hardware, then it's just opinion.  If you have done this analysis, please let me see your documentation (I am hoping it is in the rebuttal).

Futhermore, I think it would help DIRECT's credibility if someone could compile a list of documents which prove DIRECT's viability.  The NLS documents are a great example, if you have more LM upper stage documents proving DIRECT's suitability it would help to know that they exist (and are compiled in one place for easy reading).

Marc

I have no connections do DIRECT, so cannot speak for the actual team, but I imagine a request such as yours will not be granted in its entirety.

Typically, complex pieces of engineering carried out by private enterprises contain boatloads of proprietary info that no company will ever let go public. If you want access you have to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), and breaking an NDA is a very bad thing. I find it a stretch to believe that companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin would want detailed numbers on their upper stage performance posted on Internet forums.

This is the dilemma facing "public interest" projects like DIRECT. They need as much publicity as possible to stand a chance in the face of much larger, resource-rich organisations, but at the same time they cannot betray their backers. The end result is that there are always doubters who claim (sometimes with justification) that the cause being presented is mere smoke and mirrors.

I believe that DIRECT's ultimate aim is a peer review of all the options (Ares, DIRECT, EELV, etc) carried out by impartial people with appropriate credentials. These people could sign NDAs and thus see all the data.

Andrew

Precisely. I would like to add further that the work being done by the DIRECT team and its backer is entirely on our own personal time and dollar. All of us have day jobs as well, although I suspect Ross doesn't actually sleep  ;)

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6721
  • Liked: 1163
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #68 on: 01/14/2009 05:56 pm »
Isn't the Shuttle External Tank pressurized whenever the orbiter is mated to it?  I couldn't find that information in a search, but I seem to remember something about that.

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10763
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3120
  • Likes Given: 1261
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #69 on: 01/14/2009 05:59 pm »
Will;
You can always contact Lockheed-Martin and ask them for the proprietary data. It’s not unheard of and has been done before. You will need to present a valid reason why you think you are entitled to the data, and after vetting your request thru corporate and legal, if they agree then you will be required to execute a series of NDA’s. At that point, if successful, you will get the data that you have asked for, and then be in a position to pass judgment on the JUS and the words of Mr. Kutter.  That assumes of course that you will understand what you’re looking at once you receive it. Even assuming that you do (and I have no reason to think otherwise), then you will still be legally enjoined from even hinting at what it might be. You’re stuck because now you will be in possession of information which informed your opinion and be unable to defend what you say. Once you mix common knowledge and proprietary data together, there is no way to separate them. You will be even more restricted in what you can say than before you signed the NDA.

Or, you could take the word of a man like Barnard Kutter that the JUS is a valid design and that the publicly stated performance margins in the DIRECT proposal are actually “conservative”. I don’t think he would make such statements in the public media unless all the questions you are asking had been carefully looked at by people who knew what they were doing.

At some point, if you want to keep questioning the stage design, you are going to have to do either one or the other. As for us, we cannot discuss details beyond what has been authorized.

Having an individual of the caliber of Mr. Kutter say the things he did about the JUS design is sufficient to satisfy any competent upper stage design engineer, he is that well known.

How you choose to respond to what a man like that has to say may be quite revealing as to what you are actually looking for in this discussion.

Don’t get me wrong; We have no problem discussing this with you as much as we can. It’s just that I get the impression, and I hope that I’m wrong, that you are trying to back us into a corner knowing full well that we cannot provide you with all the answers you want. There are limits to what we can say. That’s why Mr. Kutter’s statements in the PM article were so important to us, because that is what everyone has been asking us for. Everyone has been asking us to provide “some” indication as to why we believed the numbers we have been providing. Until Mr. Kutter was allowed by ULA to be quoted, we couldn’t even really acknowledge the Advanced Systems Group's assistance. But even that event does not relieve us of other responsibilities, which remain in force.

If we succeed in getting the impartial review of all viable alternatives, together with a fresh look at the Ares, perhaps more detailed information may be made available from that. But that is not our call.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2009 09:56 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8657
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1125
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #70 on: 01/14/2009 06:25 pm »

If memory serves even the Saturn V required pressurization during flight to keep from buckling under the loads...

So the question is really one of ground processing and not LOM/LOC.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline zinfab

  • Space Junkie
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #71 on: 01/14/2009 06:26 pm »
clongton, I think you make a very valid point.

For a very long time, DIRECT took hits for using "anonymous" sources for your information. You spent a long time explaining/defending yourselves on this front. Now, you add a "named" source, and the accusation shifts to his credentials and whether or not he "missed" something.

At some point, people need to either accept or reject these things on their own terms but stop the endless triangulations. There may or may not ever be a "tipping point" that resolves the issues to the questioner's satisfaction.

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #72 on: 01/14/2009 06:40 pm »
clongton, I think you make a very valid point.

For a very long time, DIRECT took hits for using "anonymous" sources for your information. You spent a long time explaining/defending yourselves on this front. Now, you add a "named" source, and the accusation shifts to his credentials and whether or not he "missed" something.

At some point, people need to either accept or reject these things on their own terms but stop the endless triangulations. There may or may not ever be a "tipping point" that resolves the issues to the questioner's satisfaction.

I have a question though regarding that. When we talk about a "fair" review of the alternatives (which DIRECT is of course a part of) how can we ensure that from NASA all the way through the contractor base that the preferences for LV aren't driven by "what does best for our business" and instead what is the best configuration in achieving the goals of the VSE.

I'm not meaning to suggest that companies shouldn't act to preserve their own business interest but what I am asking, is it possible to get a "fair" and open review where information isn't suppressed or disregarded because it doesn't serve the interest of a "single" more powerful constituent?

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8088
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 568
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #73 on: 01/14/2009 06:41 pm »
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?
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10763
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3120
  • Likes Given: 1261
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #74 on: 01/14/2009 06:59 pm »

I have a question though regarding that. When we talk about a "fair" review of the alternatives (which DIRECT is of course a part of) how can we ensure that from NASA all the way through the contractor base that the preferences for LV aren't driven by "what does best for our business" and instead what is the best configuration in achieving the goals of the VSE.

I'm not meaning to suggest that companies shouldn't act to preserve their own business interest but what I am asking, is it possible to get a "fair" and open review where information isn't suppressed or disregarded because it doesn't serve the interest of a "single" more powerful constituent?

There are no iron-clad guarantees. In the end the best that we can hope for is that in the new environment of transparency that the Obama Administration is trying to implement, that any such bias will not find its way into the deliberations. The reviewers will have too much to loose by misbehaving in the light of public scrutiny.

Assuming we get the review, which is not guaranteed, the people who perform it will likely be selected by Congress (just an opinion), who is the body charged with oversight of NASA. Ares has been such a fiasco, as the new Administrator will soon discover, that they will want to get a REAL recommendation, based on fact, so they donít look foolish to their constituents again.  Some of their re-election prospects may hinge on that. But there are no guarantees in this. It will be what it will be and we will move forward from there with whatever system or combination of systems that the new Administration in Washington authorizes.

Remember, that while technical merrit will inform the decision, this will be a political decision, not a technical one.

The DIRECT Team has already pledged to get behind whatever decision is ultimately made, whether itís us or not.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6813
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 597
  • Likes Given: 367
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #75 on: 01/14/2009 07:18 pm »

First:  Any idea of how much it would cost to man-rate the Delta 4?
Sounds like it can lift a bit more than Ares 1.  But can it carry Orion and the SM dimensionally?
The Delta 4 is 16.4 ft dia, and Orion is 16.5 ft. at it's widest.
doesn't seem like much, but how much modification to the Delta 4 would be needed to fit the Orion?

Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?  And if so, could they go back to the old cheaper foam because it wouldn't matter that it sheds?


Less than 500 million

Dimensionally is not a problem.  An adapter can be made to fit it to the D-IV

All LH2 vehicles need insulation and the current foam is the best there is.  The older foam is more expensive and less efficient and also comes off

See Delta IV and Centaur

Fair enough, I assume the Saturn Rockets didn't need it because it was kerosine/LO2 fueled rather than LH2/LO2 fueled?

Also, SpaceX put their Falcon9 upright recently.  The standard Falcon9 will launche the Dragon capsule to the ISS, but the Falcon9-Heavy will be able to lift approx 4-5 more tons into LEO than the Delta IV Heavy (according to the stat's I've been looking at).
The Falcon9Heavy be a decent amount cheaper than the Delta IV Heavy, and will be man-rated from the jump because they are designing it to launch crew in the Dragon.

With an adapter, could the Falcon9Heavy then be able to launch Orion to the ISS?

Would SpaceX be a more feasable option to the Delta IV to ferry Orion to the ISS and back, looking at options to the Ares 1?

I know the Dragon would basically serve that function, but I'm pretty sure NASA would like a way to get -their- ship back and forth to the ISS.
Then a Jupiter 120 could be used for replacement ISS components/additional components, or for "other than ISS" where they want to take Orion somewhere besides the ISS.
Then the Jupiter 232's for lunar missions or other large payload lifter.

Even if NASA were to continue with the Ares V, maybe the Ares 1 could be scrapped then...and the Ares 1 resources could go into Ares V to get it built and flying sooner?  That would be better than their current plan anyway, right?

What advantage is there to the Ares 1 vs. the Falcon 9-Heavy, other than it being an in-house design?  (partisanship aside, looking for a non-partisan answer)


Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8088
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 568
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #76 on: 01/14/2009 07:37 pm »
]
Fair enough, I assume the Saturn Rockets didn't need it because it was kerosine/LO2 fueled rather than LH2/LO2 fueled?
Only the S-1C and S-1/B stages were kerolox. S-II and S-IV/B were hydrolox. And the S-IVB had it's foam insulation on the inside, not the outside.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6813
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 597
  • Likes Given: 367
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #77 on: 01/14/2009 07:41 pm »
kraisee link=topic=15541.msg354141#msg354141 date=1231913551]
I understand the ET won't leave LEO, but it was never designed to carry a load that would like it will be used for now.
Like I said, maybe it's not a major obsticle.  Just pointing out some  other consideration that people might not be thinking about, especially when they all get excited about their own ideas.

So you think people, which are working on DIRECT project for 2 years now, somehow "might not be thinking about" whether it is feasible of making ET-derived tank to support this weight.

Surprise! They did think about it, and found out that it is possible, and not even hard.

Easy mater! :)

Many of us have been over this question before, but Lobo's question *is* still a valid one for all those folk who weren't here 6 months ago -- or 24+ months ago.

We have spent a great deal of time investigating the procedures, facilities and design involved in converting the ET into a Core Stage.

Back on the old Thread 2 I posted a link to one of the many hundreds of documents about the NLS -- a system which bears a lot of similarity to Jupiter.   That document certainly requires updating, but it shows precisely how MSFC wanted to perform precisely this sort of modification to the ET back in 1993.   The document is part 1 of three, making a complete set of Trade Studies which were together, completed within the 9 month period from May 1991 to January 1992.   This was the "Structures" book.   The other two parts of the set are Avionics and Systems and Propulsion.

Our small group has been gradually trying to update this study and create something similar for Jupiter.   We're in a position today where we have plans for implementing the first DAC and have almost got a fully-integrated baseline design ready to enter that process "running" -- although we also acknowledge that none of our work will actually ever be used.   It will all have to be redone "officially" anyway, but we have at least helped 'clear the path' and we've already tackled a number of the hurdles so we know it can be done.

Without doubt, this is most definitely "rocket science", or perhaps more precisely "rocket engineering".   We (and I'm talking about our engineers, not myself here -- While I'm a quick learner, I've still got a long way to go myself!) are fully-aware of what's involved to get this right.

We do have the benefit that a lot of what we're proposing has its roots firmly in existing flight hardware.   But even with that advantage, nobody is claiming that this is "simple", "easy" or "minor" -- nothing in this business ever qualifies for those terms except when it is used exclusively a relative statement.

The design of any new rocket is a major effort, an engineering challenge, a costly endeavor and a careful balance of risk.   But, like with many things in life, there are comparatively easier paths and comparatively more difficult ones which can be taken.   We are convinced that DIRECT's Jupiter launcher represents a much simpler and less costly approach than the Ares duo.   We are also convinced that Ares is not fiscally responsible enough and that it will ultimately lead the way to joining so many other NASA projects which have been canceled prematurely due to cost.   It is DIRECT's hope to change direction before that happens and prevent the Vision For Space Exploration from becoming yet another wasted effort to reach for the stars.


The DIRECT approach attempts to reuse as much existing proven flight hardware, with the least possible number of changes, to create a new fiscally-responsible system able to perform the tasks which we are planning to do.

What we're proposing is still a major project.   Jupiter-120 is a $9.5 billion development program -- but that's roughly $5 billion less than Ares-I will cost.

Where we really save money though, is by removing the full development of the second launcher (Ares-V) from the equation.   We remove the need for another set of SRB's and the requirement for manufacturing and launch infrastructure for all that too.   Of course, we still need the EDS, but the total cost savings of re-using the Core of the J-120 again as the basis for the J-232 saves over $10 billion more in development costs.   That's some really serious money we're talking about there.


While I started out really simply some ~30-something months ago, the initial very rudimentary concept has been seriously fleshed-out over the last few years by the hard volunteer efforts of a group of experienced professionals from across the whole industry.   Today The DIRECT Team have a very mature proposal with a lot of substance behind it.

Ross.
[/quote]

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.

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.

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).

Perhaps it's not the perfect solution the DIRECT team would like to see, but it seems like it's -better- anyway.  Gets NASA back to the ISS much sooner to close the 5-year gap, and lessens the chance of the Ares V being cancelled because the Ares 1 gobbled up too many funds.
And the Falcon-9H basically does everything the Ares 1 will do, and it's farther along than Ares 1 is.  The Falcon 9 will fly this year, and the 9H next year.  Probably be ready before Orion is.
Also the J2X development wouldn't hold up crew launches in Orion, you wouldn't need it until a moon shot 8 years or so down the road.

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.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2009 07:48 pm by Lobo »

Offline bigfootindy

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #78 on: 01/14/2009 07:49 pm »
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but looks like new NASA leadership is on the way:

http://www.space.com/news/090113-obama-nasa-administrator.html

Anybody know anything about Gration?

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Liked: 540
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #79 on: 01/14/2009 07:50 pm »
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.

Consider reading part of those. Say, last 30 pages of thread #2. It's much smaller and the whole two threads, yet contains almost all questions you are going to ask. ;)

Tags: