|
Science Forum Index » Space - Shuttle Forum » Rocket Scientists Acting Sneaky...
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tanker... |
 Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — By day, the engineers work on NASA's new Ares
moon rockets. By night, some go undercover to work on a competing
design.
These dissenting scientists and their backers insist they have created
an alternative rocket that would be safer, cheaper and easier to build
than the two Ares spacecraft that will replace the space shuttle.
They call their project Jupiter, and like Ares, it's a brainchild of
workers at the Marshall Space Flight Center and other NASA facilities.
The engineers involved are doing the work on their own time and mostly
anonymously, with the help of retirees and other space enthusiasts.
A key Ares project manager dismisses their design as little more than
a sketch on a napkin that won't work.
A spokesman for the competing effort, Ross Tierney, said concerned
engineers at NASA and some contractors want a review of the Ares plans
but can't speak out for fear of being demoted, transferred or fired.
------------------------------------------------
I have an idea...Instead of designing and building a spaceship that
will be 100% safe for our astronauts we will fold our arms and turn
our backs on them and build something safer and better than what we
are doing now for some guy named Bill. NASA engineers have a union
that keeps them from getting fired. If all the engineers band together
and bitch and whine like they do and post childish notes like they do
on bulletin boards when David King gets a new 100 inch plasma tv for
their conference rooms then they should be able to band together and
do the same thing when a fuel valve gets stuck or is of a poor
quality. Unfortunately they don't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Kalle07... |
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 16 Jul., 09:07, "Revision" <ttsREM... at (no spam) NOJUNKcharter.net> wrote:
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Revision... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: A key Ares project manager dismisses their design as little more than
a sketch on a napkin that won't work.
Doesn't sound very promising. If some engineers came up with a better
design, it would succeed on its own merits. We have no info at all about
this "great idea".
Reminds me of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous in Apollo. It seems like an
obvious choice based on mass/energy considerations.
Personally I like the Ares design.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian Gaff... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Well, if its been public since last September, nearly a year, one has to ask
why nobody has actually done something about it.
As always with these things, there are multiple ways to do things, and
whether the way chosen is going to ultimately going to be the best way is
never clear when the decision has to be made. Ideally of course, in a world
where there is no money problems, one would build suitable test systems to
see what was best, but in the current climate, I suspect you just have to
decide far too early in the process to know what is the best way.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Kalle07" <kalle07 at (no spam) live.com> wrote in message
news:05813154-563f-4ebe-b6bc-43b54e99e0bf at (no spam) 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On 16 Jul., 09:07, "Revision" <ttsREM... at (no spam) NOJUNKcharter.net> wrote:
Doesn't sound very promising. If some engineers came up with a better
design, it would succeed on its own merits. We have no info at all about
this "great idea".
No info at all: http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/index.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Revision" <ttsREMOVE at (no spam) NOJUNKcharter.net> wrote in message
news:6e4c2$487d9e2a$20594 at (no spam) news.teranews.com...
Quote: A key Ares project manager dismisses their design as little more than
a sketch on a napkin that won't work.
Doesn't sound very promising. If some engineers came up with a better
design, it would succeed on its own merits. We have no info at all about
this "great idea".
Actually, this work was first published as an AIAA paper and has been
continuously revised as time goes on. NASA's recent admittal that some in
its ranks don't like the current Ares I/V direction and have been
moonlighting on a competing design is obviously biased. Griffin has been
pushing Ares I/V since the beginning.
Quote: Reminds me of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous in Apollo. It seems like an
obvious choice based on mass/energy considerations.
Not necessarily. Ares I/V requires building and maintaining two completely
separate launch vehicles with very little in common. A cheaper choice would
be a two launch architecture where two identical launch vehicles are used to
fly a lunar mission. This is what the DIRECT proposal is all about.
Quote: Personally I like the Ares design.
I think the design is a dog. Both vehicles are limited by the SRB's, which
have been stretched beyond shuttle's four segments, so I wouldn't trust the
"shuttle heritage" in the design.
Info on DIRECT isn't hard to find. It's all on their "official" website:
http://www.directlauncher.com/
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Brian Gaff" <Briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%9ifk.27651$E41.15467 at (no spam) text.news.virginmedia.com...
Quote: Well, if its been public since last September, nearly a year, one has to
ask why nobody has actually done something about it.
That's obvious. NASA has been ignoring DIRECT because Mike Griffin came
into the agency with Ares I/V as *his* preferred launch architecture for
returning to the moon. It's going to be his legacy. Very few want to
directly challenge him on this because of fear for their jobs and careers.
Quote: As always with these things, there are multiple ways to do things, and
whether the way chosen is going to ultimately going to be the best way is
never clear when the decision has to be made. Ideally of course, in a
world where there is no money problems, one would build suitable test
systems to see what was best, but in the current climate, I suspect you
just have to decide far too early in the process to know what is the best
way.
Not really. In this case the engineers knew what answer to give Griffin.
The trade study to determine the launch architecture was biased because the
conclusion was known before the study began.
Plus on top of that the vehicles have changed dramatically due to replacing
the SSME's in the study with the RS-68 and the J-2X. The RS-68 has far
lower ISP, which is one of the reasons Ares V is so huge today (larger
diameter and length for the core stage when compared to the shuttle ET).
Similarly, the change to the J-2X in the upper stage of Ares I has
necessitated the stretch of its SRB to five segments and has resulted in a
vehicle which is right at the limits of its ability to launch a fully fueled
lunar Orion. Part of the problem is that Orion is now planned to use less
energetic hypergolic propellants rather than the higher ISP LOX/methane
engines, resulting in a far heavier Orion service module than originally
envisioned.
All of this means that today's Ares I/V are not nearly as shuttle derived as
the original study suggested they would be. This means higher development
costs. It also means less "direct" heritage hardware which makes me less
confident of the reliability and safety of the systems involved (especially
the stretched SRB's).
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.
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tanker... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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.
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... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tanker... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:d6cc8$487e14b3$927a2cda$15018 at (no spam) FUSE.NET...
Quote: That's obvious. NASA has been ignoring DIRECT because Mike Griffin came
into the agency with Ares I/V as *his* preferred launch architecture for
returning to the moon. It's going to be his legacy. Very few want to
directly challenge him on this because of fear for their jobs and careers.
I actually have to chuckle when I read things like this....Jeff, I'm not
chuckling at you, but at the concept that engineers are in fear of losing
jobs. These guys post bullshit notes about everyone and everything on
bulletin boards challenging the administrations of both King and Griffin. I
talked to an engineer that said he resigned due to the fact that the
administration turned down his safety propsals. After talking to another guy
that new him the fact was he resigned because he didn't get an 4,000$ raise
after he went and bought a Boxster and an H3. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 16, 9:24 pm, "Revision" <ttsREM... at (no spam) NOJUNKcharter.net> wrote:
Quote: "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.
Incorrect, The Direct replaces the combination of Ares I and Ares V
for lunar missions. That is where the major savings is. Two of the
same vehicle replacing two different vehicles |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Revision... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Kalle07"
No info about the supposed "improved" design, dumb ass. I know there is
info about Ares.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider)... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:d6cc8$487e14b3$927a2cda$15018 at (no spam) FUSE.NET...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Revision... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Revision" <ttsREMOVE at (no spam) NOJUNKcharter.net> wrote in message
news:ea034$487e9ba4$21368 at (no spam) news.teranews.com...
Quote:
"Kalle07"
No info about the supposed "improved" design, dumb ass. I know there is
info about Ares.
Okay so this is Direct 2.0 So how the fuck is this a "sketch on an
envelope" that "won't work." I swear, trying to get anything other than
horse shit info out of this forum is a struggle.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider)... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Revision" <ttsREMOVE at (no spam) NOJUNKcharter.net> wrote in message
news:ea034$487e9ba4$21368 at (no spam) news.teranews.com...
Quote:
"Kalle07"
No info about the supposed "improved" design, dumb ass. I know there is
info about Ares.
He gave you info about the "improved" design.
As well as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Revision... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley"
Quote: 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.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Revision... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)"
Quote: He gave you info about the "improved" design.
Roger that... thx
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
