DIRECT Delusions

RIGHT ON, Keith! Thank you for telling it like it is concerning the DIRECT wannabes. As a 40+ year outspoken layman/advocate of our Nation's space program, this whole thing makes me wanna hurl.

It's SO presumptuous for a dried-up software jockey, a submarine designer, an artist, an ORBITER spacesimmer, and a rich foreigner to actually think they should have input into AMERICA'S future human spaceflight program.

Okay, I scratchbuild and fly spacemodels, write webpages about them, and am a NASA cheerleader. Maybe I can take over as Chief Astronaut with those quals.

This is a pathetic situation.

Hmmm... so, Keith, you would seem to be ruling out an inline SDLV just because it is what the "Direct fanboys" worked on?

Or are you saying that if an inline SDLV is chosen that the "Direct fanboys" could not have had any influence on the decision... because the public contact for this group of NASA engineers happens to run a model kit company?

And are you quite sure that none of those engineers have come out into the open since then?

And as for sources... well, the Direct fanboy central node at NSF has NASA sources too... including mail from MAF confirming to HQ that they have enough ET components to assemble one test flight unit and 2 or perhaps 3 usable flight units of an inline SDLV core.

Now, the new contracting mode may be much more commercial-oriented than with previous NASA concepts... which would fit in with most aspects of the recent leakathon... but it seems that either you're right and someone in the admin is lying their asses off in a nasty joke to "get back" at the primary critics of the previous POR... or you were misinformed and an inline SDLV is doing a good imitation of an oncoming train and those at NASA trying to ignore it are the one struggling with delusions.

Were these appropriate conclusions?

As it may be, we will know at least about this come Monday evening :)

Methinks this is a teensy bit too skeptical of the Direct team. They are an honest group of people who were/are championing an earlier NASA design (in-line STS derived HLV) as superior to the ESAS-imposed POR ("1.5 launch" architecture). It's not like they dreamed up something on their own and acted like it was their baby. They are providing a superior alternative to the current POR and their efforts are appreciated by many.

However we shall see about this sooner than later. If NASA is serious about an in-line STS derived HLV (the Direct team's advocation), they will need to begin work on this NOW, to take advantage of the existing, and soon to be disappearing, STS infrastructure. If they do not want to develop an in-line STS derived HLV, then they can take their time studying the alternatives, because such a choice will be much less viable if we wait even a few more months down the road. I would say Monday's news conference might provide some clues either way. Many in NASA seem to be preparing for Direct's LV vision to become the POR du jour. It will be interesting.

Keith, thank you for offering some sober thoughts regarding DIRECT (i.e. not automatically cheerleading as seems to have been in fashion the last few years). If people think they're truly qualified to design a next-generation heavy-lift vehicle, then I suggest submitting resumes to industry and NASA and not conduct a borderline ridiculous "guerilla" attack on the agency - who already employ thousands of the best, brightest, experience and most creative rocket designers in the world. I guess I'm one of the (few?) who got so sick and tired of the holier-than-thou cheat-beating that all it did was drive me toward supporting Constellation even more strongly. I thought it was a given that arrogance is the antithesis of sound engineering since we just spent a day remembering three lost missions where astronauts died because of hubris and arrogance.

On another note, New York Times got a leaked budget document and apparently, it does, in fact, kill Constellation and the goal of returning humans to the Moon. No surprise there, of course, but it is confirmation of what we've heard.

Leaked personal email (I'm not even sure if that's legal, I wouldn't ever do it) on a web forum does NOT count as "verifiable, corroborated sources". Period. All it is is people's thoughts and opinions written supposedly in confidence and then leaked by third-parties without the writer's or recipient's consent.

Note, I'm not talking about email or information that is distributed internally to everyone, such as Mr. Coats message posted here earlier. But when I send something to a friend of mine, I usually don't want him or someone else posted it for 6 billion people to read.

As for relying on the "information", well, an email written by someone postulating hypotheticals and then leaked without a full context is unwise. Yes, there is one tank that will be used for a potential rescue mission for STS-133. There are various components that could be cobbled together but you'd have to be insane (in an engineering sense) to think that would make for a viable test program - unless you're talking about one-off demonstrations like Ares I-X that would, in the long run, be of limited value to a meaningful development program.

I could just as easily write an email with a .nasa.gov address and state that the agency has enough Saturn V rockets and component still in decent shape to fly at least one more Apollo mission and not put any context to the message. It would sound ridiculous wouldn't it?

Additionally, again relying on my actual aerospace engineering experience, so many modifications would need to be done to the current external tank design that it would be more cost-effective and timely to build NEW tanks for a demo inline vehicle than it would be to rework existing tanks. And inline design isn't as simple as "just moving" the SSME's to the bottom of the tank and throwing an upper stage on top. For one thing, the tank would crumple into a heap.

"...so many modifications would need to be done to the current external tank design that it would be more cost-effective and timely to build NEW tanks for a demo inline vehicle than it would be to rework existing tanks."

Amen! The loads would be significantly different, and if an ET were to be test flown in an in-line configuration as-is, it wouldn't make it off the pad. Too many armchair rocket scientists think SDLVs are just "cut-and-paste" architectures. You can't just weld a thrust cone, bolt some engines, and call it a day. The 2012 launch dates I've heard are far too optimistic.

The cost of throwing away SSMEs would break the bank!

A courtesy? That is the best you can come up with? There has to be another reason, because ignoring them would have been easier.

I would say that if NASA or its contractors adopt a inline HLV with an 8.4 meter diameter core base on the ET, then "Direct" has been adopted. 4 or 5 segment SRB's, SSMEs or RS-68, RL-10 or J-2, it doesn't matter, the core diameter was basis of all the Direct proposals.

Editor's note: and you are a professional rocket engineer, yes?

Just as the "Direct-Deniers" keep overlooking the fact that NASA engineers and the Augustine Commission have verified the practicality of the inline SDLV, in an environment where the odds were heavily loaded in favor of the POR, they also keep overlooking the fact that the inline SDLV was originally a NASA project called the National Launch System... an official NASA project that made it through PDR.

They actually had the manufacturing specs to be programmed into the tooling.

So, when you eliminate the inane strawmen arguments about armchair designers you find that NASA engineers learned long ago that the current ET can be modified into the equivalent of a J-130 or J-140 as is. No upper stage required and it's still capable of flying.

Yes, NASA said the ET is strong enough for that.

Now progressing to the equivalent of a J-2xx, a Jupiter with an upper stage, will require new cores... but as I said above the first pass at the work has already been done and just needs to be tailored to the current ET alloys and whatever the current design is... which will shave years off even a NASA design curve.

So the communique from MAF was quite relevant, and if the parts are there then we're go for HLV initial tests within 3-4 years.

As for SSME expenses... the Augustine Commission also pointed out something that people within NASA have known for decades:refurbishing the SSMEs after each flight does not save money and slows launch rates down.

It's cheaper to throw them away, launch more often and buy new ones in bulk.

(Same with the SRBs)

The Direct plan was to use up the existing SSME stocks and buy new ones in bulk until a cheaper expendable version of the SSME can be brought online.

You'd wind up launching more payload more often than Shuttle could ever dream of... and doing it much cheaper.

And then you'd have a capable and affordable HLV standing ready when you want to go places beyond earth's orbit.

Direct fanboys???!!!! Wow, Keith I have been a fan of your site for a long time, but this was really sad. These guys have been working a long time on this, often eschewing the kinds of media involvement many of their fans have encouraged them to make use of, all in the name of trying to work within the system to offer a better alternative. Nobody drew this up on a napkin at some liquid lunch! I am so disappointed in your reaction to this, from someone who has wanted to move NASA in a better direction. This reminds me of a local conservative radio talk-show host who calls himself 'The Voice of Reason,' but all he really is is 'The Voice or Resignation,' since he never offers any solutions, just complains about everyone else's suggestions.

And you other posters with comments on the 2012 date: that didn't come from Direct, that is rumors coming from the administration looking to expedite this process. Direct has claimed 36 - 42 months.

The fact that a toy rocket model company owner was asked to come to NASA HQ and talk about a rocket design - one whose actual "designers" can never be named - was simply a courtesy - a curious one at that - not a statement of support.

Oh, Keith, you might be in for a surprise there...

"Editor's note: and you are a professional rocket engineer, yes?"

LOL. If "Me" is who I think he is, he most definitely is more familiar with the problematic than someone who obviously cannot get over the fact it took a bunch of "amateurs" to point out what was obvious for a long time - that NASA's current POR was completely FUBAR and that a true SD-HLV was superior in most aspects right from the start.

I've always been skeptical of DIRECT. These are sales people and they're doing a sales job. They specifically target laymen and try to convince us that its "just" moving rockets around on the tank and they have a lot of pretty graphics to show off. That's why they have _artists_ and web guys on their team and a nice big "write to congress" button.

I don't understand how, after Ares-I, anyone can push these ideas with a straight face.

After all, Ares-I was just putting a rocket on top of an SRB and a spaceship on top of that.

Then its "just" bolt on another segment to the SRB. "Just" pull that J-2 off the shelf and revise it. It already exists, after all, and so does the SRB.

If you put it that way to a common person it all sounds so easy, doesn't it?

Surely after all this anyone suggesting you can just move the parts around like legos ought to be shot on sight.

I believe the Direct team has been working with engineers at MAF to get realistic scenarios on what the current ET could withstand, and how it would need to be beefed up to have proper margins for an operational Jupiter LV with a second stage. Don't you guys think that the current ET is pretty amazingly strong as is - look at the forces it has to deal with, SRB attached to the sides, hugely heavy orbiter hanging off its front. I bet current ETs on hand could suffice for early test flights - and it seems that NASA folks not only believe this too but are preparing to use them for just such a purpose from what I've been reading. There are plenty of existing SSMEs that can be used for early test flights that would be wasted otherwise after STS retirement that can be used for early flights, while an expendable (cheaper) version of RS-25 gets developed.

Maybe some people think that the Direct team is several space fans that got together and designed a rocket and are making a fuss that their rocket is best. But they have taken a rocket designed by NASA at MSFC, and utilized engineers at NASA and in industry to refine the design a bit to fit the current situation. They are not claiming to be rocket designers, playing legos with STS parts.

But perhaps I am getting too defensive here. I respect the Direct team for the efforts they have put out, and the pragmatism their plan exhibits. Myself, I would like a clean-sheet solution to the HLV that does not include the operationally complex reusable SRBs. So actually, if I was in charge of NASA, I would probably not choose Direct due to my bias against ATK's SRBs. That being said, politically speaking, funding may be more likely if ATK's SRBs are utilized in the HLV.

Perhaps the time is almost here for those anonymous NASA engineers to step into the light. If Ares dies on Feb 1st, it would definitely be time.

While Constellation fell of its own weight: poor design choices, poor management; a real issue was not enough people speaking up early on when they saw things going awry.

In NASA people are trained to not speak up, and to let management run the show. Thats how you get ahead. But we have seen in the last several years management that really has none of the skills, education or experience of management of earlier times.

It was not only those directly in the Exploration-Constellation chain, but when the job was seen to not be getting done, very few, NASA workers, contractors, center management, Associate Administrators - spoke up except for some efforts like Direct and a relative handful of bloggers on NASAWatch.

When the management is derelict, be outspoken, or we're all on the road to Abilene. These folks who were charged with carrying out the Vision have really wasted a lot of people's lives, time, and taxpayer money.

People like the Direct bunch, whoever they are, are owed some thanks, whether or not their system is the one that is ultimately chosen. At least they had the courage to think outside the box and bring their ideas forward.

Hmm, so the Direct design will not be adopted because those who designed it are "unknown people". What kind of reasoning is that?
If a Direct kind of design is chosen, it will be (at least I hope so) on the basis of arguments: technical, budgetary, commercial (contractors!) and political arguments.
Not on the basis of the question who "these guys" are. That is and should be totally irrelevant.

Uhh, I can't remember but I may or may not have just sent off a post that may have said something like "laymen like us", and I should clarify that I meant to say "like me"; I know a lot of you are actually in the business.

Still I stand by my assertion that they're specifically targeting bystanders with pretty graphics, "its so easy" recipes and a front page that implores regular joe to write to his rep.

Direct has been touted as quick to do, using current infrastructure it's crew never mention the following:
New Launcher required (no hole under the ET)
Pad Access (not even sure if the FSS could support this, Ares 1 scraps the FSS for this reason)
New platforms in VAB (nothing above the ET)
Crawler upgrades/replacement (added weight)

Inline HLV has always recognized these issues.
The 2 are not the same.

Nothing is know for sure and all is speculation but according to Chris Bergin at Nasaspaceflight.com, a usually reliable source, it seems to me that a group headed by Boeing with other shuttle contractors will be putting together their own version of Direct and would have the inside track to be NASA's choice for HLV. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/maf-provide-positive-et-hardware-overview-for-early-sd-hlv-test-flight/

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/bolden-review-hlv-friday-sidemount-doubt-in-linessme-boost/

Frank, once the shuttle stops flying I believe there will be 17 SSMEs available for test flights. That could be 4 or 5 flights. I wonder how difficult it would be to design a throw away version of the SSME and how much will they actually cost?

What difference does it make who they are? If it's a good idea, and a better idea than any other at this point in time, then it's a good and better idea! Do Doug Cooke, Jeff Hanley, Lauri Hansen, Mark Geyer, Ed Mango, and whoever's in charge of Ares at MSFC today have licenses as "professional rocket engineers?" "Professional rocket engineer" John Shannon pitched sidemount SDLV to Augustine last summer as the best cost-effective, short-schedule idea, and one that would have no problems for Orion ascent aborts. Sidemount seems to have been discarded lately in favor of in-line. Do we take Mr. Shannon's "license" away?

"As somewhat of a voice in the wilderness" I think that being snotty and dismissive about ANY ideas out on the table specifically about a rocket that isn't a product of the bloated bureaucracy that is NASA today...is once again,(as is this whole trainwreck of a dropped ball that this chapter of the manned spaceflight program has, and continues to be) long on hyperbole and short on realistic solutions to the current and thus our long term problem. You can't see the Forrest for all the trees in front of you...In fact, you will probably ridicule my post since you feel threatened by this whole exercise...Try to be objective instead...I understand there are questions and probably engineering things I just don't understand, but we need to find some middle ground. The country needs the rocket scientists to stop arguing like children, and come to some consensus on this and get us moving forward so that "The Gap" does not go on indefinitely...

@DarkStar:

I agree wholeheartedly. If you're gonna attack the inline Direct proposal (which wasn't actually their brainchild in the first place, but had numerous technical reports produced over the years by NASA itself), attack it on technical, financial and schedule merits, not based on who it is behind them. Doing the latter just screams hidden agendas and lack of any real arguments.

The production line for new SSMEs has been closed and dismantled for many years-unlike the RS-68 which is in production and by many engineers I've interviewed say it's a better engine. And add the cost of refurbishing these used engines and I think the analyses done earlier post-ESAS is probably correct.
But here is the issue that many of these posters are ignoring: If these newspaper stories are correct, NASA won't be building ANYTHING after October 1st. Neither spacecraft nor launchers for them. Not Ares, not Jupiter, not Direct, not anything. Direct fanboys would have to assemble a team and BID on future launch services contracts. For the moment, HLVs are not at the top of the agency's agenda, so all of this is much ado about nothing. This is a new space age-one that the status quo will have to adjust to. And more than NASA will need to make that adjustment if these stories are accurate-many posters on this site will, too. Many folks have been clammoring for commercial space for a long time. Well, now you'll get your chance.

This a pathetic attempt to try to deceive the people. That the author has on good authority, that DIRECT does not have a chance. Question. If the design of DIRECT is not anything more then the disillusioned dream of a toymaker, then why would the Augustine Commission even grant them an an opportunity to present their data? Just because those working on it don't care to have their identities made public, does not change the value of their work. You act like a rogue engineer shouldn't even have a chance. Are you even aware that Werner von Braun was a high-ranked NAZI and his V-2 rocket caused massive amounts of death and destruction, and that he never answered for those crimes? Try reviewing some history before you assume what directions NASA will or will not take.

Editor's note: Yes. I know all about V-2s. My father was nearly killed by one in London. His roommates were blown to bits by that same rocket. Your point?

Exactly! And the people of NASA Watch can do the same thing. Maybe Keith would like to form a team. So start those preliminary designs. And the software (CFD, FEA, trajectory, etc.) is out there to support your design. Along with cheap ($5K) computers with lots of horse power. So no need for so much back of the envelop hand waving.

Who knows, maybe a TV show along the lines of Project Runway (Project Rocket Science?) will be in the making.

My point being sir is don't limit your collection of good engineers to those who put there full public support into the disasters that were the Ares I and V. Remember when Bush Sr. proposed a similar program as Constellation? NASA had been giving the go ahead to develop a Moon/Mars plan and what does NASA do? Give him a unrealistic bill of $500 Billion. The only reason I can possibly think of is that NASA has no interest in really doing this job, and they knew that kind of budget wouldn't even be considered by Congress. Sure they kind of have to love the idea in public, but the fact is that NASA is a branch of the DOD and any valuable scientific research has never been in the interest of the military.

Editor's note: You say "the fact is that NASA is a branch of the DOD and any valuable scientific research has never been in the interest of the military." How silly. Proof, please.

Hi Keith,

I've been enjoying the site for a good while now. Just now created an account to participate. It's been a sad several days since I heard the rumors of the US exit from manned space flight. Emotions are high!
Is Direct unworkable? Is it causing problems? Seemed like a rational idea. Am I missing something?

This article has done niether NASA Watch or the author any good whatsoever.

Keith, I thought you were above this kind of journaulistic tripe.

Very disappointed.

Keith's note: if you are going to insult me at least spell all the words properly.

On your website you state "..YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU." What have the Direct Team done over the last 4 years but be involved in the process, and trying to make NASA "OUR" agency.

What is Direct? just an updated version of NASA's own designs. The Direct Team has NEVER claimed the idea as their own. Direct wants NASA to do things better with the money that they have. I thought the claim of the website was to try and make NASA do things better and more efficient. Direct is doing the same thing as you are trying to do on the internet. Yes--Direct is about 60+ engineers trying to make a change for the better, but does it matter if it is one or if its many? No--your website seems to prove.

One thing Direct has got is good press and has been trying to change NASA from inside and outside of the agency. With a change in Administration and upper management---NASA management is willing to listen to what the Direct Team has to say. A sign of a agency or any good business is to be willing to listen what groups want, especaailly if it will make them better. NASA is now at least listening to Direct and it's own engineers.

Already mentioned, a good idea does not have to come from a engineer or scientist. Dr. Griffen is great engineer and he brought Ares I and V to the agency and we know where that has taken us.

I cannot say you can interchange shuttle parts like lego bricks. I am saying, I am willing to look at the documentation presented to Augustine Commission and the Aerospace Corporation. Can you say, that you are willing to do the same with an open mind?

Editor's note: why can NOT ONE of these NASA engineers reveal their true identity? Would you commit the nation to an anonymously-designed rocket? For that matter, you are in my face on this, why is it that you cannot use your name?

Keith,

I hope that you will respond to authors question. Keith--it is easy to be against something, but what are you supporting???

Proof?

Well first of all how about Sec. 102(b) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958

"...shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense..."

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/spaceact.html

Well it has been well known for quite a while, but a more recent event last year, President Obama proposed that NASA publicly collaborate with the DOD in the new space race with China.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aGMy_XFWN_VY&refer=home

I don't really know how to be more clear. I mean can't everyone else say that this is learned in Chapter 1 of NASA history 101?

Editor's note: NASA is not part of DoD. Get over your fantasy, dude. Next time you quote things, do so in context. Here is the entire section.

(b) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 201 (e).

NASA does not develop weapons. That is what DoD does.

Fantasy? I really am having a hard time following your train of thought. What do you think that collaborating with the DOD is? Getting together to bake cookies? This gives them authority. They can deem anything NASA says or does a matter of national security. Sending people to Mars to expand mankind's understanding of the solar system for purely scientific purposes is hardly where a defense agency wants to see possible additional revenue go.

Editor's note: "Fantasy? I really am having a hard time following your train of thought. Ditto. This is off topic.

Lunar Star Storyteller said : (but the fact is that NASA is a branch of the DOD and any valuable scientific research has never been in the interest of the military.)

No, NASA is not a branch of the U.S. military--but I wish it was--there would be a lot of changes!

(Editor's note: why can NOT ONE of these NASA engineers reveal their true identity? Would you commit the nation to an anonymously-designed rocket? For that matter, you are in my face on this, why is it that you cannot use your name?)

Keith,

Respectfully--we all know whats happens to those at NASA who choose to speak out against the ranks. Just because Ares 1 & 5 and the whole constellation program are kaput doesn't mean these people would now be safe to step out.

It would be career suicide.

There is a reason they why they chose to hide in the first place.

Spiff

Agreed.

I'd like to add, regarding their identities, that the guy who everyone seemed to be afraid of - Mike Griffin - isn't there anymore, and everything seems to be on the table.

And speaking of Griffin, I don't think he would've sat silent for fear.

If you really believe the whole American space program is at stake, as many involved with DIRECT openly suggested, you really ought to speak up.

The Augustine commission would've been a really good time. Some of those actual NASA folk could've made a strong impression by coming out and saying "here we are, we are real, listen up".

I don't like to be the conspiracy guy, but the whole format of the cool story about underdog NASA engineers with secret identities creating a rocket that is "simpler, safer AND sooner", all the cool graphics and a big red button begging people to yell at their reps seems like someone with money just trying to rock the boat.

I really don't like that they've somehow annexed the idea of an inline HLV. The inline SDHLV has come up numerous times long before DIRECT, and now everyone keeps saying that if NASA uses an inline SDHLV, they've basically accepted DIRECT.

It works extra well since DIRECT has changed their design so many times. If they were to come out with an inline SDHLV of any kind, surely DIRECT would be yelling "Oh that's our Jupiter 120X version 4. See, we won".

An email to my private account regarding my second post in which I corrected my spelling mistakes:

How many times are you going to post the same thing?

And my responce to him

I though this was a public comment blog? I am absolutely amazed that you
would stoop to sending a private email. Pathetic.

I will of course copy and paste this exchange on the comment blog, but will
be very surprised to see it actually get posted.

Editor's note: Huh? This website is owned and operated by me. If you do not want to interact with me then go somewhere else. Have a nice day.

But here is the issue that many of these posters are ignoring: If these newspaper stories are correct, NASA won't be building ANYTHING after October 1st. Neither spacecraft nor launchers for them. Not Ares, not Jupiter, not Direct, not anything. Direct fanboys would have to assemble a team and BID on future launch services contracts. For the moment, HLVs are not at the top of the agency's agenda, so all of this is much ado about nothing.

This is the most pertinent comment in the thread it seems to me. If the rumours so far are true, then LEO access is being outsourced to the private sector, Constellation has been axed and HLV has been kicked into the long grass, with a mandate to source that privately also, when (if?) the time comes.

I applaud the decision to extend ISS to 2020. Abandoning it five years after completion felt like folly and a waste of a decade of construction. And it would likely have excluded the US from any future international collaboration, simply on the grounds of being an unreliable partner. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" would be uppermost in the minds of policy makers in Europe, Russia and Japan.

But in all the furore of comment about commercial space and the death of Ares, it seems to be slipping by everyone that the US no longer has a defined objective in space. "Flexible Path" could all too easily become "nowhere special to go".

For nearly forty years now, there seems to have been no sufficient consensus possible in the US about the objectives of HSF. Lack of funding and a limited political attention span has bedevilled space stations, the Moon and Mars. What makes anyone think that a consensus can be built around a Lagrange point? Or a passing asteroid? Try explaining to Joe Sixpack that you want his dollars to visit some empty space with curious gravitational properties...

I was 15 years old when Armstrong walked on the Moon and 18 when Cernan stepped off it. I remember the excitement and wonder of those brief years, looking up to the Moon knowing people were walking there. At that time, I believed that I might live to see the lights of bases or cities there. Humans on Mars were virtually a given. Constellation reawoke those dreams and that wonder.

On Friday, Mars was at opposition and very close to the full Moon in the sky. I looked up and reflected on those dreams and that hope of long ago: that both of those worlds would be brought into the human domain in my lifetime. I'm 55 now, and it looks as if those dreams are dead. I will probably not live to see Man walk on another world again. Unless the Chinese carry through and do it.

Unless there's an entirely unexpected treat tomorrow, it's been a sad, sad week.

"Yes, NASA said the ET is strong enough for that."

I'm calling BS on that. I've reviewed several of the NLS trade studies and analysis over the years, which detailed all sorts of modifications that would be required. Do you care to provide a reference for your statement?

Also, as a follow-up, we started flying the SLWT in '98, which was different than the tank use when the NLS was studied... and generally, when you make something lighter, it reduces margins.

"Don't you guys think that the current ET is pretty amazingly strong as is - look at the forces it has to deal with, SRB attached to the sides, hugely heavy orbiter hanging off its front."

Sure, those parts probably won't need much (if any) redesign... but look at the other parts: the bottom of the tank is designed to take axial loads from the SRBs and the orbiter attachment (not a thrust cone)... the LOX tank isn't designed to handle axial loads and a bending moment from structure above it (because, surprise, there is no structure above it!) And the 'orbiter side' of the ET is designed to take a lot of load from the orbiter, while the 'backside' of the ET is not. Put engines on the ET and you'll see a completely different load set passing through the 'backside' of the ET. Not to mention the dynamics of the ET change considerably without the orbiter attached.

The SLWT is a very tailored piece of hardware, much like a suit. Put the suit on someone else, and some areas won't fit.

Keith wrote:why can NOT ONE of these NASA engineers reveal their true identity? Would you commit the nation to an anonymously-designed rocket?

Who wrote what is inconsequential. All that matters, and what NASA has forgot over that last six years, is what does the data say? The data clearly suggested that ARES I had serious issues and ARES V did as well.

We all know the culture inside NASA is not what people would like you to believe. Right, wrong, or otherwise; many engineers and scientists inside NASA feel they are threatened when they dissent. It doesn't matter what Mr. Shannon says in front of Augustine or what a center director says on NASA TV. If the work force feels reprisal for dissent is possible, you have a culture problem.

This is why engineers and scientists hide in anonymity. That being said, with the data that has been made public, to include posts on NASA Watch, the knowledge and breadth of the DIRECT architecture does deserve serious peer review based on the content of the architecture AND NOT on who submitted the data.

DIRECT's took data from the NLS which had already passed PDR and updated it. Simply searching "Jupiter" on this website you will see you wrote how DIRECT engineers had access to MAF data and addressed such things as the milling of the ET and structural integrity.

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter who designs the architecture, the only thing that matters is the data. If we are to believe the person who is presenting the data without skeptically looking at the data, we get another global warming debacle where we get data that was hidden to make the case.
DIRECT went from "defying the laws of physics" to a serious architecture that deserves an honest review.

MSFC's management of the Ares architecture could not stand up to such scrutiny. The leadership said everything was fine, yet serious slips occurred and budgets continued to skyrocket. Orion was reduced in capability and SAFETY to ride the stick. Ares V never saw PDR. They wasted billions of dollars.

The DIRECT team cost the US tax payer how much?

Will the CxP management be held to account for their terrible management? They should be fired and not have any benefits as they are shown the door.

NASA is not a "jobs" program. NASA is supposed to produce serious science and technology within the budget provided to it from congress. Just look at our economy, the government cannot continue to operate the way it has been. While NASA historically has been giving an excellent rate of return on the dollar, the last six years is very debatable.

It is time to downsize, rightsize, or otherwise restructure NASA to make it an organization that functions and is not locked in fiefdoms. Some of this is NOT NASA's fault, but politics outside the organization. However, there are plenty of "local lords" inside the organization who have led to terrible performance.

DIRECT, based off of the NLS is very real and the more it is shown to people objectively, the more viable the architecture becomes.

Finally, Keith, you have been consistent on the issue of DIRECT, you have been skeptical. I think this is positive. And people who are whining and complaining need to look at the history of NASA Watch (search the site for Jupiter and read Keith's comments) and you will see the consistency in the comments. This consistency that Mr. Cowing exhibits is more than can be said for the people running CxP inside NASA.

I know, I know: tl;dr

VR
RS327

Editor's note: um, please show me where all - not some - ALL of the design data has gone through a PDR - one done by people with real names - then I will start to take y'all seriously. The fact that this has gone on this long with no insight whatsoever into who has actually done this supposed work speaks volumes.

PS I forgot to add, NASA cannot effectively market itself and this is something NASA can learn from DIRECT.

DIRECT is much more a rocket than anything ARES V will ever be.

VR
RS327

Editor's note: gee, it takes more than just a few anonymous rants on a blog to do that ...

Now we're getting somewhere :)

The sources are the NLS reports and the Direct team.

As you said to EE Scott, yes, the central barrel of the tank is retained (for the initial tests) while the top of the tank and the bottom of the tank come off and are replaced with new structures.

That will take a lot of the time alloted for these initial versions.

And NASA engineers have said that the Li-Al tank sections have sufficient margin for these initial flights.

Again, NASA engineers.

My opinion: That's what is at the core of the apparent junk Keith's being fed from some of his sources as Budget Day approaches... sources who just might have have it fed to them in turn...

Editor's note: yes, my sources really enjoy reading DIRECT fanboy postings here. Please, by all means, keep drinking the Koolaid.

... if Ares became untenable under NASA management and it turns out that the Direct team was right and that the engineering of Direct was competent NASA engineering all along then what does that say about NASA management?

I think some people have actually seen that oncoming inline SDLV train I spoke of in an earlier comment and are desperately... and foolishly... trying to throw the concept of a "rebel alliance that actually got the job done" on the tracks in front of them in a vain attempt to cushion the devastating blow to their careers that such a finding would entail.

p.s. SSME v RS-68 and the regen conundrum...

PWR engineers have stated that it's not a big problem for them to restart SSME production again if that's the engine that is desired and they've said that starting the expendable version development won't cause problems either. The SSME is a high-performance engine that, in the proper launcher, kicks ass all the way to LEO. That's what it was designed to do.

And note that the RS-68 as-is can not be used because of base-heating issues. The baseline for Ares was to be the RS-68 regen version in an effort to resolve base-heating issues that rendered the RS-68 unusable in the Ares V environment...

... yes, that regen version of the RS-68! ... the vesion that does not exist... yet...

A major part of the Ares debacle was the Ares I and the realization of the fact that the SSME could not be restarted once launched... which forced the Ares team to the RS-68... and a 10-meter diameter Ares V core to handle the ever-growing number of RS-68s which in turn made the never-resolved base heating issue worse and worse.

The Direct project deliberately tracked Ares in choice of engines until it became clear that the RS-68 was untenable in that configuration. Once the SSME was restored to the design the base-heating became a non-issue... and performance went up.

(The original RS-68, in its designed launch environment, is a capable engine in its own right.)

@All Direct Fans:

Any one ever looked at ascent abort scenarios for a crewed Direct-like LV? Just curious how you'll get rid of the SRBs when you light them on pad and also of low altitude abort scenarios...

Maybe safer than Sidemount, actually for sure safer than Sidemount, BUT probably not safe at all anyway...

Please prove me wrong.

Oh well...

Er... there's no problem in that particular regard.

If the situation goes south during launch and a very bad day is underway on a crewed Jupiter mission then Range Safety unzips the SRBs, that means firing the linear shaped charges that run the length of the SRB casings thus instantly destroying the SRBs and the core stages in the process, while a robust Launch Abort System punches the crew module out of there and away from the resultant debris field.

A bonus for Jupiter-class vehicles is that there is spare margin for just such a robust LAS... and further margin for a ballistic shield under the crew module in the unlikely case the SRBs go bang on their own*.

These features are things that were flatly impossible to have with Ares I.

*(An SRB explosion is actually unlikely but one would give Range Safety almost zero warning should it occur.)

@zapkitty:

"while a robust Launch Abort System punches the crew module out of there and away from the resultant debris field"

If this is all you have for analysis then as I said it'll be a no-go. Not a chance! Because of course I meant saving the crew with an LAS... This has as much credibility as Ares I or Sidemount, sorry.

@Frank:

Constellation failed because of poor management and especially lack of imagination, not funding. Of all people YOU should know!

Oh well.

@Frank Sietzen:

I'm having a hard time the decision will be made to get NASA out of the launch business altogether. The HLV that's going to be developed can hardly be anything else than an SDLV. Pork is the only reason politicians would want one. Maybe the development program and subsequent operations will be structured in such a way to get more commercial involvement, but the result is unlikely to be anything that helps commercial development of space.

Still, there's hope both because of the commercial crew taxis and because the HLV may still be canceled, perhaps even before it flies, or perhaps after an Ares I-X style test flight of a battleship version. It is unlikely to be canceled before the 2012 elections. If no beyond LEO development (capsule/lander) is funded, cancellation is more likely. Indications are the Obama administration is not interested in exploration.

The leakathon has been a peculiar mixture of genuine leaks, Obama administration trial balloons, various flavors of spin from within various sectors within NASA itself and odd bits of "it's anything but Direct!" screeching.

I've listed before what Obama would dictate and why: commercial for ISS/LEO and a long HLV project that would see him safely out of office before anything was ready.

And I also pointed out that Direct supporters had apparently made such good realpolitik arguments for immediate HLV acquisition that they had made an impact.

Apparently the only real question is how the MAF tooling and workers will be rendered commercial.

And so if the new... commercial... SDLV happens to be an 8.4 meter core from privatized Michoud tooling with SSMEs underneath and flanked by a pair of ATK SRBs, all officially designed and built by a ULA-style aerospace consortium... commercial as all hell... then would it be safe to assume that the Direct crew had an effect anyway? :)

Editor's note: assume what you wish. That's a core tenet to the DIRECT approach i.e. to just "assume" things (along with Photoshop). DIRECT fanboys are either going to claim credit for whatever NASA announces or claim that there is some grand conspiracy that undermined their genius rocket at the last minute. Knock yourself out.

I'm sorry... are you saying that an LAS cannot work?

Or are you saying that an LAS cannot work with SRBs?

If the latter, then what would be your reasons for saying so?

SRBs are problematic for boosters for a variety of reasons, and are not my first choice for crewed LVs, but if the LAS is activated for any reason then the SRBs would be unzipped automatically as part of the LAS activation sequence.

And what you refuse to acknowledge, Keith, is that, as stated by the public faces of the Direct crew and repeatedly affirmed by them, is that they don't care as long as NASA got off of the institutional death-ride that Ares had become.

This was a bunch of NASA engineers who saw disaster looming... and also saw anyone who tried to point that fact out severely punished by NASA management.

The Direct crew doesn't insist that they be credited. In fact they said "NASA can take the credit! They can call it what they will... just as long as people don't call it NASA's last stand."

But folks will remember anyway and that's why this "It never happened!" routine is sad coming from someone who was supposed to oppose the self-destructive status quo at NASA.

And if we try to forget it happened, then it will happen again.

(Now if Obama would only get out of the corporate clown car long enough to realize that himself...)

Editor's note: and you are skating on the edge of sheer lunacy. Keep drinking the Koolaid.

I'm with Frank. It makes no sense to develop a HLV if there is NOTHING to launch atop of it, and NO WHERE to go either.

So end'ith NASA HSF as an engineering culture.

The Direct fanboys have to be admired for one thing and that is that they have ginned the perfect storm....no matter the outcome, they "win".

@ Frank

You're right on with your post and I see that there are still the ones that believe that lack of funding had nothing to do with the Constellation problem. I find it amusing that the ones that looked to the "independence" of the Augustine commission to finally vindicate their hatred of all things Griffin can't bring themselves to admit that Augustine had it right. A lack of money was and is the problem. Now they think that somehow fuel depots, alternate launchers, retooled ET's, and flights of fancy to empty Lagrange points and dusty rocks will come of out of the same insufficient budget.

No budget for Constellation, no budget for anything else, thats the bottom line from Augustine.

Frank, the space program was over when the decision was made to retire Shuttle. Constellation was never going to produce anything this decade no matter what the program claimed. The Moon was never in reach, that was an illusion. NASA is simply too incompetent to manage a program of this size. I know, I work for NASA and see the sheer stupidity of senior management. The CxP program manager has NO experience in project management except for the 4 years he's been floundering on this program. Most of the Level III project managers are the same, no experience in project management. The ones that do have a history of failure. NASA cannot do this any more. Sure, given hundreds of billions of dollars and decades of time we could do something. But that is not project management, that's floundering around until something eventually gets done. That was Constellation.

I suspect Constellation is not dead, although it should be. Congress will reverse Obama's proposal when they eventually get around to the budget. This is about jobs, not space flight.

Miles, people speak up at the working level but middle and upper management squash anything that would challenge the status quo because they are all looking for an SES position, or if they have one to get another stellar assignment for which they are not qualified. Project managers will absolutely NOT respond to anything that challenges their plans. They control the money, so they control the Agency. If Engineering makes too many waves, the PM will pull their FTE's and then their people are uncovered, i.e. have no funding code to charge to. CMO (Center Management and Operations), the overhead funding code at NASA, is bloated because PM's don't want to fund people and they have to go on overhead.

If I may be so bold the weekend quarterback engineering of the DIRECT team is partially to blame for what appears to be the end of the US manned space program as we know it. By continually and annoyingly shouting dissent for the "NASA way" and propagating the rhetoric that there were those in NASA that actually worked on this "project" in there "free time" you underminded any credibility that the agency had with the incoming administration. Yes, let's build up the reputation of our alternate concept by saying that average NASA civil servants thought the program of record was reckless and were quieted by management. An unprovable claim that backfired and destroyed NASA credibility to the American people and the White House. Now no Shuttle derived hardware will be used. Not even your precious SRBs and ET. And thousands loss their jobs to your drivel. Be proud supporters on DIRECT. Be proud to know you contributed to the lost of a source of national pride.

"I'm sorry... are you saying that an LAS cannot work?
Or are you saying that an LAS cannot work with SRBs?
If the latter, then what would be your reasons for saying so?"

I am saying there is very little room to make an LAS work when you have 2 solid boosters strapped to your LV. You clearly do not have (access to) any analysis to actually support an LAS might work, therefore it is upon you to show it would. Please try and think of an SRB failure on pad, and assume that you'd have to rupture the casing to abort then you might detonate the central tank and whatever to the 2nd SRB. And that is on pad alone. As you ascend and most likely before max-Q if you experience an abort, what do you do with the fully thrusting SRB? What happen when you near transonic and supersonic while relatively low? How do you pull off the stack? Where do you go where your SRBs might not just track you? Anyway, as I was saying, show me some, any, analysis to support a possible safe bail out... I am not selling Direct, "you" are.

Good luck!

So now Direct has gone from being solely composed of deluded fanboys to being the destroyers of the U.S. manned space program? That must have been one especially fell swoop!

This reminds me of a famous quote:

"Now I am become Jane Hamsher, the destroyer of supermajority political parties..."
- Bobby Oppenheimer at the Los Alamos Trinity caucus

Got news for ya, sunshine... come Monday morn NASA will still exist in some form and the U.S. will still have a plan for a space program and when it gets rolling some of the launches will be satellites, cargo, probes etc etc and some of the launches will have not only U.S. crew members aboard but actual NASA crew members as well.

And perhaps whatever form of NASA emerges from this can find itself again by actually seeing any newly assigned projects through to their conclusions.

Editor's note: Monday, 1 Feb 2010, 12:30 pm EST. Stay tuned.

Bolden already said in Israel that we're not going to Mars because we haven't figured out a way to shield astronauts from radiation. So unless there are some dramatic technological breakthroughs, we're pretty much not going anywhere.

Marcel F. Williams

First Keith: Many thanks for this thread. Hook Line and Sinker! (Sips Koolaid :)

As Jeff Foust has commented it's silly season at the moment so as to add to the fun:

Disclamer: IANARS so I will limit myself to questions rather than speculation.
Is American Lift into orbit to be wholly commercial?
Even HLV?
So what heavy payloads need to be launched, if I remember correctly: 8 - 12 times a year?
How much does a Senator's ego weigh?
(Puts down Koolaid)

However in all seriousness I would like to address a point made by Nick:

"But in all the furore of comment about commercial space and the death of Ares, it seems to be slipping by everyone that the US no longer has a defined objective in space. "Flexible Path" could all too easily become "nowhere special to go". (in reply to comment from Frank Sietzen January 31, 2010 1:54 PM) which seems to typify what I shall call loss of Moon syndrome.

I would remind all of you who seem to believe that the Moon is now out of reach again, using the words of JFK:

"We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."

You have been to the Moon! Now it is time to do the Other Things! Like a meaningful and permanent cis and trans-Lunar transportation system. That is what the Flexible Path will bring and not just for America!

As for DIRECT? Well if they call the new Launcher "Jupiter" Spock will be raising more than an eyebrow.

Sometimes it's not about the Engineering and sometimes it's not *even* about the Politics. Sometimes it's just about the Story!

Whilst Obama may be just a one term President; he will be leaving office with a substantial Legacy, and this will be part of it. I have no doubt!

I would remind all of you who seem to believe that the Moon is now out of reach again, using the words of JFK:
"We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."
You have been to the Moon! Now it is time to do the Other Things! Like a meaningful and permanent cis and trans-Lunar transportation system. That is what the Flexible Path will bring and not just for America

Well, I’m glad someone noticed… :-)

I feel bound to point out that of the “Other Things” that JFK referred to, two were goals that had already been achieved and yet even now are still routinely repeated (transatlantic flight and the climbing of Everest). And the third was Rice U playing Texas. I assume they still do.

Meaningful goals do not become forever invalid and worthless immediately they are achieved for the first time. People go on, build on them, and make use of them. Transatlantic flight was not forgotten, never to be revisited, when the Spirit of St Louis touched down in Paris. Hillary & Tenzing were not the first and last people to climb Everest – nearly 3,000 people have ascended the mountain over 4,000 times. Even though “we’ve been there before”…

But for some reason, even hardened spaceflight advocates view the Moon as some demented twitcher views a rare bird. “Been there, seen it, done it. No need to bother again.” I’m sorry? Run that past me again? Twelve men visited six small spots on the Moon’s surface forty years ago, and you think “we’ve been to the Moon”? It’s the size of Africa for goodness’ sake! Are you going to take the same view of the L-points, asteroids, or the moons of Mars if and when the Flexible Path ticks those destinations off: “We’ve been to an asteroid, no need to go to another one…”

I know that Humanity will return to the Moon. It’s a question of when, not if. I cannot conceive of a rational policy for a wannabe spacefaring civilisation that forever ignores the potential of the fifth largest satellite in its Solar System, and which just happens to be only two days away from its home planet.

Perhaps you’re right, and this new approach will be the one that kick starts space exploitation and also enables expansion beyond LEO. I hope so. But it just feels like one more hostage to expediency, with ambition getting smaller each time.

Maybe NASA is now recruiting talent from Star Trek conventions. I have a concept NASA may like. However, right now it is in planning stages and I don't think NASA will accept my lego mockup. Hmmm, maybe today they will.

this whole thread is hilarious. Uh news flash: a serious rocket design that wasn't based on propping up ATK's booster line or PW-R's existing engines would start by saying: the first stage shall be a kerosene stage. anything involving hydrogen for the first stage dictates an enormous tank and then the need for the solids to get it to where the H2 engine is in it's performance rhealm. This is rocket science 101. any attempt whatsoever to "re-use" these parts of Shuttle are entirely political attempts to prop up ATK and PW-R and the NASA folks associated with them (MSFC, JSC, Stennis). The original arguement was always that we can't afford to develop and qual an RP engine.. why? oh, yeah because NASA and PW-R have spent the last 40 years driving the US large engine work to H2

Actually, some arguments can be made for an all hydrolox launcher... :)

But more seriously: when will it sink into Direct critics that the purpose of Direct was to provide a technically and politically feasible alternative launcher for the VSE... as opposed to the death-ride that the Ares debacle had roped NASA into.

Or do you all think the phrase "death-ride" is hyperbole?

So what your words would seem to paint as an underhanded tactic was actually Direct's stated game plan: provide something for everyone to maintain the balance of power, so to speak...

... but changing the launcher to one that could be done on time and on budget and thus saving NASA from...

... well, from what happened today.

They tried, and now we wait to find out in what directions the negotiations will run.