Jump to content

Talk:DIRECT

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.10.111.22 (talk) at 17:50, 13 June 2010 (→fake rockets not allowed on wikipedia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Please note, there is a community of experts on this topic active at the NASAspaceflight.com website. An active thread discussing this topic may be reviewed and used to contact these experts.

Schedule shifting to the right

There's a couple of references to shifting the schedule in directions. How about replacing that with "delay" or "ahead of schedule" or some other word used in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE and not arcane project management buzzwords.

I think I stamped out most of these. 69.64.235.42 (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In the first paragraph: "Developed independently from NASA, DIRECT proposes launch vehicles different from those NASA is developing in its Project Constellation." This sentence is not entirely accurate. DIRECT was not developed independently from NASA. It was a NASA concept. What the "DIRECT Team" is doing is really dusting off that concept and showing that it is a better alternative to Ares I/V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.208.164 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs to make it clear that DIRECT has not been proposed by NASA and is not in any way an official part of Project Constellation. MLilburne 14:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Actually, DIRECT was originally a study conducted by NASA, themselves. They just chose Ares instead.

What is a cryo stage? There isn't any link or explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.85.230.103 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. 69.64.235.42 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed categories

I have removed this article from the categories "NASA" and "Space Shuttle program," and removed the Constellation infobox. I am concerned that the article's inclusion in these categories may be misleading; I've dealt with what I've found, but there may be other instances.MLilburne 15:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral POV

This article is informative and factual, but comes off too much as a DIRECT fan page. Maybe if someone could tone down the boosterism (haha) a bit... Monomalo 09:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I removed this from the article for cleanup and citation:

Despite the changes made on DIRECT 2.0, ATK "Safe, Simple, Soon" website advocating for Ares I and Ares V SDLV has published a so-called "mythbusters" section. This section quotes Dr Doug Stanley criticism made about Direct 1.0, without having asked permission nor opinion to Direct designer.

The entire article needs work, but this paragraph jumped out at me as being a bit attackish, or rough. It can probably go back in after some polishing up. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article was obviously plagiarized

Search for "EDS". This article was clearly plagiarized and plagiarized badly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.192.193 (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be more precise, if this article was "clearly plagiarized", give us source and use the regular WP:COPYVIO procedure. Scorpene (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite centered on DIRECT 2.0

It just jumped out at me while reading this article on space.com that this article should really be rebuilt around (or more substantially around) 2.0, since that is the actual proposal's current form. I'm not really certain the best way to do that, as all the information is currently important, but the information surrounding 2.0 should certainly be at the top of the article. I thought I would bring this up to get others thinking about it as well. For example, the order of things should probably follow: "Direct is an alternative space launch system yada, yada, yada. In its current form, Direct 2.0, the system consists of yada, yada, yada". Naturally, all references to "yada" should be replaced with the specifics of 2.0. Food for thought. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (see third entry on www.directlauncher.com/people.htm to see who I am regarding the DIRECT effort) am slowly performing a complete re-write of the entire article to bring all details up-to-date and into line with the current baseline configurations for the DIRECT proposal as at October 2008. As I write this I have completely updated the first two sections thru "Safer, Simper, Sooner" and will proceed with "Origins" etc. Monday. Kraisee/Ross Tierney 01:46, 20 October 2008 (ET)

DIRECT 2.0 Team Criticisms

I removed a section by this name under WP:BLP, which demands immediate removal of negative material about living persons which lacks a reliable source. If sources can be found, some of this material might be restored. http://www.insideksc.com does not look like it would meet our sourcing requirements, since we can't use blogs to talk about people. However that site *does* appear to link to some newspaper articles. If someone has the patience, those articles might be cited directly. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a personal spat going on between myself (and therefore the entire DIRECT effort) and a few of the folk from that site. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened and I'm sure it won't be the last. The IP's listed in the history for all of the "unpleasant" additions were all consistent with a known member from that site who is based in Atlanta. I would like to strongly encourage continued moderation of the article by the regular moderators here. I'm unfamiliar with the options, but if there is an even stronger level of restrictions regarding editing, I would strongly encourage they be implemented at the earliest possible opportunity please. Kraisee/Ross Tierney 01:37, 20 October 2008 (ET)

Specifications

Ckatz noted on the editing history that a source of the specification page was needed. kraisee is in fact one of the architects of the DIRECT proposal, so he is a legitimate source for the updated specifications.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronsmytheiii (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:OR. This information should come from a reliable secondary source, instead of from personal knowledge. This information simply needs to be verifiable from another source. Grant (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There is no way to verify that the user is (or is not) who he or she claims to be. That is why Wikipedia requires verifiable sources, so that others can confirm the data. --Ckatzchatspy 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it would help or not, but if ID needs to be confirmed by a moderator, please e-mail info@directlauncher.com (as listed on the parent website for DIRECT) and I would be happy to confirm that, if nothing else, the site is indeed operated by me Kraisee/Ross Tierney 02:00, 20 October 2008 (ET)
Thanks for the contributions, and for being up front about your association with the group. I have added some tags for various forms of cleanup; please don't take these the wrong way, as it would apply to any situation where a person involved in the subject becomes a primary contributor. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 07:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, it is very easy to abuse the position, so that is a fair SOP. I will continue to edit the article today and will continue to try my best to keep it impartial while still explaining all the details and aims. I don't intend to remove the negative bits, but I might try to correct the grammar and flow a little. I hope people will be willing to edit/correct my work wherever necessary. Kraisee/Ross Tierney 10:36, 20 October 2008 (ET)

Can the COI and/or Neutrality tags be removed yet? Just looking to remove some clutter. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copy editing

Evidently I'm not real enough to edit the main page, but if I was, I would remove the trailing 's' in the [space shuttle solid rocket boosters] link, so that it would work. Cwmagee (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-engineer, the phrasing of schedules slipping "to the right" threw me a bit when I ran across it. Rephrasing that would make the article more readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.46.187 (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PLEASE, reword phrases like "schedules slipping to the right". I worked as a project manager in IT for years and it still took me a few seconds to realise what this meant.

And, while I'm at it, the constant use of initials in this sort of article (the official NASA ones are even worse) makes them very difficult to understand, especially once you get some way into the article and the 'use of initials count' (UIC!) has risen beyond 2 digits. Should it not be Wikipedia policy to keep the number of initials to an absolute minimum? After all, the original justification for initials - saving typing/writing effort - hardly applies these days.

A really neat way round this problem would be to continue using initials, but to allow the user to find out what the initials mean at any time, simply by hovering the curor over them. I don't know if this is possible with HTML (or whatever Wikipedia uses?), but if it isn't, may I suggest it as a future (general) enhancement?

Paul Haynes, Maidstone, GB - 12 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.154.65 (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have mostly de-jargonized the article. I'm never sure whether an abbreviation introduced at the top of an article should be carried through or be redefined anew in each section where it appears. 69.64.235.42 (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of sections: Advantages after Design?

Advantages and disadvantages should certainly be after the Design section, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.208.127 (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about Mars Direct?

I find it difficult to believe that the name "DIRECT" is completely by accident, considering the Mars Direct plans were based around the identical concepts. This isn't entirely surprising, given Martin's involvement in MD planning. Yet this obvious historical link is not mentioned by anyone in DIRECT, or at least not in this article? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh puh-leeez, Mars Direct is not OR. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but your comment about the names being similar is... --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always been under the impression that this is actually the case, but I don't have a source for it. It seems obvious to me that Mars Direct and Direct are closely related, but we need the source to avoid a WP:OR issue. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that the name was derived from it being a more direct SDLV than Ares (ie using more of the same systems as STS rather than modified or new ones). Not sure though. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That too... I thought it was a little of both. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two ideas are complete un-related. Just to confuse things further, Zubrin wanted to call his booster 'Aries'! The 'DIRECT' proposal is named because it attempts to reuse the shuttle stack 'directly', in contrast with Ares which alters the stack and ground support facilities considerably, at considerable cost. 86.166.177.171 (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same with the term Jupiter - the article needs a section on naming if the overall article size doesn't go out of control (fotoguzzi) 131.252.212.16 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Joe Pappalardo (January 9, 2009). "NASA Renegades Pitch Obama Team New Post-Shuttle Plan".

Workforce

The whole workforce section is basically a plea to NASA to let people keep their jobs. I'm betting this section was written by someone who's future in NASA is in limbo because of Ares. "thousands of these knowledgeable and skilled people" "And such employment would keep those valuable skills and knowledge within the agency" are prime examples of this.24.114.252.237 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A NASA person in limbo may have written the section, but the DIRECT leaders (who are not currently NASA employees) have used this as a central argument for DIRECT. Trying not to repeat the Apollo/Shuttle gap is a reasonable consequence of designing a launch system based heavily on the current system. (fotoguzzi) 131.252.212.16 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DESIGN Jupiter 232

Regarding the exploded view of the Jupiter 232 rocket (see DESIGN section)... In order to reach the moon there would have to be two launches of the Jupiter 232, one with the Jupiter upper stage the second carrying the Orion capsule and Lunar lander into Earth orbit. As powerful a rocket the Jupiter 232 is it cannot deliver all three elements in one launch.Jalanp2 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DIRECT v3 and time to clean up this article?

I was thinking of cleaning up the article when DIRECT got to v3.0. The drawings on the directlauncher.com site are now showing v3. I will add a small section right now, but if anyone else was going to do major work on the page, please mention it here so we aren't at cross purposes. Fotoguzzi (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

safety: ground crew familiarity.

advant/disadvant: too big/too small extra assembly step in low orbit dispute over weight of upper stage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotoguzzi (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Article written like an advertisement

I altered an early sentence from DIRECT will do blah, blah to the DIRECT team hopes to blah, blah. To me, that was the only blatant sentence early in the article. There may be stuff that is optimistic, but to me, by nature a proposal has to be somewhat optimistic. Later in the article I have accumulated all the stuff from earlier versions. Some of that I agree is either outdated or too much like a sales pitch.

Let me know specifics, and I will try to fix those first. (fotoguzzi) 131.252.247.119 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gregzsidisin has pounded every bit of advertisting out of the article. To me it seems reasonable in an article about a proposal to write a bit from the prospective of the proponent: In a hypothetical article about a new Ginsu knife, after establishing that Ronco was proposing a new, lighter knife, could you not say that the Ginsu II would be still be able to cut a tomato after repeated hammer blows but its lighter weight would make it more appealing to people with small hands? Must every sentence in the paragraph be hedged with Ronco engineers claim, or Ronco advocates believe? To me, it is obvious in a proposal, who is making the claim without slowing down the reading with a disclaimer on every single sentence.

In the above case, you could still have a criticism section: Knife industry experts assert that Ronco in its hammer-survivability claims has not considered that hammers have gotten larger, forearms stronger, and tomato skins tougher since the original Ginsu of the 1970s. . . .

But if each and every sentence must needs have a disclaimer, well, that is what the article has now! I respectfully request that the advertising banner be rescinded from the article. Fotoguzzi (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the first half of the article to further enhance objectivity (it was already objective for the most part). I stopped at Direct 3.0 and will continue later on. Personally I think the advertising tag and the copy editing tag can be removed already. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I however am a little bit concerned about some statements which aren't sourced (for instance that one about RS-68). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In further editing I noticed that the section "Program risk" (misleading heading by the way) is actually not really relevant to DIRECT's proposal and has numerous numbers and statements in there which are unsourced. From a neutrality viewpoint this seems biased against the current NASA plans. However correct the facts may be in that chapter, I strongly urge to delete or shorten it. The reasons for the DIRECT proposals have been cleary set out in the article elsewhere already. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second part was much harder to edit. A lot of information is repeated two or three times and sometimes even more often. The "Program risk" section and the "Schedule" section need considerable work. Preferable tables should be used to compare the current Ares baseline with the proposed baseline. Duplicate information or information not relevant to the article at all should be removed. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the second part is still a mess. Thanks, though, and also to who[m]ever pulled the advert tag. Fotoguzzi (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Escape/Abort System

[[1]]

Launch Escape System

The Ares LES is called LAS. I would think a reference in the article should either:

a) show as LAS in the article but link to LES (as it was in a previous revision), or b) point to the LAS section of Orion_(spacecraft), or c) go to an LAS redirect page by whatever wikipedia.org method that i am not aware of.

Suggestions? Fotoguzzi (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued the clean up + added some photos

I shortened and combined those two sections (program risk and schedule) which had overlapping information. Some further work on the article might still be required. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I see the article is getting shorter, which I believe is a good thing! I believe DIRECT's argument about delivered mass to Mars is that when you have multiple launches, price per kg becomes more important than the capacity of the rocket. I. e., if there is no single chunk of material that your rocket cannot lift, there is no advantage to cramming the rocket with 188 kt of material if it's going to cost x times more per kg. Further, DIRECT would argue that they have two existing launchpads to launch from whereas Ares V would presumably have only one. I'm not even sure that Ares V would win a volume argument, what with the not-being able-to-fit-in-the-Vehicle-Assembly-Building problem. (fotoguzzi) 131.252.209.89 (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Fotoguzzi, I would also suggest that the fact that Ares V can lift more is irrelevant in most cases to a manned mars architecture, as mars' difficult EDL requirements basically mean that you can only send a relatively small amount of mass to the surface for the maximum heatshield diameter that would fit within either the Jupiter or Ares rockets (12m perhaps?). In other words, the payload fairing diameter is your constraining factor, not payload mass. If this is indeed the case both the Jupiter and Ares V would seem to be as equally capable of meeting the requirements for a manned mars mission. In fact it can be argued that the Jupiter is better as it will be cheaper, and also capable of higher flight rates.

Although I have to admit that this all assumes that EDL will be performed by a conventional one-piece heatshield using conservative technology. An architecture which makes full use of the Ares Vs payload mass performance could possibly use more advanced tehnologies instead (like a wrap-around conical heatshield, or an inflatable or foldable one). Perhaps these restraints can be mentioned somewhere in the article. 130.216.91.101 (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

This article is getting very long. Can we split the technical details on the rocket into a separate article (perhaps Jupiter (rocket) with the missile becoming a hatnote), and leave the less technical details of the proposal and its history here. --GW… 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would support that. I actually had some discussion regarding that with another editor earlier but nothing came of it at the time. DIRECT is more of a concepts article while Jupiter is the vehicle coming out of that concept. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also support the split. I would also want to see Jupiter 130 and Jupiter 246 as two seperate articles as they are different vehicles.--Johnxxx9 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't do it as two articles. By the same logic the numerous Delta IV configurations would need separate articles. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The different versions of Falcon-9 and Delta-IV do not have any major changes in the main architecture except for additional additional boosters. With respect to Jupiter, there is an additional upperstage and there are also different number of engines in the first stage cluster. There was only a difference of the upper stage between Titan 34D and Titan-4A yet 34D is considered to belong to the Titan-3 family. Also, considering that both Jupiter-246 and Jupiter-130 to be a single family, Titan-III still has different articles for Titan-IIIA,B,C,D,E which differ in additional upper stages or upgraded thrust capability of particular stages. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would suggest splitting to one new article for now, and then if that is too large, we can split again. Remember, this is just a proposal at the moment, there is no intention to develop it, and it may never fly. --GW… 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Jupiter vehicle design is fluid enough that I'm concerned that if we start doing an article for each model in the Jupiter family we'll either be changing titles regularly or experiencing a poliferation of child articles until the design stabilizes. As an example, the DIRECT website has the Jupiter-246 as the preferred two stage configuration. I just read today that Ross and company presented the Jupiter-241 to the Augustine review committee because it more closely matches the requirements as expressed by the group. So now, do we do the article on the 246 or the 241? If we keep a single article for the Jupiter rocket, it can have a section detailing the upper stage. If we eventually get enough details on the upper stage (which I don't think we have yet) then we can split it off into a separate article. On another point, if NASA does not take up Jupiter after the Augustine review then we are not likely to ever have enough informatoin to warrant multiple model articles. As a final note, if we do start out with one article for the Jupiter rocket family, there is nothing to say we can't split it later when the content of that article has enough detail (and the design evolves enough) to warrant two full size articles. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would make more sense to have separate articles for History and for Controversy and Criticism. Breaking things up based on the configuration of the rocket would simply be confusing. For instance, do we have separate articles for Jupiter-241 and for the version of Jupiter-241 submitted to the Aerospace Corportion ("Jupiter-241 Aero")? The intentional flexibility of Direct makes per-configuration articles a recipe for fragmentation. --72.159.47.2 (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since there has only been one objection to the original proposal (The IP seems to only be objecting to John's alternative), I have split it. I split the content to Jupiter (rocket family) rather than Jupiter (rocket) in order to preserve the disambiguation page at the latter, and to facilitate the creation of future articles for variants at a later date, should that be deemed neccessary. --GW… 10:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the difficulty of finding references

Since DIRECT is a replacement for Ares, there need to be some comparisons. I think the article has too many, however. Also, finding references that aren't from the same two or three blogs is not easy. For instance, I believe DIRECT has looked into altering the existing three Mobile Launch Platforms. I have seen a NASA powerpoint where Ares I will get three new lightweight MLPs and Ares V will be able to use modified existing platforms until new ones are made. What I don't know is whether either Ares could launch from Launch Complex 39A and LC-39B. It is hard to know whether multi Ares V launches would be practical. I guess if you have enough MLPs, then, it is.

That is just one fact in the article that cannot really be documented. Most other facts are like that. I welcome anyone who can do some good searching and find relevant documents.

Then, what cannot be documented should be carved away from the article. Fotoguzzi (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside resource for more information on this article

Please note, there is a community of experts on this topic active at the NASAspaceflight.com website. An active thread discussing this topic may be reviewed and used to contact these experts. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed on Augustine Committee presentation

The Augustine Committee presentation is mentioned in the body with a citation. I believe the citation was removed from the article lead because it wasn't controversial and its removal would keep the lead as attractive as possible. I would like to remove the [citation needed] tag if others agree. Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reference from the body of the article that you mention. Citations should be left in the lead and anywhere else, just look at International Space Station. It has 30 citations in the lead of the article and it is an FA. Aalox (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fake rockets not allowed on wikipedia

the Constellation program is DEAD and the Ares-1 and Ares-5 rockets will never born

DIRECT and JUPITER are only "fake rockets" of the (never built) Ares rockets, so, it's time to delete these whole articles from wikipedia (where only FACTS are allowed)

.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DIRECT&oldid=367804135"