DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[Rick]

Will there be a 4.0?

I bet there will be

Yes you're probably correct, and apologies if I've been responsible.
So to get back on topic...

Direct have now moved to v.3.0 with SSME and RL10 engines in place of RS68 and J2X. This is a significant change and is the result of a cascade of events. It all began with base heating issues around the ablative RS68, which led to a RS68-regen vs. SSME trade, with SSME being the winner; the superior performance of SSME on the core allowed a much later MECO and a resultant smaller EDS. This led to a single J2X baseline for a while, which was then traded against a 6 RL10 layout, the latter having, again, higher isp and, again, winning out.

I fin it very interesting how in both cases, the 'high tech' (i.e. high isp) engine has been found superior. That both engines are already in production is obviously a big advantage, and fits very well with the Direct philosophy.

What remains to be seen is whether the event that sparked all of this, the base heating issue, will surface in the Ares V design. Does anybody know if CxP are planning on abandoning the ablative RS68, or is this a case of Direct rumour-mongering?

[J.McDonald]

Oh, probably.
The thing to consider, though, is if the changes are a band-aid or not. Switching to SSME initially appears to increase costs, but OTOH it brings big benefits in schedule, and if you use the RL10 upper stage option you claw back a massive chunk of that cost by not developing the J2X. The Direct team go so far as to say volume production of SSME makes it barely more expensive than a regen RS68 would be, although much of that is surely guesswork.

In contrast, the changes to Ares-V over the years cannot, in themselves, be described as 'beneficial'- they are just there to squeeze more performance out of the vehicle. Such things as composite SRB cases, the extra half segment, these are, IMHO, almost desperate measures, throwing away commonality and heritage to gain a small bit of extra payload mass.
Direct assumed two launches from the start, and as a result had a tremendous amount of margin to play with, avoiding straying so far from the shuttle stack, with potential schedule and cost savings over Ares.

By the way, I don't know if you've seen the Direct thread at NSF recently but I certianly wouldn't describe it as 'fizzled into a whisper'!

[Rick]

Which brings me to the point that Direct is suffering from growings pains, as is Ares.

The difference here is that Ares is real, and not just an idea on an evolving Power Point presentation.

I'm not a Direct hater, but am a realist.

[J.McDonald]

Is 'pains' the correct term? The switch to SSME has brought significant benefits- NO new engine developments whatsoever. Wow.

It would appear that two medium launchers outperform one big and one small. There is margin to spare thanks to the concept rather than the design itself.

I don't decry every change NASA makes. They switched OSP from a spaceplane to a capsule- a god move. The loss of two ISS seats is probably a sensible move also. I initially liked the switch to RS68 since it could lower costs, but when I saw what it did to the rest of the vehicle I wasn't so sure any more (it forced us into 10m core and loss of commonality with STS infrastructure).

Direct would, no doubt, experience further changes if it were implemented. However given that it attempts to stray less far from the shuttle stack than either Ares I or Ares V, it theoretically stands a better chance of having a less troubled development.

[JimMcDade]

You said it, Rick. Ares I is real. Jupiter Direct is from dreamland. EELV is feasible, but very unlikely at this point. Undue media attention coming from mediocre space blog-reading journalists is falsely raising the hopes of those who wish to see Ares I disappear.

[J.McDonald]

Just to let you know, the long awaited rebuttal document has now been published. Exciting times.

[Rick]

Just to let you know, the long awaited rebuttal document has now been published. Exciting times.

Yes, I am sure the Direct folks are excited.

Do you have a link, or should I just go to NSF and search for it?

[J.McDonald]

http://www.directlauncher.com/docume...nal_090518.pdf

[Rick]

Thanks,
I am going to add it to the Direct Forum of my site.

[JimMcDade]

Wait a minute! I thought that Direct 2.0 was already the perfect solution. Is this the new and improved perfect launcher?

I wasted an hour or so reading this new PPT and did not see much to get excited about. It's just another desperate attempt to keep a pipe dream alive by tweaking the concept in ways that might bring in some more allies.

Actually, there are two separate thrusts in this revision. First, their is the pretentious, presumptuous and arrogant claim that the Direct launchers were short shifted by NASA: "This document will correct the multitude of errors, misinterpretations and design data criteria substitutions and reevaluate DIRECT with the corrected criteria from publicly available DIRECT documentation."

The creation and release of this PPT were probably rushed after the Obama NASA review panel was announced. The Direct guys are smart enough to strike while that story is still fresh in the minds of those who follow space developments.

This PPT looks like a rush job to me, but even if it wasn't rushed, it does not have anywhere near the impact that the release of Direct 2.0 did. It's not quite as clever and orginal as the Direct 2.0 release.

The point-by-point rebuttal is unsatisfactory, particularly those cost comparisons. The rehashing of particular items such as the wording of "The Space Authorization Act of 2005" are just more of the same old stuff from Direct 2.0.

[J.McDonald]

I don't think it was rushed. We've been waiting months for this.

Also, the rebuttal is concerned with the 2.0 architecture, otherwise it couldn't address NASA's points. As I have posted, they are on the verge of announcing 3.0 as we speak.

The gradual evolution of the DIRECT concept is not a bad thing. You are trying to put words into people's mouths. Can you give any evidence for your statements, Jim?

[Rick]

The gradual evolution of the DIRECT concept is not a bad thing.

You're correct John, it's not a bad thing at all. It IS ashame that the Direct movement didn't occur a few years earlier than it did. It would have had a chance.

[JimMcDade]

Evidence for what? Perhaps I am being misunderstood. I am not making any extraordinary claims.

The fundamental flaw of the DIRECT proposal is not technical. It would fly if built. The real problem is that DIRECT was late to the party, as Rick pointed out.

Otherwise, it's a pointless waste of time to spend so much time killing a concept that has already been dismissed by the people who have the authority and competency to make any changes to the program. This is too much like arguing about the existence of either UFOs or God. It's a matter of faith, a matter of what you choose to beleive. I personally don't believe that Griffin and the Marshall engineers plotted against DIRECT. I certainly can't stop anybody else from thinking that way, but I was offended by the one-sided, nasty personal attacks that came from clan DIRECT.

I still say that this PPT presentation was rushed out in order to take advantage of the human tendency to assign more credibility to an otherwise unrelated event when that unrelated event occurs in near time proximity to another. DIRECT had absolutely nothing to do with prompting the Obama administration's review of NASA. The possibility of having EELVs involved in the future picture definitely does have some play with the Obama administration, but Ares I is still the immediate future for NASA human spaceflight.

Ares V is still far enough out for reconsideration. We will see.

[Rick]

What Jim mentions is true. I know for a fact that this is the case, but since my evidence is proprietary, I cannot divulge the information that I want to. I'm being ethical, you know?

In all honestly though John, no one that is anti-Ares, or even on the fence, would believe me anyway. Sooo....

[JimMcDade]

And my sources are confidential but impeccable, so I am putting my name on the line directly. I am willing to take a bath and eat crow (not literally) if I have been misled.

[klydemorris]

What Jim mentions is true. I know for a fact that this is the case, but since my evidence is proprietary, I cannot divulge the information that I want to. I'm being ethical, you know?

In all honestly though John, no one that is anti-Ares, or even on the fence, would believe me anyway. Sooo....

GADZOOKS! Rick... you're a part of the conspiracy! (MIB I'll bet) I'll bet this whole site was set up by NASA to under-mine Direct and Mike Griffin is still pulling all of the strings... wait a second... my tin foil hat is slipping off a bit... don't want those microwaves beamed from MILA to wash my brain out... there we go! Okay, now I'm safe... whew, for a second there I thought that Direct was still nothing more than a .PDF file.

Like Jim- I'm not actually opposed to the Jupiter 120. In fact, I think it'd be a pretty darned cool vehicle and I'd love to see it fly. It's just hard to balance it against the hardware now coming together at KSC for the Ares I. If NASA could find the funds to blend it into the Ares line I'd be the happy camper of all space buffs... but I just don't see it happening. Then again... I didn't see Obama taking over GM either- strange times are ahead.

[JimMcDade]

The internet has really been a terrific membership building tool for the Tin Foil Hat Society (It's now aluminum foil, actually.)

The extreme neurotic-psychotic-paranoid followers of various conspiracy theories probably hurt the quest for truth and good government with their distracting antics. NASA is not above suspicion when we look for the possibility of waste, corruption, and contract fixing.

Eisenhower warned the American public to be on guard against abuses in the scientific-technological sector in the same speeche that he warned us about the power of the military-industrial complex.

NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health each have the power to selectively enrich or impoverish universities, contractors and research institutes. We always have to wonder if our government has enough well-educated and competent auditors and investigators to identify misappropriation of dollars in so many complex and arcane scientific-technological programs.

The sleezy attacks that were mounted against Griffin and the Ares I engineers were definitely out of bounds. Those people were presumed to be guilty by an angry mob of people driven by internet rumor-fed passions and partial truths. For me, this is another sad demonstration of how too many people slip through the educational experience without ever achieving cognitive maturity. Too many of us are told WHAT to think at school rather than learning HOW to think.

[Danny Dot]

Wait a minute! I thought that Direct 2.0 was already the perfect solution. Is this the new and improved perfect launcher?

I wasted an hour or so reading this new PPT and did not see much to get excited about. It's just another desperate attempt to keep a pipe dream alive by tweaking the concept in ways that might bring in some more allies.

Actually, there are two separate thrusts in this revision. First, their is the pretentious, presumptuous and arrogant claim that the Direct launchers were short shifted by NASA: "This document will correct the multitude of errors, misinterpretations and design data criteria substitutions and reevaluate DIRECT with the corrected criteria from publicly available DIRECT documentation."

The creation and release of this PPT were probably rushed after the Obama NASA review panel was announced. The Direct guys are smart enough to strike while that story is still fresh in the minds of those who follow space developments.

This PPT looks like a rush job to me, but even if it wasn't rushed, it does not have anywhere near the impact that the release of Direct 2.0 did. It's not quite as clever and orginal as the Direct 2.0 release.

The point-by-point rebuttal is unsatisfactory, particularly those cost comparisons. The rehashing of particular items such as the wording of "The Space Authorization Act of 2005" are just more of the same old stuff from Direct 2.0.

I think one very big point is NASA assumed a very different upper stage than what the Direct team was proposing.

Danny Deger

[JimMcDade]

Danny, I understand that point, but it still does not matter. Direct 1.0, 2.0, & 3.0 were not only late to the party, they were uninvited.

On another issue, has anybody see any published results from the STS-119 SRB pressure oscillation data study?

[JimMcDade]

Our shared pursuit of accurate and truthful information about current events such as the effort to replace the Space Shuttle, is becoming more difficult in light of the the recent emergence of the blogosphere as a powerful source of news and information.

Legendary CBS News journalist condemned the blogosphere as a news source during a speech Wednesday night, complaining that is is crammed with ravings and manipulations of every nut with a keyboard. Safer says that the continuing business failures of newspapers threatens all of journalism and the public's precious right to know.

Safer is right. Some newspapers, desperate for circulation numbers, have hired bloggers, replaced experienced journalist with newbies, or lowered their editorial standards for the sake of sensationalism and appealing to the lowest common denominators of readership intelligence (e.g. Robert Block's articles in the Orlando Sentinel)

We are beginning to see the lines bewteen honest-to-goodness journalism and unfiltered rumor-mongering fade. Defective reports from the blogosphere have gradually creeped into daily newspaper content.

That creep can then leech into the broadcast media and even into official discussions about public policy when enthusiastic, but naive political aides sometimes gobble-up bad journalism hook, line and sinker and pass bad information further up the tiers of government.

The consequences of this situation are frightening. It is entirely possible that a small group of "nuts", as Safer calls them, could influence or even reverse the policies and practices of government by exploiting the lower standards of journalism in the blogosphere. It is a nightmare, but we may be seeing that very thing happen right now.