Re: DIRECT question for Oberg, Simberg, Spencer, et. al.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:59:09 -0700, Frank <landings.geo@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Forgive me if this has been asked of the "experts" here already, but
I'm wondering what you guys make of the "DIRECT Launcher" proposal at
http://www.directlauncher.com/ (or http://www.directlauncher.com/Test_Site/
for their new site.) The AIAA-Houston August issue of "Horizons" also
has an interesting article on the project, available for download at
http://www.aiaa-houston.org/ .

As I'm sure you know, DIRECT is being promoted as an "open source,"
single-launcher alternative to Ares I and Ares V, and uses much more
shuttle-derived hardware (both flight and ground service) to loft,
they claim, some three times the payload of Ares I in DIRECT's initial
version; to do it several years sooner; and to do it at a savings of
tens of billions of dollars.

I must say as a layman that I find the financial, technical, and
political arguments of DIRECT proponents to be extremely compelling.
However, I am just a layman. Any thoughts on the matter from experts
in the field?

I'm no expert, but DIRECT seems to be a much more sensible way to go,
if NASA absolutely must build its own launch system yet again (which
it shouldn't.) The main argument against is the "two-SRBs per human
launch = double the chances of a catastrophic launch failure (versus
Ares I.)" Fortunately, the SRBs have been behaving themselves since
Challenger, so I'm not sure how serious an issue that really is.

Second, in another, now seemingly desperate attempt to shave weight
from the Orion CEV in attempt to save their anemic booster of choice
(Ares I) NASA recently dropped the requirement that the Orion land on
land.

No, it didn't. It looks as though they're leaning that way, but that
decision has not been made yet.

One wonders what a cash-strapped Defense Department thinks of
NASA committing it to billions in future expenditures field fleets of
splashdown recovery forces?

The land landing (there must be a better way to say that) would have
been at Edwards. If the Orion can make that precise a landing on land,
it should be able to at sea as well. Therefore, massive recovery
fleets aren't needed (and Apollo's recovery forces weren't enormous,
either... just usually one of the older support carriers.) A Coast
Guard Cutter will do. A big version of the SRB recovery ships (with a
helipad) is the likely choice.

I have yet to see any of this discussion make the mainstream media,
but with Ares I continuing to falter, I suspect we will.

There is only hearsay that Ares I is faltering. I'm in the "where
there's smoke, there's fire" camp, but really we're all just arguing
in the presense of a little smoke.

Brian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DIRECT question for Oberg, Simberg, Spencer, et. al.
    ... NASA ought not be building its own launch system ... Ares I/V is a dog and needs cancelled (remember the superconducting ... NASA recently dropped the requirement that the Orion land on ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares V: Launch Industry Game-Changer
    ... development cost of Ares V doesn't figure into the equation because ... The only way you can make a 10 meter core work is if you power it with SSMEs and take it directly to orbit where it will be incorporated into vast orbiting spaceports and spacecraft a la' Star Trek, and where the expensive reusable engines can be recovered and returned to Earth. ... Their Falcon I rocket would likely be the cheapest way to ... If you want a reusable heavy lift, your best bet is to use SSTO hydrogen powered cores with reusable engines, and hydrocarbon powered reusable boosters, where those boosters are recovered from the ocean or even better, flown back to the launch site. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
    ... Mostly because you've decided in advance that NASA shouldn't be in the ... launcher business no matter what. ... US law says they should not be in the commercial launch business. ... can easily replace Ares I. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Direct 2.0 space transportation system
    ... If Ares I and Ares V succeed, I'm sure Griffin is expecting to be remembered ... That's one of the DIRECT teams arguments for Jupiter. ... you need one Ares I launch and one Ares V launch. ... The Apollo CSM was seen as a multi-purpose vehicle from the ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Should "The Stick" be scrapped?
    ... we don't have to give our support. ... on Ares I, & Ares V we'll see launch vehicles used by NASA only. ... but I'd rather see evolved versions of them used to launch ...
    (sci.space.policy)