Shuttle to Jupiter-232

[KungKevinRS]

id rather see nasa spend alot of money on sience, big things that can change our lives, good things etc then see america spend 1,287,715,860,360 on war. (thats a number i got from costofwar (.) com and i mean its changing every time

[drlf100]

NASA RULES!

[DirectLauncher]

NASA's NLS program of 91-93, compared both and proved that the Inline has advantages in almost every area: Higher performance, greater flight stability, fewer control issues, physically larger payloads, development costs less, cost less to operate, schedule is sooner, require less infrastructure changes (>4.4m Shuttle-size payloads can't use Shuttle Payload Changeout Room and VAB work platforms for sidemount). And fairing jettison on inline does not create pitch control problems.

[DumbYankies]

Why not the sidemount approach? Fare less changes, ET flys as is, you just need to build the side mount faring with a thrust assembly at the bottom. Basically an unmanned, unwinged shuttle with about 70 tons to LEO capability (Im guessing the 25 tons of normal shuttle cargo capacity and another 45 tons of orbiter that is not engines or the new shroud. Far far easier.

And if nasa started it back in 2004 for constellaiton it would be easily finished by now.

[bombarderoazul]

Personally I would prefer something similar to the russian Energya heavy booster.

[tlages]

Jupiter 232.... new Saturn V?

[spacegeek5]

Not sure if they put a lot of them like the delta 2 it would be much more powerful than ares 5 and not any taller making it easy to build in the VAB. Also a bigger fairing would be made possible

[iman2341]

Why doesn't NASA use the SRB's developed for the Ares 1 and attach them to the side of the Direct launcher, this would almost double its payload capacity and allow it to far suppass the Aries V for pure lifting power. Just a though. :)

[bestamerica]

'

american JPL / NASA can go ahead to make space shuttle,,,

no need ussr russia,,,

NOT russia

[Puff29646]

I'm designing the "Phoenix Super Lift".

[Weenchit]

How fast do you think NASA could develop a heavy lift launcher using nuclear thermal propulsion?

[bobafetthotmail]

@Weenchit 5 years if overly optimistic and noone gives a damn about fallout, 10 years or more if trying to do it without fallout.

That's a rather old technology and most experience has been lost.

[doginstine]

The problem with the ‘all in one’ approach is you hit a limit fast. At the end of the Saturn five flights to the moon, the Apollo 17 fight, they were counting the number of band aids the crew could take with them. A separate cargo carrier and separate crew carrier is the way to go to take more to the moon. AND stay for longer than a week.

[monokhem]

@doginstine No, seperate vehicals to go from earth to Leo, and from Leo to the Moon. A heavier sustainable LM could go from the moon and back to the ISS Several times. Reusability is only hard to pull off on the equipment that returns to Earth. What you are talking about is just throwing more money at a more expensive apollo.

[staydput]

None of these schemes is state of the art.

Too small, too restricted.

Unable to post due to You Tube filter blocking 50 year-old public domain designs.

[piplupsingularity]

Neat animation

[TheBCarp]

Right now, with Nasa's budget change and their full stop on constellation, this looks like possibly their only feasible option for a rocket of their own.

[conorlydon]

the sad thing is , we can achieve ALOT better than this with current technology

[pepefour]

Like the rocket idea

[rocketshipstud2]

the 850 ancient moon rocks should be used to stone the crackpots/commies who smear 6 apollo landings as hoax! outrage!

[TonyN737]

Stud2, you got THAT right, brutha! While you're hitting them with regolith, ask "DOES ... THIS ... FEEL ... LIKE A HOAX ... TO YOU NOW?" BAM! ... BAM! ... BAM! hahaha :-)

[rocketshipstud2]

we must end the 1967 space treaty! the 6 us flags of apollo claim and annex entire moon as the 51st state luna (the new alaska)( see movie moon zero two)

[member201]

i don't care what we use to get to the moon and beyond as long as we get there

[Joe35983]

Fuck The Ares

Jupiter Direct FTW (For The Win)

[captinseperoth]

stop you bitchen about nasa wasteing cash,You either have nasa or the government going to the spas using the same cash!!

Humanity is going toward the future of space travel,and how America is capitalistic we will lead and make a bit cash off it...eventually..

...you know things take time

[hellomate639]

We should be using the Direct V3 if the claims the engineers made about it are true:

Simpler, sooner, cheaper, more payload. We don't have time to innovate in old technology. Chemical rockets days are numbered, so lets not waste our time trying to invent new ways of using them.

I feel like we should be using the Direct v3 rather than Constellation.

[ZaneKaminski]

I personally feel that both Ares and Direct both have distinct advantages.

An ideal (although not necessarily plausible) solution would be to use the keep the Ares V as the "cargo launch vehicle," but swap the Ares I for the Jupiter-120, which would allow for NASA to keep the planned 188 ton to LEO capabilities of the Ares V, but have a safer and more reliable crew launch vehicle, plus the ability to launch crew and cargo together (but in a safer manner than the Shuttle).

[ZaneKaminski]

Please pardon my small error. In my first sentence, I meant to say "would be to keep the Ares V," rather than "would be to use the keep the Ares V." Sorry about that.

[hellomate639]

I like that idea even better. Keep the biggest of all: the Ares 5, so that we can launch large objects, but then get rid of the little Ares 1.

[Hypergalactica]

@ZaneKaminski I like that idea! But then there's always the issue of cost...and taxpayers...and bureaucratic management...

I love SpaceX.

[jxvwp]

Well look at it this way.

The Jupiter V2.0 has the thrust but not the fuel to get us to LEO.

The Jupiter V3.0 has neither the thrust nor the fuel to get us to LEO.

The only thing that comes from the shuttle is the RSRM's and now the SSME (Which is a terrible waste of machinery designed to be reused). Every other peace of hardware has to be strengthened a otherwise changed to make this airworthy.

I'd go with Constellation

[hellomate639]

Well, if what you say is true, then we should continue with constellation.

If the DIRECT claims are true, we should go with that. But it looks like NASA has already invested a lot into Ares rockets.

[thirdclass2006]

What makes you say Direct 3.0 won't get us to LEO?

It uses the same setup as the shuttle; 3 SSMEs and two SRBs.

The ET is extended and given a thrust skirt. So what else do you need for that?

[jxvwp]

Well the Space Shuttle also uses it two orbital engines (those two in the blisters next to the rudder) to make the final push into a stabil orbit. With the big JUPITER rocket (The one with 3 SSME's and an EDS) the 3 SSME's and the 2 RSRB's have two work over time to get the heavier craft into stabil orbit. The V2.0 used RS-68 which had the power to do so but with the original Core-tank it wouldn't have had enough fuel. The V3.0 have SSME's which don't have the power to do so.

[thirdclass2006]

While a stabil orbit may not be attainable with the SSME's after MECO, the spacecraft itself can fire it's engine to circularize it's orbit. A small engine can be used for unmanned payloads, like any other rocket does.

[jxvwp]

So you want to use some of the space and weight budgets of the spacecraft to mount an engine that can stabilize the orbit after MECO. Sounds like a lot of wasted space and mass.

[thirdclass2006]

Not so much when you consider that other expendable launch rockets use the same idea.

Besides, when the Orion is launched, it uses the existing engine anyway. So there's no wasted space or mass.

[williamhad]

@captinseperoth nasa is the government retard. 

[miniplus]

So how does the tank become sufficiently load-bearing? And is there a big price in added weight for that?

Also , aside form Ares I, how does the side-mounted version, recently shown by NASA, compare to this, in your opinion, DirectLauncher (or anyone)?

[miniplus]

I should have included this link to the side-mounted shuttle-derived concept video: watch?v=xOnlAUpYWoc

[JephN]

It's easier to support the weight around the circumference (e.g Jupiter) than from the side (e.g. STS). I imagine the weight atop the ET core isn't going to substantially affect it.

[jxvwp]

How about the enormous loading from the three SSME's (would have been even greater with the RS-68's) from below.

Can imagine it would buckle and blow up at lift-off

[thirdclass2006]

Which is why it would have a thrust skirt.

Remember, Ares 5 is supposed to use this same setup. All that's different is that it's a bigger core.

[jxvwp]

The thrust skirt would distribute the loading equally over the rear surface of the core-tank but isn't enough. For the core-tank to survive to loading of a spacecraft and EDS from the top together with substantial loading from the engines you need to extensively strengthen it and that will make it even heavier. Thats the reason the ARES-V uses a bigger core-stage, it holds more fuel for the engine and it has been strengthened so it can support the loading of the EDS (top), the 6 RS-68 (bottom).

[thirdclass2006]

I would suspect that the same would be done with Direct 3.0's idea.

[jxvwp]

Well but with the reinforcements the tank will have an even smaller fuel-tank so why not just go with the ARES-V instead of the Jupiter rocket. It would have the lift-capacity to lift some huge loads and then some extra in case you need it.

[thirdclass2006]

Would you rather spend $14 billion for one rocket and $22 billion for the next one, or $8.3 billion for one and $2 billion for the next one?

I'd pick price over capacity. Besides, with twin Jupiter 24x's, you get 200 tons in orbit instead of 180.

[jxvwp]

The fact that it will be cheaper (before all of the necessary modifications an reinforcements) will not make it go into orbit. It hasn't been tested in the wind-tunnels, there hasn't been any computer-simulations on it (contrary to the Constellation program which has been tested, double-tested, and triple-tested even before the I-X got onto the launch-pad. A lobby-project that only might be cheaper isn't going to cut it.

[thirdclass2006]

Obviously tests will be done before it is constructed.

[jxvwp]

Then why haven't they been done yet???

I mean they would have a much better case to precent if they had some physical to precent instead of some Photoshop-pictures and a bunch of baseless claims that has been refuted by most of the Rocket-scientists around.

[thirdclass2006]

Because the offical NASA mentality has been to stick with the Ares designs. And oppposition in the ranks wasn't to be tolerated.

It's only recently with the new administrator that a study on the Jupiter rockets has commenced. A new direction will depend on what the White House decides.

[dcb1138]

OBAMA is going to make NASA use direct or a commercial launcher. NASA really screwed up bad with ARES 1. What a TOTAL waste of time and money...Obama already FIRED Griffin. It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to see whats coming next. Ooops, I forgot, no one at NASA has common sense.

[ladyspica]

I dont like the Ares at all, sure its pretty but it is too heavy and unstable. I agree with keeping the Jupiters.

[battlebitz]

The LDAFA200 states 1447.9 cubic quantifiers 15% of QAU 77ATB. Considering 3x 600 YPT undermines LK2LO 330.77.88 Data Core, NNN 7000/288 differential. NASA boasts a phenomenal 7700 BKAKU 2x Q/FAC 8000.01G on a good day, not to mention an 9000% radial QQA 6000.*/99 HAQWOPLE * 7000 2H7//K92 93J 039 NNN 77/4. Any ideas?

[jxvwp]

The DIRECT has got 2x 4-segment RSRB's and 3x RS-68 engines to carry the EDS, the Altair LSAm and Orion CEV. How the heck do they think it can get that to earth, when NASA belives the to just carry the EDS and the LSAM you need 2x 5,5-segment RSRB's and 6x RS-68 regen engines

[frbe0101]

I think you mean the moon. Direct plans for orbital Earth orbit rendezvous (Ironically it is not a direct to the moon single launcher) still its price tag to functional launcher was far more feasible than Ares. NASA should have focused on getting the most for the least development time and price, as is now nasa stands a good chance of losing founding for the Ares V and we will be stuck with the Ares I and in a worse place strategically then the space shuttle.

[jxvwp]

Yes but to get to the moon you have to get to LEO first

[Hiuaske]

lol... space shuttles wont be retired

[SPYFICTION]

I read about the ongoing struggle going at NASA about for a new launcher, and I think this Jupiter Direct method is the best I've seen. Most of its parts are from the Shuttle program, and some engines from the Delta series. The Ares program is more expensive, unproven, tedious to build and political. Those things don't make a rocket program. It wastes billions, when that money could've gone into real innovations. NASA is nothing more than a bureaucracy and it's wasting our money.

[Nidhogg13]

Well, the Ares rockets are reusing technology in much the same way this Direct idea is, except using larger SRB's (five segment instead of four) and separating the cargo and crew launches. The Ares V core stage looks just like this Direct core stage, using an external tank with RS-68 engines and SRB's on the side.

The rationale behind the separation of crew and cargo is that the big, expensive Ares V rocket doesn't have to be man-rated, making it substatially cheaper than the Saturn V.

[frbe0101]

The Ares resuses 5% of the hardware: new solid fuel boosters (unsolved extra vibration problem from the new bosters has push Ares back by years), totally redesign fuel tank, fire most of the Shuttle works, new facilities, closes down or retool the existing ones. Direct would have use 95% of the same parts and most of the same workers.

[jxvwp]

The only common parts that I can identify from the shuttle is the LH2 tank and the SSME's. The rest has to replaced, modified or strengthened to even come close to the performance needed, and when they have an airworthy design it will probably look 99.9% like the ARES-V

[DFORCE1969]

Typical NASA;pork barrel politics wins over common sense every time.

[thirdclass2006]

The more I learn about Direct, the more it seems to be the better option.

[wiiwouldliketoplaymi]

I am a huge fan of the space program. I believe nasa is making the wrong choice with the ares 1 and ares 5 launchers. Direct is better as the development time is substantially less, the vehicle is much cheaper to create, you don't need multiple vehicles to launch, it lets you bring payloads to the iss, and with the 232, a lander to the moon, and so much more that nasa is missing. It isn't too late to change from ares to direct, we just have to make the change now.

[HAL11000]

The Direct report needs to be shown to the next president.

[dbwashere]

Imagine that. Utilizing technology that already exists, is proven and easily reconfigured. It makes sense to me. Wonder why the entrenched bureaucrats at NASA call it a "napkin drawing" and are ignoring the concept.

[jxvwp]

Probably because it IS a "napkin drawing" the DIRECT-lobby only have some Photoshop-pictures and some numbers grabbed out of the air and a bunch of nice words that only appeals to the public which haven't got an engineering-degree or know anything about rocket-designs. They haven't even run simulations on the design for Pete's sake. The Constellation have been tested (in the computer and with wind-tunnels) like a gazillion times even before the I-X got assembled.

[Scorpiuszeroone]

It doesn't get any more clear than that!