Shuttle to Jupiter-232

www.directlauncher.com - Animation showing the transition from the Space Shuttle, through the first generation Jupiter-120 launch vehicle due in 2012 and on into the Jupiter-232 for Lunar Missions in 2017.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Space
• Shuttle
• DIRECT
• Vision
• Exploration
• aviation
• space

[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.

[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

[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).

[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

[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.

[drlf100]

NASA RULES!

[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. 

[williamhad]

@captinseperoth nasa is the government retard.

[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