.

Look better!

Direct is only a slightly resized Ares-5, since...

if you do compare, side by side, the Space Shuttle, the Direct concept and the 130 tons payload version of the Ares-5, you can discover that, except the two SRBs, Direct has nearly NOTHING in common with the Space Shuttle (so, it not so much a Shuttle-derived rocket) since it has no Orbiter, it has no SSME, it hasn't the Shuttle's attitude control system, it hasn't the same fueling system, while, Direct, needs several new non-Shuttle things, like 2-4 RS-68 (same engines of the Ares-5) an engines basket (like the Ares-5) a new attitude control system (like the Ares-5) a reinforced, redesigned and enlarged core-stage tank (like the Ares-5) its own avionics and instruments (like the Ares-5) a modified launch pad (like the Ares-5) the interstage (like the Ares-5) a second stage (like the Ares-5) the new J-2X engine for the second stage (like the Ares-5) many payload fairings (more than Ares-5) a different flight profile (pretty similar to an Ares-5) more propellants, for its two stages (like the Ares-5) and, in general, Direct looks much more like an Ares-5 (rather than a Shuttle) has a shape and a stack configuration similar to the Ares-5, it fly like an Ares-5, the stages separation is similar to those of the Ares-5 (rather than a Shuttle) will be assembled like an Ares-5, should have the same kind, time and R&D costs (around $20 billion) of the Ares-5, the Direct hardware should cost only a few million$ less the hardware of an Ares-5, it is even painted like an Ares-5

.

while comparing direct to ares V is pretty fair you could maybe stop using those cursed colors on a white background. you are causing me headhaches.

The real difference between direct and the constellation ares V is that the direct people are advocating for a different 2 launch architecture than what was chosen by NASA.
thing is. if you drop Ares I and go straight for Ares V you have already done the switch-over to the direct architecture.
with single launch Apollo style excursion type landings, and a 2 launch mobile base type mission for extended stays.
I have the feeling that that was always a fall back option for the constellation program. also. the Ares I was more meant to give a crew only launch option that would be unaffected by mission type. it would basically mean that all missions would use LEO as a staging area and start point.

I prefer the flexibility that having a separate launcher for the crew allows in mission types. it allows one to freely use a 2 or more launch assembly sequence followed by a separate CEV Launch just prior to departure from LEO.

__________________
Signature? Why?

look better... below, in the same article, there is a B/W version of the text without bolds, colors, etc.

.

.

from 2006, the Direct-LOBBY is trying to "sell" to NASA a rebranded but WORSE and LESS EFFICIENT version of the Ares-5, already designed by NASA and that it ALREADY OWNS from years... that's EXACTLY like try to "sell" a "rebranded" Statue of Liberty to New York City... or... try to "sell" a "rebranded" Eiffel Tower to France... or... try to "sell" a "rebranded" White House to the US President...

.

Sinces Ares V can put 188 tonnes into LEO and and Jupiter 232 less than 100 tonnes, it seems a really good idea to drop a more capable booster with several years of development for a less capable one that is just vapourware. Not.

And the constant posting of links to your site is gettinh close to spamming.

yes, the Ares-5 has a SUV engine but is big and capable like a SUV, while Direct is an Honda Civic with an heavy SUV engine...

.

Oh the irony.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Five minutes ago Gaetanomarano, you were telling us of your outrage at having invented Direct yourself without getting the credit. This, was, of course, a complete fabrication as inline STS derived LV's have been on the board since before the shuttle first flew. Is it garbage, or did you invent it, or is it both.

If you think Direct and Ares V are essentially the same, then essentially...you're wrong.

you have that confusion in mind because you haven't followed the full story...

ok, it's not a so important story you "must" follow it, but, at least, don't say that without know the truth

in shorth, 3.5 years ago, I've found absurd to build two rockets, use non-shuttle hardware, the 5-seg.SRB, etc. and I've suggested MY concept o a FAST-SLV

the Direct-LOBBY (born in 2005 to contrast the new NASA administrator) was in search of an idea... an alternative... something to say to Griffin "you are worng and we are right, then, go away and leave your seat to us!"

finally, they have found the winning idea in the single and cheaper Ares... and have pushed all the energy and mone of the LOBBY to promote """their""" idea...

of course, MY idea was (and still is) excellent (if made with Shuttle parts) but, unfortunately, NASA and Griffin decided to scrap the SSME, use the RS-68, develop the J-2X, add a 2nd stage, enlarge the Altair, etc.

so, they was FORCED to follow the new NASA decision, and MY very good idea of a TRUE shuttle-derived and cheaper rocket, in their hands, has become, day by day... a resized version of the the Ares-5...

in other words, the IDEA (single rocket, standard SRB, shuttle hardware, etc.) was the SAME of MY concept of a FAST-SLV, while, the final design (engines, 2nd stage, etc.) was the SAME already developed by NASA, the Ares-5, but smaller and with less payload (due to the standard SRB and two-three RS-68 less)

they started from MY (good) idea, have modified it to match the NASA requirement, then resized to a scale-model Ares-5

but, after all, one of the "leader", press agent and "minds" ( ) behind the Direct-LOBBY is Ross Tierney, that, before join the lobby, was known only to build and sell... rockets models...

being boys that did not like to study... they have copied the work of two other students... but copied (both) wrong...

.

Yes, the idea is so unique, clever and overall genious that you must have been the first one to come up with anything like that. Sure. It's not like anyone ever though about using Shuttle hardware for other launchers or about a single rocket design for lunar missions before. Out of the question.

Shuttle-C and the like were islands on their own, without any slightly different configuration ever being considered. That must be the case, because that is how engineering works.

*NOT*

Just one snippet:

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

compared to Direct-LOBBY that is breaking the balls to the whole world, from three years, with its scale-model of the Ares-5 ...

.

That's totally not the point.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Stop it. Just stop it.

It has never been 'your' idea. In line shuttle derived launch vehicles were being talked about IN THE 1980's.

At best, you came up independently with an idea that has been around for a long time, without you being aware of it. That's fine, that's possible (happens to us all the time). That doesn't mean anyone stole your idea.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

The current Direct 3.0 design uses SSMEs, not RS-68 engines: http://www.directlauncher.com/

Direct 3.0 presentation to Augustine commission: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvgqW...eature=related

Am I correct in thinking that the SSMS's are more expensive to produce than the RS68's because they are expected to be reused? Plastic forks vs silverware?

It's not really a simple answer.

The SSME (aka RS-25) is a complex, high performance engine that took a lot of effort to be actually reuseable in spite of itself. Most rocket engines >are< reusable, they're just not recovered; SSME really pushed the limits of technology.

The RS-68 was designed from the beginning to be just high thrust and moderate Isp while being less expensive through a simpler design that doesn't have to operate at exceptional pressure and temperature. Unfortunately, the lower unit cost of the RS-68 seems to be compromised by its lower Isp and heavier weight--the Ares V has had to be redesigned larger and larger to keep the desired payload to the point that it's become impractical.

An uprated regeneratively-cooled RS-68 would help matters, but it'd be a major development program--as would just about anything other than a stock SSME or RS-68 would be.

A RS-25E is being proposed but I'm not sure how much of SSME would actually carry over. Trying Googling for COBRA, an engine development program that would incorporate new manufacturing technologies and a simpler powerhead design with existing SSME turbopumps. If the upper end of thrust at 1 million pounds could be reached, this could allow for a smaller and less impractical Ares V. I kind of like COBRA, but it's still not cheap or quick to develop.

Consider the Russian RD-0120. It's an example of an expendable SSME-like engine that flew on the Energia. I'm such they'd love to quote prices on whatever quantity you'd care to order, as Lockheed-Martin did with the RD-180 ($1 billion for 101 engines, not a bad deal, eh?). It might be a great choice, and it's essentially off-the-shelf. Politically...even I'm not much in favor of it.

A significantly higher-thrust SSME-like engine would benefit Direct just as much as Ares V, and Direct is a more sustainable architecture. But alas, we're trying to do an inherently expensive program on the cheap in the middle of a major economic downtown, and adequately funding a real program seems unlikely in these modern times. (Ah, for the glory days of Apollo, when Federal money flowed like water...I was in high school then.)

I believe so, yes, hence my concern that they be recovered and reused.

Easy enough with JPADS technology - steerable chutes, pinpoint accuracy....

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.

How about a variant of the Buran(Energia), without the Russian shuttle just a payload canister, since it didn't use the problematical solid rockets for its boosters:

Energia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia


Bob Clark

Well - lets consider for a moment, the process of coming up with a new LV design.

You research the components, you research alternatives, you research similar vehicles, and you come, carefully, to a conclusion.

Either our OP did NO research AT ALL (because 5 seconds with google will show you historic Direct-like LV designs). OR, he DID do research, and thus is fully aware that inline shuttle derived LV's are a quarter-century old idea.

How are the solid rocket boosters problematic?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Your IDEA was started in 1978 with variants throughout the decades.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Astronauts don't like them since once started they can't be shut down and they can't be throttled either.
They also have have less performance compared to liquid fueled rockets as measured by Isp, as witnessed by the piling on of segments on the Ares solid rocket boosters.


Bob Clark

It's not that clear cut. Both solid and liquid engines are problematic -- just different problems.

Liquid engines can be shut down, but this can cause spurious shutdown. The ability to shut down can't always be used, as evidenced by the Saturn V first 15 sec of flight. It takes more liquid engines to produce the same thrust, which drives up failure probability. E.g, if a Saturn V F-1 engine had 98% reliability, the total reliability for all five engines was about 90% -- and you must have all five working for some regimes. Those aren't actual numbers, but it illustrates that overall reliability goes down quickly with multiple engines.

Liquid engine throttling produces additional complexity and failure modes. There are various shuttle abort scenarios caused by throttle failures. We tend to think about previous failures, and evaluate risk on that basis. However if a shuttle or crew is lost due to a stuck throttle, that would quickly change.

Man-rated solid engines aren't simply manufactured and "hope for the best" -- they are X-rayed and tested hundreds of times. The shuttle SRBs are designed and built with a 200% structural margin, vs the normal practice of 140% or 150% for airframe and liquid engines.

Liquid engines require highly stressed turbomachinery which can have an uncontained failure and destroy the vehicle. Even with shutdown, that remains a risk. E.g, each shuttle fuel turbopump rotates at 30,000 rpm, and produces 76,000 shaft horsepower -- in the volume of a trash can.

It's true that solid rockets simply must work. However the same is true for various aspects of liquid engines. E.g, the shuttle propellent lines from the ET to orbiter require complex pyrotechnics and disconnect couplers. If they malfunction (fail to separate, separate but umbilical doors don't close, etc) -- the vehicle is lost.

Is it a real problem that they can't be throttled? (we've had this discussion before)? Do you have any quotes of astronauts not liking them or do you just say so? How many astronauts don't like them? With a real life reliability of over 199 in 200 (and a 100% reliability since the redesign after Challenger), I'd think astronauts would kiss and hug them.


And a large, no huge thrust. Especially for the cost. They're simple and reliable, have very few failure modes. Something that may be quite important for manned launchers indeed. Is a lower Isp all that bad for a first stage if it gives you a huge thrust in a simple, safe and relatively cheap way?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

thrust are more important than ISP for a first stage. You can lift a much heavier second stage if you can get the brute oomph going. solids deliver this. And their safety to thrust ratio is excelent. Their ISP is a lot less important because quite frankly. you do not burn them for long. ISP has a lot more effect on performance on a second or third stage than the first.
The Ares I first stage solid will get the orion off the pad 99% or so of the time if historical failure rates on solids is anything to go by.
Solid rockets have been around for a very long time. and their workings are well understood.
I have no qualms about being launched atop a solid booster. however I'm not an astronaut. Unless you count daydreaming...

__________________
Signature? Why?

I certainly have. However, if you'd design a capsule to fit onto them, that's a whole different thing.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

We disagree on their reliability. We have had no failures in manned missions of liquid fuel engines which counts many more missions than the solids. Von Braun didn't like using solids for manned missions because they couldn't be shut down or throttled. That opinion suffused down through the ranks to the astronaut corp as well.
For the Ares, astronauts don't like the solids because of the shaking which alone, even if the solids don't fail, can cause catastrophic mission failure:

Is NASA's Project Ares Doomed?
Published on 10-26-2008
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=12535

Vehicle shaking is an inherent part of solid rocket motors because of uneven burning. It is worse for the Ares since the first stage is completely powered by solids. I saw an interview of a space shuttle astronaut who described the early part of the launch as involving extreme shaking because of the solid rocket boosters. But after SRB separation, he said, it was smooth sailing when under the liquid fueled engines alone.


Bob Clark

That is not a reassuring number when if they do fail it means catastrophic mission failure.
For liquid fueled engines because you can have shut down failure does not have to mean catastrophic loss of mission.


Bob Clark

solids generally do not catastrophically fail. when they fail the either fail to start or go out of control due to control system failure. the rate of control system failure for solids are on par with liquids. that is what you have the LES for. to get off the booster IF it fails. liquids have some failure modes that are quite spectacular. the LES will be less effective at outrunning a big fireball than an out of control solid.
when it comes to bumpy rides.... that is what the dampening system is added to help with. As long as the bumps can be kept within safe limits then the booster is fine. cant always cruise on the highway you know.
besides. even going with most other launchers you aren't getting away from solids completely.
Apart from swapping over to EELV's that still has major no abort zone issues if they are to lift something like the Orion you either do a clean sheet or a solid. Direct is IMHO to big for this particular task.
having no abort capability in areas of the launch profile like the EELV's has is a show stopper for crewed launches. it turns a LOM into a guaranteed LOC if it happens at the wrong time during launch. and that is totally unacceptable IMHO.

__________________
Signature? Why?