Slashdot Mirror
DIRECT Post-Shuttle Plan Pitched To Obama Team
FleaPlus writes "Popular Mechanics reports that a 'renegade' group including NASA engineers has met with President-Elect Obama's space transition team to present information on the DIRECT architecture for launching NASA missions after the Space Shuttle is retired. According to the group, DIRECT's Jupiter launch system will be safer, less expensive, better-performing, and be ready sooner than the Ares launch system NASA is currently developing, while still providing jobs for much of the existing shuttle workforce. Meanwhile, it's expected that current NASA head and adamant Ares supporter Michael Griffin will be replaced by a new NASA administrator."
The Direct Launch approach, which you can look at in detail here at their website sounds like some people are trying hard to come up with a smart solution, but it isn't clear to an amatuer like me how the current safety issues of the Shuttle would be avoided. I guess maybe because there is no Shuttle for falling foam to hit, for one ?
And yeah, Griffin does come off as a real jerk, esp. when discussing the Shuttle accidents.
A group of renegade space vehicle designers, including NASA engineers bucking their bosses, today got their chance to make their case to the next presidential administration.
So, they ride Harleys and put pocket protectors in their leather jackets? Their calculators say "Bad Mother Fucker" on them?
See what happens when you use hyperbole in descriptions?
That when they hear the name of the head of NASA they think, "Isn't that the guy who created Jeopardy?" (Admittedly the way NASA is run that would actually make sense.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Of course DIRECT is "cheaper, quicker and safer" than Ares - because it is a paper project. All projects are cheaper, quicker, safer, happier, and will make your cock bigger etc etc until someone tries to implement them.
If any of the problems of developing a SDLV that have plagued Ares so far occur for Jupiter, then switching at this point will be a false economy.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
We seem to be really good at wasting money on Wallstreet and Auto bailouts (700 Bl). Why can't we invest a fraction of this in NASA? At least we get to see big rockets roar off of the pad. Just wait until Obama and congress start blowing their wads on domestic spending (buying votes). NASA's budget will look like a piggy bank.
Conservative, mod down for violating
I love the idea of a space elevator. It would be a tough engineering feat to construct. I wonder how difficult it would be to build one that is on the moon rather than earth? How long would it need to be? Since there is no moon atmosphere I would presume it could be much less robust.
Inquiring minds want to know.
The article's illustration includes an astonishing statement regarding the two J-2X engines: "NASA says the extra engine doubles the chance that something will fail". Wow! Applying that logic would really simplify most of our jobs. RAID? Don't waste your money; all those extra disks just increase the odds of failure.
Whoever said that leaves us with a conundrum: Does he actually believe it, in which case his academic credentials should be subjected to very close scrutiny? Or is he lying deliberately in order to protect NASA's ability to concentrate on maximizing headcount and budget, in which case someone should fire him?
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
I'm not sure if you are serious, at least about space projects, but isnt it called an ICBM for a reason? ie: that's all its capable of?
According to the wiki, it might be good at launching some sort of weather balloon *really* quickly, but thats about it for its effective altitude.
That's part of it. Having the capsule mounted on top of the fuel tanks also tends to add extra safety. And because of the relatively low weight of these capsules, you can afford to stick extra safety equipment on them. The DIRECT folks are even talking about possibly putting a tank of water between the fuel tank and the crew module, in order to absorb blast and fragmentation. That has the added benefit of providing a lot more water for use in space than the crews would normally have.
The DIRECT system is estimated to have a Loss-of-Crew rate of 1 in 1100-ish, which is something like 10 times better than the shuttle fleet. It seems like a really good idea, but then IANARS, so don't quote me.
Then comes the Columbia disaster and the subsequent investigation which recommended that shuttle be retired by 2010.
In 2004 Bush announces the Vision for Space Exploration clearly defining our country's goal to resume our manned exploration of the moon and Mars.
NASA conducts an extremely detailed study into literally hundreds of architecture design alternatives known as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study. It is a fantastic report - read it here. The study rejects using EELVs (due primarily to safety concerns)and recommends a shuttle-derived re-using shuttle and Apollo technology across the two launch vehicles (then called CLV and CaLV). The recommended architecture becomes the basis of the Constellation architecture. (Which later replaces Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) on the CaLV with RS-68 engines and extends teh CLV from 4-seg to 5-seg (which was actually in the original trade space). This configuration was chosen as it was both the safest configuration as well as having one of the lowest O&M costs (particularly compared with alternatives that leveraged SSMEs more heavily.) NASA is finally on a path to returning to a capability beyond LEO as well as dramatically reducing its workforce with the looming retirement of shuttle a somewhat simpler to maintain replacement
Therein lies the problem... as retirement looms and irreversible decisions begin to be made (reconfiguring pads, not-ordering certain long-lead items for shuttle, etc..) that huge workforce of shuttle support finally realize what Constellation means to their job security. Without shuttle and its extremely complex reusable sub-systems, many of these people will be out of a job and their pet projects in jeopardy.
Not surprisingly, there becomes no shortage of personnel at Shuttle-oriented NASA sites who begin advocating against Constellation and for an extension of Shuttle. Adding to the detractors are of course the disgruntled "establishment" consortium of launch providers, ULA, advocating using EELVs. Then there are the Direct guys who are brilliant NASA engineers but this concept was in essence already considered in the ESAS study and deemed less favorable than the CLV approach.
Add to the mix the political baggage that comes with the program's genesis stemming from an unpopular president and the oncoming president's commitment to "change" at all levels of government and you have a perfect storm of opposition - much of it which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual merits of the current design.
People who have not worked on Constellation simply don't understand how much work has gone into it compared with any of the above mentioned alternatives. Of course they look good now. They have been studied by small groups of engineers for months. Compare with the thousands who have been working on Constellation for years. Despite what anyone says about their program being cheaper or faster - any change at this point will result in
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Going to the Moon with chemical fueled rockets is like building computers with vacuum tubes. Both were done 40-50 years ago. Where would computing be now if we had relied on building better vacuum tubes rather than investing in the research the lead to the transistor?
Both Mercury and Gemini spacecraft have been boosted into space by converted ICBMs (Atlas in the case of Mercury and Titan for Gemini).
ICBMs don't have enough oomph to do what's required here. They were built to shove comparatively light warheads halfway across the world, not boost large manned capsules to Earth orbit and beyond.
Furthermore, as their origin is such, their acceleration profiles aren't exactly comfortable for humans. Ask veterans of Gemini that rode on Titan-you might as well be a warhead-ICBMs
Having the capsule mounted on top of the fuel tanks also tends to add extra safety. And because of the relatively low weight of these capsules, you can afford to stick extra safety equipment on them.
Yes, the capsule designs have a Launch Abort System. It's the thing that looks like a tower at the top of the stack. It is a rocket motor that can yank the capsule away from the rest of the system if something goes terribly wrong.
I'm no expert, but on a general reading, it sounds like Aries was designed by people trying to meet the specs on paper and this was designed by people who know the astronauts and know what they're doing and want to protect the people and do their job -- not just meet the specs and make a profit.
But I have to admit, calling any spacecraft a Jupiter makes me uneasy. I'd risk a ride in the first one and anything from the third on, but there's no way I'd trust any vehicle referenced at all as the Jupiter II.
They can pitch all they want - Obama is going to shut down NASA anyway.
I'm not a rocket scientist, but after reviewing the various on-line resources for DIRECT and Ares, DIRECT looks like the *obvious* better way to go -- reusing (and/or slightly modifying) many existing components and facilities.
Perhaps the problem is simply that DIRECT is less expensive. As any pointy-haired boss will say, "where's the fun in that?"
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Just buy Soyuz.
Um, the Wikipedia article you link to mentions that the ICBM in question is suited for satellite launches, and even includes a link to the Minotaur article. What part of it were you reading that you thought didn't flatly contradict your assertion?
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Having the capsule mounted on top of the fuel tanks also tends to add extra safety. And because of the relatively low weight of these capsules, you can afford to stick extra safety equipment on them.
Yes, the capsule designs have a Launch Abort System. It's the thing that looks like a tower at the top of the stack. It is a rocket motor that can yank the capsule away from the rest of the system if something goes terribly wrong.
Why is it that I can't see that thing mentioned without immediately thinking that it will someday go horribly wrong by firing at the wrong time?
You can't take the sky from me...
calling any spacecraft a Jupiter makes me uneasy
On the other hand, naming a "civilian" rocket after a god of war makes me QUITE suspicious.
You can't take the sky from me...
The reusable launch vehicle that whose prototype was 85% assembled with 96% of the parts and the launch facility 100%? Only to be cancelled in 2001? Yeah, me neither. Oh, and it's all still there and Lockheed is still working on similar airframe prototypes, even going as far as successfuly testing 1/5th scale updated models? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-33 Why are we spending all of this money on Ares when it is riddled with problems like...say...shaking the astronauts to death on launch? Ares is a joke. If anything, we should just dig-up the Saturn V plans, take the best from it, and then build a craft that has 2009 technologies in it instead of reinventing the wheel. The whole idea of saving money by using the Shuttle SRBs has been completely negated by the fact that the ship built on that concept is a complete clusterfuck and is costing more than if we had just started over from scratch.
Of course, its' name could have come from something more benign. Like, say, a celestial body somewhere deep in space.
Or in our own solar system.
Because it will have to carry payloads far greater than satellites, most satellites are about 1,000KG or less, when a suitable replacement for the Shuttle, needs to be able to deal with 10,000 to 25,000KG (22,700KG is what the Shuttle can carry).
As an example, Hubble, is 11,000+KG, how exacly would you plan on getting something like that up there with some ICBM's?... strap 10 of them together?
I'm no expert, but on a general reading, it sounds like Aries was designed by people trying to meet the specs on paper and this was designed by people who know the astronauts and know what they're doing and want to protect the people and do their job -- not just meet the specs and make a profit.
But I have to admit, calling any spacecraft a Jupiter makes me uneasy. I'd risk a ride in the first one and anything from the third on, but there's no way I'd trust any vehicle referenced at all as the Jupiter II.
First of all, you have no idea how bad it is that Ares has been designed to spec. So much so that with problems in the basic design of the Ares I, rather than trying to fix the problems they are shaving off payload mass and forcing a redesign of the capsule. Ask about the "pogo stick" problems (where the main engines give an incredibly bumpy ride... much worse than the Saturn V ever did). I'm sure a couple billion dollars will eventually fix the Ares I rocket, but for that price they might as well do a fresh "redo".
The Falcon 9-Heavy is going to cost for its full development a fair bit less than $1 billion... and that rocket completely financed through private (not government) funds. Furthermore, the Falcon 9 is quite a bit closer to getting ready to fly than the Ares I. Yes, I do consider this at least comparable to the Ares I in intention and purpose... with the Falcon 9 having a much larger safety margin in terms of launch capacity and room for improvement to achieve proper man-rating.
As for the name Jupiter, this is one with a decidedly interesting history in terms of rocket history, including the Jupiter-C rocket that was designed by none other than Werner Von Braun himself. I call that a heritage to at least build off from and help to inspire the next generation of rocket builders.
SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is supposed to have engine-out redundancy "at any stage of flight". The Saturn V rockets apparently also lost engines and completed missions. However, that doesn't help if the engine fails in a more spectacular way than just spluttering to a halt...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Greek Ares is Roman Mars. As in Mars the Red Planet. In fact, the Ares V is big enough to send manned missions to Mars. Just don't tell anyone in congress though, or else they will get into a fit.
Ares I is an abortion, and Ares V is being made without specific applications in mind. With the specs changing so often, I doubt either will ever fly.
Why, oh why, did NASA drop funding for SLI which was supposed to develop new generation staged combustion engines? Developing new engines is the first step in developing any new space transportation system. If we had RS-84, or something like it, it would change the game. We need to develop technologies for reliable and cheap access to orbit dammit, not gigantic White Elephants made of old tech, that is fitter for launching nuclear warheads than people.
Then there is the fact that they dropped landing, like the Russians have done for yonks, in favour of dropping into the ocean. What a retrograde step! If they couldn't make the stupid air bags light enough, they just needed to add retrorockets like the Russians. That capsule is too damn big anyway. They should shrink it into something that can fit an EELV.
Greek Ares is Roman Mars.
Thank you, Captain Obvious!
You can't take the sky from me...
Until recent times, they could not even create a decent web site. Unable to be read by even Google. I noticed that I could not use either Linux firefox or konqi to read their site. Says a lot about their engineers if they are able to design something as simple as that.
With that aside, the one thing that bugs me about Ares * is that Ares I is in the same class as many other launch vehicles, while Ares V is the absolute monster. OTH, Direct starts with a 50% bigger launch vehicle over the ares I, and then moves up to 2/3 of the Ares V. It is possible to actually move later from the Jupiter 232 to something bigger. Basically, the idea fills more of a missed void. Interestingly, it still leaves open the use of Spacex/Orbital. The reason is that both of these will be MUCH cheaper to run than the jupiter. In addition, it is POSSIBLE for Musk to still pursue a Ares class or bigger @ a cheaper costs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why are we spending money on manned spacefligtht that will be ready in 15 years when if we wait 50 years, we won't be men anyway?
Apollo 18's Saturn V was used for Skylab, and the last one ended up as a lawn ornament
Caution: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye.
the NASA Transition Team should know the TRUE STORY of the (FAST-SLV-like but FOUR months LATER) "Direct" concept: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/033directstruestory.html