The name DIRECT was chosen for the opposing launch vehicle proposal
because it uses hardware with more direct shuttle heritage than Ares I/V.
It sticks with four segment SRB's and ET diameter tankage for the first
stage.

He gave you info about the "improved" design.

I live in Huntsville and it was in the local paper the Huntsville Times.
And I know a few engineers who have been laughing at this "under the table"
project for a few years.

He is a toy rocketeer and has had several articles published about the
Ares which he doesn't even work on...wait he doesn't even work for NASA...

I live in Huntsville and it was in the local paper the Huntsville Times.
And I know a few engineers who have been laughing at this "under the
table" project for a few years.

One of the guys involved is not even an engineer.

"Jeff Findley"
Ares I/V requires building and maintaining two completely separate launch
vehicles with very little in common. A cheaper choice would be a two
launch architecture where two identical launch vehicles are used to fly a
lunar mission. This is what the DIRECT proposal is all about.

Well that sounds absurd. I seriously doubt that the savings exist at all.

If all you want to do is launch a crew pod, put it on a large solid and
launch it.

I fail to see how putting the crew capsule on a large
Ariane-style rocket would work better or cost less.

If they really wanted to save cash they would buy a few Soyuz, but I
digress.

What is the real rationale? "Lets build them so they look the same, and
therefore that is better?" If there is some objective reasoning or goal I
would like to know what it is.

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:d6cc8$487e14b3$927a2cda$15018 at (no spam) FUSE.NET...


The name DIRECT was chosen for the opposing launch vehicle proposal
because it uses hardware with more direct shuttle heritage than Ares I/V.
It sticks with four segment SRB's and ET diameter tankage for the first
stage.

The "problem" with DIRECT is that it sounds great on paper. And as we all
know Ares I/V started that way.

I still think Ares is a mistake. But am not convinced that DIRECT is the
golden boy either.

"Jeff Findley"
Ares I/V requires building and maintaining two completely separate
launch vehicles with very little in common. A cheaper choice would be a
two launch architecture where two identical launch vehicles are used to
fly a lunar mission. This is what the DIRECT proposal is all about.

Well that sounds absurd. I seriously doubt that the savings exist at all.

If all you want to do is launch a crew pod, put it on a large solid and
launch it. I fail to see how putting the crew capsule on a large
Ariane-style rocket would work better or cost less.

If they really wanted to save cash they would buy a few Soyuz, but I
digress.

What is the real rationale? "Lets build them so they look the same, and
therefore that is better?" If there is some objective reasoning or goal
I would like to know what it is.

"Jeff Findley"
The name DIRECT was chosen for the opposing launch vehicle proposal
because it uses hardware with more direct shuttle heritage than Ares I/V.
It sticks with four segment SRB's and ET diameter tankage for the first
stage.


Still sounds like re-inventing the Ariane. Everyone has to do their own
machine in-house.

If an SRB will work to launch the crew vehicle, then vague inhibitions
about a "stretched SRB" without substantive support are not adequate to
justify a larger hybrid vehicle, regardless of Griffin, preferences,
legacies, etc.

"Tanker" <m1a1tanker at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7Y-dnQxlFoyz3-PVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
I live in Huntsville and it was in the local paper the Huntsville Times.
And I know a few engineers who have been laughing at this "under the
table" project for a few years.

So what is the joke.




One of the guys involved is not even an engineer.


Wow.

"Revision" <ttsREMOVE at (no spam) NOJUNKcharter.net> wrote in message
news:95143$487e9f42$23668 at (no spam) news.teranews.com...

"Jeff Findley"
Ares I/V requires building and maintaining two completely separate
launch vehicles with very little in common. A cheaper choice would be a
two launch architecture where two identical launch vehicles are used to
fly a lunar mission. This is what the DIRECT proposal is all about.

Well that sounds absurd. I seriously doubt that the savings exist at all.

If all you want to do is launch a crew pod, put it on a large solid and
launch it. I fail to see how putting the crew capsule on a large
Ariane-style rocket would work better or cost less.

You're missing the point. For lunar missions, you have to launch one Ares I
and one Ares V or you can launch two Jupiter 232's. Which is easier to
launch, two vehicles where all stages are different, the MLP's are
different, etc. or two vehicles which are identical except for their
payload?

If they really wanted to save cash they would buy a few Soyuz, but I
digress.

What is the real rationale? "Lets build them so they look the same, and
therefore that is better?" If there is some objective reasoning or goal
I would like to know what it is.

If the point were to keep flying around in LEO I might agree (actually, I'd
say NASA should stick to EELV's), but NASA is trying to go to the moon and
keep congress happy by retaining as much of the shuttle workforce (i.e.
pork) as possible.

My personal architecture would use only EELV's and would direct NASA to
develop LEO fueling depots (LOX and LH2), eventually adding a lunar orbit or
L2 fuel depot.

Jeff

Or DAMN... you could update some weird rocket that was launched 10
times and upgrade it with modern technology. Seems like the Saturn V
was a pretty decent rocket for analog technology. Damn, there's that
Golden age getting in the way again!

Or DAMN... you could update some weird rocket that was launched 10
times and upgrade it with modern technology. Seems like the Saturn V
was a pretty decent rocket for analog technology. Damn, there's that
Golden age getting in the way again!

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s at (no spam) greenms.com> wrote in message
news:osmdndVOBrH4AOPVnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...

The "problem" with DIRECT is that it sounds great on paper. And as we all
know Ares I/V started that way.

I still think Ares is a mistake. But am not convinced that DIRECT is the
golden boy either.

If you understand aerospace engineering and actually read through what's
online, it's actually pretty easy to see how they get Ares I + Ares V
performance out of 2 launches of Jupiter 232.

Paper rockets are always wonderful regardless of origin. The problems
start when you start trying to build real rockets and DIRECT/Jupiter
is not immune to this effect nor do I see any reason to assume it will
be.

fairwater at (no spam) gmail.com (Derek Lyons) writes:

Paper rockets are always wonderful regardless of origin. The problems
start when you start trying to build real rockets and DIRECT/Jupiter
is not immune to this effect nor do I see any reason to assume it will
be.

Did anyone think that Ares I was wonderful when it still was a paper
rocket?