In May, 2009, the 62 NASA engineers, NASA-contractor engineers, and managers from the Constellation Program unveiled
DIRECT, Version 3.0. On June 17, they presented their proposal at a public hearing of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, a in Washington D.C. panel reviewing US space efforts.
Let's face it - if this were 2000, I'd say "Go with Constellation," as it's Ares I and V boosters, combined with the Orion command module, Altair Lunar Lander, and Earth Departure Stage (EDS), do hold promise for a "sexy jet."
The problem is that this isn't the year 2000. We can't afford the "sexy jet" approach. People are buying Subarus and Fords (if anything!), not Corvettes. Our economny is doing worse than it has since the Shuttle began flying more than 30 years ago. We have proven space components, refined over decades of flying them, yet we're willing to bank instead on new, untested components at a time when the public isn't behind the space race, and where failure would doom continuing space efforts for a long time.
DIRECT is a
far more cost-effective approach supporting NASA's Vision for Space Exploration than is Constellation. DIRECT replaces the Areas I and V boosters with a family of rockets using parts and technology already in existance, including the Shuttle's main tank, it's liquid main engines, and it's boosters.
Lest anyone errantly think their cost-savings are "marginal," the title of Version 3.0 is DIRECT 3.0: Landing Twice the Mass on the Moon at Half the Cost."
That's hardly "marginal," yet it's exactly what our Space Program needs in order to stay afloat.
Some question it's safety, but given that it's largely derivative of what we've been using for more than 30 years, sans the energy/payload robbing (by 130,000 lbs) and foam-problematic Shuttle, cutting out the Orbiter's weight (by 130,000 lbs, net of Orien),
DIRECT simply makes sense. Opponents question DIRECT's safety, but DIRECT engineers counter that DIRECT's Jupiter-130 Crew LV has much greater safety margins than NASA's current plans for an Areas 1 Crew LV.
Furthermore, the massive cost savings of using DIRECT would enable NASA to return to the Moon sooner, while supporting ISS, and flying additional missions to Hubble.
Let's face it - Congress has a tendancy to allow for very expensive pre-production R&D while cutting production runs, and they've done this with every major aerospace system since the 1970s, including the Space Shuttle, the B-1, the B-2, and the F-22. While that's a horribly expensive way of doing business, it's reality, and we're not likely to see a change anytime soon.
Given that reality, what should we do? Go with Constellation, only to be so budget-limited we get one, maybe two shots off before further shots are cancelled, the Mars Lander program is cut, and the ISS suffers or is shut down because we're so far in the hole, economically we can't dig ourselves out of the well?
Or do we go with DIRECT, doing more with less, with greater safety, while providing for continued NASA funding in other areas?
Your salient thoughts with respect to the concepts, engineering, design, cost-effectiveness, and safety issues would be considered most welcome.