DIRECT Launcher - an alternative to NASA's ARES

A private alternative proposed to NASA to replace the ARES by a launcher directly derivated from the space shuttle system.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• DIRECT
• launcher
• NASA
• ARES
• Space
• Shuttle

[Membrane556]

I feel this is the vehicle Orion should be launched on as it gets rid of all the issues with Ares I and makes the lunar program a lot more robust and able to survive in an uncertian economic and political climate.

Keeps the people at KSC employed so no layoffs and cuts the gap to just two years.

Plus it's 4.6 billion cheaper then Ares I which should get rid of any fears of Obama killing the moon program.

Pretty much makes everyone happy but Scott and Mike.

[JephN]

It can NOT be "reliable if it's not PROVEN. Ares I is 5 segments with no flight history, and the J-2X is NEW and unproven. Not to mention the thrust oscillations of 5 G's at 10 Hz that would turn brains into mush.

[realsupercopter]

@smeltriver09 : How can you say that Departure from LEO is needed and say that LEO missions are stupid?

"Direct" launcher can achieve Mars or Asteroid missions (who would still want to go to the Moon?) like every other spaceships : with two launches - one Heavy-Lift version for sending the earth-departure vehicle and one Human-Rated version for sending the astronauts who have to rendez-vous and dock with it.

See both versions in this YouTube video : watch?v=7njhv4bArKw

[Jimbob8971]

@Membrane556 i agree bush was digging nasa's grave and orion was just a waste of money that would never get us beyond the moon infact i like obama's plan of skipping the moon and heading straight for mars

[smeltriver09]

What the hell is this?! MORE Low Earth Orbit?! MORE stupid space station missions?! Where is the Lunar expedition capabilities to all this?? How does the "Direct" launcher fly up a Lunar Lander & an Earth Escape Stage?? Without a Departure-from-LEO stage, the manned craft is NOT going anywhere. Sure, you could keep sending men to the ISS, but that is the path to multi-decade stagnation!

[Membrane556]

@joshbulldog1661

The Delta IV-H can do that job for a fraction of the cost with the RS-68A's it's payload is now larger then Ares I.

Shuttle derived vehicles only make sense for heavy lifting as the shuttle stack is a heavy lift vehicle.

[joshbulldog1661]

@Membrane556 but i think ares 1 should be kept too cuz it is good for iss ferrying

[ti994apc]

Good animation! This would be just as expensive as Ares1 (about $1.1 billion a flight). It would be better as a heavy lift vehicle (perhaps replacing AresV). The best man rated vehicles we could have for cost and safety. Would be Falcon9 (safe, carries 7 people, and only $45 million a flight) or a Boeing capsule on an ULA Atlas V rocket (that uses Russian engines) would be about $150 million a flight.

[crewportal1]

My God! You don't need a Ford F-450 Super Duty 10Cyl 6.8L truck to deliver a TV set. The smallest ford ranger does the job just fine. This makes less sense than NASA's idea.

[bb4aa]

Every launch of the Shuttle costs 1 billion US-$. It is by far the most expensive launch system ever developed. And it the most dangerous space vehicle that you can imagine. If anything go wrong the astronauts are lost.

The Ares I uses only one extended shuttle booster and a very reliable engine in the second stage.

[ferkeap]

Yes it finished building ISS.

But no sooner, the Space shuttle is still a very usefull vehicle.

And the take-back is for experiments and replaced parts from the ISS. As you need to collect and research.

It is a pitty it was made unpractical, it never left the experiment fase.

And now there maybe make the same mistakes again, cutting it short or being shortsided and end up with a difficult moon rocket.