Some have asked my opinion of the Direct Launcher concept. Frankly, I haven't taken a close enough look at it to have one, other than it suffers from the same fundamental flaw as ESAS--that NASA will once again be developing its own vehicles, for its own unique purposes, and they will be very expensive to operate for very little in the way of results, and won't move the ball down the field much in terms of opening up space for The Rest Of Us. But for those into arguing the technical issues, here's a discussion page on the concept. Jon Goff has some related thoughts:

NASA may be lousy at doing commercially effective R&D, but they are far worse when they try acting like an airline. If NASA deserves to exist at all, they should be spending most of their money on trying to help "encouraging and facilitating a growing and entrepreneurial U.S. commercial space sector," not trying to fund and run their next Amtrak in the Sky. People like to point at how much X-33, SLI, NASP, and other such programs have wasted, but what they seem to be missing is that while these were "R&D" programs, they were "R&D" programs trying to lead to another NASA operated space transportation system. Which is basically what the money for CEV, Ares I, and Ares V are. Sure, Ares I and Ares V aren't trying to break new technological ground, but they are trying once again to establish the national space exploration transportation system. The fundamental flaw in all of those failed research programs wasn't so much that they were trying new technology, and new technology is bad. It's that they were trying to make yet another NASA owned and operated transportation system. Ares I and Ares V aren't so much a bold break with past mistakes as they are an unimaginative repeat of the same.

[Update at 1 PM EST]

No, Mark, I don't "hate" it (once again, one must wonder at his feeble powers of reading comprehension). I'm indifferent to it.

[Late afternoon update]

OK, I will say that Direct Launcher has one thing to commend it. It is indeed preferable to develop one new launcher than two. Of course, my point is that it would be even better to develop none, and let the private sector provide crew and cargo deliveries to LEO, so that NASA can concentrate on getting to the moon affordably.

The way I see it, this is a huge win for prospective NASA transportation providers. Basically, NASA makes a spacecraft so big that it could never be cost effective transport (because cost is not NASA's primary concern, jobs is). That means that more efficient competition can spring up and severely undercut the current transportation operators while still maintaining large profits.

I mean really - this is the best for both sides! NASA says that they need a transport not subject to the vagarities of the nascent market, but startups don't want to compete with NASA. So NASA makes a new rocket that is so overkill that it costs almost as much as the shuttle, but carries 4 times as much stuff. No one can afford the rocket but NASA, and NASA can only realistically afford it as long as there is not an alternative...

Not to mention that the inevitable performance misses will have no material effect on the spacecrafts primary purpose...

"No, Mark, I don't "hate" it (once again, one must wonder at his feeble powers of reading comprehension). I'm indifferent to it."

Hence the long posts by you about why it's such a bad idea, both here and elsewhere.

It a damn fool thing for NASA to develop yet another launcher, but if NASA is going to do this foolish things this looks like the best way for it to do it.

What "long posts" would those be, Mark? This is the only one where I've discussed it much at all, and it's just a brief paragraph. To the degree that I've said anything at all, about it, it's mostly links to others' thoughts, with little of my own opinion expressed on it specifically. Again, work on the reading comprehension thing.

The only thing that is “shuttle derived” on the “direct launcher” concept is the SRB. The core may look like the current ET, but it isn’t even close. The current ET structure will not support the configuration. After a complete redesign of the thing in the drawing that looks like the ET one may find that the SRBs aren’t big enough so they will have to turn into 5 segment SRBs and you’re right back to where Ares is now, a completely new NASA built rocket.

As I understand it, what they mean by shuttle derived is that it fits in the existing buildings. It is amazing how much the government can spend reworking the VAB, or retooling for different diameter tanks...

The saddest thing about all of this, is that between the development cost for the CLV and CaLV, and the cost of keeping all the CLV team together while getting the CLV flying, and then keeping the team together while they get the CaLV team flying, you could probably purchase something like 200-300 Atlas V flights. Or 500-600 Falcon IX's or Kistler K-1s, or at least 100 Delta IVH's. And you could start developing the lunar hardware today. Sure, you will have some operational constraints you wouldn't have had, but you can accomplish a whole heck of a lot more for the money given this route. The current ESAS architecture (and the Direct Launch option, and any option that tries designing new launchers instead of making the system launcher independent and letting the market deliver the earth-to-orbit portion of the package) are all penny-wise and pound foolish. If they went with existing rockets, they could:
1-Get to the moon about twice as fast (2012-2014 instead of 2018-2022).
2-Do so in a way that is substantially cheaper per person delivered (starting out at at least half as expensive, and only dropping from there)
3-Develop in the process some of the technologies that would make even further cost reductions easy
4-Provide a sufficient market to spur lower-cost launch options, like RLVs
5-Actually create more jobs in more congressional districts as for-profit space enterprises become more feasible
6-Lower the launch costs for the DoD's launches, and for launches by other government agencies
7-Help give existing American launch companies the flight rate they need to be cost competitive with foreign boosters, and thus draw in more of the commercial market

And the list goes on.

But instead we get the MSFC/JSC continual employment plan. It's a disgusting waste of taxpayer money explicitly for the political benefit of a few congressman and senators. In my book that's pork. Deliberately using taxpayer money in a way that subserviates national interests for a few local interests.

~Jon

brian d: "The current ET structure will not support the configuration."

You're referring to inline as opposed to side slung arraignment? According to studies NASA did in the late 80's / early 90's (I think) the ET structure would indeed support the inline configuration. The only changes needed, per the studies, would be tank skin thickness changes in some areas. Very minor stuff indeed compared with going from an 8 meter to a 10 meter tanks as proposed for Ares V.

Summers: "what they mean by shuttle derived is that it fits in the existing buildings."

You, and brian d, obviously have not read the Direct Launcher proposal.

I suggest you both pop over to the nasaspaceflight.com forum discussion and pose your assertions about the infeasibility / lack of commonality etc.

There seems to be two conflicting priorities when it comes to replacing the Shuttle. One is to achieve a new launch capability. The other is to maximize the NASA workforce. It seems the second priority must be the most important to NASA.

I'm still very skeptical of the claims that a Delta IV or Atlas V couldn't be used to launch the CEV. NASA is proposing to spend billions to develop two new launchers that will, at best, only fly a few missions per year. Simply amortizing the R&D and ground support costs over so few flights will mean each flight will be outrageously expensive like the Shuttle. The crewed version of the DirectFlight proposal could put about 60 metric tons to LEO. That's fine for some missions but gross overkill for others like routine trips to the ISS.

If NASA bought EELVs for most cargo and crewed missions to LEO, they would not only save the R&D costs, they'd save millions on not having to develop new launch facilities, and hundreds of millions not having to maintain a "cast of thousands" for ground support and mission prep. The increased flight and production rates would also lower the EELV costs for non-NASA missions.

I heard a presentation by a high NASA official this week where he stated that NASA people did not just want to be COTR (Contract Oversight) and that in order to effectively oversee contracts NASA folks actually had to have experience in building things.

Dennis

Cecil, I actually did read the proposal, and all the notes and discussion associated. I did exagerate a little, but a whole lot of the savings comes from using existing infrastructure, not existing technology. (Of course, the existing technology is also reused in some places.)

You could probably get most of the benefit with a totally new spacecraft with the same form factor - as long as you build one instead of two...

That's pretty expensive on-the-job training, Dennis.

Dennis,
I have to agree with Rand. If they really need that much design/development experience to do proper oversight (frankly, I thought the excuse was BS when they first trotted it out a year or two ago), why don't they either hire on some experienced members of the private sector, or send the NASA employees to work as "externs". Basically like interns at the other companies, but they'd still be paid by NASA.

Justifying Shuttle-Derived vehicles when you could buy so many more EELV/private launches for the same amount of money is getting to be pretty ridiculous. The arguments are getting pretty desparate when the main remaining arguments are "but then we'd have to get jobs making stuff people want to buy!" and "we're really too inexperienced to oversee private production of launch vehicles that seem to work just fine without our oversight, but we're experienced enough that we can build a vehicle that's over an order of magnitude safer than any other expendable launch vehicle that's ever flown."

Either they've got enough experience to do the oversight right now, or they don't have enough experience to safely develop and field the CLV. You can't really have it both ways. Why should we be paying for them to get expensive on-the-job training, when we could buy cheaper vehicles on the market today (and even cheaper ones in the near future)?

~Jon

David, what the "Direct Launcher" proposal is trying to "sell" IS for the most part one vehicle. The crew/cargo versions differ only in the cargo version having an upper stage. That is certainly more commonality than Ares I has with Ares V.

Cecil Trotter: late 80's / early 90's (I think) the ET structure would indeed support the inline configuration.

This is just not true. Since the inception of the Shuttle program the ET has undergone 3 light weight redesigns including a switch to lithium aluminum. Even if there was a study that showed it would work back in the 80s (which I don’t believe) it won’t work now.

Think of it this way right now the shuttle lifts itself + some of the ET. The 2 SRBs lift themselves + some of the ET. Currently the ET is being pulled along. Lockheed Martin didn’t design it to handle large compression loads, why would they? They are proposing to put 140,000lb of compression on the tank just sitting on the pad then accelerate it at 2, 3, 4gs increasing that compression dramatically. As I mentioned before after the tank is redesigned it is likely that the SRBs will not provide sufficient thrust or burn time thus they will have to be redesigned. Whole new rocket.

The ET isn't simply being pulled along, it ties the entire vehicle together forming the backbone attaching the orbiter, tank and SRB's together.

Again I'll suggest you go over to nasaspaceflight.com and tell them your concerns. There are smarter folks than I there (some of who work for NASA) who say it will work.

The people proposing this are not just some internet rocketeers with photoshop, at least some of them are NASA engineers who have intimate knowledge of the ET and it's structure.

Like I said Cecil, I read their proposal - I know there is only one vehicle with different upper modules.

As for the ET, they say that it has been looked at and it works - but they also say that even if it didn't, there is more than enough money in the plan to redesign the tanks. Because, as I said, most of the savings come from the infrastructure and tooling reuse, not technology reuse.

I heard a presentation by a high NASA official this week where he stated that NASA people did not just want to be COTR (Contract Oversight) and that in order to effectively oversee contracts NASA folks actually had to have experience in building things.

Strange. Does the Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps need to build airplanes to oversee contractors? Does the Army build tanks or helicopters? Why does NASA feel the need to compete with private industry (which is illegal, BTW)?

Summers: "Because, as I said, most of the savings come from the infrastructure and tooling reuse, not technology reuse."

Even if that is so, is that a bad thing? I think not.

Cecil, we aren't arguing ;-} ! No, it isn't a bad thing, spending less money to acheive the same goal is a good thing. Personally, I think this is the path NASA should take - I'm afriad I don't believe they should fund space startups over Boeing (of course, I'm biased - I sort of plan to compete with some of the space startups).

So, looks that some people are unhappy that NASA seems more interested in maintaining their staffing levels than exploring space.

It isn't good to be unhappy about 'reality', because 'reality' doesn't change. Accept reality!

Be happy, because present-NASA is giving about 60% more funding to new commercial space startups that oldtime-NASA did. Be happy!

I know, I was joking there.

Looks like a case of "missile envy" vis a vis the Ariane 5.

This "direct" launcher is just an ATK'ised version of the proposed Atlas Phase II vehicles, correct?

Incorrect.

They loft about the same tonnage and use a large amount of existing infrastructure. Could you elaborate where I'm wrong?

Explain how you think Direct is "ATK'ised".

Cecil, quit pretending to be denser than neutronium. You know exactly what I'm refering to. That pair of 11.5MN strapon boosters, and the several thousand strong army employed by ATK to recover, disassemble, refurbish, refill, transport and reassemble them.

Do you really think the folks pushing "Direct" are only worried about keeping ATK in business? If so you're the dense one.