Ares or DIRECT?

[Orbinaut Pete]

So then, I thought it was about time we had a poll. A lot of people have been throwing opinions around lately on what NASA should do next, but let's see what the most popular ideas are

 

[T.Neo]

I'd say, the closest bet to having a non-Ares system is DIRECT.
However, it is my opinion that a much more shuttle-like system could be implemented.

I'd also like to see an extension of the shuttle.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'd also like to see an extension of the shuttle.

Using the Lockheed lifting body would be nice as addition to the CEV, but I think the CEV will use most LEO missions especially if it flies to the moon.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I'm straddling the fence between DIRECT and "Other." I realize DIRECT's the best bet as an alternative against Ares, but I'd really like to see them put the Orion on top of an EELV, especially the Delta IV.

 

[Kyle]

I voted other, IE EELV.

 

[Moonwalker]

I'm waiting for the Shuttle retirement since the 1990's already. I can't wait to see it replaced by AresI and Orion.

 

[astrosammy]

I would say other, use an EELV, that would be the cheapest option, so more money could be spent for Orion development.

 

[C3PO]

I'd say go with an EELV.
I'll say it again. IMHO NASA needs some kind of manned LEO shuttle like Kliper or Hermes. If they can't provide regular and reliable access to LEO, all the fancy new technologies will not mean anything.

When Ares/CEV was presented as the new lunar craft I was very excited about the whole vision of Moon, Mars and beyond. Finally we were going somewhere. But now I'm more disillusioned then pre Ares.

While I've no doubt that NASA has the engineering skills to go to the Moon, I'm afraid that they lack the managerial skill to make it that far.

 

[zerofay32]

Other. I think if NASA wants to continue with a two vehical program then why not put Orion on a EELV and focus on develping the second vehical to get to the moon. But I do like the idea that DIRECT has the potental for shuttle sized payloads for continuing construction in space. But I feel that putting Orion on a Delta rocket will close the gap after the shuttle progam is finally ended and leave room for other things to develop.

 

[SlyCoopersButt]

I'm in the EELV crowd as well. As long as it gets us to the station that's good enough for now and all we need until we have better ideas. Direct being second place.

 

[Arrowstar]

Same. Man rate an EELV and put Orion on top of that. No need to develop two new launch vehicles for a task we can clearly already do with an existing launcher.

 

[dougkeenan]

Diirect, for the win

 

[RocketMan_Len]

I don't understand why people seem to think it's a GOOD thing to ride what is basically a warhead on an artillery shell... :rofl:

Re-start the DC-X program... their prototype had gotten to 10,000 feet on a *regular* basis - the next step would have been a sub-orbital hop, leading up to a fully-orbital vehicle in the near future.

With all the outcry for a less wasteful society, it makes no sense to throw a perfectly good vehicle away after one use...

 

[Eagle]

I don't understand why people seem to think it's a GOOD thing to ride what is basically a warhead on an artillery shell... :rofl:

Re-start the DC-X program... their prototype had gotten to 10,000 feet on a *regular* basis - the next step would have been a sub-orbital hop, leading up to a fully-orbital vehicle in the near future.

With all the outcry for a less wasteful society, it makes no sense to throw a perfectly good vehicle away after one use...

Agreed. Fully reusable SSTO or TSTO (that can land at a spaceport, not just the ocean) needs to be the end goal. Spaceflight needs to become just as boring as an airline flight

 

[Urwumpe]

Agreed. Fully reusable SSTO or TSTO (that can land at a spaceport, not just the ocean) needs to be the end goal. Spaceflight needs to become just as boring as an airline flight

I wouldn't mind if it has one, two, three or three dozen stages. But the way into space should become boring - and the tasks in space exciting.

 

[cjp]

I don't know how to choose between DIRECT and Ares. Don't know why one makes more sense than the other.

Re-start the DC-X program... their prototype had gotten to 10,000 feet on a *regular* basis - the next step would have been a sub-orbital hop, leading up to a fully-orbital vehicle in the near future.

I'm thinking more and more the DC-X actually makes sense. I used to think the retro-rocket landing was terribly inefficient, and it probably is, but now I think it's probably only a tiny fraction of the fuel, and you save weight on the wings.

Now if it were possible to make a DC-X that could do the same trick on both Earth and Mars...

BTW I want a DC-X add-on. Where can I find one?

 

[T.Neo]

BTW I want a DC-X add-on. Where can I find one?

Yeah, are there any?

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah, are there any?

Not that I know - there are some DC-Y and DC-X like add-ons, but those have never been modeled yet. I remember I tried making a DC-X mesh early in my orbiter days, but failed like often that days.

 

[RocketMan_Len]

I used to think the retro-rocket landing was terribly inefficient, and it probably is, but now I think it's probably only a tiny fraction of the fuel, and you save weight on the wings.

Each vehicle has its' advantages. I prefer the variety of abort modes offered by a winged craft - plus, add a jet engine, and you have something capable of ferrying itself from landing-site to launch-site. :speakcool: There isn't a lot of mass-penalty, if you let the wings double as fuel tanks.

I recall seeing somewhere (can't remember where... ) that a vertical-landing vehicle required a deltavee of 500m/s for landing.

 

[Andy44]

We had a discussion once before about the advantages and disadvantages of VTOL vs. parachutes vs. wings. I remember sputnik saying that carrying fuel for a landing is no greater mass penalty than carrying chutes and rigging, nor is it any less reliable.

I'm not so sure, myself, capsule parachutes don't fail very often, but then again neither do most modern air-startable rocket engines. For a DC-X sized vehicle or larger, though, you can't carry both. Parachutes and rigging mass alot more than you might think, and if your engine fails to start on landing you're probably too low for back-up chutes to save you, anyway. If your crew is small, ejection seats might be a viable option for bail-out at low altitude.