Slashdot Mirror
Alternative Launcher For Returning To the Moon
DIRECT Launcher writes, "A grass-roots effort, based around a group of engineers, managers, and others involved in the US space program, is proposing an alternative launch vehicle for NASA to adopt for the new Lunar Exploration program. The new vehicle offers serious performance and cost savings totaling $35 billion over the next twenty years. The proposal was presented to NASA last week. The concept would make possible future Hubble Space Telescope servicing missions after Shuttle has retired, allow for all the remaining ISS elements to be launched after all, free up cash to fund the JIMO mission again, and also allow NASA to return to the moon three years early."
I notice there's a lot of talk for reusing orbiter (like DIRECT) and Apollo technology. Now, I'm all for reuse of facilities and technology, but I can't help but think that we're undercutting ourselves by not developing new technology and capability that will last into the future. It's as if no one ever wanted to develop further than 1920's cars, since they did the job 'well enough'. Is this going to cost us when, in three decades, the new vehicles are hitting end-of-service and suddenly we're stuck with infrastructure that is half a century out of date?
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
There is a decent argument of using it as a dry space-dock where we could build and launch deeper space exploration vehicles for less fuel costs.
That would be great... if the ISS were on a more equitorial orbit. As it is, it's on a rather inclined orbit, chosen to make it easier for Russian launches.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Who mentioned the ISS? They were talking about construction yards on the Moon.
As for the ISS, it's too bad that it's a political boondoggle. It's essentially worthless right now, but at least allows us to fly the flag. (Hey look! We got a Space Station!) Once the Ares V comes online, the ISS will be worthless, useless, and easily replaceable. Being able to launch 130 metric tonnes to LEO means that we could launch a complete ISS replacement in only two launches! It has taken 17 shuttle flights to get the ISS to its currently incomplete state. In that time, the hardware that's already in space has been deteriorating due to the difficulties in maintaining the build/maintenance schedules, and compatibility issues between American and Russian hardware.
If we wanted to fly JIMO, we'd take the money out of the ISS's budget. It's too bad that would effectively kill the Shuttle Program. Killing the Shuttle Program would mean political suicide for manned flight, which would lead to the implosion of the CEV program.
Stupid politics.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Everybody so far commenting is simply complaining about wasting money, cutting jobs, reusing old stuff, rebuilding new stuff....you are missing the most incredible part of their proposal:
70 metric tons to orbit base
98 metric tons to orbit cargo vehicle
This compares to the current shuttle lift capacity of 16+ metric ton.
Son, packaged correctly, you could launch the entire remaining ISS sections into space at one time.
This is simply reusing some very basic lift parts and redesigning some new engines for the base of the fuel tank. Probably some reinforcement to the tank too for the added weight on top. Some new control and piping to the top for the rest of the vehicle....
I frankly don't know how they plan to get that much more thrust and lift capability out of those SRBs and new engines...but if they think they can do it, I'd be inclined to support them whole heartedly.
Even if they only made half their expected lift capacity, it would still a significant improvement.
How about launching 4 or 5 GPS satellites and a spy satellite all on one mission?
How about building a moon base?
How about putting a decent sized nuclear reactor in space to provide unlimited power instead of relying on solar panels?
Tonnage gets you everything.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
I think added capacity is the simplest part to explain...
Removing the shuttle saves 68 tons for the thing empty, 108 tons loaded.
Add in the 25 tons that's the maximum payload the shuttle can lift, and it gets real easy to believe they can lift almost a 100 tons by redesigning the shuttle lift platform a bit to remove the need for the shuttle. You loose some tons because one of the things they have to do is move the shuttle's engines to the central tank.
There's no practical reason why we couldn't make a space station type module, or even a Bigelow one, into a satellite servicer with the addition of thrusters, which could be refueled by supply missions.
You don't do lab work in a 'shuttle', you do it on a station which stays up there. You launch and recover people using lighter and therefore cheaper vehicles.
I don't read AC A human right
The shuttle has an absolute lift power of ~120 metric tonnes. The fact that the majority of the lift power is used in lifting the Space Shuttle itself brings the maximum cargo lift weight down to ~25 metric tonnes.
Why wouldn't the 130 metric tonne to LEO Ares V do the same? With the DIRECT, you could finish the Space Station. (A useless piece of junk in the wrong orbit.) With the Ares V, you could launch a new one in only two flights.
All these technologies are "shuttle derived". Which means that the Super Booster capabilities of the Shuttle are separated from the Space Shuttle vehicle, and placed into a more traditional stack. Through the use of more engines and staging, NASA plans to launch more absolute weight with the Ares V than the Shuttle can launch today. The DIRECT would actually scale back the absolute weight.
The Ares has an upgrade path (read: even more tonnage per launch) through the development of better engines. The DIRECT design anticipates those engines, and demands that they be manrated before they are ready. Which should raise a lot of red flags.
Basically, the DIRECT design stands out as a beautiful paper concept. It all seems to come together into the perfect solution, but ignores the realities of the situation. More likely than not, we'd never get a craft off the ground if we went with the DIRECT design. Warts or not, the CEV is the pragmatic solution. We need to follow the program through to conclusion, and not get distracted by the paper ideas that jump out at us.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm worried about the SRBs. Once upon a time, a rocket you couldn't shut off in an emergency was considered bad for manned flight. "The DIRECT approach calls for a single launch vehicle, based on the very reliable and already man-rated 4-segment Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) used on the Space Shuttle today", they say, describing a system with one total loss of vehicle and crew on its record and at least one near miss.
Got a link? The last plan that NASA announced was to launch the Lunar Lander + Moon Booster as cargo, then have the Orion dock with the lunar module. This was what was shown in NASA's presentation video. This plan did NOT call for the Ares-V to be man-rated.
If that's changed, then you should probably update the Wikipedia Info on Project Constellation. Remember to cite your sources.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
As this system is intended to replace both Ares vehicles - the cargo variant is not optional, it's a requirement. (Their own proposal and examples show the cargo variant as part of the mission architecture.)
They won't end up identical - I'd bet large, large, sums of money on it. The requirements of the two vehicles demand they end up not identical. NASA man-rating requirements alone will cause a drift between the two types - which will be further emphasized by the different performance requirements for each type.
Seems to me that the Direct proposal could initially use SSMEs, then upgrade to the RS-68s, later.
Also, FWIW, the military commissioned the Titan IV as a backup to the shuttle - one of the available payload shrouds is designed to accept even the largest shuttle payload. I do not know if a Titan IV launch would be too harsh for ISS modules, but, so far, the military has not permitted civilian use. I do recall, however, that the Artemis Project had a proposal to use a pair of Titan IV launches to get the 2 halves of their spacecraft into orbit.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
For women's shoes the standard unit of measure is the Imelda. In your wife's case that would be a bit over 2%.
(My wife and her friends refer to anyone with more than about .025 imelda as a "shoe whore", a term they don't seem to consider in any way uncomplimentary.)
Yeah this post seems off-topic, but what the hell, it's a math post, and math is pretty important to celestial navigation!