Alternative Launcher For Returning To the Moon 116
DIRECT Launcher writes, "A grass-roots effort, based around a group of engineers, managers, and others involved in the US space program, is proposing an alternative launch vehicle for NASA to adopt for the new Lunar Exploration program. The new vehicle offers serious performance and cost savings totaling $35 billion over the next twenty years. The proposal was presented to NASA last week. The concept would make possible future Hubble Space Telescope servicing missions after Shuttle has retired, allow for all the remaining ISS elements to be launched after all, free up cash to fund the JIMO mission again, and also allow NASA to return to the moon three years early."
Save even more money, ditch the project (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Chinese are going to the moon.
The Chinese claim they want to go to the moon. So did the Russians, who never managed to put humans there, despite a very advanced space program. The Chinese could do it, but talk is cheap, and the moon is expensive.
In any case, the world is different. I highly doubt anyone would care if the Chinese went to the moon and we weren't actively going. The US has already been there, done that; no one doubts we could do it again if we had an important reason.
Re: (Score:2)
There were actually plans during the cold war to put nuclear weapons on the moon and have orbiting, nuclear-armed satellites. These plans were scrapped with the adoption of the Outer Space Treaty [unoosa.org], which affirms that "the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes."
Re: (Score:2)
Our beloved "Leader-in-Chimp" doesn't respect his own laws and you expect him, as well as the rest of the government, to respect a treaty from the 60's?
Guess again.
They'll put
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Chinese are going to the moon. A lot of U.S. politicians would argue why go to Mars when the moon was "lost" to the communists?
At their current launch rate of half a dozen rockets per year, they'll get there eventually. But they aren't a serious contender.Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is a decent argument of using it as a dry space-dock where we could build and launch deeper space exploration vehicles for less fuel costs.
That would be great... if the ISS were on a more equitorial orbit. As it is, it's on a rather inclined orbit, chosen to make it easier for Russian launches.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who mentioned the ISS? They were talking about construction yards on the Moon.
As for the ISS, it's too bad that it's a political boondoggle. It's essentially worthless right now, but at least allows us to fly the flag. (Hey look! We got a Space Station!) Once the Ares V comes online, the ISS will be worthless, useless, and easily replaceable. Being able to launch 130 metric tonnes to LEO means that we could launch a complete ISS replacement i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
(see the first result)
Space Shuttle Advertisements [google.com]
(sorry, it's just in the google cache.. source site seems to be down already)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the same... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
we also have a number of interests on the moon including mining and a space based observatory that will
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The moon has a severe problem with abrasive microdust. The problem may be completely insurmountable. I think it's called lunar regolith. Read up on it before you suggest that the moon is a good place to do any
Re: (Score:2)
That's fairly bold; you don't even know what regolith is and you're suggesting I should read up on it? LOL! In any case, if you really think this is less of a problem on Mars where they have known windstorms that make hurricans seem like a summer breeze than I'm sorry but you're out of your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Full information about the hazard of lunar dust is here [wired.com].
The windstorms on Mars are what make its dust less of a problem. Lunar dust is abrasive because there isn't any weather to wear down the particles' sharp ed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did a quick search on nasa.gov for 'lunar dust' and got a whole page of hits. As you would've too, if you'd cared to investigate before posting yet another hollow, shoot-from-the-hip reply.
It turns out that NASA has thought [nasa.gov] quite [nasa.gov] a lot [nasa.gov] about the problem.
From the latter:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recall that this thread started when you praised the moon as "a fine location" for experiments in space travel. I pointed out that you were not aware of the dust problem, which is severe and possibly unsolvable. There followed your raspberries and my production of references.
I don't dispute your final "We need to do more testing with an appropriate test bed". Nobody would dispute that straw-man of yours. I only disputed your initial, casual assessment that the moon is an obviously better first destinat
Re: (Score:2)
And I still stand by that. I gave reasons you decided to ignore.
I don't dispute your final "We need to do more testing with an appropriate test bed". Nobody would dispute that straw-man of yours.
Um, bullshit. Either that or you don't fully grasp the entire "straw-man" statement. A common slashdotters mistake as it's a slashdot buzzword. If you agree with me on that point and still call it a s
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand why we want to go to Mars? Good for you. I don't.
People will go to Mars. We can haggle all day over the "when exactly" -- maybe it'll be another 500 years. But I think it isn't too far fetched that it is going to happen, right?
When people go, they will bring their culture with them. Their values. Their social taboos and cognitive environments.
What would it be worth to you that space is colonized with values and cultural concepts near and dear to yourself? That the meme of free spee
Re: (Score:2)
Since Bush likes going to the moon so much, save even more money- Send G W Bush to the moon
While you are at it, set up a way for US citizens to vote politicians off the planet - with options - return / 1 way.
Think of it as the next Survivor series. I bet the voter turn out will be great, and even one of those reality TV shows can probably come up with a voting system that works better than Diebold's.
Yes, yes, but..... (Score:2)
"pair" is not the unit (Score:3, Funny)
For women's shoes the standard unit of measure is the Imelda [wikipedia.org]. In your wife's case that would be a bit over 2%. [lycos.co.uk]
(My wife and her friends refer to anyone with more than about .025 imelda as a "shoe whore", a term they don't seem to consider in any way uncomplimentary.)
Yeah this post seems off-topic, but what the hell, it's a math post, and math is pretty important to celestial navigation!
Re: (Score:2)
Is reuse limiting ourselves? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why am I suddenly reminded of Cuba?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Limiting ourselves to this design means severely limiting our throw power, limiting our hardware options, and limiting the mindset of those in the Space Program. Think about that last one for a moment. The mindset for the last 20 years has been "it *must* be the Space Shuttle". If you build this craft, then you'll get the mindset, "It *must* be the DIRECT."
As we introduce new and varied space vehicle, we can help break that mindset and push launch technology forward.
Re: (Score:1)
"last into the future"? (Score:2)
What do you mean "last into the future"? Isn't that exactly what the current technology they are aiming to reuse now is doing? If we do create something new now that will "last into the future" will there be someone (perhaps a descendant of yours!) suggesting that we should make something new anyway so we aren't "undercutting ourselves by not developing new technology and capability that will last into the
Re: (Score:2)
Finally some good news for the US space program (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is a very bad idea. Hasn't the Space Shuttle proven anything? If you build a space vehicle that's the jack of all trades, you end up with a vehicle that's the master of none.
A lot of people would point to the Saturn V as a successful implementation of the DIRECT concept. Indeed, it would appear to have been an exceptional program, capable of carrying both humans and cargo depending on the configuration. What those same people don't realize, however, is that operati
Direct has best chance. (Score:2)
DIRECT and the Ares system both offer a heavy launcher. Ares V is able to handle more, while the Ares I hand
Re: (Score:2)
It does this on paper, not with figures that can be easily backed up. The Space Shuttle was supposed to save massive amounts of cash on launches as well. Notice how well that prediction worked out.
That is what it is being sold as. If you sell this to Congress and renege, they'll come back and demand to know why it isn't being used as the jack of all trades. It'
Re: (Score:2)
Who said the BA-330 is just a space station? They are looking to use it for transportation to other places. In particular, if this can survive space, then it should be able to survive the moon. Simply chop the b
To go to the moon? Bah! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People on the moon might throw rocks at you.
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be an interesting call as to who'd win that war of attrition.
On the one hand, the moon has much less gravity so it takes less energy for the Mooninites to hurl a rock at the Earthlings.
The Earthlings may require more energy to hurl their earth-rocks at the moon but there are so many more earth-rocks than moon-rocks that the Earthlings are much less likely to run out of ammunition.
Re: (Score:2)
A bridge in Brooklyn (Score:2)
It offer the potential for savings - as nobody knows how much it will save until its built and flying. (And aerospace cost estimates are notoriously unreliable - we simply don't do enough of them to build an experience base.
From the website:
Re:A Traffic Cone on the Information Super Highway (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As this system is intended to replace both Ares vehicles - the cargo variant is not optional, it's a requirement. (Their own proposal and examples show the cargo variant as part of the mission architecture.)
They won't end up identical - I'd bet large, large, sums of money on it. The requirements of the two vehicles demand they
Re: A bridge in Brooklyn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Concentrating on a single vehicle can reduce costs by invoking economies of scale. I.E. by producing more of that vehicle, but it's not clear that enough (of this design) will be flown/produced to move from serial to mass production. (It's the latter where savings can really be made.) Another thing to consider is that the costs of a rocket scale only weakly
You guys are missing the most important point... (Score:3, Interesting)
70 metric tons to orbit base
98 metric tons to orbit cargo vehicle
This compares to the current shuttle lift capacity of 16+ metric ton.
Son, packaged correctly, you could launch the entire remaining ISS sections into space at one time.
This is simply reusing some very basic lift parts and redesigning some new engines for the base of the fuel tank. Probably some reinforcement to the tank too for the added weight on top. Some new control and piping to the top for the rest of the vehicle....
I frankly don't know how they plan to get that much more thrust and lift capability out of those SRBs and new engines...but if they think they can do it, I'd be inclined to support them whole heartedly.
Even if they only made half their expected lift capacity, it would still a significant improvement.
How about launching 4 or 5 GPS satellites and a spy satellite all on one mission?
How about building a moon base?
How about putting a decent sized nuclear reactor in space to provide unlimited power instead of relying on solar panels?
Tonnage gets you everything.
Re:You guys are missing the most important point.. (Score:3, Informative)
Removing the shuttle saves 68 tons for the thing empty, 108 tons loaded.
Add in the 25 tons that's the maximum payload the shuttle can lift, and it gets real easy to believe they can lift almost a 100 tons by redesigning the shuttle lift platform a bit to remove the need for the shuttle. You loose some tons because one of the things they have to do is move the shuttle's engines to the central tank.
There's no practical reason why we couldn't make a spa
Re: (Score:2)
I frankly don't know how they plan to get that much more thrust and lift capability out of those SRBs and new engines...but if they think they can do it, I'd be inclined to support them whole heartedly.
Glancing around, it appears that 70 tons to orbit is a slight but nice improvement on the Shuttle C [nasaspaceflight.com]. 98 tons is a big improvement.
How about putting a decent sized nuclear reactor in space to provide unlimited power instead of relying on solar panels?
What's wrong with relying on solar panels to provi
Re:You guys are missing the most important point.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The shuttle has an absolute lift power of ~120 metric tonnes. The fact that the majority of the lift power is used in lifting the Space Shuttle itself brings the maximum cargo lift weight down to ~25 metric tonnes.
Why wouldn't the 130 metric tonne to LEO Ares V do the same? With the DIRECT, you could finish the Space Station. (A useless piece of junk in the wrong orbit.) With the Ares V, you could launch a new one in only two flights.
All these technologies are "shuttle derived". Which means that the Super Booster capabilities of the Shuttle are separated from the Space Shuttle vehicle, and placed into a more traditional stack. Through the use of more engines and staging, NASA plans to launch more absolute weight with the Ares V than the Shuttle can launch today. The DIRECT would actually scale back the absolute weight.
The Ares has an upgrade path (read: even more tonnage per launch) through the development of better engines. The DIRECT design anticipates those engines, and demands that they be manrated before they are ready. Which should raise a lot of red flags.
Basically, the DIRECT design stands out as a beautiful paper concept. It all seems to come together into the perfect solution, but ignores the realities of the situation. More likely than not, we'd never get a craft off the ground if we went with the DIRECT design. Warts or not, the CEV is the pragmatic solution. We need to follow the program through to conclusion, and not get distracted by the paper ideas that jump out at us.
Re: (Score:2)
All these technologies are "shuttle derived". Which means that the Super Booster capabilities of the Shuttle are separated from the Space Shuttle vehicle, and placed into a more traditional stack. Through the use of more engines and staging, NASA plans to launch more absolute weight with the Ares V than the Shuttle can launch today. The DIRECT would actually scale back the absolute weight.
NASA doesn't need the extra weight that the Ares V can throw. And since their plans call for four launches per year
Re: (Score:2)
And you know that... how? In fact, NASA will need all the weight it can throw going forward. Sure, a simple moon mission might not require it, but what about a Mars mission? There will need to be significantly more fuel and hardware boosted for that operation. And what about a lunar transfer point in LEO? That was one of the original intentions of the ISS. The DIRECT would require at least three flights to lift the weight of the current ISS design
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems to me that the Direct proposal could initially use SSMEs, then upgrade to the RS-68s, later.
Also, FWIW, the military commissioned the Titan IV as a backup to the shuttle - one of the available payload shrou
Re: (Score:2)
Ares V could do it. But the problem is that it is not slated to be operational UNTIL after 2016 i.e. about the time that the ISS is expected to decommision. Instead, DIRECT would be ready in either 2010 or 2011. Big difference.
As to the upgrade path, I would not worry about it. After 2012, I am betting that the next big upgrade will come out of Scaled Composite (not just in tonnage, but in ver
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't put so much stock in what it says on paper. If the DIRECT program goes forward, it will NOT be flying by 2010. Nor 2011. In fact, we'll be lucky if it's flying by 2016. After all, it's based on the same technology as the Ares-V. Simply scaling it back does little to improve the schedule of the program. It may seem like it on paper, but the reality of this has never held true.
Looks like a solid rocket boosted crew capsule. (Score:2)
While reuse is nice; it rarely is as easy as pdf's make it out to be. As for the weight, that is a great part of the proposal. Too bad the costs associated put it outside of a non-government group. Would be nice to see a private company built around the concept of putting stuff into space on a large scale.
Re:You guys are missing the most important point.. (Score:2)
70 metric tons to orbit base
98 metric tons to orbit cargo vehicle
Ooooooh, color me completely unimpressed.
There've been some Project Orion documents declassified and published recently. Take a look [flickr.com].
Specifically, look at these numbers [flickr.com].
For the uninitiated, Orion's a nuclear pulse rocket. You have a big baseplate. You have your payload on top of the plate. You set atomic bombs off under the plate. Plate moves.
Their advanced interplanetary design had a deliverable payload the moon of 5700 tons; that's abou
RS-68? (Score:2)
How much would making it man rated add to the cost of development?
That is one of the reasons they are going with the J-2x.
I would love to see a real heavy lift launch vehicle built.
Something like a new and improved Saturn V. All the current ideas remind me of the Saturn 1. They are put together out of spare parts of other rockets.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Ares-V *is* the big brother. To the best of my knowledge, it will not be man-rated. It is intended as a purely cargo-carrying craft used to deliver raw materials, space platforms, and interplanetary vehicles into orbit. The man-rated vehicle will be the Ares-I, which will use the classic J-2 engines for reliability, weight, and and restart capabilities. It will carry the crew to the various de
Re: (Score:1)
Single-flight Lunar missions in the same style as Apollo are planned - mainly to be used for Crew Rotation to the planned Lunar science base.
Also potentially for some near-Earth asteroid visits if there's any money available (Griffin spoke at GRC recently and said the US won't have any spare money and needed International investment to really use the new program).
But there's nothing Ares-V can do which DIRECT couldn't also do, without the huge development cost.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Got a link? The last plan that NASA announced was to launch the Lunar Lander + Moon Booster as cargo, then have the Orion dock with the lunar module. This was what was shown in NASA's presentation video [youtube.com]. This plan did NOT call for the Ares-V to be man-rated.
If that's changed, then you should probably update the Wikipedia Info [wikipedia.org] on Project Constellation. Remember to cite
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
For manned flights you need to know exactly how the engine reacts when it does give up, because you want a crew to survive any failures. So destructive testing is a big part of man-rating.
There's also an issue with responsibility. If a Delta-IV satellite launcher engine were to go bang, Pra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
They have a 100% perfect flight record since that redesign - 182 back-to-back manned flights.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that we need to build a Saturn VI.
Buy moon rocks (Score:2)
This would be the market support for the development of a lunar mission capability without risk to the taxpayer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much money do you think NASA is going to spend "returning to the Moon"?
These are rational questions posed to an irrational person of course -- so consider them rheotorical.
Re: (Score:2)
Money better spent to fund X-Prize (Score:2)
Does it need to be this complex? (Score:2)
No new technologies or anything, just use what we have now and know works.
If takeoff weight is an issue, do what the russians did with Sputnik or what was done with the Saturn 5 and just
Re: (Score:2)
This is the Big Dumb Booster which Stephen Baxter has popularised in several of his books. As you imply there are lots of components available and lots of ways of put
70 millitesla? (Score:1)
Wouldn't a unit of mass be more suitable here?
prevaricating prefixes (...pedantic) (Score:1)
Personally, I enjoy reading about millibits ("mb") of memory.
DIRECT not so direct (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
hmmm (Score:2)
Only communists would try to make such a direct assault on the jobs of American workers!*
* jobs not actually filled by American workers
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Russian parts, American parts, all made in China!"
Re: (Score:2)
We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.