Ares vs DIRECT

I am sure y'all have beat this topic to death but I was not paying
attention. However, is NASA completely committed to ARES/ARESV or is
there still some chance they may choose DIRECT?
It looks to me as if they could still choose DIRECT if they wanted cuz
they havent started any sig work on Ares. I do not have enough info
to decide which is better.

wrote:
I am sure y'all have beat this topic to death but I was not paying
attention. However, is NASA completely committed to ARES/ARESV or is
there still some chance they may choose DIRECT?

No.

Ares is fundamentally flawed and Direct is just a regurgitation of Ares.

It looks to me as if they could still choose DIRECT if they wanted cuz
they havent started any sig work on Ares. I do not have enough info
to decide which is better.

Of course you don't. They're the same, both equally bad.

Liquids are always cheaper than solids, even if you recycle and SRB
casings and throw the liquid cores away.

On Nov 16, 7:50 pm, kT wrote:
wrote:
I am sure y'all have beat this topic to death but I was not paying
attention. However, is NASA completely committed to ARES/ARESV or is
there still some chance they may choose DIRECT?

No.

Ares is fundamentally flawed and Direct is just a regurgitation of Ares.

It looks to me as if they could still choose DIRECT if they wanted cuz
they havent started any sig work on Ares. I do not have enough info
to decide which is better.

Of course you don't. They're the same, both equally bad.

Liquids are always cheaper than solids, even if you recycle and SRB
casings and throw the liquid cores away.

Seems to be some noise in the channel, I keep seeing something with
"KT" followed by random nonsense.

wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:50 pm, kT wrote:
wrote:
I am sure y'all have beat this topic to death but I was not paying
attention. However, is NASA completely committed to ARES/ARESV or is
there still some chance they may choose DIRECT?
No.

Ares is fundamentally flawed and Direct is just a regurgitation of Ares.

It looks to me as if they could still choose DIRECT if they wanted cuz
they havent started any sig work on Ares. I do not have enough info
to decide which is better.
Of course you don't. They're the same, both equally bad.

Liquids are always cheaper than solids, even if you recycle and SRB
casings and throw the liquid cores away.

Seems to be some noise in the channel, I keep seeing something with
"KT" followed by random nonsense.

That's ok, I don't write these posts for you to read.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:35:36 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

I am sure y'all have beat this topic to death but I was not paying
attention. However, is NASA completely committed to ARES/ARESV or is
there still some chance they may choose DIRECT?
It looks to me as if they could still choose DIRECT if they wanted cuz
they havent started any sig work on Ares. I do not have enough info
to decide which is better.

To switch to DIRECT now, they'd have to modify some contracts, but the
players would largely stay the same, so there wouldn't be a lot of
protest. ATK would lose the Five Segment Booster, but they'd get 25%
more standard SRB production, so they'd be happy. LockMart would crank
out cores from its slightly modified ET line. Boeing would convert its
Ares I Upper Stage work to DIRECT Upper Stage a little farther down
the road. P&W/R wouldn't need J-2X as soon, but they'd get more RS-68
work in the meantime.

Congress will demand answers, but NASA coming forward and saying "our
original plan wasn't going to work, but this plan does, and does so
sooner and at lower cost while keeping most of those voting Shuttle
workers' jobs" might actually win them support on the Hill.

NASA would simply have to rename the DIRECT vehicles "Ares II" and
"Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. Ares V would
still be a possibility for Mars farther down the road.

Brian

..

1. to be exact... the "FAST-SLV"-like (but FOUR months LATER)
"Direct"... http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

2. all alternative concepts (like the FAST-SLV or the FAST-SLV-like
but FOUR months LATER "inDirect") are DEAD

3. both Ares-1 and Ares-5 could work, but they need several design
changes

-----------------------------------------------------------

about the $ 30 million prize: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html

..

On Nov 17, 4:27 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

1. to be exact... the "FAST-SLV"-like (but FOUR months LATER)
"Direct"...http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

2. all alternative concepts (like the FAST-SLV or the FAST-SLV-like
but FOUR months LATER "inDirect") are DEAD

3. both Ares-1 and Ares-5 could work, but they need several design
changes

-----------------------------------------------------------

about the $ 30 million prize:http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html

.

I've read the DIRECT proposal now and I tend to agree with them. ARES
I simply reproduces exisiting capability. Without developing Ares I
we could just man rate the Delta IV and probably launch Orion several
years earlier. I like the idea of maintaining the external tank
manufacturing because we all know NASA will need probably 1-3 flights
more than they think they will need from the shuttle.

On Nov 17, 6:27 pm, wrote:
On Nov 17, 4:27 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:



.

1. to be exact... the "FAST-SLV"-like (but FOUR months LATER)
"Direct"...http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

2. all alternative concepts (like the FAST-SLV or the FAST-SLV-like
but FOUR months LATER "inDirect") are DEAD

3. both Ares-1 and Ares-5 could work, but they need several design
changes

-----------------------------------------------------------

about the $ 30 million prize:http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html

.

I've read the DIRECT proposal now and I tend to agree with them. ARES
I simply reproduces exisiting capability. Without developing Ares I
we could just man rate the Delta IV and probably launch Orion several
years earlier. I like the idea of maintaining the external tank
manufacturing because we all know NASA will need probably 1-3 flights
more than they think they will need from the shuttle.

DIRECT clearly has more potential payload capacity. This means they
could keep the landing on land instead of the expensive sea- recovery
as it looks like Ares I will not have enough to be able to do the
Soyuz-like recovery.

On Nov 17, 1:27 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

1. to be exact... the "FAST-SLV"-like (but FOUR months LATER)
"Direct"...http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

2. all alternative concepts (like the FAST-SLV or the FAST-SLV-like
but FOUR months LATER "inDirect") are DEAD

3. both Ares-1 and Ares-5 could work, but they need several design
changes

-----------------------------------------------------------

about the $ 30 million prize:http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html

.

Where the heck are those smart Third Reich Jews or Yids when you need
them, or were they actually those sneaky Muslims that shared and
exploited everything they knew about such fly-by-rocket physics and
all sorts of nifty science with their resident warlord.

You'd have to admit that for NASA/Apollo having merely a 60:1 ratio of
their GLOW rocket per payload, and at that having to haul nearly a 30%
inert amount of GLOW off the pad, was pretty impressive for its day of
accomplishing that daunting task of getting nearly 50 tonnes into such
a close orbit of our moon, and rather quickly at that. Especially
impressive since nothing as of lately has come even remotely close to
that impressive realm of fly-by-rocket performance, much less having
fuel and payload to spare.
--
Brad Guth

On Nov 17, 9:22 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 17, 1:27 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:



.

1. to be exact... the "FAST-SLV"-like (but FOUR months LATER)
"Direct"...http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

2. all alternative concepts (like the FAST-SLV or the FAST-SLV-like
but FOUR months LATER "inDirect") are DEAD

3. both Ares-1 and Ares-5 could work, but they need several design
changes

-----------------------------------------------------------

about the $ 30 million prize:http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html

.

Where the heck are those smart Third Reich Jews or Yids when you need
them, or were they actually those sneaky Muslims that shared and
exploited everything they knew about such fly-by-rocket physics and
all sorts of nifty science with their resident warlord.

You'd have to admit that for NASA/Apollo having merely a 60:1 ratio of
their GLOW rocket per payload, and at that having to haul nearly a 30%
inert amount of GLOW off the pad, was pretty impressive for its day of
accomplishing that daunting task of getting nearly 50 tonnes into such
a close orbit of our moon, and rather quickly at that. Especially
impressive since nothing as of lately has come even remotely close to
that impressive realm of fly-by-rocket performance, much less having
fuel and payload to spare.
--
Brad Guth

My god, the signal to noise ratio of this group has gone below unity.