Direct 3.0: NASA is in a bind.

Which is of course a strong argument against the Direct proposal. The Shuttle is 1970s technology. A lot of what is off-the-shelf now was not back in the day. The Fastener Quality Act of 1990, for example, did not exist when the Shuttle was invented.

Change the Shuttle design to make use of off-the-shelf parts and you have a new vehicle that has to run the human rated gauntlet start to finish.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As with Ares I/V which is also not made for "off-the-shelf" and also needs to "run the human rating gauntlet"

Unfortunately SpaceX has no near term designs or plans for a lunar mission capable booster.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Any vehicle used by NASA that is to carry people into space must be human-rated. Any vehicle that goes to the ISS, even if it is unmanned, must prove that it will be safe with respect to harming the ISS. (Since there aren't any people onboard, it can be hazardous to itself, but it had better not cause any risk of hazard to the ISS.)

Falcon 9 Heavy

Don't forget Orbital. It is also a COTS partner.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Legislation like that is a must if people intend to use off the shelf products for high-risk endeavours.

Too many times doing DIY, using a bag or bolts or screws, allegedly made to the same standard, one will just shear. You don't want to be thinking one of those is holding something vital together when they light that candle.

 

and I never said the opposite, only reminding you that Direct, Ares, etc all share these problems so there no use mentioning them.

30tons to LEO is not the at least 70ton to TLI (200tons LEO), the falcon heavy can't lift the required weight by as long shot. Even worse 5.5tons to LEO for the Taurus II, which by the way is behind even the SpaceX falcon 9 in development.

 

With Tiassa's assistance, I merged the Augustine Committee thread from Science & Society into this thread. See this post.


Updates:
The Augustine Committee does not appear to like Ares.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa-ares-moon-mission-changes-071409,0,2316961.story

According to committee officials, panel members have told NASA they want to see the effects of both minor tweaks and "wholesale" changes to its Constellation Program that is intended to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 on a new generation of two Ares rockets and a crew capsule called Orion.

... "One of the [panel's] subcommittees has asked the [Constellation] program to present both the baseline ... program and one of the variants that they have studied as well," said one committee official, who asked not to be named because he's not authorized to speak for the committee. The official provided no details about the "variant," ...​

Augustine will hold a short press conference this Friday. Perhaps he'll say something then.


NASA has made some boneheaded moves as of late. The Constellation program budget is spinning out of control, and so is that of the Mars Science Laboratory -- the latter to the extent that it is threatening future unmanned missions. Then there's this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/12/AR2009071201977.html?hpid=topnews

After more than a decade of construction, it is nearing completion and finally has a full crew of six astronauts. The last components should be installed by the end of next year.

And then?

"In the first quarter of 2016, we'll prep and de-orbit the spacecraft," says NASA's space station program manager, Michael T. Suffredini.​

 

For some reason duke nukem comes to mind here, the first series of video games were fun, violent and wacky, just like we liked them, but then for over 11 years nothing but high hopes, I think NASA needs a full overhaul, they are incapable of getting things done, there budget is too small and their present bureaucratic personnel are apparently incompetent despite resumes that glow like the sun.

 

I'm late for a meeting, so this is quick. NASA has done some boneheaded things. Who's to blame: They are, to some extent. They don't know how to estimate costs and keep them under control. Expected political fallout is a big design driver (how else can you explain something like Ares?). That politics is a driver leads to the next culprit: Congress and the President. Neither understands science, particularly so the previous administration. NASA's budget is too small. If NASA administration had any cojones, they would tell Congress and the President that the budget is too small to accomplish the goals levied by Congress and the President. What do you want us to cut? Instead NASA plays along with Congress and tries to do too much with too little. That might explain Suffredini's announcement that the ISS is to be deorbited in 2016. He's playing a game of chicken.

 

Playing chicken by announcing deorbiting a international space station? That man understands less abouth politics then politicians understand science. I bet the russians,japanese, esa will love to hear that.
At least he should threated to cancel the next martian rover or the launch of weather sattelites.

 

I think my predictions are on for a win:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90444

 

Just rubbing it in!

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/100929_DIRECT_Press_Release_House_RC2.pdf

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-redesigns-shuttle-20100912,0,7720708.story

 

Well NASA future is questionable what with funding being so tight but it is clear that the direct concept won.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ASA Will Compete Space Launch System Boosters