- Jan 13, 2008
- Reaction score
- Atlanta, GA, USA, North America
Looks like several advocates got to pitch DIRECT to the transition team. Don't know what will come of it but still...
:: 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.
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).
I think a simple stick-like rocket still is the best choice to launch Orion frequently for LEO 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
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.