How Would We Know if Direct was Chosen?

[J.McDonald]

This may sound like an odd title for a thread but bear with me!
As the Ares designs have evolved, so too have those of 'Jupiter', all part of the natural cycle of change that comes about as new things are found out, whether they be related to costs, performance, or simply taking another look at something and finding a slightly better way.

Because the Ares and Jupiter vehicles are but different flavours of SDLV- different points on the same spectrum- there seems to be a very real chance that whatever architecture emerges from the current talking might simply lie on a new part of the spectrum.

It seems to me highly likely that if a vehicle emerges which is a carbon copy of neither one of the Jupiters nor of an Ares, then both 'camps' could claim victory. So I'd like to pre-empt this a bit by laying down some parameters, and please feel free to challenge these or add your own.

I will consider the architecture to be 'Ares' if:
- it is POR (obviously)
- it includes a vehicle with an all-solid first stage
- it utilises more than five engines on the core
- it utilises a core of more than 8.4m diameter

I will consider the architecture to be 'Jupiter' if:
- it uses an 8.4m core
- it uses vehicles with only minor differences in configuration (this excludes core diameter changes)
- an US would be considered 'Jupiter' derived if it uses RL10 engines and common bulkhead

Thanks for reading

John

[Rick]

John, I do not disagree. One thing to keep in mind here I believe is that Jupiter is not the POR, as you say, which does not put it in the same reference as Ares. I think this is an apples and oranges discussion.

I say that with the most respect for the Direct guys, but I really don't think that NASA is even worried, nor even concerned about a launcher race at this point.

Sadly, the buck stops in Washington as to who determines what willl be the endpoint here, which worries me, as I personally do not believe those involved have the expertise to make such a critical decision.

I realize I did not specifically answer your question, but as I said, apples and oranges here.

Good to see you back!

[JimMcDade]

Direct is a scam. Are they on version 4.0 yet?

The genesis of that scam began with a borrowed, legacy concept that critics iteratively picked-apart, leading to a series of revisions based on the input of more knowledgeable outside critics who examined versions I and 2 and identified critical failings. A Boy Scout troop could have eventually developed a workable concept using the same methodology.

The Direct people never "owned" anything.

[Me2]

I will consider the architecture to be 'Ares' if:
- it is POR (obviously)
- it utilities a core of more than 8.4m diameter
- it includes a CLV with a single solid first stage

I will consider the architecture to be 'Jupiter' if:
- it uses an 8.4m core
- No single solid motor boosted CLV
- Two 4 segment solids in some versions of the vehicle

I have modified them and have them in order of importance

[J.McDonald]

Thanks for the replies!
Oh and Rick yes 've been a bit busy with other things... that and the generally depressing feeling I was left with at the end of the Augustine hearings made me close the lid on the laptop for a while. Hope you guys at KSC come through all this OK.

[Rick]

Things are iffy here depending on what one does. The ISS folks will get hit for sure in a couple months. I am safe for now, but that obviously depends where HSF goes. Some people I work with are becoming exasperated waiting for something, and many of them are just not paying attention to rumors that float around, as all so far have proven to be incorrect.

I've been here for about 15 years now, so no matter what happens, I've had a good run.