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?
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?
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
Both Mercury and Gemini spacecraft have been boosted into space by converted ICBMs (Atlas in the case of Mercury and Titan for Gemini).
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?
The problem is that despite of decades of effort, they still haven't figured out how to get nonzero thrust out of solid-state rocket engines.
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.
We have, but thrust is currently too low for manned missions, For example:
I wouldn't call any of your examples "solid state", in the electronics sense the parent jokingly suggested. They're all basically very large vacuum tubes without the tube.
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. . . .
Because you're being a silly bugger?
Do you have the same fantasies about ejection-seat systems? Or aircraft fire-suppression systems?
If I were you I'd be more worried about your airbag going off in your face while you're booting along at 90mph, shaving, and drinking a coffee all at the same time.
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.