Billed As Better, Safer, Cheaper Alternative To Ares... But NASA Won't Comment

NASA won't talk about it, and is doing their best to keep others from doing so as well... but a proposed launch vehicle originally devised after the Challenger disaster has recently attracted more ears to listen to its possible benefits.

Called Direct 2.0, or the Jupiter 120, the program actually began life as NASA's own work back in 1986 as a concept to restart the space program after the loss of Challenger. Conceived by Marshall Space Flight Center, Direct had the capability of launching unmanned cargo, and even potentially a restarting an Apollo spacecraft program. Though the plan was officially shelved, rocket enthusiasts and engineers, including several working for NASA, have picked up the project in their spare time.

The Orlando Sentinel reported last week advocates argue its far better than anything NASA currently has in the works, and could get the US space program back on the moon faster and cheaper while saving thousands of jobs in Florida. Supporters point to the simplicity of Direct's design as a way to reduce the projected five-year gap in US manned spaceflight once the shuttle's 2010 retirement happens.

Despite the attention Direct is garnering, NASA supports Ares as the backbone launch system currently under development for the Orion crew exploration vehicle and the Constellation program aimed at a US return to the surface of the moon. As ANN reported, NASA is aiming at a April 2009 flight test of the Ares I first stage rocket, derived from the current shuttle's solid-rocket boosters, in anticipation of a 2014 manned flight first launch.

Direct supporters believe their system could fly as early as 2013 for less than the projected cost of Ares. The concept, based on the current shuttle external fuel tank, allows engines to be attached to the bottom of the unit thus satisfying the congressional requirement to use as much of current shuttle program equipment as possible.

The Sentinel cites an unfinished internal NASA study -- shut down and disowned by the agency last fall -- showing Direct 2.0 would outperform Ares. The initial results showed Direct 2.0 was superior in cost, overall performance and work-force retention.

Supporter Stephen Metschan, CEO of TeamVision Corp., a software-design company promoting the concept, excited Brevard County space advocates with Direct 2.0 at a presentation in Washington last month aimed at finding ways to mitigate job losses at Kennedy Space Center after the shuttle retirement.

Metschan stated his company's software -- frequently used by NASA to evaluate rocket systems -- showed Direct had superiority over Ares and that data is being used to refine the design. He noted people were willing to lend their expertise to the project for free because they believe in it and because they see it as a way to continue utilizing shuttle hardware and the KSC work force.

"It certainly makes sense," said Edward Ellegood, a space-policy analyst at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. "If it can deliver what it claims, I think it's worth a closer look."

Those supporters won't hear anything about Direct when US Sen. Bill Nelson, D-FL, holds a hearing Monday in Cape Canaveral to discuss future jobs and spaceflight prospects at KSC. Ares critics say that's because NASA hates the Direct, largely because the agency and its administrator, Mike Griffin, are totally committed to the Ares rocket despite a host of design troubles.

NASA is hard at work to stifle talk about Ares alternatives by warning Congress that any move to abandon Ares risks grounding the US space program for decades. "At some point, the studying has to stop, and the work has to commence," Griffin has said.

With a new presidential administration taking office next year, NASA programs certainly will face new scrutiny, and the before-mentioned unfinished NASA study indicates the Ares program may be vulnerable.

NASA denies the existence of such a study. But e-mails obtained by the Orlando Sentinel and interviews with NASA employees and contractors indicate last fall a study was initiated to compare Ares and alternatives in case a backup plan was needed.

An engineer for a NASA contractor who is working on the Constellation program at KSC -- and on the Direct design, on his own time at night -- said anonymously to the Sentinel, "A lot of us turned to this [Direct] because we realized Ares is not going to fly. . . . Based on the ground rules placed upon NASA by Congress -- that as much of the shuttle system as possible needed to be used -- Direct is the best solution." He added he feared for his job if his name was used.

The Senate panel Monday in Port Canaveral will not be addressed by Direct supporters. A spokesman for Nelson's office said he wasn't sure whether the subject would come up during the hearing.

But Metschan is confident his supporters will attend a rally before the hearing. Organizers are hoping to attract 6,400 people, to dramatize the number of laid off workers at KSC if Ares moves forward. Direct supporters will hand out pamphlets seeking more converts and the public scrutiny he thinks the project deserves.

"All we want is a chance to prove that Direct is what we say it is," he said.

FMI: www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct, www.nasa.gov