news.yahoo.com — By day, the engineers work on NASA's new Ares moon rockets. By night, some go undercover to work on a competing design. These dissenting scientists and their backers insist they have created an alternative rocket that would be safer, cheaper and easier to build than the two Ares spacecraft that will replace the space shuttle.
Jul 14, 2008 View in Crawl 4
freakstyle571Jul 15, 2008
I see what you did there
cotaskmemallocJul 16, 2008
fearziz and kurtu5, you're f**king dips**ts.<a class="user" href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/pdf/80660main_ApolloFS.pdf">http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/pdf/80660main_Apo ...</a>
crixJul 16, 2008
Actually, Orion *is* reusable.
xondarJul 16, 2008
I think they should use the Ares technology to build a better space shuttle.The current space shuttle uses plain old aircraft aluminum for the hull, the Ares craft will use carbon fibre. Why can't they build a new shuttle with a carbon fibre hull?I should also point out that NASA is retiring the shuttle fleet because Moron-in-Chief George W. Bush ordered them too.
xondarJul 16, 2008
We'd be colonizing Pluto with that kind of money.
Closed AccountJul 18, 2008
you know, instead of digging someone down, perhaps you can try and make a reasonable comment, this is exactly why Diggs comment system still sucks balls.
tradunJul 18, 2008
While it's true that the DIRECT proposal was put together by a group of volunteers, actually getting the rockets built and flown is going to take massive resources. It's doubtful that any private corporation would take on the risk of flying a rocket whose main purpose is to put people into space for exploration. At this point, the possibility of profit is so small as to not be worth the risk. The possibility of generous donations from a wealthy contributor is appealing, such as what happened a hundred years ago when Victorian gentlemen sponsored expeditions to the unexplored corners of the Earth. But the cost of outfitting a group to find the source of the Nile doesn't even come close to the cost, the _recurring_ cost, of sending people into space. Unfortunately, the only kind of backer that can really build the rockets in the DIRECT proposal is government. And the only government body in the world that has the resources to build and fly DIRECT is NASA. Unless somebody wants to organize a REALLY big bake sale.
tradunJul 18, 2008
If the engineers did have that kind of time, they might have come up with something like DIRECT. But the management at NASA right now seems to be stifling any kind of innovation of that sort. They seem to have an emotional investment in the Ares rockets. This is not entirely surprising. NASA Administrator Dr. Mike Griffin was involved in a private study in 2004 making recommendations for returning to the Moon. In that study, a rocket for launching a crew capsule was highlighted, including an illustration. When the official NASA study came out in 2005 outlining the Moon rockets, the crew launch vehicle looked incredibly like the one in Dr. Griffin's study. One might think that Griffin had pushed a design because it was his idea. Even rocket scientists can have an ego.Link to the study:<a class="user" href="http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/aim_for_mars/study-report.pdf">http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/aim_for ...</a>
Closed AccountOct 31, 2008
Sponsered by AIPAC/JINSA/HALLIBURTON/BLACKWATER we need a privatized invasion on the moon , before Al Queda gets dug in.