Rick
07-05-2008, 10:21 AM
(flatoday.com) A transportation system some claim would take America back to the moon faster and cheaper than Ares rockets would lack the propulsive oomph to get the job done and in the end would delay an effort to send U.S. astronauts back to the lunar surface, internal NASA documents show.
The contention that the so-called DIRECT architecture would save money and be safer lacks "supporting data and analysis" and the transportation system developed for Project Constellation is more suitable for NASA's envisioned lunar missions, the agency documents say.
"NASA has determined that the DIRECT proposal is unlikely to achieve its claims of improved performance, safety and development costs when compared to the Ares I and Ares V approach. In addition, the limited data available in the online DIRECT proposal do not support the claims of increased safety," NASA said in a summary you can see HERE (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/256922main_Direct_vs_%20Ares%20_FINAL_62508.pdf).
What's more, agency analyses show that "the DIRECT proposal would cost more than the Ares family in the near-term and also on a recurring launch basis," the report says. "Finally, the DIRECT proposal would take longer to develop when compared to the Ares vehicles when factoring in the extensive core stage development effort and associated acquisitions."
The DIRECT proposal was the result of a grass roots effort spearheaded by a model-rocket maker and purportedly supported by many NASA mid-level engineers and managers in an attempt to provide an alternate approach to NASA's plans for the Ares I crew launch vehicle and the Ares V cargo launcher, the later of which is a Saturn 5-class rocket that will carry Altair lunar landers into orbit. The idea is to replace the Ares launchers with a single universal launch system that would be derived from existing shuttle hardware.
You can read about the proposal by clicking HERE. (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.1.pdf)
NASA engineers and mission managers analysed the proposal and determined the the rocket system being offered up was not suitable for envisioned missions and that it would be in the nation's best interest to continue the ongoing Ares I and Ares V development programs. You can read the detailed NASA analysis by clicking HERE (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/257003main_NASA%20Performance%20Assessment%20of%20(DIRECT%202)%20Compiled.0702.pdf).
William Gerstenmaier, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Operations, told FLORIDA TODAY last week that the agency intends to "stay the course" with the Ares I and Ares V rockets and would be so advising Congress. He noted that all major Ares 1 procurement contracts had been awarded by the end of last year and that switching focus to another system at this stage would only serve to extend an anticipated five-year gap between the last shuttle flight in 2010 and the first piloted Orion mission in 2015.
http://floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=news02
The contention that the so-called DIRECT architecture would save money and be safer lacks "supporting data and analysis" and the transportation system developed for Project Constellation is more suitable for NASA's envisioned lunar missions, the agency documents say.
"NASA has determined that the DIRECT proposal is unlikely to achieve its claims of improved performance, safety and development costs when compared to the Ares I and Ares V approach. In addition, the limited data available in the online DIRECT proposal do not support the claims of increased safety," NASA said in a summary you can see HERE (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/256922main_Direct_vs_%20Ares%20_FINAL_62508.pdf).
What's more, agency analyses show that "the DIRECT proposal would cost more than the Ares family in the near-term and also on a recurring launch basis," the report says. "Finally, the DIRECT proposal would take longer to develop when compared to the Ares vehicles when factoring in the extensive core stage development effort and associated acquisitions."
The DIRECT proposal was the result of a grass roots effort spearheaded by a model-rocket maker and purportedly supported by many NASA mid-level engineers and managers in an attempt to provide an alternate approach to NASA's plans for the Ares I crew launch vehicle and the Ares V cargo launcher, the later of which is a Saturn 5-class rocket that will carry Altair lunar landers into orbit. The idea is to replace the Ares launchers with a single universal launch system that would be derived from existing shuttle hardware.
You can read about the proposal by clicking HERE. (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.1.pdf)
NASA engineers and mission managers analysed the proposal and determined the the rocket system being offered up was not suitable for envisioned missions and that it would be in the nation's best interest to continue the ongoing Ares I and Ares V development programs. You can read the detailed NASA analysis by clicking HERE (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/257003main_NASA%20Performance%20Assessment%20of%20(DIRECT%202)%20Compiled.0702.pdf).
William Gerstenmaier, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Operations, told FLORIDA TODAY last week that the agency intends to "stay the course" with the Ares I and Ares V rockets and would be so advising Congress. He noted that all major Ares 1 procurement contracts had been awarded by the end of last year and that switching focus to another system at this stage would only serve to extend an anticipated five-year gap between the last shuttle flight in 2010 and the first piloted Orion mission in 2015.
http://floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=news02