DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[slowcooker]

As noted in my last post (actually my first :-), Griffin is being replaced; I quoted the odds at 100% and it was a safe bet. By and large, Constellation is the reason. By the same token, I would now begin short-selling Stick stock.

Per MSNBC today, Major General Jonathan Scott Gration is to be his successor, pending confirmation. Gration is a mechanical engineer by training. If you want a biography, check here:

http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5605

As I understand it, two straws broke the camel's back -- although it was a weak camel to begin with.

One was MG's personal and combative response to Lori's questions about The Stick -- it impressed the team as "an ego thing," not "an engineering thing." And team play is valued in the Obama circle.

The other was the history of The Stick itself, doubts about the basic design, its cost, prospects for further slippage, and the limits it was imposing on Orion. To say the least, the vibration dampers were not considered a reasonable solution to the resonance issue.

Questions (now mostly moot given nomination of Gratian) were also raised about Mrs. Griffin's email campaign, particularly the "assist" given her by a former ATK solids booster (pun) and exec who shall remain nameless. Everyone knows that ATK likes the cash flow from the Shuttle program and had hoped to substitute cash flow from Ares I and V. In the current environment, this convergence of people and interests aroused suspicion. It should evaporate with the Gratian confirmation.

Finally, and especially after the attention-getting CRS awards recently, it became clear that (for example) SpaceX had developed a more complex booster, at lower cost, in less time than The Stick. It is felt that with its alleged growth capability, a successful Falcon 9 Heavy class booster could make The Stick both costly and redundant. Of course, the F-9 must prove itself. I also expect to see some renewed interest in an EELV approach.

Interestingly, although there was little contact with those responsible for Direct, the Direct group itself apparently had little to do with Griffin's replacement. Respect appears to have been maintained. Obviously, though, this could put new wind in Direct's sails. We will see. From a physicist's point of view, I think a system (substituting for Ares V) based on the Direct concept would be a workable solution -- even to the workforce-retention issue (over which, FL Sen. Bill Nelson appears ready to have a cow).

[Rick]

No, but OTOH it is further from the other side of the river than when it started trying to cross!
This analogy is getting a bit thin....

Thin is a pretty good description.

[Rick]

As noted in my last post (actually my first :-), Griffin is being replaced; I quoted the odds at 100% and it was a safe bet. By and large, Constellation is the reason. By the same token, I would now begin short-selling Stick stock.)

Interesting theory, and although Obama had the opportunity to retain Griffin, he did not as has been the case in most presidential administration changes.

Per MSNBC today, Major General Jonathan Scott Gration is to be his successor, pending confirmation. Gration is a mechanical engineer by training. If you want a biography, check here:

http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5605.

Evidently, Sen. Bill Nelson spoke out against Major Gration today. For the record, I am not a fan of Nelson, but here's a snippet from todays Florida Today:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/...320/1007/rss06

Retired Maj. Gen. Jonathan Scott Gyration, who is one of Obama's top military and foreign policy advisers, is emerging as the leading candidate for the NASA administrator post being vacated next week by current agency chief Mike Griffin, according to people familiar with the process.
That possible choice won support from some quarters, but U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, who sits on the committee that will hold confirmation hearings for the nominee, is urging Obama to select a candidate with a space background.
Nelson -- who flew on the shuttle in 1986 with another potential candidate, former astronaut Charles Bolden -- called Obama-Biden Transition Team Co-Chairman John Podesta on Wednesday to weigh in on the issue.
"I think President Bush made a mistake when he appointed someone without NASA experience in Sean O'Keefe to head the agency," Nelson said through spokesman Dan McLaughlin. "I hope President Obama's pick will have (a space program) background."

I guess we will see how much clout Nelson has, as he is a fellow Democrat.

Interestingly, although there was little contact with those responsible for Direct, the Direct group itself apparently had little to do with Griffin's replacement. )

Why would Direct have any responsibility for Griffin being replaced? That's not how appointments are made in Washington. If that was the case, it would be a strong arm tactic, which could have hurt Directs credibility.

Thanks for your well thought out opinions, they are appreciated.

[J.McDonald]

Slowcooker,
why suggest F9 in place of Ares-I? What is it about Atlas and Delta which people don't like?

[slowcooker]

"Why suggest Falcon 9..."
I didn't, but the F-9 and the EELVs (which are reasonably similar in capability, though not in price) look attractive, especially versus the technically troubled Stick. I think we can expect the ULA to push hard to get Atlas and Delta into the mix. Falcon 9 may have a price and reuse advantage, though, and it was designed to be crew-rated from the outset. Also, SpaceX has its Dragon well along in development (between two or three are expected to fly unmanned this year). This is a capability the ULA would have to develop from a standing start, unless it piggy-backed on something from one of the X programs.
As an aside, the payload issue (that is, being able to send everything to LEO in a single launch) is losing some of its pucker factor. After all, we have been assembling structures in orbit for decades (a la, the ISS and earlier Soviet stations), so sending up very capable spacecraft one module at a time is more a matter of deciding to do it rather than developing the capability.

[slowcooker]

Re: Sen. Nelson and Gratian's lack of NASA experience.

It could be argued that nobody had NASA experience when we launched the Apollo program, and that worked out fairly well. To the degree that NASA has become bureaucratized, as do all government agencies given time, a new broom might come in very handy at this point.

We all know that there is support inside the Agency for selective housecleaning. The biggest caution flag I would raise is that we have to be sure not to waste NASA's institutional knowledge base. I still shudder when I think of what we lost when Nixon shut down Apollo.

So, if Nelson dislikes Gratian just because he might kick some self-anointed Keepers-Of-The-NASA-Way out the door, I oppose Nelson. The last thing anyone here wants is to see NASA become the aerospace equivalent of the USPS, and O'Keefe had us heading that way with so much momentum that Griffin couldn't fully turn the ship. He gets credit for trying though.

[Me2]

"Why suggest Falcon 9..."

1. Falcon 9 may have a price and reuse advantage, though, and

2. it was designed to be crew-rated from the outset.

3. Also, SpaceX has its Dragon well along in development (between two or three are expected to fly unmanned this year).

4. This is a capability the ULA would have to develop from a standing start, unless it piggy-backed on something from one of the X programs.
.

1. both have yet to be proven. Even the vehicle isn't proven

2. Per what standard

3.
A. highly doubtful
B. Dragon is not needed

4. ULA does not and can't develop spacecraft

Anyway, Orion wouldn't go away if Ares I did.

[slowcooker]

1. both have yet to be proven. Even the vehicle isn't proven
2. Per what standard
3. A. highly doubtful. B. Dragon is not needed
4. ULA does not and can't develop spacecraft
Anyway, Orion wouldn't go away if Ares I did.

I don't do flame wars.
Do your homework, please, and read the post as English is meant to be read.

[Rick]

I don't do flame wars.
Do your homework, please, and read the post as English is meant to be read.

[Me2]

I don't do flame wars.
Do your homework, please, and read the post as English is meant to be read.

You are the one who needs to do their homework. All my points were valid.

Spacex is not going to launch more than 1 Dragon (if any) this year. They will have a hiccup on their first flight that will delay the remaining. As for manrating, the term has no meaning unless there is a standard provided. ULA is not allowed to develop spacecraft.

NASA is not going to Falcon 9 as a launch vehicle for some time. COTS and CRS don't count as NASA using it

[J.McDonald]

I shall attempt to mediate by putting Me2's valid points into more palatable English as that appears to be necessary for them to be accepted.

... the F-9 and the EELVs (which are reasonably similar in capability, though not in price) look attractive, especially versus the technically troubled Stick. I think we can expect the ULA to push hard to get Atlas and Delta into the mix. Falcon 9 may have a price and reuse advantage, though...

Betting on F9 as a stick replacement appears to be long odds at this moment. SpaceX are one for four on the smaller F1, and it seems reasonable to expect at least some difficulties with F9. To be a viable launcher for Orion, F9 will then need to be developed into the heavy version. This all stacks up to give the existing EELVs a very considerable head start. As to price, perhaps F9H can deliver, but we simply don't know yet. In any case, price appears not to be the main driver as far as NASA are concerned since they are happy to develop and fly Ares-I rather than use the cheaper option of an EELV.

... it was designed to be crew-rated from the outset.

Crew-rating does not have a concrete standard. NASA's own requirements have been moved considerably since the start of the Ares program, with single redundancy now deemed acceptable, for example. It is entirely possible that Elon Musk's standard would be unacceptable to NASA. It would be analogous to letting somebody drive a taxi in New York just because they had passed their driving test in Cairo.

Also, SpaceX has its Dragon well along in development (between two or three are expected to fly unmanned this year). This is a capability the ULA would have to develop from a standing start, unless it piggy-backed on something from one of the X programs.

This is not of particular relevance since Dragon cannot replace Orion in it's lunar role. In any case, SPaceX will have a hard time getting F9 flying succesfully this year, and if and when Dragon is flown and proven, it still needs work to develop it into the crewed version. It will likely beat Orion if the program is succesful, but could only replace it in the ISS role, not the lunar program.
Lockheed Martin (not ULA) did propose a capsule for launch by Atlas-V, but IMHO there will not be room in the marketplace for three American manned spacecraft.

[J.McDonald]

Andrew, John, if you don't mind I will take a stab at this one.

I can from past experience and knowing Andrew as well as I do, tell you his answer was not meaningless, nor nonsense.

The staff here, which comprise of more team members that Andrew and myself are well aware that NSF is a great resource. I believe that he, and myself at times get tired of hearing it. Hence his "Super" reply. I visit there too by the way.

We are also aware that this website needs more watering to grow and few weeds pulled if need be.

Now BACK TO THE THREAD

Apologies to drag up an old issue, but I was reading back through this thread and remembered why I stopped coming here for quite a while. Just wanted to go on record as saying that Andrew's behaviour towards me was completely beyond any justification and I still feel quite angry about how he treated me. Apparently it was a case of mistaken identity and he believed I was somebody else. Whether that somebody else, whoever it is, deserved such treatment I do not know. Anyway, Andrew appears to be gone now and the forum is better off without him.

Yes, I know this is OT, but I feel quite strongly about it because I have never been treated like that on a public forum before. I hope Rick is more selective in future about who he allows to be administrators here.

[Rick]

No problem John.

IF, by any chance you know of someone, or even yourself who would like to be an administrator here, please PM me. It's not easy finding an individual that wants to spend their free time, monitering websites, for free.

Thanks for coming back.

[Rick]

No problem John.

IF, by any chance you know of someone, or even yourself who would like to be an administrator here, please PM me. It's not easy finding an individual that wants to spend their free time, monitering websites, for free.

Thanks for coming back.

I am guessing no one is interested in being an admin here?

[JimMcDade]

Rick is not the least bit pretentious about the nature of InsideKSC. Rick has a heart of gold and he is incredibly tolerant with people who would have even driven Mother Teresa up a wall.

There are plenty of leaders of blogs and online discussion groups that pretend to adhere to the highest standards of journalism while they actually are more interested in promotional activity, advocacy, or pursuing personal glory.

You gotta have thick hide if you want to stay in the saddle at this rodeo. It seems that everybody who thinks about space exploration has their own cherished ideas about how things should be done and they don't mind hurling insults and strong words in the direction of every person who dares to disagree with them.

We have some good fighters in here. I strongly disagree with some of the people here, but there is nothing more educational than a hot debate. Some moderators on some sites allow their own thin skin or their own biased views to control their governance of discussions. They are like radio talk show hosts who hang up on certain callers.

InsideKSC has not been for the timid or weak of heart. I think that it is better to be like the late, great Howard Cosell and call 'em like you see 'um. Nobody is getting paid (as far as I can tell) to advocate any particular positions here. InsideKSC, while it is still smallish, has incredible strength of character- a quality that is missing from many other online discussion sites.

Online anonymity is the shield that many cowards, snipers, and seminar posters hide behind. I am a firm adherent of the First Amendment, but I am also disgusted by the anonymous cheap shots and attacks that I constantly read on my screen. That is why I never have used a phony name. I want people to know who is shoving back at them.

Sure, I have had to eat crow on a few occasions and there is no doubt that I will end up on the short end of some future arguments. I wish that I had more time to spend on researching the hundreds of interesting space and astronomy stories that I read every week. It would be nice to feel comfortable when somebody calls me an "expert" or an "authority", but I know that I am not. A TV reporter in Greece once called me "a renowned debunker" after I blew up Bart Sibrel's moon hoax theory, but I suppose that nobody in Greece would have known better than to believe that.

You all know that I sincerely believe that- so far- we have seen absolutely no legitimate evidence to conclude that Ares I will not be able to take astronauts safely to low-earth orbit or taht the Ares I-Ares V combo cannot take the USA back to the Moon.

I also know that many of you hate the very sight of Ares and that you faithfully adore your own alternative concepts. Some of those alternative concepts might actually work with a good bit of tinkering here or there, but I just don't see why NASA should bother with further expense and delays when Ares is reported to be on track.

Otherwise, I wish you all the best in your personal lives and nothing but good luck with your wacky dreams. If you get knocked in the dust now and then, reach deep down inside and jump right back up and rejoin the fight. Accept change, but never quit being true to yourself.

[JimMcDade]

BTW- Andrew is very busy these days, but he is still around. Andrew is a great guy. I have committed the poster identification error myself. It's easy to do on those busy days when you are reading 600+ wpm and trying to recall who said what. Nobody here is a full-time, dedicated moderator. (Not yet, but this site will flourish over time and some FT employees will come.)

Personally, I try to read the new posts in about five minutes every morning.

PS- Online communication miscues take down good people everyday. I am subscribed to a university alum email distribution group that has quite a few celebrities and sports figures also enrolled. This morning, the executive assistant for a world famous bazillionaire golfer accidentally posted this golfer's updated, personal email address to the entire group! The assistant was supposed to have submitted that change to the admin. I wonder how many requests from charitable donations are in his Inbox now?

[J.McDonald]

I see that the DIRECT team are investigating a 'backup' option of returning to SSME> Apparently this is to match similar studies being undertaken on Ares-V, due primarily to base heating concerns.
Is there any information on how the Ares-V base heating studies are progressing? Six RS68s + 2 5-seg SRBs is a lot of flame!
I think that the smaller DIRECT vehicles which only have four-segment SRBs and up to three RS68s would presumably be less affected by these base heating issues.

[Luke]

Hey Guys,

I'm new here; I just read the thread in it's entirety, and I decided to weigh in, rather than just lurk [I have been lurking for a long time on many of these type discussions on other boards.]

It's glaringly obvious to a newcomer with no dog in the hunt, that there are serious partisans for Aries, Direct, EELV, and NewSpace solutions. It seemed like the thread went way off track [unproductive,] until Slowcooker showed up and gave a really nice overview and his own pragmatic take on things - thanks Slowcooker.

So here are some of my thoughts, in no particular order.

The U.S. needs to make it a priority to have a super HLLV 150+ mt -> LEO [Ares V Class.] This sets us apart from the rest of the world, and gives us a competitive advantage. It is a huge enabling technology, and we can sell it [the super heavy lift service] at a significant premium to other space programs. We should go ahead, bite the bullet now, and build the requisite infrastructure. Nobody else can do this [that's the point really.]

It is hugely expensive, and it is a priceless capability [money well spent.] It really only makes sense for Nasa to develop these kinds of programs - programs that other parties cannot do at all, much less better, faster, or cheaper, because if they [anyone else] can do it at all, they can do it better, faster, and cheaper than Nasa.

ATK, ULA [and maybe Rocketdyne] have way too much influence in Washington and need to have their wings clipped a bit. The sooner this happens, the easier it will be on them [and all of us,] due to the inevitable backlash.

Orion should be designed so that it can play nice with as many medium lift launchers as possible so ULA, Spacex, the Europeans, the Japanese, even the Russians or Chinese can launch it for us in a pinch [read emergency.]

NASA needs its own medium lift launcher as a hedge, but it doesn't need to reinvent the wheel. Just pick one, human rate it [whatever that means] and buy it, there are plenty out there. The stick really is a joke.

Direct 2.0 has some valuable ideas for relatively near term medium-heavy lift capabilty and would make an excellent interim solution, while we develop the best heavy lift solution.

The best heavy lift solution onvolves LOX/Kero for the first stage and boosters, and does not involve SRBs. The best rockets are not designed by comittee or with political considerations. Nasa should let designs compete openly and buy hardware or services, based on performance and reliability. COTS is an outstanding success and many more such programs should be pursued [Merlin 2, RS68 regen, SME expendable, and JX-2 can all be developed this way for example.]

Sunk costs should never be considered when evaluating further investment in a project. It makes no difference how much time, effort, money has been invested in the wrong direction - sunk/stranded cost arguments are as specious as hyperbole or ad hominem.

Nasa needs to refocus on exploration and leadership while it still can, and do the things that the private sector [and other nations space programs] cannot. It is a terrible waste of opportunity and resources to put the same old wine in new bottles.

Just my two cents…

-Luke

[J.McDonald]

Welcome to site, Luke. Hope this doesn't seem like starting off on the wrong foot, but a few points I'd like to bring up:

The U.S. needs to make it a priority to have a super HLLV 150+ mt -> LEO [Ares V Class.] This sets us apart from the rest of the world, and gives us a competitive advantage. It is a huge enabling technology, and we can sell it [the super heavy lift service] at a significant premium to other space programs. We should go ahead, bite the bullet now, and build the requisite infrastructure. Nobody else can do this [that's the point really.]

150t is an arbitrary figure. Why not 140t? 200t?
'Certain' people would advocate a 100t launcher that you'd use in a dual-launch program. Higher flights rates mean better economy and better safety. And as a little bonus it appears that this slightly smaller LV would fit much more easily into existing STS-heritage infrastructure.
This capability is still five times the capability of any other space-faring nation.
Further, AFAIK NASA is not allowed to sell launch services. And no other country would have the need for such a capability. To think that they do is just pie-in-the-sky.

It is hugely expensive, and it is a priceless capability [money well spent.] It really only makes sense for Nasa to develop these kinds of programs - programs that other parties cannot do at all, much less better, faster, or cheaper, because if they [anyone else] can do it at all, they can do it better, faster, and cheaper than Nasa.

Was that a misprint? If not, I agree. Commercial companies could develop a new LV faster, better, and cheaper, because commercial is where the design experience is these days. NASA hasn't designed and flown a new manned spacecraft since the 70s.

Orion should be designed so that it can play nice with as many medium lift launchers as possible so ULA, Spacex, the Europeans, the Japanese, even the Russians or Chinese can launch it for us in a pinch [read emergency.]

Nice idea but unlikely. You can't just stick a manned payload onto another vehicle. Those launcher have no manned access at the pads, for starters. The Orion would have to have a lot of propellant offloaded to fit onto those vehicles, and that means it wouldn't help you out at all for a lunar mission. Overall, though, it would be a good idea, if it could be made to work.

The stick really is a joke.

Agreed!

[Rick]

Luke,
Thanks for joining the conversation. Your input is certainly anticipated!

I agree with most of what you expressed, sans the "Stick really is a joke" comment.

Forgive me for not agreeing with you, but as one person who is involved with Ares I, I can with the most confidence tell you, that the many people that are working on it and make sure it succeeds, do not consider it a joke at all.

Everyone involved is trying so very hard to make sure it works the first time and every time.

Whether one believes that another launch vehicle would be better, is nearly a moot point.

The time is late this evening, and don't have the energy to really expand on my thoughts, as I have to go to work to KSC tomorrow, and work on Ares I, among other duties.