DIRECT 3.0 - Transistion from Space Shuttle

Info: http://www.directlauncher.com/
The Jupiter series of rockets is a cheaper, faster and more flexible approach to putting man back on the moon. This video shows the modifications required to transition the Space Shuttle hardware to the Jupiter Series rockets. This is V3.0 of the proposal, which uses SSME and RL-10 engines.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• direct
• jupiter
• space
• shuttle
• rocket
• moon

[thirdclass2006]

My favorite alternative to get to space and to the moon.

One can only wonder what if NASA picked this in the first place?

[JephN]

The fact remains that the problems of 5-segment boosters were not well known before Ares was conceived. they knew something was wrong, but not what. With Direct, there are few challenges I can see, aside from maybe some unforeseen issues in the thrust structure. That's not necessarily extremely difficult to redesign though.

[4A5P]

Will NASA be humble enough to borrow the engineering notes for the Ariane 5, from the Europeans, if/when the DIRECT project gets underway? Or will they stay in-country, and use the notes from the Delta IV Heavy for DIRECT?

[America100000able]

@tlages

You mean why is there a second stage. It's supposed to be a rocket to get us to the Moon. The first stage would only get us to lower Earth orbit. We need a second stage to direct the Orion capsule to the Moon.

[tlages]

How is the jupiter 246 2 launch in stead of one?

[aftercolumbia]

@thirdclass2006 I'm pretty sure Stephen Baxter has thought more about it that you (certainly more about it than I): look up his novel Voyage: What Might Have Been. If you're in a hurry, look up the rseferino1 video about it.

[Winner8501]

What a waste of SSMEs. 

[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. :)

[bobafetthotmail]

@tjohn6041

-Well, with space shuttle mainteneance being around half billion dollar per year per craft, I see massive savings even by throwing away engines.

Anyway, mass-production will help decrease costs on them.

-that's a problem of the RS 68, that to be cheap enough has lower performance than SSMEs.

-structural support? the orange tank can already hold the orbiter's weight, and placing stuff on a side is much less efficient than placing it on top. It won't eat payload mass.

[tjohn6041]

@usnsquirrel Check Out the SD SM HLV Block 1, 2, and 3.

I also believe you are backwards, Ares V started with SSMEs and then moved to the RS-68B because they did not want to limit the payload. The Direct is plagued by:

-They must either throw away 150-200 Million dollars of engines, or

-They will have to exceed the RS-68's limits of burn time.

-The Direct requires structural support to have a payload on top, which reduces payload weight to less than stated because of the decreased volume.

[usnsquirrel]

@tjohn6041 Ares initially went with RS-68's, and then moved to SSME's due the base heating issues. Cost (50-60 million dollars each, look it up) of the SSME would be offset by not having to develop the other hardware required. That would be billions and you can buy lots of SSMEs for billions.

Sidemount can't lift 70 tons of payload to LEO, and CERTAINLY can't evolve (as a sidemount) to hoist 150 tons of payload to LEO. Sidemount is inefficient for upmass. This is a no-brainer.