Orlando Sentinel article on DIRECT

[kraisee]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,6150021.story

On the front page too...



Ross.

[Rick]

It's also referenced in the KSC News section of this site HERE

[Spacenut]

All, I do find that story quite interesting. I think any thing that could speed up the process would be a good idea. The fear I have, has anybody looked into how much $$ it would cost nasa to stop in there tracks what they are pursuing now?

Just 1 question

[kraisee]

We have examined the issue, and the costs are fairly reasonable given that we can retain all of the existing contracts. There's about 4-6 months of "shifting gears" needed, but that's still better than a 6 year flight gap after Shuttle too.

As one person at MSFC once said "we've cut our teeth on Ares-I, we're up to speed and if we could get into Jupiter-120 now we could really hit the ground running".

In terms of $$ I can't really discuss the details on a public forum, other than to say it'll sure be a *lot* less costly than building a second $15bn Ares launch vehicle half a decade after Ares-I.


Ross.

[Bob]

There's about 4-6 months of "shifting gears" needed, but that's still better than a 6 year flight gap after Shuttle too.

Ross, I don't really remember that there is a 6 yr gap carven in stone. Is it not the case that it could be less with the currrent program?

In terms of $$ I can't really discuss the details on a public forum, other than to say it'll sure be a *lot* less costly than building a second $15bn Ares launch vehicle half a decade after Ares-I.

As i've been a paying american taxpayer for sometime now I wonder how many people will complain about the secrecy involved? Don't misunderstand me I wish you the best with this, but I think denying the tax paying public what a cost difference might be, is not fair.

-bob


Ross.[/quote]

[Andrew]

In terms of $$ I can't really discuss the details on a public forum, other than to say it'll sure be a *lot* less costly than building a second $15bn Ares launch vehicle half a decade after Ares-I.

Why can't you discuss the details on a public website? Is there some sort of "top secret" information you have? If so, isn't that a serious problem that you have been given information that isn't supposed to be released?

-Andrew

[JimMcDade]

I would like to know who that one "person" at MSFC is. It certainly wasn't a person who has the power to influence the existing commitment to the Ares vehicles.

The rumor mill at MSFC is as alive and active as you would expect it to be at any workplace. I have my finger on the pulse of MSFC and you can find every possible opinion about everything there, from aliens, UFOS, the JFK assassination, and the moon hoax, amongst the thousands of workers there, but you know what they say about opinions.

I don't want to sound like a "mean" person, but DIRECT has zero traction with any person in a position to influence space policy at MSFC or anywhere in NASA or in government. There is not currently, nor has there ever been, serious official discussion about abandoning the current architecture of Constellation.

Now, the next U.S. President might kill NASA human spaceflight outright, but he will not order NASA to switch to the Jupiter-120. It is not going to happen simply because there is no way to fiscally, politically, or even practically justify such a move.

The Sentinel article is great publicity for DIRECT, but the Beta format also got some great publicity before VHS won the video cassette war in the 1970s. Beta was technically better than VHS, but VHS still carried the day. There is a lot more to success than being technically superior. That's just the way things are. Always has been, always will be. Humans are political creatures.

On a more substantive foundation than politics, a key advantage for Ares I and Ares V is that the dual space vehicle system has superior scalability and versatility than one big booster. The inherent economic advantages are obvious.

It is not true that changing to Jupiter-120 would or could eliminate or shorten the unfortunate gap between the Shuttle and Ares launches. The anticipated gap was more the result of choosing a strategy of managing near-level NASA budget appropriations during the Constellation R&D, and it had nothing intrinsically to do with the choice of a particular booster system. I can not think of a single human booster system that did not encounter schedule setbacks. Ares I and Ares V will not be exceptions to this pattern. Jupiter-120 is a beauty, but she will suffer the same issues if the USA decided to build it.

The space advocacy community might be better served if we focus on uniting against those who want to kill NASA human spaceflight and shift NASA funding to the budgets of other federal agencies. DIRECT is at best a distraction, at worst a new wedge that enemies of space exploration will use against NASA in the ongoing public relations war on space.

[Rick]

Folks,
Here's sort of a reality check, so to speak. The Ares I test flgiht is scheduled for 2009. Being all things are equal, would Jupiter be on the same time frame for a test flight next year?

I ask this as jobs would be at stake at KSC. The transition, I would think, would come to screaching halt. Jobs are at risk to begin with, so why add more friction to Kennedy Space Center, no less all the other space centers?

I'm not against any launch vehicle that will get us into space after the STS is retired. I am against adding fuel to a plan that would put more jobs at risk.

For fun, there's an CGI animation of that test flight HERE

[Spacenut]

Where ***IS*** Ross anyway? I was really hoping for his insight?

[Andrew]

For fun, there's an CGI animation of that test flight HERE

Quite frankly, that video kicks ass. Super soundtrack and quite the "Battlestar Galactica" feel with the CGI editing and zoom features.

-Andrew

[Rick]

Super soundtrack and quite the "Battlestar Galactica" feel ...
-Andrew

You're the third person to say that.

[JimMcDade]

From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
NASA Glenn Research Center downplays criticism of Ares



Wednesday, June 25, 2008 Grant Segall

Plain Dealer Reporter


Despite recent criticism, NASA officials said Tuesday that the Ares program is thriving scientifically and economically at Brook Park and around the country.


"We're all systems go," said Bill Wessel, associate director of Brook Park's NASA Glenn Research Center.


Glenn already has won more than $1 billion of work for Ares and the larger Constellation program, which aims to take astronauts to the International Space Station in 2014 and to the moon in 2020.


NASA is pushing Ares at the expense of the space shuttle, which will be retired in 2010, costing 3,000 to 4,000 jobs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.


A story in the Orlando Sentinel this week said that proponents of Direct 2.0, an alternative system for Ares' goals, could be developed more quickly and save Florida jobs.


The story claimed that NASA suppressed an internal study showing Direct 2.0's superiority. The Sentinel also quoted an unnamed Kennedy engineer saying that Ares was flawed.


On Tuesday, Stephen Metschan of Seattle, a former NASA contractor who is promoting Direct 2.0, faulted NASA's leaders for scrapping the shuttle and putting too personal a stamp on the agency.


But officials in Brook Park and Washington denied the complaints.
"The agency, before they embarked, did a very comprehensive study to come to the Ares," Wessel said. "There's no intent and no need to modify that."


Doug Cooke, NASA deputy director for exploration, told the Sentinel in a letter to the editor that Ares appears at least two times safer than alternatives like Metschan's.


NASA expects Constellation to keep the work force stable for 10 to 15 years at Glenn, a leading employer in a struggling region.


Glenn has 3,200 staffers and contractors at its headquarters, which straddles Brook Park and Fairview Park, and its Plum Brook testing station in Perkins Township, near Sandusky.


Among many Constellation assignments, Glenn has made empty components for Ares' debut: a short test flight scheduled for next May at Kennedy.


Leaders hope that Constellation will develop spaceships that might later take astronauts to Mars.