“The Rocket NASA Won’t Talk About”
Email In 2004, after the Columbia disaster, President Bush ordered NASA to retire the space shuttles and go exploring. He said they should build a new ship, launched by new rockets — simpler, cheaper and safer than the shuttles. They have a new ship in the works, called Orion, and a new set of rockets, called Ares I and V — and they’re behind schedule and over budget. Workers around the Kennedy Space Center face the prospect of long layoffs after the shuttles stop, in 2010, and the Ares I starts flying, something like five years later. But a small group of business people, engineers and enthusiasts says there’s a better alternative — if only NASA had not already closed the door on it. Call it Jupiter 120, part of a plan called Direct 2.0. In concept, it’s simple: use the same orange external tank and booster rockets as the shuttle, but skip the orbiter. Put some engines on the bottom of the tank, and the cone-shaped Orion capsule on the nose. Take a look at this VIDEO on YouTube to get the idea. "Those who’ve heard about it, I think they’re converts," said Ross Tierney, one of the principals in the Direct 2.0 plan, when I reached him by phone. He says a fair number of engineers at NASA and its contractors believe it might actually work better than the Ares rockets, but they’re afraid to speak publicly. The Orlando Sentinel did a piece over the weekend; take a look HERE. It says NASA has already looked at Direct 2.0, dropped the idea, and stopped a study of it. The piece quotes NASA’s administrator, Michael Griffin, as saying, "At some point, the studying has to stop, and the work has to commence." And it cites NASA as warning that abandoning the Ares rockets "could shut down the space program for decades." It may be a case of pick your poison. Tierney says Jupiter 120 could be flying in 2013, whereas NASA may not get the first Ares I operational until 2016. "It looks like Ares is headed straight for a brick wall."
(Artist’s concept of Jupiter 120 launch. Artwork by Philip Metschan (principiagraphica) Copyright 2008 Directlauncher. Used with permission.)
TechBytes (02.10.12) 
Steve Jobs' FBI File: Bomb Threat? 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
How about instead they just stop going to war so they can keep funding NASA.
Posted by: necrophelia | June 24, 2008, 8:30 am 8:30 am
I’m still not convinced on the Orion spacecraft. Sure, if we’re going to land on the moon and eventually Mars, then an Apollo like craft isn’t a bad idea. But for normal ferry missions to and from ISS, not the best thought out plan. You’d have to now launch two vehicles, and have two rendevous in space, thus doubling the chance for catostrophic failure. Why not use the existing shuttles, and work on updating them. Use new computers, new systems. Find problems with the existing vehicle and fix them. Don’t retire them and stop using them. That’s the same as throwing in the towel and saying “It’s too hard, we give up.” That’s not what we did back in the 1960′s after Apollo 1, we pressed on. Nor after Apollo 13, we pressed on. Then Skylab, Hubble, Challenger. But now, after Columbia, NASA is throwing in the towel. They’ll spend far more money working on old technology, than it would take to fix the current technology. But of course, I could be dead wrong in my thinking as well.
Posted by: Lawrence | June 24, 2008, 8:39 am 8:39 am
This is a concept that is too big for the Orion spacecraft, and way too small
for the Altair vehicle. It’s like trying to send Apollo to the Moon with a Saurn 1B. It won’t make it. The
beakup of the Constellation project into
two launch vehicles make sense in that if one does fail, you’re not totally grounded.
Posted by: Bill Wall | June 24, 2008, 9:21 am 9:21 am
It’s just sad that NASA and the government scrubbed the Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) project in the lateral ’90′s. The DC-X (Delta Clipper) was promising, and the tests were amazing. After just one accident, I never heard from the project again. Quite sad. :(
Posted by: GWP | June 24, 2008, 10:42 am 10:42 am
well maybe, just maybe its a step to privatize the space journey. why should the government have all the fun?
Posted by: humpty dumpty | June 24, 2008, 11:17 am 11:17 am
This design is largely what the Ares V rocket is already. Have a look at concept pictures sometime.
Posted by: Jennifer | June 24, 2008, 11:41 am 11:41 am
What ever happened to “One small step for man one giant leap for mankind” We have created so much red tape it’s hard to get most projects started let alone completed. Let’s just consider the shuttle update it and continue reaching for the stars. If you have any seats for the Mars trip just give me a call.
Posted by: Greg Davis | June 24, 2008, 12:45 pm 12:45 pm
I think its time we all admit that the Space Program is doomed. You can pick any reason you want, but the biggest reason is the lack of talent. They put a man on the moon with an oversized pocket calculator and they saved a man’s life with a discarded shoe box, but now they can’t seem to get anything right. Maybe we’ve gone as far as we can go and should consider using the money and people for more earthly needs.
Posted by: Jeff | June 24, 2008, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
Remember, abandoning the Space Shuttle program and going to the Moon and to Mars in a circa 1960′s style vehicle was Bush’s idea – not NASA’s. One, he’s not an engineer. Two, when did he ever have a practical, reasonable, well-considered idea?
Posted by: Dawn | June 24, 2008, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm
Several points:
1. Getting into space is NOT easy but it is possible.
2. Getting into space is EXPENSIVE.
3. NASA has some very good, skilled people working for them.
4. NASA is hog-tied by internal and external politics, annual budget problems and civil service resentment that holds over from the Apollo days when the agency was the blue eyed boy.
5. NASA has never been adequately funded since the 1960′s and yet continues to find success. No reason to fund it then?
6. NASA has little clout in the political arena in Washington DC.
7. NASA spends about one half of one percent of the total federal money. The military seems to get quite a lot more than this but one can never be really sure because so much is shrouded in secrecy.
8. NASA cannot support a program at odds with its own thinking – as reported to congress etc.
So, why is anyone surprised that Jupiter is not even considered. I believe that the Jupiter approach is sensible and realistic. It will meet problems but they can be overcome. Much of the technology involved is only evolutionary and already exists.
My primary concern is with the use of capsules. This country has much more experience with winged re-usable vehicles than it does with capsules.
A secondary concern is the size of the “standing army” that will have to exist at recovery areas. Seems to me like it’s just shifting the manpower from the start to the end of the missions.
The real problems for Jupiter are:
1. Getting to use the SRB, the External Tank and SSME designs.
2. Finding funding in the private sector to accomplish manufacture, test and operation of such a system. This funding would only exist if a market for the product or service could be demonstrated.
3. Did the egg really precede the chicken? It cannot be this way or we would be able to fund a nascent space program or project of this nature.
Posted by: Andy Clark | June 24, 2008, 7:14 pm 7:14 pm
Andy Clark
You left one out. NASA has its nose stuck in the climate debate.
Posted by: Quietman | June 25, 2008, 12:38 am 12:38 am
Privatize space flight, and take it out of government hands.
Competition builds quality and lower prices.
Only when space travel is privatized will an average person be able to get into space.
Until then, space will be like TV was in it’s infancy. It will be an experiment.
Posted by: Len Mann | June 25, 2008, 9:52 am 9:52 am
The government in Russia has a program of space tourism under the auspices of , get this, The State Committee of Russian Federation for Tourism, Sport, and Physical Culture! Vacations are available for “cosmonaut simulations” along with rides to the edge of the earth’s atmosphere and space on old MIG-31 and MIG-29 aircraft. I think a 30 minute ride will cost over 25K USD, an expense most of us would choose not to incur. But it doesn’t appear to be a bad idea to profit off space technology through tourism, be it privately or governmentally.
Posted by: kat | June 27, 2008, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
Quietman,
Yes, NASA has its nose in the climate debate. I believe that it should be there because of the way satellites can be used to collect data.
The problem comes when the interpretation of that data is made into a political football. This particular administration seems to love messing with the conclusions of science in order to make them fit political beliefs.
Bad politicians, truth is paramount, fire them all!
Posted by: Andy Clark | June 30, 2008, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm
Dawn said:
“…was Bush’s idea – not NASA’s. One, he’s not an engineer … when did he ever have a practical, reasonable, well-considered idea?”
At least a few times. On a recent trip to his ranch, he had the idea to clear some more brush. It turned out to be a pretty good idea, as the part he cleared the brush from was starting to look really scruffy.
Posted by: Alex | July 21, 2008, 7:55 am 7:55 am