DIRECT Proposal Gaining Ground

Arrowstar

Probenaut
Addon Developer
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
1,785
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I guess we'll see if it had the desired effect soon enough...
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Obama's campaign mentioned change a lot, maybe we'll see a change from Ares to DIRECT.

Never liked Ares...
 

Missioncmdr

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
538
Reaction score
2
Points
0
We shall see what comes of this, but I am not going to hold my breath.
 

Piper

Orbiting Space Addict
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Donator
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Ottawa, Canada
:: crosses fingers ::

I'm hoping they decide to switch, DIRECT is much better (and cheaper) then Ares. If they do switch, I hope they also look at increasing the size of Orion's service module. As it is, it looks pathetically feeble.
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
:: crosses fingers ::

I'm hoping they decide to switch, DIRECT is much better (and cheaper) then Ares. If they do switch, I hope they also look at increasing the size of Orion's service module. As it is, it looks pathetically feeble.

How it looks is not a consideration. If everything it needs to do can be accomplished at the current size, why increase it?
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I can't imagine that operation of Jupiter 120 would require a lower budget than operation of AresI. NASA could run into the same budget mistake it did with the STS stack already. You get two boosters and a big second stage each time you want to launch Orion. And I believe that Jupiter 120 also contains more risc factors than AresI (more engines & hardware).

I think a simple stick-like rocket still is the best choice to launch Orion frequently for LEO missions. But Jupiter 232 could be a serious replacement for the Ares V, at least "optical". But I don't think that Direct would ever become reality, since we know what David King and other NASA persons think and conclude about it. But Direct might become a nice toy for space model kit fans, made by space model kit designers ;)
 
Last edited:

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,994
Reaction score
1,675
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
I can't imagine that operation of Jupiter 120 would require a lower budget than operation of Ares I. NASA could run into the same budget mistake it did with the STS stack already. You get two boosters and a big second stage each time you want to launch Orion. And I believe that Jupiter 120 also contains more risc factors than AresI (more engines & hardware).

Well, the good thing on DIRECT is the number of components, which are flight tested already. The Ares I is one big untested booster with big vibration problems, with a huge second stage, which is already now at the performance limits for the Orion spacecraft to the ISS.

And don't get me started on David Kings argumentation. It contains a huge number of prejudice, without even getting into detail. The Saturn V also overshot all initial requirements, when the Apollo program started. But in the end, the overshoot was molten down to a comfortable safety margin, not more. The undershoot argument on the other hand for the 232 is less easy to explain.

Gross performance for the two Ares I and Ares V launchers required for every Lunar mission is expected to be no more than 150,900kg (333,000lb). By comparison, two DIRECT J-232 vehicle, one launching Crew and spacecraft and the other launching mostly propellant, are capable of launching in excess of 220,000kg (485,000lb), including greater performance margin reserves.


The problem is only that the DIRECT Earth Orbit Rendezvous requires to dock the Earth departure stage to the LSAM+CEV stack. That is a change of requirements, which would be critical. But the DIRECT approach has one important advantage: The EDS stage can be launched inert, without requiring complex and still untested technology for keeping it ready for re-ignition until the Orion spacecraft arrives, and the DIRECT EDS could offer more performance as it's 110,000 kg are available to the lunar mission - the Ares V EDS has to be already fired for reaching orbit, and will arrive in LEO with less performance left.

The problem is: DIRECT is NIH. The safety of DIRECT is equal to the Ares proposal. And the cost savings of DIRECT are in the worst case, just minimal or not existing. And NASA managed to play on time long enough - 2-3 years ago, the situation would have looked better.

It practically is fair to say that it has no chance to become implemented. But if DIRECT is enough to make fire under the seats of the people who committed the crime called Ares (The Ares V is now planned to use 6 RS-68B engines - wouldn't be surprised if we get a new N-1 soon), it is worth it.
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think a simple stick-like rocket still is the best choice to launch Orion frequently for LEO missions.

I do too, actually, but I think that the Moon and Mars are much more pressing at the moment then LEO.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, I think that Jupiter 232 might be a good and realistical choice for moon orbital type missions. But I don't think it is a good idea to launch such a stack each time Orion has to be send into LEO, which I think will be more often than flying to the Moon if the ISS lifetime gets extended, but also in case the ISS becomes replaced later on (which is likely in the long term). The STS stack is good for lifting an 80 to 90 tons vehicle or lunar mission components. But for lifting Orion into LEO I still favor a simple stick instead.

Direct might be good to safe jobs and development costs. But I rather prefer a new and simpler system for Orion, rather than a kind of castrated STS stack, just to safe development costs for something new and simpler. But that's just my insignificant non-NASA Ares fan boy opinion.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,994
Reaction score
1,675
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
But I don't think it is a good idea to launch such a stack each time Orion has to be send into LEO

The Ares I is also a full scale launch vehicle and don't believe that it will be cheap. Also, I don't like large launch towers for small rockets - the larger a rocket is, the more expensive it gets assembling and launching it.
 

Orbinaut Pete

ISSU Project Manager
News Reporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
4,264
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I hereby 100% pledge my support for DIRECT.

Also, extend the Shuttle by 2 years to finish the ISS.

Problem solved:)


Man, NASA should hire me as administrator;)


-----Post Added-----


These have been my thoughts the whole time:

Ares I & Ares V were designed so crews could reach both the ISS & the Moon. NASA didn't want a huge rocket just to go the the ISS.

But with Ares I not flying until 2015, & the ISS planned to be ended in 2017, then NASA is developing an entire new launch vehicle to see 2 years of use.

Better I think to put all efforts into 1 launcher, that utilises existing, proven hardware. DIRECT could fly in 2013, so extend the Shuttle until 2012 to add a few more components to the ISS, say, 2 flights a year.

Don't forget, in 2015, ESA is planning to have it's own ATV manned capsule going to the ISS, plus there is Soyuz, H-II, Dragon. So why develop a new system to reach the ISS when there is more than enough NASA could hitch a ride on anyway? The ISS is, after all, INTERNATIONAL, so why each country needs their own launch system I don't know. Why not pool all international agency resources- NASA, ESA, JAXA, RSA, into making 1 launcher that can fulfil all the ISS's requirements until 2017, & NASA just concentrate on a Moon launcher?

For more info see http://www.directlauncher.com/


-----Post Added-----


WOW!

On the DIRECT website, they have even put a link in to DIRECT's development in Orbiter!!!

On DIRECT website, go to Media tab & see for yourself;)
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,994
Reaction score
1,675
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
So why develop a new system to reach the ISS when there is more than enough NASA could hitch a ride on anyway?

That kind of thinking caused more damage to the European spaceflight as anything else. "Hey, the USA have a space shuttle, let's kill all our own cool programs and become passengers!"

This killed first Sänger II (funding redirected to build the Spacelab, after the first successful engine tests), then Hermes. And it delayed any plans for a manned ATV into the distant future (still), instead of developing it parallel to the ATV.
 

Orbinaut Pete

ISSU Project Manager
News Reporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
4,264
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That kind of thinking caused more damage to the European spaceflight as anything else. "Hey, the USA have a space shuttle, let's kill all our own cool programs and become passengers!"

This killed first Sänger II (funding redirected to build the Spacelab, after the first successful engine tests), then Hermes.

I'm not talking about every agency running to NASA and saying "can we use your launch system please". What I mean is that every agency work together to make a new ISS launch system from existing parts from each agency. So the ESA could perhaps use it's Ariane, or some components of the ATV. It's a waste of time designing something that already exists.
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,402
Reaction score
445
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
Hmmm.... it'd be nice to have something before Ares I, but isn't Ares I going to have it's first flight this year?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,994
Reaction score
1,675
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
Hmmm.... it'd be nice to have something before Ares I, but isn't Ares I going to have it's first flight this year?

Actually not... the Ares I-X will fly... this rocket has almost nothing in common with the Ares I.
 

Orbinaut Pete

ISSU Project Manager
News Reporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
4,264
Reaction score
0
Points
0
These manifest's just about say it all:

Current Ares Manifest:
Manifest_Ares.jpg


Proposed DIRECT manifest:
Manifest_DIRECT.jpg
 
Top