Atrocious! Engineers at NASA are still allowed to think? Moreover, they are allowed to think some thoughts which differ from party line?? They dare to use NASA software to run a calculation for a LV NASA is not currently building??? How much electricity that software run used up, I wonder... whole $30! OMG.

Give me a break.

Editor's note: ... and they share SBU and ITAR restricted material with foreign nationals while not working on the projects they are paid to work on ...

Like the guy who used NASA time and data to show that Lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) was the way to go for the original Apollo project? When Von Braun and the rest of the NASA establishment was pushing EOR? Yes, heretics must be burned at the stake! From orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Also what is Direct...see NLS...(1991)

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/nls.htm

The NLS 2 vehicle, which would employ a common vehicle "core" with the NLS 1, based on the space shuttle external tank, would provide a payload capability of 50,000 pounds to low Earth orbit to meet the needs of the DOD's heaviest payloads.

The heavy-lift vehicle element of the system would consist of the core vehicle with four liquid-fueled engines and two Solid Rocket Boosters. It would be capable of delivering a 100,000-pound useful payload to rendezvous with Space Station Freedom 220 nautical miles above the Earth.

National Launch System (NLS) consisted of three vehicle configurations (1) a two stage heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLLV) capable of delivering 135K lbs. to low earth orbit -- NLS1, (2) a 1.5 stage vehicle capable of delivering 50 K lbs. to low earth orbit -- NLS2, and (3) a single stage vehicle capable of delivering 20K lbs. to low earth orbit -- NLS3. NLS1 and NLS2 utilized a common core and a common propulsion module. NLS2 and NLS3 utilized a common upper stage. NLS was a design to cost approach based on allocated cost targets. NLS cost models used cost estimating relationships (CER's) which had been in use for years. The lesson learned in NLS was, in order for true cost savings to be realized, these CER's must be evaluated against achieved actuals (i.e. Shuttle, Delta, etc.) so that the differences can be both understood and accounted for. If not, the goal of low recurring costs will be projected, but are not likely to be achieved. Throughout NLS concept development a new Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) was under development. STME concept developers recognized the need for product development teams and STME development was structured around this approach. Interaction between each of the PDT's helped to maintain focus of system capability design goals. Again the lack of a market and utilization goals was a limiting factor in concept development.

Bibliography and Further Reading
Kolcum, Edward H, Aviation Week and Space Technology, "Martin Marietta Poised to Adapt External Tank for NLS Core", 1991-08-26, page 58.

An upper stage for the system would be developed to boost payloads to a stationary, geosynchronous orbit 22,000 miles above the Earth. As regards a payload shroud, modifications are being considered to that currently in use on the Titan IV rocket.

All Direct basically has done is replace the SSME with RS68 engines.

Ross Tierney is AFAIK a permanent US resident and therefore covered under ITAR as a "US person" and therefore he *IS* privy to that information and most certainly aware of ITAR restrictions.

http://www.wikipedia.org/search-redirect.php?search=itar&language=en&go=Go

What they do in their own time with NASA's systems and programs is called "initiative." It is a good thing, as the other posters have demonstrated.

Both Senate AND Congress are aware of DIRECT by now... does anyone not think the people involved in MSFC and MAF will not have been dragged off in chains long before it got that far if there was even the slightest hint of illegality involved? Does anyone not think Dr. Griffin has already investigated this?

Did I say people unauthorized for SBU and ITAR had access to it? No.

Did I say I had? No.

Specifically I said "While I have steered myself personally away from such information...". Guess what? I've *never* seen that sort of data.

Did I say people had wasted government money? No. They're volunteers using their own spare time. We've been very specific about such things with everyone who has volunteered to assist us in any analysis.

Of course I doubt you will have the stones to leave this comment for anyone else to actually read Keith, but nobody has done anything wrong. Keep drinking the cool aid.

Ross.

NASA have evaluated DIRECT twice officially, the public Version 1 critique by the ESAS head Dr Stanley and the Version 2 version called Jupiter-120 so it's not unknown to NASA as it's quite sensible to evaluate proposed alternative options to be able to answer public statements on them.

I am not upset about NASA engineers using some non-productive time to work on Direct -- better that than crossword puzzles or playing solitaire. I am also not too upset about the ITAR aspects, although if they have indeed violated ITAR they have taken a terrible risk and they are potentially subject to severe sanctions including criminal penalties. More than anything I worry about the indications that some few (by no means most) of those ardent Direct advocates have misused their position at NASA to undercut the current project publicly and privately. If NASA engineers -- or NASA contractors -- feel their opposition to the Constellation program so strongly that they cannot focus their efforts to work towards its success, then they owe it to themselves and to the nation to resign and go public.

On the NASASpaceflight.com web site, for many advocates support of the Direct concept, and extreme opposition to Constellation and the Ares/Orion vehicles has become an article of faith. No serious questioning of the Direct proposal is permitted or tolerated. The over-the-top zealotry evident in "Kraisee's" comment is, sadly, not exceptional among the most ardent advocates of the Direct concept.

If the MSFC engineers used proprietary (export restricted) methods to estimate an overall tank size and weight given structural loads for "Direct" vehicle, but did not divulge the methods, that would be a reasonable way to support some alternative thinking. The current program, based on a few words from our unpopular president, has not achieved the widespread support that it needs to succeed.

Ross

This comment....

I'm not kidding - that team have analyzed the current tanking and manufacturing equipment, and have all the STS load data references, and they have calculated loads for Jupiter using NASA's tools,

...means that government employees and or contractors are using NASA computers, with taxpayer paid for software to analyze a design that is diametrically opposed to what the administrator and the head of ESMD has decreed as the vehicle to be built. That is at an absolute minimum a misuse of government hardware. Furthermore, if these employees are doing this the are working to undermine the billions of dollars of taxpayer money spent on this program. If they are doing this, what else are they doing to undermine the program?

Now I as much as anyone else do not think that the ESAS architecture is the right one but several months ago I was offered a senior position at a tier II aerospace company bidding on the upper stage. I refused the position as I explained it to the company that wanted to hire me that I did not believe in the ESAS architecture and would not be a good advocate for that company. Last year I made a lot less money than I could have made because of the change of direction that NASA did which eliminated 99% of my company's contracts. I have been offered subcontracts working on Ares 1 but refuse to do so as my engineering morals will not allow me to work on a program that I do not believe is in the best interest of the nation.

Dr. Griffin and ESMD have indicated on many occasions to the engineers who disagreed with the program that if they did not like it they could leave, and many have. What you have is a hidden insurrection that seeks to undermine the system.

John Hubolt was an engineer who had the guts to buck the system and go straight to headquarters at NASA with his idea and get backing there. He did not seek to have another rocket built. What your "team" is doing is the equivalent of having Von Braun's Lieutenant's ignore Von Braun and Gilruth and continue designing the Nova on the side using NASA resources to do so and then lobbying congress as well.

I don't think that you understand what you guys have done. DIRECT has merits but you have just destroyed your credibility by doing what you have done. This is the reason that I rely on retirees and non NASA contractors for what we are doing. Conflicts of interest are real and must be avoided.

So let me get this straight.. Anyone that has a good idea (based soundly in NASA own engineering) that could save the US taxpayers BILLIONS of Dollars and provide a more flexible, not to mention much more timely launch system than Ares, should be tied up and burned at the stake as a Heritic (along with anyone that helped them)?

There's a big problem with what they did, if true. It doesn't matter that it was done on their own time and I'd seriously raise questions as to whether it was supposedly done on "their own time".

Even if its generally available software, if the computers its built on and the software its run on is provided or paid for by NASA budget, then its NASA property and it is NOT to be used for outside projects unless allowed by NASA. If I have my own company outside of my NASA/sub contractor job, and I need a few parts built, is it ok that I go to the machine shop at my company on my own time and build my parts using NASA property? Absolutely not. In fact, people get fired for doing that stuff all the time, and they're dead right for getting axed.

Also, how proprietary is all the data and baselines that they're using? I would think that would be NASA only data. I mean seriously, would Lockheed Martin let it go that someone on their computers used their own rocket data to compare the performance against a Boeing rocket for Boeing? That's bordering pretty close on corporate espionage.

And like a previous poster said, if these people are working directly against a project for which they are hired onto, they should just leave. If they're trying to build an alternate system, how can we be sure that they're letting their personal preference get in the way of their engineering decision? Are they not putting as much of their skill or are they purposely undermining ESAS systems so it'll make their pet project look better? These are serious questions, and its a HUGE conflict of interest.

Love NASAWATCH but you are way off base on this one! Many people support DIRECT, and who says they did not do the work on thier lunch break.

Without REAL, DETAILED, bottoms-up cost estimates, and REAL, DETAILED, bottoms-up risk assessments comparisons are meaningless.

Too many "engineers" think the most important thing is "the rocket." Designing a cool rocket is easy. Designing a cool architecture is easy. Show ONE bottoms-up cost estimate or ONE bottoms-up risk assessment showing the DIRECT system is "better", please.

People are trying to cast this as some personal struggle between two competing ideas for a launch vehicle and an us vs them attitude. While this may be tempting to some, it misses the point which is the professional ethics of using government (or competitor) information to undermine the project that you are working on. Boeing paid penalties in the billions of dollars and several people were fired for using detailed engineering data from the Atlas in the preparation of their bids for follow on Delta IV contracts. Does anyone think that for one second that this is any different just because the people involved are using government hardware and software to prepare what is essentially a competing bid for a replacement system?

GeezerGas -

I believe Congress (or the appropriate sub-committees) should issue a formal request to NASA to perform detailed, comprehensive and rigorous assessments of all of the following and then report back to Congress and the public:

(1) ESAS (Ares 1 & Ares V)

(2) DIRECT

(3) Shuttle C variants

(4) EELV alternatives; and

(5) near-term feasibility of SpaceX or other "NewSpace" alternatives.

The previous Congressional endorsement and authorization of ESAS was premised on a 4 segment Ares 1 with air-start SSME that was to be operational by 2011 or 2012. Because that cannot now happen and given the projected extensions of "the Gap" the American taxpayers deserve a formal review of the entire program.

Related, we also need a transparent discussion of what we seek to accomplish by spending tax dollars on human spaceflight.

ESAS (for example) appears particularly focused on getting to Mars as soon as possible, which IS a legitimate goal (IMHO) if we have confidence that the Moon offers little in terms of economic development. However these issues are essentially political rather than engineering issues.

= = =

Personally I am persuaded that the Jupiter 120 offers significant potential to become the American equivalent of the DC-3 or Russian R-7 booster and if NASA refuses to perform and publish a detailed and rigorous assessment of DIRECT 2.0, NASA's future recommendations should be looked at skeptically by Congress.

Once we have a detailed rigorous review of the five approaches identified above Congress and the next President can chose the route forward.

I don't think that people understand that the use of these 60 NASA and NASA contractor employees would make the federal government liable in any lawsuit brought by the losing contractors in any shift of priorities related to the launch vehicle used to implement the VSE?

ATK's development contract, Boeing's upper stage contract, and many other efforts would all be turned on their heads by this effort. While this happens all the time in the contracting world, for this to be actively supported by NASA employees and or existing contractors (first time I have seen a number placed on this) opens the government to huge liabilities for the prime and subcontractors displaced by by this effort.

Again, it has nothing to do with a conflict related to different ideas for replacing ESAS, but a fundamental conflict of interest and professional ethics. While the blogosphere has one set of ethics, this set does not translate into the world of multbillion dollar contracts.

As an outsider looking in (from Canada), I won't overstep my bounds by attacking either side. I will say that Bill White makes an excellent observation in that there are obviously serious issues at hand for the space program as a whole, and that the ESAS/VSE is in jeapordy, along with the current ISS program.

Congress needs to look at the big picture, get all the facts straight, and move forward with the most reasonable and sensible plan. You can have all the finger-pointing and lawsuits you want, but at the end of the day you're right back to where you started. You have a vision for space that conflicts with the current program.

NSF, as has been stated here in these posts, offers a wonderful forum for people to pass around ideas and insights that can provide options that may have been overlooked. These people know what they're talking about; there are other options that I believe offer a better alternative, an alternative that does reflect the need to fill the 'gap' between shuttle retirement and continuing to the ISS and beyond.

What I have seen so far in Ares does not give me confidence in a sustained presence on the ISS, and as a contributing member country, I would expect NASA to be forthcoming with all data on how their shuttle-derived design is supposed to make that happen. I am very proud to see Canada's presence on each shuttle flight and on the ISS with Canadarm's and Dextre. Let's make sure we can use it well, and hopefully work together to go even further.

This is my last post on this subject.

Personally I think that DIRECT is a better answer than ESAS as an architecture. There are quibbles that they could use an RD-180 rather than the RS-68 but that is not the point. There are larger political issues that make it into what I call ESAS lite, but again it is more in comparison to the existing architecture rather than any intrinsic merit.

The singular issue here is that NASA software, employees (and apparantely according to a poster above here there are 60 employees and contractors working on the project), computers, software and resources are being used to develop ANY architecture that could result in a huge legal liability for the government and is in direct contravention to what they are supposed to be working on.

As Mike above commented, people are fired for this kind of thing all the time and in my illustration, Boeing was penalized over a billion dollars for similar activities in relation to the EELV program.

That many here are actively defending this type of behavior I guess illustrates just how little people understand professional ethics in this regard anymore.

It's true. An underground @ MSFC exists of people using Ares 1/V data and design/development tools to work out the problem with Direct. The papers presented showed EELV, EELV/Ares 1 US and Jupiter.

Most of the people doing this are in 4487 and 4600, EV and ES. According to people who have seen the charts Direct won in every category. About ITAR or even SBU, I could not say. However nothing surprises me at MSFC anymore.

Ares I and its subcontractors will not be beaten by EELV, DIRECT or Shuttle-C, if it's beaten it will be beaten by Ares I not living up to its safe, simple, soon promises. It is up to the whole Ares I team including its subcontractors to execute so that the President and Congress are kept happy enough with the end result not to consider alternatives. Ares I will be accepted or cancelled on its own merits and not because of alternatives lurking in the background. This whole issue is a red herring.

mwfair

Unless per "someone@msfc.nasa.gov" the numbers actually demonstrate that the competitor is far more viable an option than what is currently in the works. Then it becomes a threat and in true political fashion, Keith, and Dennis will resort to the time honored tradition of...

If you can't beat them, then prosecute them.

Editor's note: you Direct fan boys are just plain paranoid.

Whoever said Direct is just an idea is cutting hairs. Direct wouldn't still be being worked on (and apparantly stealing NASA employees, resources and data to work on it) unless they were directly planning on making it a competitor to Ares.

True that the government is not a competitor to anyone, the problem though is that the government doesn't do a lot of the work in the traditional sense. Contracts are doled out to subs to do most of the work to achieve the idea, and these companies are in direct competition with other equally large contractors for contracts.

It doesn't matter whether Direct is a company, an entity, or a social club. The fact of the matter is that they were using NASA data to compare direct to other methods, as well as using software tools. These software tools are very well proprietary.

To the person who said software is free to use, as is a mill or lathe. That is a horrible statement to make, especially in a subcontractor environment. I dont' care what package is used, software is not "free" unless its defined as free under a GNU, or other similar shareware type license. If it's NASA software being used, that software is proprietary to NASA or whomever they allow to use it for use only on NASA or other approved projects. If its commercial software, the parent company is the one paying for the license to do the work, not to do other pet projects, no matter how noble or well intentioned. Again I bring the example: Do you think Lockheed would let their employee use their software and hardware to model stuff for Boeing, or a school project?

As for mills and lathe, those are probably even MORE guarded and restricted than software. If I make a piece of hardware on my own time on company resource (and I am not saying at all that I do) and I break the mill or lathe, I will be fired on the spot, as now the company has to pay for the repairs.

Dennis Wingo was right...this is a severe lack of ethics and probably does violate several regulations, of only one of which is time charging violations. If these folks who are involved were doing this after hours on their home computer, that's perfectly fine. but if they're on the clock and supposed to be designing Ares, but they're working on direct,that's flat out wrong.

And before I get jumped on, I'm not trying to make any statment on direct's capabilities. I'm just saying this is a SEVERE lack of professional ethics, and if any of these engineers took the ethics portion of the EIT or FE (the engineering license exam) they should know what they're doing is wrong.

I am not sure how Direct can be deployed sooner than Ares I. They use ET/MAF tooling and facilities. Many of these will be used until 2010 to produce ETs. How in the world will they design, develop, and test a new extended tank at MAF in less than 2 years? Ares I-y will fly by 2012. At that point, the CLV is waiting on Orion. If you go down the Direct path, who knows how many years it would take to bring MAF online? Common sense tells me it is more than 2 years. I agree Ares I has technical problems, but the Direct "zealots" will not even let the design process work. I mean, the CLV is not done with PDR yet. Get real. It is interesting that the Direct website does not list who is in the organization, which leads me to believe it is staffed by disgruntled contractors who were left out of Ares I. Cry me a river!!! This is a bunch of folks who did not get what they wanted from ESAS, so they want to beat NASA over the head by using Congress to second guess EVERY technical decision. This is exactly how the Space Shuttle was designed..by committee. That turned out great, didn't it?

EDITOR'S NOTE: THE DIRECT FAN CLUB USED TO HAVE FREE REIGN TO WAVE THEIR ARMS AROUND AT NASASPACEFLIGHT.COM. THE EDITORS OF THAT WEBSITE NOW SEEM TO HAVE EXERCISED ADULT RESTRAINT AND CURTAILED THAT ACTIVITY.

AS SUCH COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED AND THOSE POSTED HERE WILL BE REMOVED TOMORROW. SO GET A GOOD LOOK.

THE DIRECT FAN BOYS WILL NEED TO FIND YET ANOTHER PLACE TO SAVE NASA FROM ITSELF.