DIRECT 2.0 has sure been quiet lately

[JimMcDade]

Let me respond to the nattering nabobs of anti-NASA negativity. I used to work in a NASA lab-- with real astronauts, engineers, and scientists, so I am not exactly an outsider. I also have excellent contacts inside today's NASA and NASA contractor community. Beyond that,it is not necessary to be an insider to see what is goiing on here with all of the bitter Ares I bashing.

The burden of proof- as I see it- is on the EELV and Direct 2.0 people to make a substantial case for their causes. All I have seen, up to this point, are unsubstantiated claims and raw accusations. I have not seen a single legitimate study, nor have I read or heard a coherent, unbiased presentation from the opponents of the Ares I project.

The only burden NASA has is to keep working. They should not waste too much time and energy responding to every individual street critic who claims to know space exploration better than they do. The critics have had ample opportunity to make their various cases to NASA officials at NASA public hearings and press conferences. I have yet to see or hear anything substantial from EELV or Direct 2.0 advocates at those events.

The NASA critics also have the web forums, blogs and other forums to air their gripes, and that is where they really thrive like the itenerant snake-handling evangeliists who roam rural Appalachia. I happen to be in rural Appalachia today, so I guess that could be called an insider's observation.

Further, I am not a die-hard Ares I/NASA defender. I have questioned NASA on space policy and practice for years. For example, I am opposed to the STS-125 HST servicing mission. I also called for ending the STS program quickly prior to the STS-107 tragedy, citing program and vehicle entropy as serious problems.

Finally, if you want to make a good argument against my position, attack my ideas, not me personally. I am a nobody, but I do demand due dilligence and sound arguments from critics, conspiracy theorists, politicians, and the others who are standing next to me on the sidelines watching NASA go about business. Have a nice day!

[Rick]

Hmm, looks like people are scratching there heads over in the NSF forum. The 5 seg. SRB unanounced change appears to be a surprise.

[Me2]

I have not seen a single legitimate study, nor have I read or heard a coherent, unbiased presentation from the opponents of the Ares I project.

Here are 11 studies.

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsy..._concepts.html

EELV was the vehicle of choice of NASA for Constellation and OSP before Griffin. There was nothing wrong with them then.

EELV proponents aren't going to come forward since they were left out of the ESAS and were told to keep their mouths shut. I didn't get this info from Ross or the internet but directly from the marketing and advance studies people of both contractors. Same was true for the NASA ELV people.

[Me2]

. I am a nobody, but I do demand due dilligence and sound arguments from critics, conspiracy theorists, politicians, and the others who are standing next to me on the sidelines watching NASA go about business. Have a nice day!

So what you want from people that are not on the sidelines and are in the game and here the problems?

what do you want to hear when it is obvious that Ares I is in trouble but you refuse to see ti? Active tune mass absorbers, crew isolation system and delayed PDR's are not signs of a vehicle that is performing properly.

[Me2]

If there is such a DIRECT 3.0 plan unveiled (and I FULLY admit that that is wild speculation), it would mean that the DIRECT plan has undergone two massive rewrites. Evidently that is fine for DIRECT but if Ares encounters even one design issue, it's pointed to as a sure sign of failure.

And what would you call the change from 4 segment SRB with an SSME to 5 segment SRB with J-2.

It says the same thing. The ESAS was flawed but there was no ESAS 2.0 to update it. So all the findings in the ESAS are no longer valid. Don't give the excuse the things are too far along. What would be worse is NASA being saddled with an underperforming expensive system that probably won't last 5-7 years.

[Andrew]

And what would you call the change from 4 segment SRB with an SSME to 5 segment SRB with J-2.

It says the same thing. The ESAS was flawed but there was no ESAS 2.0 to update it. So all the findings in the ESAS are no longer valid. Don't give the excuse the things are too far along. What would be worse is NASA being saddled with an underperforming expensive system that probably won't last 5-7 years.

You are making my point. For DIRECT, they can go through iteration after iteration and all is just peachy! Ares makes changes and it is the end of the world.

I realize you are more of an EELV guy (which is, of course, cool), but where did I say that things are too far along? I'll answer my own question: I didn't and you pulled that out from somewhere else.

What would be most horrible is to stop Ares in its tracks, go with DIRECT and lo and behold discover that the costs for the redesign of the core are actually going to be much pricier than forecast and that (shocker) a 5 segment SRB with that stack is going to cause significant problems!

-Andrew

[Rick]

Here are 11 studies.

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsy..._concepts.html

EELV was the vehicle of choice of NASA for Constellation and OSP before Griffin. There was nothing wrong with them then.

EELV proponents aren't going to come forward since they were left out of the ESAS and were told to keep their mouths shut. I didn't get this info from Ross or the internet but directly from the marketing and advance studies people of both contractors. Same was true for the NASA ELV people.

I read some of the documents. A big thank you for providing the link.

For the record, I am not anti-EELV. At one time I supported EELV a few years ago. I am awe-inspired by Delta IV. When it launches.

My problem appears to be that Ares detractors have had a recent history of personal attacks. The ones you've referenced on my website for instance are deplorable. Is this the only way to get an anti-Ares position across?

As I have stated before, the intelligent and to be perfectly honest, adult way to get ones point across is through formal means in this case. Not by attacking an individual or organization, or by professing claims of cover-ups and conspiracies.

"I" want humans to go back to the moon. I don't particularly care how its done, but my passion for spaceflight does not include those who insult the same people that they are trying to court.

I am very glad that I do not partake in that type of behavior.



P.S. Yes, things are too far along.

[J.McDonald]

I already said this on another thread but it seems appropriate here: the case for EELV, without the need for personal abuse.

"Eight years ago we paid for two EELVs which remain unable to meet their original per-flight costs because they are underworked and have excess capacity. Five years ago NASA studied the use of the EELVs for the carriage of manned payloads and found that they would be suitable for the task. Today we are spending many billions duplicating that effort with a third vehicle of similar, but much more limited, performance. The new vehicle is expected to take three years longer to field than an EELV, extending the manned spaceflight gap. Although the new vehicle was originally supposed to be both safer and more powerful than either EELV, this will no longer be the case because the safety rules have been relaxed and the mass and diameter of the Orion payload has been reduced. Finally, in addition to these factors, the new vehicle has encountered unprecedented thrust oscillation problems requiring new technology which will add cost and decrease performance and safety. The time may have come to re-evaluate the wisdom of continuing with the new vehicle."

[Andrew]

I already said this on another thread but it seems appropriate here: the case for EELV, without the need for personal abuse.

"Eight years ago we paid for two EELVs which remain unable to meet their original per-flight costs because they are underworked and have excess capacity. Five years ago NASA studied the use of the EELVs for the carriage of manned payloads and found that they would be suitable for the task. Today we are spending many billions duplicating that effort with a third vehicle of similar, but much more limited, performance. The new vehicle is expected to take three years longer to field than an EELV, extending the manned spaceflight gap. Although the new vehicle was originally supposed to be both safer and more powerful than either EELV, this will no longer be the case because the safety rules have been relaxed and the mass and diameter of the Orion payload has been reduced. Finally, in addition to these factors, the new vehicle has encountered unprecedented thrust oscillation problems requiring new technology which will add cost and decrease performance and safety. The time may have come to re-evaluate the wisdom of continuing with the new vehicle."

Let me know when you start actually making your case.

-Andrew

[J.McDonald]

Let me know when you start actually making your case.

-Andrew

Wow. I expected a rebuttal; presumed that a complete outsider to the industry such as myself would have missed something obvious in my interprestation of events.

Who do I write to?

[Andrew]

Wow. I expected a rebuttal; presumed that a complete outsider to the industry such as myself would have missed something obvious in my interprestation of events.

Who do I write to?

I hear that NASA handles that type of stuff. Have you heard of them? They're the ones building the Ares I. It's a pretty neat piece of machinery.

Sorry, but there I go again with the "spin" that Me2 hates so much.

-Andrew

[Me2]

I hear that NASA handles that type of stuff. Have you heard of them? They're the ones building the Ares I. It's a pretty neat piece of machinery.

Most people involved with launch vehicle design think the opposite. Ares I is a kludge, an abomination, a perfect example of what is wrong with NASA today, a inefficient design, etc. It is far from being a "neat piece" of machinery.

[Me2]

P.S. Yes, things are too far along.

Actually they aren't. Most projects are just at the PDR stage and no real work has done or undone. Other more expensive programs have been canceled later in development.

[Rick]

Actually they aren't. Most projects are just at the PDR stage and no real work has done or undone. Other more expensive programs have been canceled later in development.

How many years into a project would you consider too far along? We're at 4 years now with Ares.

[Rick]

Ares I is a kludge

From Wikipedia:

"Perhaps the ultimate kludge was the first US space station, Skylab. Its two major components, the Saturn Workshop and the Apollo Telescope Mount, began their development as separate projects (the SWS was kludged from the S-IVB stage of the Saturn 1B and Saturn V launch vehicles, the ATM was kludged from an early design for the descent stage of the Apollo Lunar Module). Later the SWS and ATM were folded into the Apollo Applications Program, but the components were to have been launched separately, then docked together in orbit. In the final design, the SWS and ATM were launched together, but for the single-launch concept to work, the ATM had to pivot 90 degrees on a truss structure from its launch position to its on-orbit orientation, clearing the way for the crew to dock its Apollo Command/Service Module at the axial docking port of the Multiple Docking Adapter.

The Airlock Module's manufacturer, McDonnell Douglas, even recycled the hatch design from its Gemini spacecraft and kludged what was originally designed for the conical Gemini Command Module onto the cylindrical Skylab Airlock Module. The Skylab project, managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Marshall Space Flight Center, was seen by the Manned Spacecraft Center (later Johnson Space Center) as an invasion of its historical role as the NASA center for manned spaceflight. Thus, MSC personnel missed no opportunity to disparage the Skylab project, calling it "the kludge." Undeterred by such criticism, Marshall engineers later kludged the Docking Module for the Apollo Soyuz Test Project from Skylab's Airlock Module."


I see where you are coming from now. Your viewpoints seem to be in line with the above criticism decades ago.

[Me2]

How many years into a project would you consider too far along? We're at 4 years now with Ares.

Never too late. Also time has nothing to do with it.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...ads_towar.html

X-33 was canceled after the launch site was finished and the main tanks and structure being completed and while the engine was in the middle of testing

[Me2]

From Wikipedia:.......


I see where you are coming from now. Your viewpoints seem to be in line with the above criticism decades ago.

1. Not the same thing. That was due to parochial issues and centers fighting over roles and responsibilities. There was nothing technically wrong with Skylab. Ares I problems have nothing to due with center roles and responsibilities

2. Quoting Wikipedia wrt spaceflight is not a good thing to do. It is almost always has errors.

[Rick]

1. Not the same thing. That was due to parochial issues and centers fighting over roles and responsibilities. There was nothing technically wrong with Skylab. Ares I problems have nothing to due with center roles and responsibilities

2. Quoting Wikipedia wrt spaceflight is not a good thing to do. It is almost always has errors.

Okay. Was just looking up YOUR word that you used. I don't disagree about Wikipedia, but in this case, it appears to be correct.

[Bob]

Never too late. Also time has nothing to do with it.

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...ads_towar.html

X-33 was canceled after the launch site was finished and the main tanks and structure being completed and while the engine was in the middle of testing

me2,
correct me if I am wrong, didn't congress kill that program??

[Rick]

Bob,
That's not the case really. Although some elements of Congress applauded the decision, Lockheed Martin, was the culprit here. NASA did kill it. But NOT due to NASA negligence.

From Space.com:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...el_010301.html

NASA Shuts Down X-33, X-34 Programs By Leonard David Senior Space Writer posted: 04:14 pm ET 01 March 2001 ET

First posted March 1, 2001, 4:14 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON -- NASA announced Thursday that the problem-plagued X-33 spaceplane project, a venture that aimed to create a single-stage-to-orbit spaceliner, has been scrapped. In addition, the American space agency announced that another reusable rocket, the X-34, is being axed.
In total, these NASA resolutions add up to over $1 billion worth of canceled projects.
[inset]
"Obviously, there's a lot of disappointed folks, and I'm one of them," said Arthur Stephenson, director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. The center is NASA's lead work force in creating vehicles for routine and low-cost access to space.
SLI funding
Stephenson said that NASA will not add funds to the X-33 or X-34 programs from money dedicated to the agency's Space Launch Initiative (SLI). NASA's SLI is designed to push forward technology development for concepts that would be able to launch payloads for NASA, commercial and military missions, as well as fly crews to and from the International Space Station.
The decision by NASA Thursday terminates work on the X-33, a cooperative project between NASA and the lead industrial partner for the project, the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Stephenson said.
The X-34 contract will expire, and rocket builder Orbital Sciences Corporation of Dulles, Virginia was notified of the decision, Stephenson said.
NASA has spent to date $912 million on the X-33, with another $205 million expended on the X-34 project.
In the case of the X-33, Lockheed Martin had invested $356 million of its own monies in the effort to create a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle, Stephenson said.
"I hate to see us not be able to go forward and complete these programs. But we have to make good decisions fiscally, and be responsible in picking those activities that can give us the greatest benefit. And flying these vehicles turned out not to warrant the magnitude of the cost involved," Stephenson said.
The decision to terminate both X-33 and X-34 were made internally by NASA and were not a White House decision, Stephenson said.
The X-34 program was initiated in 1996. It was to provide a low-cost technology test bed that would demonstrate a streamlined management approach with a rapid development schedule and limited testing.
A review by NASA and Orbital Sciences found the projected cost of completing the X-34 had hit unacceptable levels and incurred too much technical risk.
Trouble plagued
Troubled by technical snags, the X-33 rocket plane project, an effort to spark creation of a commercial single-stage-to-orbit vehicle, has been the topic of intense renegotiations between NASA and the lead industrial partner for the project, the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company.
Unveiled in July 1996 by then U.S. Vice President Al Gore and still-on-assignment NASA Administrator, Daniel Goldin, the pilotless X-33 was slated to rocket skyward on the first of a series of suborbital test hops three years later.
The X-33 design is based on a lifting-body shape with two novel "linear aerospike" rocket engines and a rugged metallic thermal protection system. The X-33 also features lightweight components and fuel tanks built to conform to the vehicle's outer shape.
On February 6, tandem aerospike engines were test fired for the first time at NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. That blast went the full scheduled duration of 1.1 seconds with no observed anomalies.
Eight more test firings of the twin-flight engines were planned at Stennis before they were to be delivered to Lockheed Martin's X-33 assembly facility in Palmdale, California. The qualification test firings of the unique engines for the spaceplane were to lead to the first high-speed, suborbital flight sometime in 2003.
NASA and Lockheed Martin jointly own the launch site for X-33 at Edwards Air Force Base, along with the vehicle. "We'll be looking at what's the best use of that launch site. I don't have a good answer to that at this point," Stephenson told SPACE.com.
In a statement, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California), chairman of the House Science Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, applauded NASA's decision to terminate the X-33 and X-34 programs.
"I'm very happy to see that SLI is back on track advancing the national launch capability. The decision to terminate the X-33 and X-34 sends the signal that we expect corporate commitments to be kept.
Out the window
The X-33 experimental vehicle ran into myriad technical woes, tossing time schedules for getting the spaceplane airborne out the window. Building the X-33 had proven far from trouble free.
Stability of the sleek looking wedge-shaped craft at various speed ranges, as well as its overall weight, has plagued designers. Novel "linear aerospike" engines that would have powered the rocket plane also proved troublesome to build.
In November 1999, an X-33 composite liquid-hydrogen tank ran into difficulty while undergoing tests at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Long considered a major engineering hurdle, the tank lived up to that reputation, causing a major launch slip and forcing NASA and Lockheed Martin to take a second look at the entire program.
For Lockheed Martin, lessons learned in building and flying X-33 were seen key to validating new technologies and reducing risk for the commercial VentureStar -- the firm's fully reusable, single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.
"Getting to a single-stage-to-orbit was viewed as being very difficultand it's still viewed as very difficult," Stephenson said.
"What we're hearing from industry and our own evaluation is that we believe a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle for a second-generation vehicle [a follow-on to the space shuttle is not viable at this time. We are focusing on multi-stage, beginning with a two-stage vehicle," Stephenson said.