Direct Launcher update

A reader directs me to the latest news from the Direct Launcher project, which offers an alternative architecture to Ares 1/Ares V. They are presenting a paper (low res, high res versions) this week at the AIAA conference in Long Beach. See the Horizons Magazine - AIAA Houston - Summer 2007 (pdf) for an overview of their proposal, which was created by a group of about 50 engineers and mid-level managers at NASA and major contractors.

The Ares I/V designs initially had a considerable number of Shuttle components but after various re-design cycles they now have very little in common with the Shuttle. The Direct scheme involves a single launcher (with various upgrades) that is "directly" derived from the Shuttle . In particular, it uses an ET core with engines added and two SRBs. (As with the Ares, the RS-68 engine from the Delta 4 would be used instead of the Shuttle main engines). The Jupiter would carry more than twice the payload of Ares I and its proponents say it could begin carrying the Orion capsule with crews in 2012 instead of 2015 as currently expected with the Ares I.

A heavy version of the Jupiter capable of putting 100 tons into LEO would have the same lower stage system but with a muscular upper stage.

I've learned not take too seriously Ares is in trouble sorts of rumors (no matter how big the iceberg ahead, the NASA battleship doesn't change course easily), but I still find interesting this quote from Ross Tierney, a leader of the DirectLauncher team, on the DIRECT v2.0 Forum - NasaSpaceFlight.com

Seriously, from three completely independent sources, I am hearing that change is coming by the end of the year and one of those sources (very reliable and senior NASA official who's name you would all recognize immediately) has identified precisely what is expected in the form of this change. Assuming they are right, Ares-I will be gone by Spring '08 and an alternative will already have been chosen. And they are (quote) "interested to see what DIRECT has to say with the AIAA paper".

That's all I can say at this time.

Of course, if the SpaceX Falcon 9 is a success, then the game will change all over again. NASA will be forced to rethink not only the lunar program but its whole approach to space development if an extremely cheap LEO vehicle is up and running.

Posted 09/19/07 | 22:41:21 by TopSpacer | Filed under: NASA Exploration Systems

Comments

NASA has ALREADY assigned the $1.8 Bn 5-seg.SRB contract to ATK, the $1.2 Bn J-2X contract to P&WR and the $600M Ares-I 2nd stage, so... http://www.ghostnasa.com/po...

Posted by gm at 09/20/07 00:05:14

Technically NASA, (and Congress who actually controls most of the programing due to budget control :o)doesn't have to "rethink" anything since the case can be made even when the Falcon 9 flies that the capability is NOT what "they" need. Direct to me has always had THE best chance of coming in on-time and within budget giving NASA its low-flight, lower cost launcher while still allowing NASA to contract out LEO servicing through COTS and folks like SpaceX.

Direct start OUT with more capability than the Aries 1 and even if it never progress any further, it keeps the people employed that Congress wants kept on a payrole.

Of course that is probably NOT going to happen simply because it actually manages to sound logical and all

Posted by Randy Campbell at 09/20/07 06:41:43

Mr. Tierney's quote is amazing and the implications, if true, will be enormous. What he is saying is that the current Ares 1& V proposal will be discarded and a new launcher developed. Mike Griffin's work for the last 3 years will be wasted? Can this be true?

Posted by Realist at 09/20/07 06:44:30

Hi Randy,
When we have Manhattan millionaires getting farm support money for land they own in Montana, it's reasonable to believe that even the most illogical and expensive launch system would continue to be funded for reasons unrelated to actually getting stuff into space.

That being said, I still believe the contrast between a very low cost Falcon launch service and the extremely expensive alternatives will be too stark even for Congress to ignore.

Development of a successful Falcon service will have cost NASA only a few hundred million dollars and operational missions will be the cheapest spaceflights ever. In that situation, it is hard to believe business will go on as usual with funding awarded for a new launch system costing multi-billions of dollars to build and hundreds of millions to operate for each flight. Even though Jupiter will cost a few billion less than Ares I/V, it will still involve a huge amount of money.

- C.

Posted by TopSpacer at 09/20/07 10:23:22

Direct won't be any better.

Modding the ET to put engines below means
you still have to mod the KSC GSE a LOT.

it means ou end up redesigning the ET, because
it has zero structural margin.

It means you do a major engine job because the
engines are still running outside their comfort zone.

So what do you get?

a 3 year slip.

Far better for ARES to lose capability,

Posted by anonymous at 09/20/07 10:26:36

Realist,
I doubt, in fact, if Griffin would ever agree to drop Ares I/V regardless of the advantages of Jupiter. There is now a tremendous amount of institutional inertia behind Ares I. So even if Griffin had a change of heart, I don't see that he could make such a huge change. Maybe the next director could. (Of course, the next director may drop the whole lunar program if the next President doesn't support it.)

On the other hand, it's possible that technical shortcomings in Ares I will appear that are just too serious to ignore. In that case, I would expect that NASA would not say that it was dropping the Ares vehicles for Jupiter but had simply decided to go with an Ares 3 that combined the best aspects of Ares I and V.

- C.

Posted by TopSpacer at 09/20/07 10:39:04

Realist,
I'm skeptical about Ross's claim. DIRECT just makes too much technical and political sense for NASA to go to it. I'd be happy to be wrong though.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at 09/20/07 10:39:44

Just finished reading the 131 page pdf and it ought to be recommended reading for everyone in Congress & NASA (and probably wouldn't hurt anyone else interested either). It also leaves me with the distinct impression that an operational Falcon/Dragon would tie in neatly for propellant-only payloads and ISS routine servicing but wouldn't directly impact any of the NEO/Luna/Mars/true HLV aims.

One thing is certain, the people behind Direct has properly understood what the VSE is all about.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at 09/21/07 15:26:44

Someone said :

"Modding the ET to put engines below means
you still have to mod the KSC GSE a LOT.

it means ou end up redesigning the ET, because
it has zero structural margin.

It means you do a major engine job because the
engines are still running outside their comfort zone."

Have you read the proposal ? all this issues are discussed there.

Posted by SC at 09/22/07 01:54:32

When NASA figured out that the Space Shuttle Main Engine couldn't be use they should of stopped. They are wasting billions to try and make the
underperforming Ares work. Weight reductions for Orion, 5 segment SBR, and
water landings. The Direct plan has performance to spare and as there logo says, "Safer, Simpler, and Sooner".

Posted by Dave at 09/22/07 12:17:06

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.