DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[JimMcDade]

[Me2 said "Atlas V doesn't have any problems."]

Jim answers: You are right. My bad. I meant to say that the original Atlas had a terrible reputation for blowing up. Not Atlas V. It did.

Atlas V is not really at Atlas other than in name. It is a highly evolved and improved descendant of the original. I don't think Washington is too crazy about telling Americans that the next Americans to walk on the moon will begin their journey by riding on a Russian powered rocket.

The RD-180 is very impressive, burning more propellant than all three SSMEs on the Shuttle, but it is a Russian-built engine.

[Me2]

I don't think Washington is too crazy about telling Americans that the next Americans to walk on the moon will begin their journey by riding on a Russian powered rocket.

That is just a fallacy spread by anti EELV crowd. Americans have no problem with the engine sending up DOD and NRO payloads, which are more important than any exploration mission

[Me2]

So, I would surmise you are indicating some type of conspiracy ...

Nothing of the sort. It is the same thing NASA did with the X-33, they said everything was fine with it and then canceled the program a few months later.

[J.McDonald]

Jim, can you point me to the exact intimiation from the Direct team that lead you to say things like:

"...the Direct people. They launched a campaign of character assassination and unfounded lies that was based on innuendo and rumors. Their exploitation of the gullible and the credulous is what made me angry and turned me hard against their campaign.... The Direct team made major accusations of corruption against the working engineers and managers at NASA... presented it as if it were their own

Because your experience of the Direct 'message' differs very greatly from mine.

[J.McDonald]

According to the various "anonymous" sources quoted by Direct and alternative proponents:

1- Ares I will never clear the launch tower. It will drift into the tower and tumble into the ground!

2- Ares I is just too tall and skinny to fly. It is impossible to keep the thrust vector aligned with the center of gravity. Even if Ares I is lucky enough to miss the launch tower, it will still tumble into the ground!

3- If Ares I is extremely lucky and survives #1 and #2, column buckling will overcome the "stick" and it will crumple into a ball of flaming debris!

4- If the ultimate fluke happens and Ares I survives #1, #2, and #3, it will rattle so severely that it will shake apart and/or kill the astronaut crew!

5- If either the Gods or passing space aliens intervene and saves Ares I from #1, #2, #3 and #4, Ares I will run out of gas long before it reaches the required orbital velocity and altitude.

Man o' man! those NASA engineers must be real idiots, eh!

Again, your are (willfully?) seeing only side of the picture. It's true that Direct has its share of fanboys and cheerleaders. There are people over on NSF saying what a great presentation Steve gave, for example. But if you can look beyond that there is a solid proposal, based on solid engineering, that needs to be seriously and objectively examined to see if it can overcome the problems that CxP undeniably is facing.

What problems, you ask?

1- budget. Not only is this more than predicted, but NASA's basline for HSF has been cut. A double whammy.
2- launch drift is an issue. How severe, I do not know. But it weakens the case for Ares-I, and strengthens the cases for EELV or Direct, flying in a known configuration. The only issue is how serious the problem is.
3- Same applies for TO. I would personally consider this a fundamental flaw of the Ares-I vehicle, because mass had to be allocated to system to overcome it. Again, perhaps it isn;t as serious as people say. But it's obviously not a good thing, either.

It's not that Ares I costs too much though.

Yeah, you keep muttering that to yourself. Classic denial. So Ares-I, at $14.4bn, is good value, is it? Compared to what? Two EELVs at $3bn including pads, which could do the same job?

I really like the Shuttle-derived, side-mounted cargo option that we saw at the hearing. That actually might turn out to be a good alternative to Ares V.

I really liked Shannon's presentation of that vehicle. He very eloquently explained why retaining STS infrastructure and hardware was good, why expendable SSMEs are good and affordable, and why a high flight rate using the same vehicle for both crew and cargo was also good. There was a lot to like. You can see where I'm going wth this...
What is not to like is the obvious risks of sidemounted crew vehicles.

[Rick]

Why on earth cannot anyone wait until the Ares I-X launches, blows up on the pad, vibrates to death, veers into the launch tower or all of the above to be so critical regarding NASA's launch vehicle selection?

Yes, Ares I-X is different, but the mission is to find out all of the above.

It blows my mind sometimes at the lack of distrust for NASA engineering.

If the vehicle doesn't work, it doesn't work. If it does, will anyone temper their negativity regarding Ares? I doubt it.

-Rick

[Me2]

Why on earth cannot anyone wait until the Ares I-X launches, blows up on the pad, vibrates to death, veers into the launch tower or all of the above to be so critical regarding NASA's launch vehicle selection?

Yes, Ares I-X is different, but the mission is to find out all of the above.

It does nothing of the sort. It is just an admiral's test. TO will be different for a 5 segment. As far as controls, it uses Atlas avionics. It won't validate Ares I design either way, positive or negative.

[Rick]

I disagree Jim, below are the objectives defined by NASA:

By the way, do you not care to respond to private messages on my site from me?

Ares I-X will be the first test flight of a launch vehicle like the Ares I. The test flight objectives include:

• Demonstrating control of a dynamically similar vehicle using control algorithms similar to those used for Ares I.
• Performing an in-flight separation/staging event between an Ares I-similar First Stage and a representative Upper Stage.
• Demonstrating assembly and recovery of an Ares I-like First Stage at Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
• Demonstrating First Stage separation sequencing, and measuring First Stage atmospheric entry dynamics, and parachute performance.
• Characterizing the magnitude of integrated vehicle roll torque throughout First Stage flight.

The flight also has several secondary objectives, including:

• Quantifying the effectiveness of the first stage booster deceleration motors.
• Characterizing induced environments and loads on the vehicle during ascent.
• Demonstrating a procedure for determining the vehicle’s position to orient the flight control system.
• Characterize induced loads on the Flight Test Vehicle while on the launch pad.
• Assess potential Ares I access locations in the VAB and on the Pad.
• Assess First Stage electrical umbilical performance.

The Ares I-X flight profile will closely approximate the flight conditions that Ares I will experience through Mach 4.5, at an altitude of about 130,000 feet (39,600 m) and through a maximum dynamic pressure (“Max Q”) of approximately 800 pounds per square foot (38.3 kPa).

The Ares I-X flight profile resembles the uncrewed Saturn I flights of the 1960s, which tested the Saturn propulsion concept.

By flying the vehicle through first stage separation, the test flight will also verify the performance and dynamics of the Ares I solid rocket booster in a “single stick” arrangement, which is different than the solid rocket booster’s current “double-booster” configuration alongside the external tank on the space shuttle.

[klydemorris]

Why on earth cannot anyone wait until the Ares I-X launches, blows up on the pad, vibrates to death, veers into the launch tower or all of the above to be so critical regarding NASA's launch vehicle selection?

Yes, Ares I-X is different, but the mission is to find out all of the above.

It blows my mind sometimes at the lack of distrust for NASA engineering.

If the vehicle doesn't work, it doesn't work. If it does, will anyone temper their negativity regarding Ares? I doubt it.

-Rick

The reason why the Ares I haters cannot wait for the launch to see if it works or not is so twisted even I can understand it... The believe that if they make enough noise, someone on the hill will pick up on it and the vehicle may be cancelled before it can fly- that way they can boast that they were right all along.

Me2 for example is NEVER wrong... just ask him, he'll tell you.

[Me2]

• Demonstrating control of a dynamically similar vehicle using control algorithms similar to those used for Ares I.
• Performing an in-flight separation/staging event between an Ares I-similar First Stage and a representative Upper Stage.
• Demonstrating assembly and recovery of an Ares I-like First Stage at Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
• Demonstrating First Stage separation sequencing, and measuring First Stage atmospheric entry dynamics, and parachute performance.
• Characterizing the magnitude of integrated vehicle roll torque throughout First Stage flight.

The flight also has several secondary objectives, including:

• Quantifying the effectiveness of the first stage booster deceleration motors.
• Characterizing induced environments and loads on the vehicle during ascent.
• Demonstrating a procedure for determining the vehicle’s position to orient the flight control system.
• Characterize induced loads on the Flight Test Vehicle while on the launch pad.
• Assess potential Ares I access locations in the VAB and on the Pad.
• Assess First Stage electrical umbilical performance.

The Ares I-X flight profile resembles the uncrewed Saturn I flights of the 1960s, which tested the Saturn propulsion concept.

The objectives are marginal and the data is not worth 3/4 billion dollars.

Once again, the Saturn I analogy is wrong. Saturn I flight were to learn rocket science.

[Me2]

Me2 for example is NEVER wrong... just ask him, he'll tell you.

You haven't proven me wrong yet. Everything I have said is true

Your data is on a thread under EELV

[Rick]

Me2 is a smart anonymous person who knows his stuff, but to me negates anyone else that has a clue about Ares.

That's not a rip on him, but a hand waving in the air, hoping that those that are pro EELV can listen to an intelligent alternate position.

Heck, I've probably been in the same elevator as him over the last 15 years.

[Rick]

The objectives are marginal and the data is not worth 3/4 billion dollars.

Once again, the Saturn I analogy is wrong. Saturn I flight were to learn rocket science.

Wow, that was a fast response!

Why is the data not worth the money? How much should we NOT spend on R&D and engineering data to qualify a launch vehicle?

You must remember where not sending a inanimate object into space, we'd be sending humans. There's a huge difference there.

[Rick]

Once again, the Saturn I analogy is wrong. Saturn I flight were to learn rocket science.

That's NASA"s quote, not mine. Again I presume that you disagree with your employers remarks again?

[Rick]

By the way, do you not care to respond to private messages on my site from me?

Still waiting for an answer on this topic hopefully.

[klydemorris]

Once again, the Saturn I analogy is wrong. Saturn I flight were to learn rocket science.

Pretty lame dance-around the fact in history Me2- dog fails to hunt, however. Your implication was that the von Braun team did not know rocket science at that time- BUNK. Of course your soft spot, with the exception of the Titan II and its off-spring, is rocketry history- I know I've read your posts. The fact is that the Saturn I, Block I series as well as the Titan I, "A" Lot series were launched for the exact same reasons as the Ares I-X and had exactly the same ilk of nay-sayers. The only differance being that the scoffing and venom were spewed in break rooms over coffee instead of over the internet. That apples and oranges brush-off of your's just doesn't hold water in a historical perspective. Sorry- no sale outside of the little circle of Ares I haters.

I wonder what you would say if NASA switched to... oh let us say... the Atlas V and then launched the first one un-manned with a dummy Orion and LAS on top... ummm would that be a "model rocket"? or a huge "waste" or tax dollars? What would be your opinions on that one. Lace up your tap shoes and being dancing... now.

[winkhome]

Wow, that was a fast response!

Why is the data not worth the money? How much should we NOT spend on R&D and engineering data to qualify a launch vehicle?

You must remember where not sending a inanimate object into space, we'd be sending humans. There's a huge difference there.

To me at least I would be much happier with the Ares I-X if it had a 5-segment SRB - just that simple. Yes, it is an interesting experiment but not the real thing. That said I would have liked to see the X-33 fly and from what I understand it was in about the same ballpark to the Venture Star as the X is to the I. yes??

Even if Ares I is 100% NASA says it is - I think for $14 BILLION or whatever it ends up costing + the additional BILLIONS to get V built and flying - there are more cost effective ways to make this happen, as safe or safer, with more capability + an Orion as originally planned.

[Me2]

1. Pretty lame dance-around the fact in history Me2- dog fails to hunt, however. Your implication was that the did not know rocket science at that time- BUNK. Of course your soft spot, with the exception of the Titan II and its off-spring, is rocketry history- I know I've read your posts. The fact is that the Saturn I, Block I series as well as the Titan I, "A" Lot series were launched for the exact same reasons as the Ares I-X and had exactly the same ilk of nay-sayers.

2. I wonder what you would say if NASA switched to... oh let us say... the Atlas V and then launched the first one un-manned with a dummy Orion and LAS on top... ummm would that be a "model rocket"? or a huge "waste" or tax dollars?

1. Way offbase and incorrect. Von Braun team did not know rocket science (large vehicles and clustering) at the time. Saturn I was to develop engine clustering techniques. It was not to support the development of an operational vehicle. That changed mid stream in its development.

Saturn I and Titan weren't the only partial launches, it was everyone until the Minuteman. Atlas A has no sustainer engine, Vanguard used Viking single stage engine. That was also the reason for the Thor, it wasn't anymore than a first stage.

There is no need for of testing of partial vehicles after the early 60's, see Delta IV, Atlas V, Pegasus, STS, Saturn V, Minuteman, Peacekeeper, Midgetman, Pershing, Titan II, etc. Once we learned rocket science, partial test launches went to the wayside.

2. There would be no point to that type of test launch, it would be a waste.

All that aside, Ares I-X is still not like the Saturn I test flights. Saturn I never flew with only 4 or 6 out of 8 engines or a portion of the 9 tanks replaced with dummy tanks. That is my real issue with I-X, the 4 segment booster with a dummy segment. I have no problem with the I-Y test with a full up 5 segment booster. The cost of the I-X is not worth the real data that it will provide.

PS don't understand the Titan II comment.

[klydemorris]

First off Me2... it is "von Braun" with a lower case "v" and that said, his team basically invented modern rocketry after building on the Goddard early steps.

Secondly- thanks you for your honest reply about the Atlas V.

Your statement that there is no need for partial vehicle testing today is your opinion as an individual. Let us all keep that clear- it is ONE person's opinion. In the case of the Ares I, it is a fact that a large team of engineers say that there IS a need to test in this manner and their management agrees- thus it is funded, being stacked and is going to launch. So it looks like you are... wrong. But that's okay- you are free to believe what you want to believe- even if you are in fact wrong. Heck I know a person who lives in the wilderness in a shack with no electricity because he thinks that if he has electricity the little gray people from outer space will come in the night and get him... and, just like you, he believes he's right. By the way- he's also a real rocket engineer.

On another light- and back on topic for this thread, does anyone here see the morphing of the Ares vehicles into a sort of Direct-on-a-NASA-budget type of vehicle?

[JimMcDade]

I am sure that the NSF Direct fanbase is praising Steve's performance. There's not enough accumulative intellectual power there to light the LED on my key chain. The smart people who post there are greatly outweighed by the gomer posters. NSF has been the primary enabler of this mimicry of a serious aerospace organization that is known as Direct.

During my exchanges with the Direct advocates, the Direct advocates regularly lambasted Michael Griffin, Steve Cook and the other Constellation engineers and managers, accusing them of lying, and suppressing dissent with "pressure brought to bear" against the alleged renegade engineers. The insults were personal as well as professional. There was also a political slant to the anti-Ares attacks. It was implied that the presidential study panel that led Bush to propose Constellation was a bunch of neocons Republicans. Ares I and Ares V were linked to other "failed" Bush administration programs.

As for the Russian-powered Atlas V, it looks like advocates are backing away from using Atlas V as an Ares I alternative and focusing on Atlas V as a commercial space ride. That makes a lot of sense. The lack of a large US built LOX-hydrocarbon engine (e.g. F-1) is hurting Atlas V. The enemies of NASA in Congress will leap at the chance to bash Atlas V, particularly during these times when so many American industrial workers are out of a job. I disagree with the opinion that Americans don't care where the engines are built.

PS- The ULA CEO Michael Gass was almost as shaky as Metschan when he had his turn at the podium. he also had incomplete numbers at had and could not explain some key aspects of his proposal. It appears that the 2014 fly date for a man-rated EELV was just pulled out of the air. The cost claims and risk numbers were also questionable.

Shannon's presentation was outstanding. He was not trying to cover up any glaring holes like some of the other presenters were doing. Ares I/Ares V still has the inside track. The alternatives still have a greater distance to travel.

Rick, I understand that you have to work with or live around some of these argumentative people and that you have to be extra gentle with them. As Ringo Starr once sang, you must feel like an, "Arab walking through Zion". I do not understand why so many of the Ares I naysayers come from the Space Coast community. Perhaps the threat of gap layoffs spurred locals to panic and strike out at NASA leadership and Ares I.

You explain that Me2 is anonymous and that is one of the key weaknesses in Me2s claims. Anonymous claims are practically worthless to the Augustine commission and to all people who think objectively. Me2 should contact one of the Augustine panel members and arrange a confidential meeting rather than waste his insights on us.

The vast majority of the actual Ares I engineering community living in the Huntsville area are perplexed by the strange commentary coming from unidentified Space Coast residents who claim to be "insiders" in the Ares I project. There are not that many engineers working at KSC who would be in a position to authoritatively comment on the progress, or lack of progress, with Ares I.

Many of the other Ares I critics, particularly the Direct people are so far outside of the loop that the Augustine panel had to ask, "Who are you people?"

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

from Aviation Week:

Embattled exploration-program managers at NASA say a decision to cancel the Ares I crew launch vehicle development now in favor of a potentially lower-cost effort to human rate the Delta IV heavy would add $14.1 billion - $16.6 billion to the cost of developing the Ares V moon rocket.


In public testimony before the White House panel reviewing NASA's human spaceflight plans, Gary Pulliam, Aerospace Corp. vice president for civil and commercial operations, said his organization finds it will be possible to human rate a Delta IV heavy launch vehicle to carry the Orion crew exploration vehicle for about $3 billion less than it will cost to finish Ares I

That did not include the cost of continuing development of the Ares V heavy lifter without the first- and second-stage precursor work under way as part of the Ares I program, which NASA estimates could cost from $14.1 billion to $16.6 billion more, according to Pulliam.


Michael Gass, president and CEO of United Launch Alliance, testified to the panel headed by retired Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine that his company believes it can human rate its big Delta IV faster and cheaper than the "conservative" Aerospace estimates.


"Delta IV heavy provides a safe, low-cost capability to launch Orion, we believe by 2014, with greater than 20 percent performance margin," Gass said June 17.


Another lower-cost alternative to Ares I may be a heavy lifter based on shuttle components but without the winged orbiter, said Shuttle Program Manager John Shannon. He testified that when the Ares I project ran into problems with budget cuts last year, he assigned a small NASA engineering team to review and update plans going back to the old Shuttle-C concept of the 1980s and '90s.


Essentially a cargo shroud with engines mounted on the side of the existing external tank and solid-rocket boosters, the vehicle could be a lower-cost way to get NASA astronauts to the International Space Station and eventually to the moon. However, it would require a lighter and less capable lander than the go-anywhere Altair vehicle currently on hold pending the outcome of the Augustine panel's work.


Shannon stressed that much more analysis is needed to validate the concept, which would use lower-cost throwaway versions of the reusable space shuttle main engines. It would also need to be based on a complete revision of the mission requirements that shaped the current NASA exploration architecture.


The Augustine panel plans more public meetings at NASA field centers that work on human spaceflight, and closed-door sessions to take testimony containing proprietary information. Its report, due by the end of August, will present options to guide President Barack Obama and his staff in deciding whether to continue or change the human spaceflight policy drafted under President George W. Bush.


"In essence, what you decide is going to be the significant influence for the White House, and therefore also for the Congress, in where the space program is going," Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), testified to the Augustine panel.