DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[Andrew]

Bob,
That's not the case really. Although some elements of Congress applauded the decision, Lockheed Martin, was the culprit here. NASA did kill it. But NOT due to NASA negligence.

If only they had had a resin model rocket maker on staff, they could have avoided the entire headache!

-Andrew

[J.McDonald]

Not sure if I should continue this OT X-33 discussion, but I've heard interesting things about the project. Like top-down mandates to use composite tanks despite engineers suggesting use of aluminium which would have been possible and no heavier. There's also the wuestion about trying to squeeze lots of new technology into one vehicle- all it takes is one area to fail and the rest goes untested.

[Andrew]

Not sure if I should continue this OT X-33 discussion, but I've heard interesting things about the project. Like top-down mandates to use composite tanks despite engineers suggesting use of aluminium which would have been possible and no heavier. There's also the wuestion about trying to squeeze lots of new technology into one vehicle- all it takes is one area to fail and the rest goes untested.

J.McDonald:

Fine by me if you want to continue this discussion (I'll leave the final decision to Rick - grin).

I've got a bunch of powerpoint presentations from a design review for the X-33. When I find them, I'll post them on the site and will e-mail you directly with the location so you can download 'em!

-Andrew

[Rick]

Whatever works for everybody.

Let me know if This should be put in an X-33 thread, or kept here.

I'm open for idea's. This place is for you folks, not for me to dictate what goes where, what's discussed etc.

[jkumpire]

The shame about it is that right now everyone seems to be holding their breath looking until the election is over.

There are people who think the HST mission is a boondoggle, and another piece of pork for the MD Senators. If it puts a crimp in Ares I-X and moves it back a ton of time, it really stinks. If there is one flight with a time limit on it, it is this one. Right now Ares 1-X seems to be the battleground. If it goes off like the "Rocket's Red Glare", then Direct, EELV, and who knows what else is on the table.

I wish I understood why they need two pads in this case, is pad turn around time so slow that they can't roll out STS-400 within a day and have it ready to go? Is STS-125 meeting up with the HST on day 2 or day 3? If it is Day 3, then why can't they roll STS-400 out there, say two days after launch, take a day to complete check-out and then be ready to go? Even if fueling of the orbiter takes a while, there has to be some way to make the schedule simpler, and allow the Ares folks to work on 39B so 1-X can go soon.

But, back to the real reason for quiet, IMO, it is the election. It seems to me that Direct and EELV supporters think that if Obama wins, on Jan. 21
NASA's leadership is beheaded, and the new Administrator will end Ares I, and maybe Ares V, and go to "Better, Faster, Cheaper 2.0", with their approach being the white knight to save the day.

And I also believe that if McCain wins, these folks believe much the same thing can happen.

Say what you want, but Ares has a lot of political problems in some circles. It is a shame that we cnnot find some way to go to mulit-year budgets with a program like Ares so we know that by the end of the next administration's work, Ares has at minimum X dollars to spend. Then a lot of the problems with Ares politically goes away.

[Rick]

The shame about it is that right now everyone seems to be holding their breath looking until the election is over.

It seems like paranoia in some cases to me. I will wager a bet that a new administration will not throw away Ares, to go to another launch vehicle.

The reason being I think, is that it would tick off alot of constituants in states where Ares work has been doled out. Which by the way, is quite a bit.

And as reality sets in, its NOT easy, not matter who says what, to just change or modifiy or rebid contracts to fit their special interest. If one pushes that, they no next to nothing about contractual agreements.

[Me2]

I wish I understood why they need two pads in this case, is pad turn around time so slow that they can't roll out STS-400 within a day and have it ready to go?

Correct, it takes about 3 weeks of work at the pad before the shuttle is ready for launch

[Rick]

Hey Me2,
I thought you threw in the towel!

I'm glad you didn't. Although I rarely agree with you, your insight and expertise is wanted.


Thanks!
Rick

[dave996]

Correct, it takes about 3 weeks of work at the pad before the shuttle is ready for launch

In general that is true however after a launch it takes about 5 days to get the pad ready to accept another Shuttle. That is if the launch damage is what we normally see.

[JimMcDade]

To quote Michael griffin from his AW&ST interview with Frank Morning, Jr.--->"Ares and Orion seem to take a lot of flak in the blogosphere, and I’m really having trouble figuring out why. One of the conclusions I reach is that the people who are doing the writing must not have any actual developmental flight program experience, because if they think the problems we’re experiencing on Ares and Orion are in any way unusual or even particularly severe, they just don’t have a good experience base...People whine about thrust oscillation. Well, OK, rockets have a lot of vibration, and solid rockets are prone to a particular form of vibration that we see on some—not by any means all—not even very many, flights of the shuttle solid rocket booster. And we don’t have a lot of data on it. Our fault. We should have been gathering data earlier in the shuttle program. So we are gathering data. We are designing remedies for it. We’ll deal with it. It’s so far away from being a showstopper that I do get a little amused. People complain that Orion is overweight. Well, I just want to heave a big sigh. I can’t remember working on any space program, robotic or human, that didn’t have problems containing weight unless they had problems containing volume. You’re always going to run out of one of those two quantities. So for the space station mission, I hope it’s obvious to readers of Aviation Week & Space Technology from work we’ve published before, there’s not a weight issue at all for the space station mission on Orion. That’s just not a problem. For the lunar mission, with our reserves, even at this early date we are closed to within 300 kg. for the lunar mission even using what we regard as the Block One version. And everyone understands, I hope, that we won’t be flying the Block One to the Moon."

Rick, Andrew and I previously each pointed out all of the facts that Griffin called up during that interview. EELV for project Constellation, although it is attractive, ain't gonna happen. Direct 2.0 is nothing more than a space cadet wannabe circle-jerk. Griffin uses the right word to describe all of the anti-Ares noise------whining. That's it. Continued discussion of these alternatives is pointless.

I don't want to waste any more time on this garbage, so all of you opponents of NASA and Project Constellation can continue to hurl insults and call me names, but you are doing little more than "shoveling smoke with a pitchfork in the wind" (quote from Dr. Winston O. Boogie) Now, whine away!

[J.McDonald]

Didn't the DIRECTers just put up a side-by-side comparison where the Jupiter used a 5 segment SRB and a 10 meter core versus Ares...which would have the same thing?

I think the change there may have been related to a two launch architecture, which makes a big difference, and also a different upper stage design. But it's not the Direct baseline, not by a long shot.

It's interesting that you suggest Rick has, in essence, blind faith in NASA Managers and believe them "100%." It sure seems you have a similar level of trust in DIRECTs numbers which have yet to be verified by anyone other than their own classified Wizards of Smart.

At no point have I ever put any faith in DIRECT's numbers, so don't put words in my mouth. If I had blind faith in the Direct team why would I even visit this forum?
You don't need numbers to see how DIRECT has the potential to be cheaper: Take Ares, throw away the silly Ares-I EELV-duplicating pogo-stick, then slim the Ares-V down to fit all of the current infrastructure, and launch two of them per mission. If there is any need to do ISS missions, you can use a version with no upper stage.

Compare this with the Ares way: a late, shaky, EELV-duplicating rocket plus a behemoth which requires massive infrastructure changes, which between them struggle to meet performance targets.

Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do consider myself to be moderately intellligent. If DIRECT is not the right way, I want to know why, because I hate not understanding something.
At no stage, though, do I give one iota for who the proposer of a concept is. I want to understand things on their own merits. If it makes sense to me, that's great. If not, I ask questions. I probably bug the hell out of a lot of people

In the end, maybe Steve Cook isn't a liar, maybe DIRECT has truly been evaluated by NASA and rejected, and the situation is well in hand.

Aye, that may be the case. I want to know what aspect of the Direct plan was found to have "higher near term costs". Nobody has been able to answer that.
If I was a speculative type, I would wonder if NASA felt the need to put down every potential for merit in the Direct proposal, and that risks coming uncomfortably close to 'lying'.

Of course, as night follows day, I'm sure you respond that you still have these pesky questions and a failure by someone to answer them is reflective of a failure of the Ares concept. Even if so, we're glad you're here!

-Andrew

Well, I realise it's not the duty of anybody on this forum to answer my questions. But, if I am allowed to mention that 'other' forum, I have become accustomed to having my preconceptions changed and my understanding greatly enhanced by talking with engineers and scientists at NSF. A lot of the time, a concept is relativley simple and even a lay-person can help me out. That simply isn't happening on this forum. It's very hard to come to any conclusion other than "I'm right" when nobody answers your questions! I mean, if everybody here is so pro-Ares, why can't they explain the flaws in DIRECT?

[J.McDonald]

Yeah, and so has DIRECT. It was called DIRECT 1.0.

Ares is slammed in many corners for making adjustments as the process goes along and its detractors point and yell that it is reflective of an underlying failure on the part of program managers.
...

If there is such a DIRECT 3.0 plan unveiled (and I FULLY admit that that is wild speculation), it would mean that the DIRECT plan has undergone two massive rewrites. Evidently that is fine for DIRECT but if Ares encounters even one design issue, it's pointed to as a sure sign of failure.

-Andrew

The problem with all of the changes to Ares is that it continues to be the chosen path. I think that many people, myself included, are starting to wonder how far along this path it can go before the plug finally gets pulled.

Now, I expect that some people will say that it will never be pulled, and that, frankly, is utterly the wrong answer. Surely, NASA will know if they have to cut their losses, and not pursue a chosen plan blindly.
Personally, I think that the tipping point may have already come between Ares-I and EELV.

[Me2]

Rick, Andrew and I previously each pointed out all of the facts that Griffin called up during that interview. EELV for project Constellation, although it is attractive, ain't gonna happen. Direct 2.0 is nothing more than a space cadet wannabe circle-jerk. Griffin uses the right word to describe all of the anti-Ares noise------whining. That's it. Continued discussion of these alternatives is pointless.

I don't want to waste any more time on this garbage, so all of you opponents of NASA and Project Constellation can continue to hurl insults and call me names, but you are doing little more than "shoveling smoke with a pitchfork in the wind" (quote from Dr. Winston O. Boogie) Now, whine away!

Just keep drinking the koolade.

It is never pointless to discuss alternatives, especially when a project is in trouble

As for EELV, you aren't in any position to make such a claim, nor do you have the knowledge.

Also Anti-Ares does not mean anti- NASA or Project Constellation

WRT wasting time, it is not as though you have anything to do with Constellation, Ares or NASA. We can do fine with out you. And we won't bother you while we are working on EELV for Constellation.

Also post something you know first hand about vs regurgitating other info. If that is all you have then don't bother posting.

[Rick]

I think the change there may have been related to a two launch architecture, which makes a big difference, and also a different upper stage design. But it's not the Direct baseline, not by a long shot.

At no point have I ever put any faith in DIRECT's numbers, so don't put words in my mouth. If I had blind faith in the Direct team why would I even visit this forum?
You don't need numbers to see how DIRECT has the potential to be cheaper: Take Ares, throw away the silly Ares-I EELV-duplicating pogo-stick, then slim the Ares-V down to fit all of the current infrastructure, and launch two of them per mission. If there is any need to do ISS missions, you can use a version with no upper stage.

Compare this with the Ares way: a late, shaky, EELV-duplicating rocket plus a behemoth which requires massive infrastructure changes, which between them struggle to meet performance targets.

Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do consider myself to be moderately intellligent. If DIRECT is not the right way, I want to know why, because I hate not understanding something.
At no stage, though, do I give one iota for who the proposer of a concept is. I want to understand things on their own merits. If it makes sense to me, that's great. If not, I ask questions. I probably bug the hell out of a lot of people

Aye, that may be the case. I want to know what aspect of the Direct plan was found to have "higher near term costs". Nobody has been able to answer that.
If I was a speculative type, I would wonder if NASA felt the need to put down every potential for merit in the Direct proposal, and that risks coming uncomfortably close to 'lying'.

Well, I realise it's not the duty of anybody on this forum to answer my questions. But, if I am allowed to mention that 'other' forum, I have become accustomed to having my preconceptions changed and my understanding greatly enhanced by talking with engineers and scientists at NSF. A lot of the time, a concept is relativley simple and even a lay-person can help me out. That simply isn't happening on this forum. It's very hard to come to any conclusion other than "I'm right" when nobody answers your questions! I mean, if everybody here is so pro-Ares, why can't they explain the flaws in DIRECT?

The questions I have are:

Why does NASA have to respond to anyone that has an alternate plan? Is there some type of mechanism within the agency that forces them to do so?

How much money should NASA spend on PR (which is what it is) to respond to home grown designs?

If there is such a movement to replace Ares with a home grown design, why isn't Congress up in arms about it? I know on NSF there has been constant talk about notifying each member of the House and Senate about the benefits of Direct. If there is such an outcry, and such a pressing need to replace Ares with a home grown design, why have they not done that yet?

Where is the independent study (or whatever it is called) that Direct says proves that Jupiter out performs Ares? It was never released.

Why do the Direct people constantly name call anyone who disagree's with them?

Why won't they name names of these few dozen engineers that came up with Direct? If they did, their credibility would probably increase.

I could go on and on John, but as much as you want answers to technical questions about the perceived flaws in Ares, and better performance issues that Jupiter can evidently in some minds produce, I would like answers to the questions I posed above. As in your case, no one has answered them yet, other than piercing responses from SOME NSF members who do not want to be bothered with anything they do not believe in. (In this case, NASA)

And no, you're not bugging the hell out of anyone.

[Me2]

GAO can provide the info for congress to direct NASA to look a alternatives

[Rick]

GAO can provide the info for congress to direct NASA to look a alternatives

A good answer Me2. Has that occured as of yet?

[Rick]

1 down, 5 to go.

[J.McDonald]

The questions I have are:

Why does NASA have to respond to anyone that has an alternate plan? Is there some type of mechanism within the agency that forces them to do so?

How much money should NASA spend on PR (which is what it is) to respond to home grown designs?

I don't want to waste NASA's time, they are busy people. That's why, despite Andrew's rather sarcastic reccomendation, I haven't actually contacted them myself.

If there is such a movement to replace Ares with a home grown design, why isn't Congress up in arms about it? I know on NSF there has been constant talk about notifying each member of the House and Senate about the benefits of Direct. If there is such an outcry, and such a pressing need to replace Ares with a home grown design, why have they not done that yet?

It could be because Congress isn't all that interested in space. Or, of course, they are more interested in who is saying something, rather than what they're saying.

Where is the independent study (or whatever it is called) that Direct says proves that Jupiter out performs Ares? It was never released.

Why do the Direct people constantly name call anyone who disagree's with them?

Why won't they name names of these few dozen engineers that came up with Direct? If they did, their credibility would probably increase.

I could go on and on John, but as much as you want answers to technical questions about the perceived flaws in Ares, and better performance issues that Jupiter can evidently in some minds produce, I would like answers to the questions I posed above. As in your case, no one has answered them yet, other than piercing responses from SOME NSF members who do not want to be bothered with anything they do not believe in. (In this case, NASA)

I am not a member of the Direct team. I am barely a Direct advocate. So I suggest you ask these questions over at NSF where you will be guaranteed an almost instant reply from one of the team.



You know, when that report on Stephen Metschan lures me into joining this forum, I though to myself "finally- I'm going to find out just what is wrong with the Direct plan- the technical pitfalls and hurdles which make it unworkable will all be laid bare." I thought that, with such disdain shown for the plan, there must be a relatively obvious or at least explainable flaw in it.
After several weeks, though, I actually feel that the utter inability to answer any of my technical questions makes me more inclinced to believe that Direct is the right answer.

[Andrew]

After several weeks, though, I actually feel that the utter inability to answer any of my technical questions makes me more inclinced to believe that Direct is the right answer.

Uh...okay? This is perhaps the fifth time some iteration of this statement has poured out from your keyboard. We get it. That's fine. You're unhappy. Too bad.

NASA has already released their rebuttal of DIRECT. Just because DIRECT thinks it's poo doesn't mean it is wrong. I'd recommend that you review it again, but the DIRECTers have already convinced you that it mis-evaluates their design. Okay, that's fine, as well!

Nary a peep has come up now that DIRECT seems to be using a 5 seg SRB and a 10 meter core...which was promptly changed back a few days later. Hey, they can switch numbers around on their phantom rocket all they want! It's all good in the neighborhood.

-Andrew

[Andrew]

The problem with all of the changes to Ares is that it continues to be the chosen path. I think that many people, myself included, are starting to wonder how far along this path it can go before the plug finally gets pulled.

Now, I expect that some people will say that it will never be pulled, and that, frankly, is utterly the wrong answer. Surely, NASA will know if they have to cut their losses, and not pursue a chosen plan blindly.
Personally, I think that the tipping point may have already come between Ares-I and EELV.

When can the plug get pulled? Well, I suppose it could happen at any time up to one day before the last Ares mission ever launches.

I reject your suggestion that NASA is perusing Ares "blindly" (what does that mean, anyway?) but, hey, with Obama inbound you could just as likely expect an end to manned spaceflight, too! Really, all cards are up in the air!

-Andrew