The "Other" Moon Rocket Some NASA Engineers Believe is Better Than Ares
Written by Nancy Atkinson
There's a group of NASA engineers who believe NASA is making a mistake with its new Constellation program to replace the shuttle, which will use the new Ares rockets for launches starting in 2014. Constellation is an all new program which requires everything to be built from the ground up. The group of engineers asks, why not use the systems we already have that work reliably? The engineers, who are working clandestinely after hours on their plans have been joined by business people and space enthusiasts, and they call the plan Direct 2.0. They believe this approach could be flying sooner than Ares, reducing the gap in the US's access to space, and providing a smoother transition for the workforce. Additionally it is more powerful than Ares, has lower risks for the astronauts, adds additional servicing missions to the Hubble Space Telescope, and reduces the cost to orbit by half.
Proponents say the Direct 2.0 approach is more capable than Orion, can lift more mass into Earth orbit and boost more mass out of Earth orbit on to other destinations. The concept is simple: use the same orange external tank and booster rockets as the shuttle, but don't use the orbiter. Put additional engines on the bottom of the tank, and the cone-shaped Orion capsule on the nose. They call the rocket system Jupiter, and not only would Jupiter have less cost per launch, but it would cost less per kilogram to put things in orbit. They also say the crew abort limits are safer than Ares 1, and would require only minor modifications to the current mobile launch platform.
Instead of having the separate Ares-I Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and Ares-V Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) they use just one single Jupiter launcher, capable of performing both roles.
On their website, Directlauncher.com, they say "This change to NASA's architecture completely removes the costs & risks associated with developing and operating a second launcher system, saving NASA $19 Billion in development costs, and a further $16 Billion in operational costs over the next 20 years."
But recent articles by the Associated Press and the Orlando Sentinel say that NASA is not interested in this concept, and that its nothing more than a concept on the back of a napkin. Additionally, Ares is so far along, with test flights scheduled for next year, that there's no turning back now.
But the Orlando Sentinel article says that NASA ended a study last fall which showed Direct 2.0 would outperform Ares. The initial results showed Direct 2.0 was superior in cost, overall performance and work-force retention, which is a big issue for Florida.
The engineers who work at NASA say they can't speak out directly for fear of being fired, but an outside group who supports their efforts are trying to get the word out about the plan.
Check out their website includes a discussion forum, a presentation on their concept and much more. Here's a video that explains the concept:
In short, they say the Direct 2.0 approach introduces many advantages over the current Ares Launch Vehicles, such as:
Shorter "gap" after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)
Deletes all risks and costs associated with a second new launch vehicle
Optimum use of the existing NASA & contractor experience
Original News Sources: AP, Orlando Sentinel, ABC's Science and Society Blog, Directlauncher.com
Filed under: Constellation, NASA
July 16th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
BTW - I'm glad to see more and more people like Nancy and outlets like Universe Today bringing this up. Good job UT!
July 16th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
"Until we find some really good reason to send men into space (other than to maintain the HST), I don't see why we're wasting money on launch vehicles. We should be sending evermore sophisticated rovers to worlds-of-interest and then, when we've found something really worthwhile to investigate, develop the means to get people there."
So, robots don't need launch vehicles too?
Indeed, some want to launch Orion on proven satellite launchers like Atlas V and Delta 4. The distinction between 'man-rated' and rockets 'only' for satellites isn't as great as you might think. When YOU have a $100 million communications satellite aboard, you want it to have as much chance of reaching orbit as if there were someone aboard. (And remember, 'cargo' flies on 'man-rated' commercial aircraft every day…)
That 'really worthwhile' location may be in the outer solar system (Titan?). Do you want to have no more manned capability than now exists, then try to jump suddenly to a deep space manned mission?
Do you believe robots don't need launchers as big as manned ones? See above. And, that's also because of overall launch costs for *any* payload. Trust me, if inexpensive heavy-lift were available, you WOULD see unmanned probes worthy of them. What if you want another Hubble-sized observatory, after the shuttle? What if you want a decent Pluto orbiter, not the screamin' flyby that New Horizons will be? You assemble in orbit from multiple small launches (and that DOES need humans) or you launch in one big piece. Rockets don't care if their payloads have a heartbeat or not.
Meanwhile, some want to make a satellite launcher variation of the Ares-1 booster, but commercial interest in this supposedly 'man-rated' launcher for their cargoes seems to be underwhelming…
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/04/what_fresh_hell.html
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=6025
And for those who wonder why go back to the Moon…because we're not finished with it. Will we be saying in 30 years "Why go back to Mars? What about the Moons of Jupiter?" Exploration is NOT a leapfrog series of 'Flags and Footprints' missions to the next planet. It's just like unmanned probes in that you continue to learn more (and utilize/colonize where practical) about where you've been, AS you go on to learn more.
When the first starship heads out to Alpha Centauri, we may STILL be learning something new about the Moon…or, for that matter, the Earth.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
What in gawd's name is all this NASA Direct 2.0 nonsense getting us? Building something from the ground up in view of an existing proven system is dangerous for astronauts and makes no economic sense for the taxpayer. The 19 billion in development and 16 billion of operational cost savings NASA claims over the next two decades is a joke in smoke and mirrors. Let's hope the next administration has more brains and cancels this certifiable dumb Direct 2.0 project. What are these NASA geniuses thinking?
July 17th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Chuck, NASA is not building Direct, they are building the Ares I and Ares V rockets as part of the Constellation project.
Direct 2.0 is from the anonymous engineers within NASA. They are the ones saying billions of dollars and years of time can be saved with their design.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Jeff, You are correct. It appears the only exercise I'm getting these days is jumping to erroneous conclusions. I had to reread the story line twice for it to sink in. Thanks.