DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[spacefan]

It is human nature to apply selective hearing and vision when we atempt to defend our preferences. It is, however, a matter of fact that- thus far- the "broad but shallow criticisms" of Ares I and Project Constellation have not been confirmed by the Augustine sanctioned studies.

The investigative process has NOT verified various allegations about crippling Ares I technical shortcomings or out of control costs. The investigation has revealed that Ares I is experiencing nothing other than the typical birthing pains seen before in other NASA projects.

Dr. Augustine says that the panel will offer a broad list of options to President Obama, including the option of keeping Project Constellation intact. Political imperative can and does rule over technical facts, so anything can happen. However, the Obama honeymoon with the media and public is fading fast, so it is becoming harder and harder for the President to justify his change orders.

Change will actually increase overall costs and will have negligible effect on closing the gap, if Ares I/Orion are considered separately. Ares V and going to the moon and Mars is another matter and it is more likely that that side of the project will suffer some cutbacks or major changes.

Disagree, toss insults, and rant all you want, but this analysis has more credibility than the anonymous allegations and conspiracy theories that are presently being embraced by thousands of credulous web posters.

I have no objection to keeping constellation alive, its not my taxes paying for it. But to me Ares 1 doesn't make any sense without Ares5.

To me it seems that Augustine has been unfailingly non commital as to what architecture he supports (if any at this stage) Dr Ride may have concluded that there would no advantage to change architecture in terms of the gap but what about getting out beyond LEO?. What about the cost?

[JimMcDade]

Jim, to me their appears to be quite a bit of momentum for the NSC in the Augustine Commission which would preserve our heavy lift capabilities. In all honesty the Ares I is a pathetic vehicle if it doesn't have it's bigger brother Ares V. If Ares I is all that we would get out of the CxP then I think it would be very prudent for all in NASA to lobby for the NSC, as it appears to be the closest and easiest path to maintaining the VSE or anything that resembles it.

The side-mounted option is getting a lot of attention and praise. Pathetic is just not enough to justify cancellation of an Ares I without an Ares V. The decision to build Ares I-Ares V was driven by the combination of budgetary and technical pre-conditions placed on NASA. It wasn't the only feasible option, I'm sure, but it was what came out of the process.

The Constellation planners knew that little, if any, additional funding was on the way. (The EELV options are not in any way shuttle-derived, so they may or may not have been treated a bit unfairly, but that's space-business.)

The NASA budget- in terms of real dollars- declined steadily during the years and has been pretty much flat since then. President Obama is likely to resume the trend of reducing NASA funding. Looking back, Ares I is about all NASA could reasonably expect to sustain over several Presidential administrations.

I realize that Ares I is reminiscent of the cobbled-together aircraft portrayed in FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX, but this is not JFK's America anymore. We are not likely to see another expensive Saturn V-class launch vehicle for a very long time- if ever.

Assuming that the Obama administration is interested in sending astronauts beyond LEO (and that is a very risky assumption), the combination of Ares I with other heavy lift options is on the table.

[JimMcDade]

Dr Ride may have concluded that there would no advantage to change architecture in terms of the gap but what about getting out beyond LEO?. What about the cost?

1- You are assuming that the Obama administration has any human space mission plans beyond LEO. we will see. (Nixon was accused of killing Apollo as his way of striking back at the JFK legacy. Obama may feel the same way towards Bush and the Moon-Mars goal. NASA LEO science and climate change studies may be all that Obama will support after all is said and done.)

Robotic exploration is embraced in the elite world of the academic intelligentsia where the President matriculates. Human spaceflight is considered too expensive and inefficient in the view of many a college professor and campus president. (Too much of the money for HSF goes to the aerospace industry and engineers and not to the scientists, university campus labs and salaries, in other words.)

2- The legitimate aerospace industry competitors who want to see Ares I dropped (not the Jupiter Direct cranks) know how to properly present financial numbers to the Augustine panel and NASA. They are having a hard time making a compelling and convincing argument.)

[spacefan]

1- You are assuming that the Obama administration has any human space mission plans beyond LEO. we will see.

Yes, that is my assumption. We shall see indeed.

(Nixon was accused of killing Apollo as his way of striking back at the JFK legacy. Obama may feel the same way towards Bush and the Moon-Mars goal.

Nixon may have been a bitter and twisted politician, but Obama strikes me as being supremely rational. He told Charlie Bolden he wants Nasa to inspire people like they did him as a child during the Apollo Era, not the talk of a man who is about to kill HSF.

NASA LEO science and climate change studies may be all that Obama will support after all is said and done.)

He will certainly support the above but that will not be all he'll do.

Robotic exploration is embraced in the elite world of the academic intelligentsia where the President matriculates.

Credit where its due Nasa's achievements in this area have been spectacular. Obama taught law at U of Chicago whilst serving on the illinois state legislature prior to becoming a US senator and then president, I dont think the whole robots V human spaceflight debate registered on his radar.

Human spaceflight is considered too expensive and inefficient in the view of many a college professor and campus president. (Too much of the money for HSF goes to the aerospace industry and engineers and not to the scientists, university campus labs and salaries, in other words.)

Obama taught Constitutional Law, He may nor have been overly concerned with the old scientist V engineer debate. He now as sufficient advice to provide a countervailing argument to any assumptions he does hold.

2- The legitimate aerospace industry competitors who want to see Ares I dropped (not the Jupiter Direct cranks) know how to properly present financial numbers to the Augustine panel and NASA. They are having a hard time making a compelling and convincing argument.)

Glad to hear it, what about Ares 5.
__________________

[JimMcDade]

It makes no sense to build Ares V if the President points NASA HSF exclusively back to the LEO NASCAR orbit (Start your engines, then turn left, turn left, turn left... ad nauseum).

Speculation-and-not-prediction: The side-mount option could probably do the heavy lifting work required for any jobs that an Earth science-based HSF program would require, such as adding or replacing ISS modules. The Russians have amply demonstrated the practicality of docking unmanned cargo vehicles to the ISS.

Side-mount is also capable of preserving some of the existing jobs and hardware at KSC. We might see a life extension for ISS and some new modifications proposed for both ISS and the side-mount option.

Permanent ISS staffing could grow to a dozen or more, especially if a new international partner is brought in. Don't be surprised if another nation or two joins the ISS. Obama is more popular in some nations than the legal leaders of those nations. He has plenty of global clout. ISS is a good fit for any President who holds the sort of one world views that Obama apparently embraces.

Apollo was about geopolitics and was sold to the public as part of a national imperative to lead the world in space achievement. Project Constellation was sold as an effort to return to the days of Apollo. Obama may not want to go back to the days of JFK's "We intend to lead it (the space race)" philosophy.

[JimMcDade]

From the WFTV report on the Cocoa Beach Augustine meeting: "One space center engineer challenged their current plans for the Ares rockets."Continuing work on a project that is doomed is demoralizing," NASA engineer Gregory Sacala said."

Poor Gregg, they misspelled his name. I am proud of him for his decision to come out of the closet and appear in a public forum to speak his mind- even if he is dead wrong.

http://www.wftv.com/news/20228873/detail.html

I honestly hope that Gregg gets some interviews now.

[Khadgars]

From the WFTV report on the Cocoa Beach Augustine meeting: "One space center engineer challenged their current plans for the Ares rockets."Continuing work on a project that is doomed is demoralizing," NASA engineer Gregory Sacala said."

Poor Gregg, they misspelled his name. I am proud of him for his decision to come out of the closet and appear in a public forum to speak his mind- even if he is dead wrong.

http://www.wftv.com/news/20228873/detail.html

I honestly hope that Gregg gets some interviews now.

How is he dead wrong? In your reply to my post you listed exactly why the CxP is doomed, building an Ares I with out an Ares V or a HLLV is simply insanity.

I'm almost positive that the sticks days are numbered, even Sen Nelson said there is just not enough money to do what we wanted to do. Having said that is makes complete sense to build one rocket that does both roles as we will not get another chance at this and I think those heavily involved in this process realize this.

Personally I'm betting on the NSC

[spacefan]

I have to agree with Khadgars. Shannon made a thoroughly convincing case for NSC it could certainly do the heavy lift role and provided they can work the LAS it could do the crew role.

Lunar missions are certainly doable with the above and the beauty of this architecture is that all the infrastrure required to support it is currently extant. Dont get me wrong i want constellation to succede and be adequately funded i just dont think its on the cards.

[J.McDonald]

We are not likely to see another expensive Saturn V-class launch vehicle for a very long time- if ever.

For once, Jim, I am in complete agreement with you.

[J.McDonald]

I have to agree with Khadgars. Shannon made a thoroughly convincing case for NSC it could certainly do the heavy lift role and provided they can work the LAS it could do the crew role.

Lunar missions are certainly doable with the above and the beauty of this architecture is that all the infrastrure required to support it is currently extant. Dont get me wrong i want constellation to succede and be adequately funded i just dont think its on the cards.

Shannon made a good presentation, no doubt. But there are some very bigs 'ifs' in the idea. The main one is, of course, firing the LAS. I'm no expert but won't the LAS exhaust strike the ET, breaching the LOX tank and/or bouncing back into the Orion? Secondly, what happens when the Orion/LAS passes through the shockwave of the ET nosecone? It all seems pretty ugly to me.
Secondly, Shannon made a big deal of the software issue, and suggested that Shuttle software be reused for NSC. Doesn't that mean it has to run on shuttle GPCs? How of these are in existence, and how difficult will it be to build new ones?

Other than the good presentation, and the slight possibility of a quicker and cheaper development, I don't find all that to like about NSC. I think there's a very real possibility that the abort issue could be swept under the carpet and rear its ugly head a few years down the line. TO, anybody?

[JimMcDade]

How is he dead wrong? In your reply to my post you listed exactly why the CxP is doomed, building an Ares I with out an Ares V or a HLLV is simply insanity.

I'm almost positive that the sticks days are numbered, even Sen Nelson said there is just not enough money to do what we wanted to do. Having said that is makes complete sense to build one rocket that does both roles as we will not get another chance at this and I think those heavily involved in this process realize this.

Personally I'm betting on the NSC

I have been communicating confidentially with Gregg for quite some time under a condition of anonymity. He is a great guy with an extensive background in cryogenics. I understand why he is opposed to using solids as the primary propulsion system for NASA HSF.

Gregg is a very competent engineer and he makes some very good arguments against Ares I, but the engineers on the Ares I side make equally convincing counter-arguments.

I don't agree with all of Gregg's argument, but at least he had the guts to risk his professional standing by opening up to me many months ago. I now give him credit for standing up in front of TV cameras and calling it as he sees it.

Gregg never tossed insults at me and others for disagreeing with him like those people at NASASpaceFlight did. Gregg offered some real data and legitimate information. While it is true that his offerings did not turn me, I understood that he had to be careful about sharing program documentation.

Direct would have been better served if they had been represented by Gregg instead of Metschan or Ross. He knows what he is talking about.

If Ares I is doomed, it is doomed for financial/political reasons, not technical reasons. That is where Gregg and I disagree. Ares I was born into poverty and just like a child born into poverty, it was bound to experience a more painful early life.

The agency is not working under cash-rich, crash program conditions like Apollo enjoyed. As I have said before, Ares I was about all we could expect out of a program that is forced to work with a flat budget growth projection. The Apollo Saturn V was designed exclusively by engineers. Apollo engineers were told do whatever it takes to put and man on the moon and then bring him home before the end of the decade. In 2004, NASA was told to replace the Shuttle, but keep the spending flat and do this while keeping the Shuttle flying.

The Shuttle and all subsequent HSF proposals were essentially co-designed by politicians, federal bean counters, and engineers in that order.

[JimMcDade]

Excerpt:
Panel Ponders NASA Options


The White House panel reviewing U.S. human spaceflight plans has focused in on seven different ways for NASA to continue its exploration program, a few of them within the bounds of current budget realities.


Go to:


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...NASA%20Options

...and from Al.com:

NASA panel works to whittle option list

Thursday, August 06, 2009 By Shelby G. Spires
Times Aerospace Writer shelby.spires@htimes.com



Much of talk on Wednesday was on Ares V versions



A White House-appointed panel pondering NASA's future has about a week to whittle down a list of hundreds of options to a manageable figure before sending it to President Barack Obama.



The Augustine Commission met in Washington Wednesday to discuss a wide range of potential NASA missions, including using Ares rockets - Marshall Space Flight Center manages the Ares program, which could send robots or people to asteroids, the moon or Mars - and it has amassed 864 options.



"Now we just have to get that down to three by next week," panel member Dr. Ed Crawley told the panel, which broke out in laughter shortly afterward.



"It's no joke. We do," said a stern-faced Crawley.



A lot of the panel's discussions centered on versions of the Ares V heavy lift vehicle, but absent was much talk about Ares I, as the panel moved forward in its second-to-last public meeting Wednesday.



NASA's plans since fall 2005, when the Ares I and Ares V designs were announced, have centered on using the smaller Ares I as a crew rocket and the larger Ares V to loft heavy cargo into space.



One option would be to ditch the Ares I - already a $3 billion taxpayer investment - and use two Ares V rockets for lunar or other missions.



"I like the Ares I and Ares V combination, but that's not at issue here," said panel member Bo Bejmuk. "I think given enough money these guys working on (Ares) could have put something together that served this nation well. There is just not enough money."



Former astronaut Dr. Sally Ride said a focus on deep space missions to asteroids, rather than trips to the moon or Mars, would accomplish many scientific goals, be less dangerous and could involve other nations. She suggested this option make a final cut.



The panel has spent the past week at a furious pace, also meeting in Huntsville, Houston and Cocoa Beach, Fla. It has reviewed options that range from extending the space shuttle to reworking the Ares rockets to looking at commercial launch vehicles. Along with that, extending the life of the $100 billion International Space Station, which is nearly complete, has been a topic.



"It's very important we don't send the country on a tour of things that has a bunch of hidden 'gotchas,' " Bejmuk said. "These have to be viable."
The panel has one more public meeting - Aug. 12 in Washington - before it writes a final report, which is due at the Government Printing Office by Aug. 31, said Norman Augustine, the panel's chairman and namesake.

[Khadgars]

2. Cancellation for costing too much is a technical reason. But in addition, Ares I doesn't meet the requirements.

I have to agree, though from a technical stand point I think Ares I would have done just fine. But that is not the point, the point is, we do not have enough money to build something that does not do us a whole lot with out building a completely whole new launch vehicle that just happens to be bigger than Godzilla while being so far outside the budget there is nothing left to do once it is complete many years after we need it.

[J.McDonald]

Short update.
ULA have recently published a study which would use use EELVs, propellant depots, and a new advanced upper stage to get to the moon by- they claim- 2018, at lower cost than the POR.

What I find quite interesting is that the upper stage proposed is of the smae family as Direct's. And of course Direct strongly advicates propellant depots. Even the Augustine commission seems to approve of PDs.

Would the fact that ULA are now proposing an architectire which relies heavily on two of Direct's more controversial developments in any way sway people's opinions about the overall validity of the Direct concept?

[JimMcDade]

Would the fact that ULA are now proposing an architectire which relies heavily on two of Direct's more controversial developments in any way sway people's opinions about the overall validity of the Direct concept?

Nope. DIRECT shamelessly plagiarized valid studies and technologies from day one. I don't think that anybody said any of the alternatives were invalid. Unnecessary, wasteful, and kooky- yes. Invalid- No.

The PDs are a non-starter if you listened to the Congressional hearing yesterday.

The Senate hearing today was much calmer than yesterday's Augustine panel BBQ session, but it is clear that both Democrats and Republicans realize that there are no legitimate technical or budgetary reasons for canceling Ares I.

ULA can conduct studies from now until doomsday, but they are not the decision maker for US space policy.

Dear-old DIRECT is now officially regarded by Washington officials as nothing more than an annoying, inept group of daydreamers who came before the Augustine for the sole purpose of embarrassing themselves in front of the entire world.

Update- Fresh reports indicate that DIRECT is pretty much just a distant memory at this point.

[JimMcDade]

Rick, I think that you can retire this thread now as well. DIRECT is now nothing more than decomposed, skeletal remains. They will never make noise again and they will hereafter have to live with the memories of their embarrassing involvement with a crank movement.

[Rick]

Short update.
ULA have recently published a study which would use use EELVs, propellant depots, and a new advanced upper stage to get to the moon by- they claim- 2018, at lower cost than the POR.

What I find quite interesting is that the upper stage proposed is of the smae family as Direct's. And of course Direct strongly advicates propellant depots. Even the Augustine commission seems to approve of PDs.

Would the fact that ULA are now proposing an architectire which relies heavily on two of Direct's more controversial developments in any way sway people's opinions about the overall validity of the Direct concept?

John, you make valid points. I do think however that the US Congress is leaning towards the current architecture, rather than an alternate option. What's your observations regarding this?

[Rick]

Rick, I think that you can retire this thread now as well. DIRECT is now nothing more than decomposed, skeletal remains. They will never make noise again and they will hereafter have to live with the memories of their embarrassing involvement with a crank movement.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I will wait until a definitive course for HSF has been chosen.

I want to be fair to all.

[JimMcDade]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I will wait until a definitive course for HSF has been chosen.

I want to be fair to all.

You are correct. It is much better to be conciliatory towards the others at this point.

- Jim

[JimMcDade]

Norm Augustine has been getting beat up, but I do not think that he should be taking all of the heat for what happened.

It is not his fault that he was given the impossible task of evaluating options in a matter of weeks, rather than the many months that the task required.

I hope that this cursory review of NASA is not a sign that the Obama administration does not care very much about NASA and space exploration, and is therefore unwilling to devote enough time and resources to investigating our national space needs.

Augustine and his panel were forced to compare the Ares rockets, which are in a more advanced stage of development, to paper-only concepts. The review panel did not have time to perform the kind of rigorous and thorough costs and engineering analysis that the Project Constellation did. These shortcomings allowed those "scratch-pad" alternatives (EELV, DIRECT, etc) to essentially compete on a level playing field as far as the Augustine committee members knew.

This unfortunate situation caused the panel to waste too much time on weighing proposals such as the obviously deficient, inadequate and inappropriate JUPITER DIRECT proposal. Every lunatic on the internet who could draw a rocket jumped into the cue trying to submit half-baked Ares I and Ares V alternatives.

It is good to see that some of our representatives from both parties were alert to that unfortunate situation that the circumstances allowed.