DIRECT 2.0 - Transistion from Space Shuttle

[evinado1]

Can someone explain to me the differences between DIRECT and the current SLS plan? I read on the DIRECT page a while ago they considered the SLS architecture a win for them but they have since taken down their web page. Is this because they got what they wanted or did I read that wrong?

To reiterate: are we now essentially building Jupiter Direct or not?

[tjohn6041]

Kind of curious, should we trust our space program to a group who claim theirs is a safer product and yet cannot even name the abort system correctly? At 0:36 it specifically is labelled MLAS Abort system, while clearly showing the abort tower. And MLAS means Max Launch Abort System, so they essentially said Max Launch Abort System Abort System. BTW don't make me go into the technical issues with DIRECT (i.e Tank volume is only enough for suborbital flights, RS-68s not rated for that long.

[extracrispy75]

@tjohn6041

This video is old now. Direct 3.0 is the current version. The J246 configuration is now one of two remaining options being considered by NASA now that Constellation is dead in the water. The other option would continue work on the 5-seg SRBs, creating a stretched version. Regardless, the Direct philosophy (maximum re-use) has in fact won the day.

[carpenoctemcarpediem]

what is Jupiter's maximum payload?

[Tyrannobeast]

I meant that the boosters are attached to the side. While NASA greatly improved the safety of side-mounted boosters, it's still an unnecessary risk for a human payload. And judging by the current actions by Congress to help with the Ares Program, I think the Ares-1 could have a definite future ahead of it.

[Tyrannobeast]

I've always been fascinated by the DIRECT plan, and I have always thought that it could be a great plan for future space exploration. However, Challenger showed that horizontally stacked vehicles are not as safe as vertically stacked, which is why I'm currently in support of the Constellation Program. On the other hand, DIRECT could be a good method to keep the United States in space until Ares starts launching, so I'm kind of both ways. I'd like for DIRECT to hold us over to the Ares flights.

[extracrispy75]

THe Jupiter rocket is bertically stacked. Charlie Bolden is currently reviewing Heavy Lift alternatives and a Jupiter-like, shuttle derived, vertically stacked launcher is his favorite "sources say"

Ares 1 is dead. There may be a few more 1-X type flights to test the 5-seg SRB though.

[bestuzername]

I'm a big supporter - I think this is awesome.

[JephN]

There needs to be more exposure to this design. I've been a fan of Direct for about two years now. Thanks for uploading this! Can't wait to see DIRECT 3.0 after the ISDC presentations!

5/5

[estonski]

great idea we will go to the moon back with it and to the ISS and when the jupiter direct 232 will get us to the mars(hopefuli):)

[davoyager]

I think this is a great idea. It will get us there faster and we can give the Aries project enough time to get it right.

[jxvwp]

I doubt safer and sooner. It ain't sooner because they have to too little thrust, and it ain't safer because they are mixing the asignments. This thing has to carry both crew and cargo

[extracrispy75]

thrust has nothing to do with how soon this rocket could be delivered. 'sooner' because it needs less new components. 'safer' because it uses less untried engineering. cargo+crew is not inherently unsafe - sidemounting a delicate orbiter next to a shedding LH2 tank is.

[jxvwp]

Ofcause the cargo+crew thing is impoprtant to safety. If you have to rockets (like the Ares projekt) then you can specialise them. One for the crew that is idiot proof, and one for the cargo that can haul twice the payload of the shuttle for half the price. if you make a rocket that has to do both you either have to compromise security or payload capacity (might be a few typos)

[extracrispy75]

except that the ares 1 is not idiot proof. it is under-powered, so the Orion has to have some safety removed to save mass. the ares 5 is not half the price of the shuttle. it's massively overpowered and oversized and will require wholesale rebuilding of infrastructure. two J232 rockets put more mass through TLI than an ares 1+5 mission. Do some research into this please, the figures are all out there.

[jxvwp]

I have done research. Have you? I'm not sure but I think that all the worlds rocket scientists know a little more about this than any of us

[extracrispy75]

Yes I have. And this rocket is designed by the same rocket scientists that are designing ares. Both designs can be made to work. But ares 1+5 is too expensive and will not happen.

Anyway, I'm sure a bunch of heated youtube comments will settle the matter :)

[jxvwp]

Well. As I see it is my oppinion (I think the Ares will work and that it is the most efficient and safe of the 2) against your oppinion (You think the Jupiter will be cheaper and safer than the Ares). We might never get a settlement but we will get back to the moon.

[extracrispy75]

On that last point, we can agree :) As long as there's smart people and money in NASA, they can do it.

[frbe0101]

Why nasa stays with Ares is a mystery, Direct is cheaper, safer and quicker to implement, Ares is already going way over budget and way over schedule and they have not even touch Ares IV/V development! Congress will eventually cancel it and we will be stuck with no launch vehicle, or only and Ares I and no Ares IV/V and thus no going back to the moon or mars. Once again NASA F* up

[malickfan]

makes sense to me.

for all the cry babies who say it's "too dangerous"... for god's sake, we lose 40,000 people in auto accidents every year in America.

[liquidefeline]

Shooting 35 year old rockets into the sky with people stuck on the end should sound like a bad idea to most people shouldn't it? Now if we extend this to 45 year old rockets what kind of problems are we going to have? I like keeping things cheap and simple, but sometimes we need to spend a little more money for safety.

[ChilapaOfTheAmazons]

Hi liquidefeline, the big safety problems of the Space Shuttle are all related to the orbiter. The DIRECT team proposes to retire the orbiter in 2010 (just like the current NASA plan) and the resulting Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 vehicles will be much, much safer (mostly thanks to launch escape capabilities).

According to NASA engineers Jupiter-120 is even safer than Ares I, the new launcher currently developed by NASA.

For more informations please check the link to the right of the video.

[automatt12]

Why can't they just dust off a few X-wings from star wars? That shit worked just fine AND it shot lasers.

[gun844]

Hello i wasnt an american.Look they didnt want to spend a "little" do going to spend 300-320 billion dollars.....Look the russian with this money can make a ship wich can made its way to mars in luxury....I think its a little toooo much to spend only to sned one or to man to the moon...Opposite in this why you guys didnt give this money to the poors and to the olds?America has great problems...

[Awesomerobot]

Actually, most problems are with the orbiter -- the core itself is incredibly solid.

[chrisdejonge611]

No the core isn't solid, the boosters are solid.