Slashdot Mirror

Not sure if it made it to Slashdot or not, but the Constellation program (which was prohibitively expensive) has been scrapped in favour of a more affordable SDLV similar to DIRECT's Jupiter.

Let me try, using your timeline as a base (feel free to modify/copy/reuse):

2003: Space Shuttle Columbia accident

2004: Bush announces Vision for Space Exploration for sustainable human presence on the Moon starting in 2020 as testbed for Mars exploration and expansion into the solar system, calls for shuttle retirement in 2010 and replacement crew capability in operation by 2014, calls for commercial cargo/crew to ISS and no new launch vehicles developed unless absolutely necessary, NASA solicits plans from industry for best ways to achieve these goals

2005: Sean O'Keefe resigns as NASA administrator, Bush appoints Michael Griffin and gives him free reign with NASA, Michael Griffin throws out industry studies and NASA releases ESAS study which has NASA design two rockets in-house instead of utilizing commercial rockets (The Ares I and V, coincidentally based on old designs Michael Griffin came up with), ostensibly because they're "safe, simple, and soon" compared to alternatives

2005-present: Ares I development slips in schedule a year for every year that it exists, costs balloon from a few billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars, 2020 lunar date becomes increasingly unachievable

2009: NASA and White House appoint Augustine Committee, consisting of best and brightest from aerospace and astronaut community, to evaluate Constellation's progress and come up with options for future of
human spaceflight at NASA; they release a report presenting a number of viable options for NASA's beyond-Earth exploration plans

February 2010: White House calls for boost to NASA's budget (but not as large as Augustine Committee presented) releases plan similar to Augustine Report's option 5B, calling for investments in commercial crew and long-neglected space technology and cancellation of Ares I, delays building of heavy-lift launcher until 2015 since it won't be needed until then; a lot of congressmen in space states freak out

March-July 2010: lots of back and forth discussion and congressional hearings, Armstrong and Cernan come out against White House Plans, Buzz Aldrin comes out in favor; NASA scales back Ares/Constellation program without congressional approval, ostensibly to comply with termination liability laws

June-July 2010: NASA announces a bunch of new space technology initiatives (contingent on White House funding plans coming through), including new Centennial Challenge prize competitions (Nanosatellite launch, night rover, and sample return robot challenge) , revived NIAC to research experimental concepts, in-space technology demonstrations/missions utilizing in-space refueling, inflatable modules, electric propulsion, and inflatable reentry shields, all launched on existing commercial rockets

Today (July 15): Senate comes out with compromise bill, adding 1+ shuttle flight using existing equipment (no backup rescue shuttle if there's a problem, though); immediate development of 75mt shuttle-derived rocket quite similar to the one proposed by the DIRECT project, more commercial crew, robotic precursor mission, and space technology funding than 2010 but much less than Obama requested (over three years $1.6B vs. $3.3B for commercial crew, $244M vs. $1.33B exploration robotic precursor missions, $2.1B vs. $8B space technology development/missions); White House and Congress potentially both support the compromise, though

This potential bill means congressional support behind a Direct version of a shuttle replacement or something close enough not to matter. Direct is a design to replace the space shuttle with a rocket that puts the cargo and capsule on top of the tank, and moves the shuttle engines on the bottom of the tank. Without having to lift the load of the space shuttle itself, the rocket gets 77mT of cargo to orbit.

Re-using all the major shuttle components provides the cheapest possible option for a Heavy Lift Vehicle, not to mention the quickest, as a Direct design could be flying by 2013. The current plan from the administration doesn't even decide on a HLV design until 2015, let alone start the process of building and testing it. This is not a barrel of pork. Yes, somebody will make some money, but this is the cheapest option at the moment to keep a US heavy lift capability in the near future, and it will be built here in the US.

Current US lift capability stops at only 25mT in the Shuttle cargo bay to Low Earth Orbit. By funding a Direct style vehicle, we get a minimum of 75 mT to orbit without a second stage. This a very good thing. With further development of a second stage, the payload capacity increases to 115mT+. Not only that, but by putting the payload on top of the vehicle, a direct style rocket can support a payload as wide as 12m across (shuttle can only do 5m). So we get the ability to send more per launch and save over the life of a large project. For example, five flights of Direct would have been sufficient to build the ISS, versus the 40 shuttle launches it actually took.

By re-using the same engines and boosters as the space shuttle, we save billions (maybe $10 billion over time) in research and launch facility changes necessary for other designs (Ares would have required 2 new pad designs and new crawlers at a $1 billion a pop). The cost per launch for Direct will be less expensive as well. For comparison, recovery of the shuttle SRB's, refurbishment of the shuttle and launch costs per launch have averaged out to about $1.3 billion per launch. A Direct will cost somewhere north of $200 million for the launch vehicle, plus operating costs, but won't include refurbishment or recovery operations. For the immediate future NASA says it will launch the last shuttle in 2011, and after we'll be paying the Russians $20-30 million per seat for rides in a Soyuz

We save time in that we can have an un-manned cargo version of the vehicle doing test flights by 2013, whereas the engine testing alone for a liquid-fueled booster would take 5 years by the current plan. as all the parts are already man-rated (save for the modified ET), we could be launching Orion capsules on a Direct as soon as the Orions finish development in 2015 or so.

If this passes, I'll be one very happy space fan.

There is a third, that Constellation was a failure due to engineering issues from the get-go without a huge budget-up. But that the mission can be done on the budget that we do have.

That argument is called DIRECT, as in Directly derived from the shuttle stack. It is an evolution design, which was originally proposed in 1978 and always kept on the back burner should the need arize for heavy lift, which a lunar mission all but demands. It has already passed through qualifications, all of the components exist now (unlike Constellation which was all-new) and we can have it flying within 36 months according to the engineers as well as the contractors involved. And that is the conservative estimate.

http://www.directlauncher.com/

The cheaper alternatives end at the ISS.

Boy are you misinformed! DIRECT's plan is for the Moon, Mars, and Near Earth Objects, with commercial craft doing ISS resupply. By making use of the current shuttle systems and infrastructure (as Constellation was *supposed* do do), they eliminate large chunks of costly development. There's no need to develop new engines when there's half a dozen SSMEs in stock and paid for, and an assembly line and trained workers already in place. There's no need to develop new solid boosters when there's already several in stock and an assembly line and trained workers already in place. There's no need to continually having to re-design the Orion crew capsule to make it light enough to fit on an anaemic ARES-I, a Jupiter 130 can carry two fully loaded Orions with payload capacity to spare.

Constellation would have cost $10billion for ARES-I and $25billion for ARES-V, $35Billion in total. DIRECT would have cost $8billion for the J-130 and $4billion for the upper stage to turn the J-130 into the J-246, a total of only $12Billion.

Soyuz is the most reliable manned spacecraft and it has direct roots all the way back to the start of the Soviet space program.

Which is what happens when you build a 'platform' and then continually develop it, which is what *should* have been done with Apollo.

To give an example of similar complexity (and whilst I'm not an aviation expert) it's hard to imagine the original 747's released continued to the latest model 747 without any improvements to their systems. When I say 'systems' I don't just mean aircraft systems but ground support 'system', repair procedures fault identification etc.

Now I know that much of the launch vehicle, in Apollo's case, ended up not being re-used when compared to a 747 or the Shuttle but my point is that the ongoing development of the *platform* is what is important. I'm certain that a 2010 model Apollo, had it's development continued, would be every bit as reliable at Soyuz. Now if we accept the design mistakes of the Shuttle and had ground systems that could better mitigate those problems what would a 2010 model Shuttle look like. The answer is, pretty much the same - just more reliable.

This is my frustration, as a keen observer, with the current space proposals. Why isn't choosing Shuttle derived system like Direct a viable option as a platform that has already been invested in? I know that there is a certain degree of politics involved but if that remains the key driver in these decisions then the entire space program will pretty much be over with the retirement of the Shuttle.

I feel this cynicism because if it takes another decade to have a human space program many of the people who have learned the valuable experiences will no longer be involved, this cycle will be repeated and the space program will remain one massive pork barrel.

The Constellation program was supposed to re-use as many of the space shuttle components to design and build launch system to get us back to the moon. The Program of record was severely flawed in several ways-

1. $20 billion already spent since 2005 with just 1 test flight (and nothing flew on that test that would have flown operationally)
2. $3 billion a year for the next 8 years for more development before the system was ready for a moon shot
3. 2 separate launch vehicles, with completely different stages, engines and boosters, none of which came directly from the Space Shuttle.
4. The Ares 1 didn't have the lift capability to loft the Orion, and the Orion had to lose capability in an attempt to make it lighter
5. The Ares 5 was so heavy and big, that all of the launch equipment (lauch towers, crawlers, VAB, etc) had to be rebuilt, costing billions
6. Most damning was that serious safety issues exist with the crew launch vehicle ARES 1 (dead zones, Thrust Oscillation) which haven't been solved

I'm all for going back to the moon and the US creating a Heavy lift Space program under NASA's guidance. But Constellation is not the right program.

I'd be all for something along the lines of DIRECT heavy lift system to continue the US presence in manned space flight.

You do realize that the plans were unworkable, the designs flawed, and the very engineers for them introduced alternative designs which could be produced sooner/faster/cheaper. Look up "Ares V Base Heating Issue" sometime.
The management at NASA and the special interests behind key areas kept pushing for Constellation due to it's huge R&D budget, despite the laws of physics which stated that it would never work with the designs as/is. And Obama pulled the plug on the dead-man-walking. It was obvious 5 years ago that this would happen, which is why NASA's engineers "moonlighted" and introduced the DIRECT launch design.
Here is what they proposed. It could be ready from approval to launch within 36 months, as it is based on existing technologies *and* it has already passed PDR. If it looks familiar to you space nuts, you might remember it as the Regan-era National Launch System. Now it is called Jupiter.

The article from the "Orlando Sentinel" is just a bit slanted. Perhaps things aren't as bleak as that article and the summary suggest.

If we lose Constellation, it doesn't follow that the Manned Space Program is gone- just that we can't afford Constellation. See the Augustine Commission's report that claims that Constellation will only work if we give it another $3 billion a year. And this would have been for a program 5 years behind schedule, with no real test flights and several significant safety issues that haven't been resolved as of yet.

So what alternatives does the Obama administration have to look at? Well, as the article notes, Nasa will look at other heavy lift launch designs and come up with a plan to use one of those to replace the Ares V. As the Ares I was for Crew only, Nasa will look at the commercial launch vehicles such as the Dragon that we can use to ferry astronauts to the ISS and back. Nasa will get $200-300 million more a year to look at the new designs. This seems like a reasonable idea. We'll use commercial space services to lift the light stuff, and let NASA design the expensive, heavy lift vehicles.

The other point made in the article is that a new program won't be ready any time soon, implying that the new program would be starting from scratch. Given that Constellation wasn't going to be ready before 2017 at best, I'm not sure that we're going to lose any time we would have made up with Constellation. The other thing is that we won't be starting from scratch. Worst case, we start with the NLS review vehicle that NASA worked on back in 1993. Best case, we let those hard-working NASA engineers start with the DIRECT V3 proposal and get something up by 2015, a full 2 years before Ares would have been ready.

I like #10 the most, has the most symbology of the bunch without being a ra-ra or bemoaning the passing of the era.

I just hope NASA gets its act together and goes DIRECT before we loose those talented ground ops staff.

The existing Atlas and Delta-IV will be able to lift the Orion module just fine. Not only that, but Space-X's Falcon/Dragon vehicle will be ready well before then.

Of course, NASA always has the option of building an alternative launch system for a lot less money than the ARES craft. The beauty is that all of the engines are already built and tested, and the J-130 can loft about 30-40 metric tons of payload (say, an MPLM along with the Orion module.

This makes a lot more sense. Take the basic shuttle launch system, remove the orbiter, stick the engines on the bottom, put the Orion module on the top. There would be no costly engine development, as the rocket uses the same proven engine that has been launching the shuttle into orbit for the past thirty years.

Paper vehicles are always cheap, simple, and will be delivered on schedule and within budget. Real world vehicles, especially those for which the tankage and structure are virtually entirely new (like the vehicle you link to) are a rather different kettle of fish.
 

The J-130 (as its called) can lift the Orion module into orbit with ease. In fact, it could lift two - and not the stripped down versions, but the full featured Orions.

Assuming it behaves like a fantasy vehicle, where it's own weight never increases and payload and performance never decreases... sure. But I rather suspect if it ever becomes real, it will be like any other real launcher, and it's performance will be rather less than the original specs.

I am glad they are ditching ARES-I. The thing could barely lift the Orion module into orbit, and that's after lopping off all sorts of features (land landing, six person crew, toilet, etc). Then there were the thrust oscillation issues. A solid rocket does not produce a steady thrust. As it burns, chunks of the fuel can come loose and alter the burn characteristics of the engine as a whole. On the Shuttle, there was a flexible beam running through the external tank. The solids were attached to both ends of the flexible beam, and the orbiter was attached to the middle. They had to develop some sort of spring system for ARES-I, which didn't help its already weak lift capabilities.

This makes a lot more sense. Take the basic shuttle launch system, remove the orbiter, stick the engines on the bottom, put the Orion module on the top. There would be no costly engine development, as the rocket uses the same proven engine that has been launching the shuttle into orbit for the past thirty years. The J-130 (as its called) can lift the Orion module into orbit with ease. In fact, it could lift two - and not the stripped down versions, but the full featured Orions. Imagine being able to park one permanently at the ISS, as a lifeboat. The J-130, through the use of a module that mimics the mount points of the shuttle's cargo bay, could lift any payload that the shuttle could lift - including the Canadarm and an airlock for EVAs, something the ARES-I cannot do.

Because it shares so much of the shuttle heritage, the Jupiter system can keep the bulk of the current shuttle workers employed, especially if the current shuttle mission manifest is stretched out, or perhaps a flight or two added. The ARES system would leave a decade-long gap in some areas. Far to long to keep people around "polishing tools".

There are NASA engineers which have the solution, which can work even with a reduced budget. They call it DIRECT. Rather than sink tens of billions into R&D, they adapt the existing Space Shuttles systems into a launch vehicle. The Shuttles R&D costs were paid for decades ago. The new systems are well within the realm of "relatively simple" as far as rockets go. It could be ready within a few years, and can operate within even a reduced budget realm.

The alternative is to modify the Department of Defences EELV vehicles, Delta and Atlas, but we all know how much the DoD likes having their babies played with.

The problem lies in the size of the Altair lander that NASA wants to use not just for simple landing but long duration stays.

I don't know what that has to do with using the same vehicle, DIRECT, for a bunch of different tasks, manned and unmanned space flights or low earth versus high altitude orbits versus outer space flights meant to do different things.

Falcon

http://www.directlauncher.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Launch_Vehicle

The DIRECT system is a better option:
1) Most of the hardware is man-rated; unlike Ares

2) NASA does not have to retool manufacturing; unlike with Ares

3)Can be ready sooner with heavy lifting as an option

Why NASA is completely dug in on Ares is mind boggling. Orion, the capsule, is a go no matter what.

Also, the contractors won't really be affected: ATK would still make the SRBs, Lockmart would still manufacture the capsule, and Boeing would get it's money from being part of United Space Allaince.

Not the italian guy again ... Hey, Gaetano, DIRECT was NASA's idea in the first place (by about a decade and a half); See the National Launch System.

None of the DIRECT engineers or face people deny this fact. Thus, the only one who is falsely claiming ownership of the concept is you!

Did they say anything about ditching Ares and going to DIRECT?

NASA may not be the folks to do it. Right now NASA is working on the Ares program. It consists of two rockets: The Ares I and the Ares V. The Ares I is supposed to lift people into orbit, and the Ares V is supposed to lift cargo. NASA has this crew vehicle called Orion, which is meant to bring people to orbit, and back again. It sits atop the Ares I launcher. The thing is, the launcher is not powerful enough to get the Orion crew vehicle into orbit, let alone anywhere useful, like the International Space Station or Low Earth Orbit. So they've started trimming safety equipment and features to make the Orion lighter. The Ares rockets were supposed to be built with as much existing shuttle designs as possible. The Ares I is essentially an SRB with an extra segment, and a larger diameter. In other words, it cannot be made with the existing shuttle manufacturing facilities. Ditto with the Ares V. The fuel tanks are a larger diameter, the booster rockets are bigger, and the whole thing is so heavy, that they will need to rebuild the crawler, the launch platforms, etc. It may not even fit through the doors of the vehicle assembly building.

The Direct Launcher is a much better platform. At it's core, it is the same as the shuttle launch system. It uses identical SRBs, almost identical main tanks. It uses proven engines, and it can be made flight ready in less time than the Ares I. It has enough power to lift the Orion vehicle, including all of its safety gear, to the ISS, or to LEO. In fact, it can lift the Orion, plus an additional 20 tonnes of supplies.

I believe NASA is heading down the wrong road with the ARES program. It is definitely not the cheaper road. It is definitely not the safer road. It is a road that could set US manned spaceflight back by decades.

Well, since you asked...

The Jupiter is a straightforward evolution of the Shuttle system into a traditional rocket. 1) The Shuttle itself is removed from the stack. 2) The external tank is modified and strengthened to carry a payload on top and engines on the bottom. 3) The three expensive shuttle main engines are replaced by two expendable engines and moved to the bottom of the external tank. 4) A 10 meter payload fairing is mounted on top of the fuel tank, with a capacity of up to 20 tons of hardware. 5) The Orion spacecraft is placed on top of the payload fairing. 6) A crew escape system is placed on top of the Orion.

Now, that sounds complicated, but it is much simpler once you see the results: DIRECT Launcher.

What that gives you is a versatile rocket for placing a six man crew PLUS 20 tons of cargo at the space station in a single launch. This configuration by itself is almost a complete replacement for the Shuttle, except for the Shuttle's ability to return payloads to Earth. Or, the Jupiter could lift 50 tons of payload to LEO in an unmanned configuration. Ares-I can't do either of those jobs, now or ever. No existing or planned EELV can do that. Ares-V would be such a behemoth (if it ever flies) that it would be much too expensive to fly on a regular basis. That is why Jupiter-120 is more versatile than Ares-I.

The second phase of the Jupiter proposal is to add a second liquid rocket stage on top of the core stage, while at the same time adding a third engine at the bottom. That will enable the Jupiter to place up to 110 tons of payload in LEO in a single launch. For the lunar mission there would be two launches, just as for Ares. One launch would carry the Orion CEV and the Altair lunar lander. The second launch would just lift extra fuel and the upper stage. The Orion and Altair would dock with the upper stage, then use the upper stage to send them to lunar orbit.

Jupiter can also be used to launch exploration missions to Near Earth Orbit (NEO) objects, launch large scientific payloads such as really big telescopes, Earth recon sats, etc. Jupiter is small enough and affordable enough to be used on a regular basis, but still twice as powerful as any existing or planned commercial launcher (including SpaceX).

Because Jupiter is so cleanly derived from the Space Shuttle, it needs much less development money than Ares. In fact, the entire Jupiter project, including lunar capability, would cost less than half of what is planned for Ares. The Ares-I project is going to cost around $15 billion by itself, with another $16-17 billion for Ares-V. Jupiter is projected to cost less than $12 billion for both the initial LEO version and upper stage. This economy is possible because both versions use the exact same "common core", with only the addition of the third main engine and the upper stage to allow lunar missions.

So the whole DIRECT premise is to build a single new "medium" sized rocket from the Shuttle heritage, which can be used for Earth orbit and lunar exploration. Ares requires the development of two entirely new rockets, neither of which have much at all in common with Shuttle or each other. Jupiter can use most of the existing launch infrastructure, including crawlers, crawlerways, and the fixed portion of the existing launch towers. Ares-I and -V both require extensive modifications of the launch pads, and both launch pads will be dedicated to one or the other vehicle, since they are so different. And at this point, the Ares-V is getting so large that it may require completely new pads and crawlerways to be built.

Jupiter can be used with or without an upper stage. It can launch manned missions with or without payloads. It can launch payloads with or without crew. It can be ready up to three years sooner than Ares-I, which is actually planning their first manned flight for 2016. 2016! Jupiter will still take until late 2013, but that is because it has to wait for the Orion CEV to be finished.

And that's why Jupiter is more versatile, affordable, and sensible than Ares.

Griffin is dead-set on Ares because it is his pet project. He brought it with him from the university think tank that Bush pulled him from. It is not a good architecture, and even now NASA engineers are fighting basic laws of physics to get the thing to fly.

The ESAS committee rubber-stamped Ares because that's what Griffin wanted. It is not the best approach. Especially when they decided to drop the Space Shuttle Main Engine in favor of the RS68 engine due to cost. The RS68 is cheaper, but much less efficient than the SSME. Once they dropped the SSME, they should have convened another committee to re-evaluate all options using the RS68 numbers.

The DIRECT project is where we need to be. Check it out, check the numbers. NASA has been sitting on this for almost three years now. It's ridiculous.

www.directlauncher.com

Forgive the Chinese for using an old-school capsule for their first ever manned spacecraft, but the Russians at least are moving to a lifting-body design (the Kliper) with their Soyuz replacement program. They are planning to have the Kliper in service in 2015.

Even the newly-spacefaring Chinese are designing a 'shuttle' - it's known as Project 921-3.

So, yes, the Ares/Orion project does seem like a cobbled-together throwback using sub-optimal systems such as the solid booster as the primary engine. If we really wanted to re-use shuttle components the Direct Launcher proposal's Jupiter platform might make more sense as it retains the liquid/solid primary stage from the shuttle program but with more survivability and less complexity.

However, I for one prefer the lifting body approach proposed for Orion and adopted by the Russians. This allows more re-entry flexibility and landing profiles than does a capsule, and is far less complex and fragile than a winged craft.

The real possibility here would be a scrapping of parts of Ares in favor of Direct 2.0 or EELV based programs for lunar and mars missions. X-33 will not happen IMHO, due to COTS-based ISS crew rotation capability being much cheaper to develop.

Check out the Mars Direct proposal championed by Robert Zubrin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct.

Not only did it involve pre-setting equipment and habitats, it's launch framework was shuttle-derived, thus precluding a need for new (potentially troubled) launch system. Such a shuttle-derived system is reflected in the Direct proposal: http://www.directlauncher.com./

For my money, the whole Ares launch system is a waste of time, money, and effort, too. We could probably be on Mars in ten years if they followed the Mars Direct/Direct Launcher path.

Good point.

Moreover many of the problems that NASA is facing with the Constellation program are due to the stupid insistence of the current Administrator, Michael Griffin, with the Ares architecture with two launchers. In particular, Ares I it's a running joke between actual rocket scientists. NASA engineers have developed a cheaper, safer and faster alternative: DIRECT (the site includes hi-res images and videos).

The first thing Obama should do is replace Griffin and then do a real independent review of all the alternatives, including at least Ares, DIRECT and the EELVs.

Good point.

Moreover many of the problems that NASA is facing with the Constellation program are due to the stupid insistence of the current Administrator, Michael Griffin, with the Ares architecture with two launchers. NASA engineers have developed a cheaper, safer and faster alternative: DIRECT (the site includes hi-res images and videos).

The first thing Obama should do is replace Griffin and then do a real independent review of all the alternatives, including at least Ares, DIRECT and the EELVs.

Back in the late '70s I bought a book, published by NASA, that described the planned followons to the shuttle... based on using the Shuttle engines and launch system in other configurations, including a heavy lifter. This scheme was never followed through, but it should be.

There's a group of NASA engineers working on it again. They call it DIRECT 2.0.

Alternatives? Well, there is one huge one for starters:

http://www.directlauncher.com/

The DIRECT launcher is one that has been worked on by a number of years by some of the very same engineers who are working on the Ares vehicle. In fact, it meets the requirements of re-using existing shuttle components much better than the Ares, and doesn't even modify the SRBs (the solid rocket boosters) at all. Those are treated as commodities and used nearly in an identical fashion as they have been used on the Shuttle.

Another alternative: Falcon 9 Heavy This is being deliberately built with the goal in mind to become man-rated eventually, and will be making trips to the ISS on unmanned resupply missions. The first flight of this rocket (not the heavy variant but at least the Falcon 9) is going to be later on this year. The manned version will be using a completely new spacecraft as well, which SpaceX is calling the Dragon.

You also have suggestions of using a man-rated Delta IV-Heavy rocket that certainly has the firepower necessary for launching a manned vehicle, and one unusual suggestion was to use a Falcon 1 as the 2nd stage on top of an Atlas booster.

There are also dozens of projects that NASA has worked on since the Space Shuttle was originally laid down that you really just need to dig on both the official NASA website and onto space-related websites (or even "encyclopedia" websites) to find these plans. In spite of some actual hardware being built and billions of dollars into these programs, there is a huge graveyard of earlier attempts to build a successor to the Space Shuttle. Ares is just the latest example, unfortunately.

Will government manned spaceflight capabilities end in the next couple of years? Yeah, I think it will. This is something akin to the U.S. Navy being unable to send a ship out to sea because the ships fall apart before they can clear the harbor.

Private manned spaceflight in the USA looks considerably more promising, with about a dozen companies all at various stages of development that are all chomping at the bit to get a piece of the action. In other words, CNN and the rest of the news media will be on hand in space to greet future NASA astronauts in a congratulatory party when NASA actually gets it act together.

BTW, I've also suggested that CNN is going to cover the first NASA landings on Mars with their own camera crews that got there through other means. The more I read about things like Ares, the more I'm convinced this will really happen.

In some ways, I'm glad that NASA is throwing its surplus money into Ares even though it is a huge black hole sucking up any money you can throw at it. At the very least when these private spacecraft go on line, congress might just force NASA into buying tickets side by side with tourists. What an accomplishment from the agency that supposedly is on the leading edge of spacecraft development.

First of all, Mike Griffin is eager to kill the shuttle NOT because of the money that would free up (icing on the cake), but to burn bridges. You see, NASA was tasked by Congress with creating a new launch system utilizing as much of the STS infrastructure and components as possible, less the orbiter. This was to be a "Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle", or SDLV. The idea being that the US taxpayers have paid a boatload to develop this system, and that investment shouldn't just be thrown away like the Apollo and Saturn capability was. Making an entirely new spacecraft and launch system would cost on the scale of a new Shuttle or Apollo development effort. There is also the issue of the massive, post-Apollo style brain drain that would occur if NASA killed STS and started something entirely different.

The problem here is that Mike Griffin REALLY WANTS the Ares V BFR, but there is no way that America will pay for that, what with the deficits and war and all. Furthermore, the Ares I and Ares V share NOTHING in common with the shuttle Space Transport System (STS), other than perhaps the orange paint that is used on the shuttle's external tank and (maybe) the steel casings used to make the bodies of the Solid Rocket Boosters (the least valuable components and technology of the STS, btw).

Congress still thinks that the Constellation architecture (Ares I and Ares V) is shuttle derived. Griffin and his accomplices have been misleading Congress for years to keep them believing this lie. Congress is starting to ask questions, however, and if there is a regime change in the US (looks very likely), then it is very probable that the Constellation architecture will get a thorough independent evaluation by some outfit like RAND. This will expose the fact that Constellation is NOT shuttle derived.

So, what is the big deal with shuttle derived? "Perhaps", you think, "Ares is the best that NASA can do right now". Fact is that there are other architectures that more accurately reflect the mandate given to NASA by Congress. One example would be Shuttle-C. Another would be an architecture developed by NASA engineers and contractors while off the clock (an open source-style project, actually) called DIRECT. Direct would cost a fraction of what Constellation is projected to cost, have lower operating costs, and be ready to fly in two or three years. The money freed up could be used to accelerate the development of the Orion capsule and even do interesting things like expand the ISS or do another Hubble maintenance mission. The Direct architecture could even support (relatively) cheap crewed missions to Near Earth Objects, like asteroids.

Griffin is aware of these alternatives to Constellation, and internal NASA studies have shown that Direct, at least, is far superior to Constellation. Being a true Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle system, as long as STS infrastructure remains, Direct will be a cheap, quick drop-in replacement for Griffin's Big Freakin Rocket. As long as the shuttle exists, Griffin's BFR can be replaced by a real SDLV.

For this reason alone, Griffin wants shuttle dead ASAP. With all alternatives snuffed out, America will have no choice but to cough up the cash for his all new launch system, or so Griffin thinks. He is counting on no one noticing that Orion can ride to orbit on an Atlas or Delta Heavy.

Ares V will NOT get built (too expensive). If the STS is shut down without a reasonable (read: REAL shuttle derived) launch system in its place, NASA will experience crippling layoffs and a huge, post-Apollo style brain drain that will set America back decades in space presence.

The shuttle program needs to be kept alive until Congress realizes just how badly they have been deceived. The STS infrastructure and manufacturing capability and skill base needs to be maintained until its best parts can be rolled into a new, real, Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle.

Please give these guys a call http://www.directlauncher.com/

Which could be replaced with a single, less expensive, more flexible vehicle: http://www.directlauncher.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT Of course, IANARS, but the proposal looks quite reasonable, and the objections presented by NASA all look quite addressable. It would look like NASA is reluctant (understandably) to switch architectures mid flight, but as it is starting to look like the Constellation project might end up in disaster I hope they take a serious look at this alternative and make the switch to a simpler model based in proven technologies sooner rather than later.

With a corrected link directly to the story of the alternate program idea. What's annoying to me is this guy can't seem to make up his mind. FTLA:

But Cook said he is familiar with the Jupiter project, and he's not impressed. NASA informally reviewed plans for the rocket last fall and determined the idea to be a flawed scheme based on shaky numbers.

"It's not feasible. We said, 'It doesn't work' and moved on,'" Cook said.

Meanwhile, he said, work on the Ares I rocket is so far along that the first test flight is less than a year away.

So which is it? Is Ares doing jus' ducky, or should he start taking a closer look at Jupiter? Is this just another example of NASA bureaucracy at its worst?

Film at 11....

There is a cheaper faster alternative that NASA HQ would rather you didn't hear about, DIRECT. It involves using a reconfigured ET/SRB stack to make a vehicle called Jupiter 120 (one stage, 2 engines in the core, no engines in the second stage). It can service the ISS and other missions currently flown by the shuttle, with the Orion crew capsule with an extra 24mT (metric Tons) of payload (same as the Shuttle). It can be ready in 2012 just two years after the Shuttle retirement for far less money as it reuses the basic ET (External Tank) in a slightly different form (core), the current existing 4 segment SRBs (Solid Rocket Booster) and two already developed RS68 engines which just need man rating (a certification process). The Orion would be placed on top of a 10 meter high 8.41 meter (current ET diameter) wide fairing to hold any extra cargo required by the mission.

Lunar flights would be handled by two 232 Jupiters in a upgraded configuration (two stages, 3 engines in the core and 2 engines in the second stage) with the same SRBs, 3 of those man rated RS68s and a second stage using 2 J2Xs (another engine currently being man rated already). The payload fairing would be bigger to accomodate the larger LSAM (Lunar Surface Access Module) or the standard fairing for the EDS (Earth Departure Stage) needed for TLI (Trans Lunar Injection) burn like the Saturn V third stage did during Apollo. The Orion with its SM (service module) does the LOI (Lunar Orbit Injection) burn and the TEI (Trans Earth Injection) burn like the old Apollo SM did. The two Jupiter 232s would carry the Orion and all of the above into orbit separately and the Orion links all of the pieces together for the critical TLI burn. This could be accomplished by 2017 just seven years after Shuttle retirement even at a smaller budget than now being spent. An Apollo 8 type mission checking out the EDS could be done two years prior in 2015.

The Jupiter 232 could launch up to 100mT into LEO allowing for much larger ISS modules than the current Shuttle can do (20mT).

Here are some links for further information:

http://www.directlauncher.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT

Since the combination of Ares I a Ares V is so expensive that they are never to be built, a better alternative is needed:

http://www.directlauncher.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT

The Ares V is not being super-sized because it's the best way of getting back to the moon. This rocket is the result of NASA administrator Mike Griffin's desire to build the biggest mofo rocket ever built. It is so big, much of the Kennedy Space Center infrastructure will have to be rebuilt. This will cost billions more. The main fuel tank is much wider than the shuttle tank. This requires a new production line, transportation barge and infrastructure at the cape. The 'extended' solid boosters require extensive design work and are not cheap either.

Meanwhile, the Ares I is ,undersized. At every design review, it is struggling to meet the thrust requirements for getting the Orion capsule into orbit. The Orion itself is suffering as a result, having to be stripped back to the bones before safety systems are carefully added back in.

So, instead of designing two badly sized, expensive rockets that has almost no hardware re-used from the Shuttle, NASA could be building a direct evolution of that hardware. Luckily, such a design already exists. It's been proposed by NASA engineers twice in the past - after the fatal Shuttle accidents. The idea is simple: Retain the existing Shuttle tank and solids. Place engine on the bottom of the tank. Place a payload on top of the tank. This concept has been around for years, but today it's being promoted as DIRECT.

http://www.directlauncher.com/

lots of discussion here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.0

This architecture will meet all the lifting requirements for getting back to the room whilst being: Cheaper (by many billions), and Sooner (the 'flight gap' after shuttle retirement is reduced from 6 years to 2. This retains all the technical staff that would otherwise be layed off. A similar brain drain after Apollo did massive damage to NASA and we don't want that to happen again

I could go on and on. It is obvious that DIRECT is the better option. They are actively lobbying congress and have plenty of support within NASA. In fact, an internal NASA study found that DIRECT was superior to Ares in every way, but this study was squashed by management. With DIRECT, the next president can have astronauts back in space in his administration. But only if his NASA administrator cancels Ares and Chooses DIRECT.

There's an alternative to waiting 5 years after the final shuttle launch - check out http://www.directlauncher.com/ It'd be ready 2 years after the final shuttle launch and it would cost a heck of a lot less than Ares...

There's an alternative to waiting 5 years after the final shuttle launch - check out http://www.directlauncher.com./ It'd be ready 2 years after the final shuttle launch and it would cost a heck of a lot less than Ares...

Lets start with the fact that the prime contractor for the Ares-I is ATK, who provides solid rocket booster for the thing. What Boeing got was upper stage contract.
So many aspects of the technology are protected by ITAR, that no matter of how open you may want to make any other parts, its not going to be "open" in any traditional sense.
Plus, there is high likelyhood that Ares-I will never fly, because its ( again ) grossly over its initial cost estimates, falls short of any reasonable performance goals, and is not liked by anybody but few managers and select few policicans with certain interest areas, who are shoving this completely bass-ackwards technical solution to the launch problem down everyones throats.
Just look up the DIRECT launcher concept and the discussion surrounding it, and see what i mean. It was conceived and proposed by a group within NASA under the radars to provide a sane, working alternative to the Ares-I fiasco, way sooner and way cheaper, with performance to spare.
Ares-I is the reason why the NASA lunar return plans are late, underwhelming and underperforming even before they got off the ground, and may well be in danger of cancellation, post elections.

There's an alternative plan to the Ares-I which would solve all of the weight issues associated with the Orion capsule - it's called Nasa DIRECT: http://directlauncher.com/. There's a huge PDF with the proposal done by people from within NASA - it'd be faster, cheaper, and safer. It'd get us back into space by 2012 instead of the 2014/2015 timeframe.

Directlauncher is not my idea http://www.directlauncher.com/ Though the centaur derived EDS is my own invention I came up with after reading the specs on the RL60. Also the cluster of 3 rl60s is safer then a single J2 on the EDS because if the J2 fails to restart on the ESAS EDS you have 140tons of junk stuck in LEO that you must now dispose of . But if one of the RL60s fails to light or even has a bad failure like a burn through no big deal just do a longer burn with the two remaining engines. We just need to fire the Management at nasa as they are failing to to their job properly and are making one big mistake after another.

A brain dead simple answer would be to use direct launcher http://www.directlauncher.com/ as the crew launch vehicle. Direct launcher makes use of existing four segment srbs and existing RS68s plus it lifts 50tons in it's most basic form vs 25 for Ares I mass problem solved and 2 billion saved on Constellation. The only answer I can think of right now is the fire Griffin it's the only way to save the project. That or kill Orion outright and give all the budget to COTS type programs. I see no hardware for Orion yet but spacex is now building and testing falcon 9 and Dragon.

It's called DIRECT, which was created by people from within NASA, and would have flights ready by 2012. Read the proposal and wonder why we're not doing this - it almost makes too much sense: http://directlauncher.com/

For a look at a real community-driven effort to improve the way NASA will spend roughly $300 billion over the next 30 years on manned space exploration, please look at the Direct Launcher proposal by a group of NASA insiders, other aerospace engineers, and space enthusiasts. Send copies to your congresscritter, and your fellow geeks.

See http://www.directlauncher.com/ for the original proposal, and
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-vie w.asp?tid=5016&start=1683 for the current, very active discussion around this concept.

You're correct. There is nothing wrong with using big dumb boosters. It's even better if you can use the same ones that have flown on the shuttle for 25 years. They're wonderful rockets. There's no need to waste years designing slightly more powerful ones.

I'm guessing you didn't follow either of the links I posted. The Direct Launcher proposal re-uses much more of the STS hardware than Ares I and V.

I've been watching this very closely since before NASA officially announced the project. I firmly believe that Ares I and V are in trouble. This article isn't the first that has claimed there are big problems with using a single 5-segment SRB.

I submitted an article about the formation of a grass roots effort to fix the project before it goes any further in the wrong direction. Check out the Direct Launcher website. The project claims to have several NASA staff as founding members but they are remaining anonymous for now. They have prepared a study detailing the flaws in the current Ares designs and also propose a simpler alternative launcher more closely based on existing shuttle technology.

This isn't FUD. There are real, well thought out alternative architectures which can provide major cost savings. Check out http://www.directlauncher.com/

Check out the "DIRECT" proposal, headed by a non-rocket-scientist civilian with various NASA popellerheads anonymously providing engineering and budget analysis support. Will apparently save billions over NASA's current plans:

http://directlauncher.com/