The Internet is a wonderful place where users can find a great deal of information. However, many are not aware that the Internet is also where some savvy entrepreneurs can find lucrative business opportunities. Internet niche marketing is just one example of how those in the know can turn their hard work and dedication into profit. This is not to say that Internet marketing is a simple field where anyone can prosper but there are opportunities for those how are willing to persevere in their efforts.
Learning Internet Marketing Online
Believe it or not Internet niche market is a subject that can be learned online. It certainly helps for those who hope to prosper in this industry to have some knowledge of marketing and business before venturing in an Internet niche marketing campaign but it is not necessary. There is a great deal of information on organizing and executing a niche marketing campaign available online. This information may come in a number of different forms including websites offering informative articles, message boards focusing on the industry and ebooks which are available free of charge or for a fee.
Let’s first examine learning about Internet marketing through websites. Type the search term, “Internet niche marketing” into your favorite search engine and you will likely receive millions of search results. Shifting through all of the search results would be rather time consuming and many of them would likely not be relevant. Fortunately the search engines do a great deal of work for you and the most useful websites will likely appear on the first couple of pages of search results. This still leaves you with a great deal of information to sort through but considering you are likely planning to turn niche marketing into a career this research is certainly worthwhile.
Carefully examine the search results you obtain from your search and bookmark the websites which seem most useful. Next take as much time as necessary to comb through all of these websites to find the most useful information. Take notes as you do to create a comprehensive resource for yourself. After this review your notes and investigate items which seem unclear to your further. This research may include offline resources such as books or phone calls to experts in the industry.
Search Engines are Your Friend
Now that you have already used the Internet to learn about the industry of Internet marketing, you probably know that finding a profitable niche is imperative. A niche is essentially a specific area of interest. Ideally you will already be an expert in this subject and it will be a subject which has a wide Internet audience without a great deal of existing websites focusing on this niche. Once again, you can turn to the Internet for finding this niche.
You may already have a few ideas for niches. These are probably subjects you are passionate about and understand very well. Examining statistical information provided by popular search engines regarding the popularity of search terms related to your niche will give you a good indication of whether or not Internet users are interested in your niche. If keywords related to your niche are searched on these search engines often, it is evident there is an audience for your niche. Next it is time to enter these keywords in a search engine and evaluate the websites which are provided as results for these keywords. If there are many strong results the niche can be considered saturated. In this case, it is a good idea to abandon the original idea and search for another niche. However, if there are not many high quality search results, you may have found your perfect niche.
Selasa, 05 April 2011
computer
A computer is a programmable machine that receives input, stores and manipulates data//information, and provides output in a useful format.
While a computer can, in theory, be made out of almost anything (see misconceptions section), and mechanical examples of computers have existed through much of recorded human history, the first electronic computers were developed in the mid-20th century (1940–1945). Originally, they were the size of a large room, consuming as much power as several hundred modern personal computers (PCs). Modern computers based on integrated circuits are millions to billions of times more capable than the early machines, and occupy a fraction of the space. Simple computers are small enough to fit into mobile devices, and can be powered by a small battery. Personal computers in their various forms are icons of the Information Age and are what most people think of as "computers". However, the embedded computers found in many devices from MP3 players to fighter aircraft and from toys to industrial robots are the most numerous.
While a computer can, in theory, be made out of almost anything (see misconceptions section), and mechanical examples of computers have existed through much of recorded human history, the first electronic computers were developed in the mid-20th century (1940–1945). Originally, they were the size of a large room, consuming as much power as several hundred modern personal computers (PCs). Modern computers based on integrated circuits are millions to billions of times more capable than the early machines, and occupy a fraction of the space. Simple computers are small enough to fit into mobile devices, and can be powered by a small battery. Personal computers in their various forms are icons of the Information Age and are what most people think of as "computers". However, the embedded computers found in many devices from MP3 players to fighter aircraft and from toys to industrial robots are the most numerous.
how-foods-lower-blood-pressure
When one person has hypertension, vitamins and medicines have to be taken to help control it. Vitamins for high blood pressure are needed in order to stabilize or regulate a person’s heart. There are several useful nutritional supplements available in any drugstore or health stores today – and yes, they can do wonders.
One of the vitamins for high blood pressure is potassium – always make sure that you get enough of this everyday. Should you prefer to get your potassium from foods then, vegetables, dairy products, fish and fruits are good sources to consider.
Vitamins for high blood pressure can also include magnesium and calcium. Magnesium is a good vitamin for high blood pressure because deficiency of such can cause a surge in the blood pressure. It can also be found in your leafy green vegetables, legumes, whole grains, purslane, poppy seeds and string beans. Calcium is of likewise importance in over all health – take at least 1 gram of it everyday. Foods that are good sources of calcium are milk, broccoli, yogurt, cheese, salmon, tofu and mackerel.
Essential fatty acids are also excellent vitamins for high blood pressure. Vitamin C and zinc can help any hypertensive person as well.
These vitamins and minerals when taken with good exercise and diet can bring enormous change to one’s health, let alone, one’s heart. Nothing beats a healthy lifestyle – so whenever you have the urge to grab that oily food, think again of the damage that it can do to your heart. We only have one heart and so we have the responsibility to take good care of it. It pumps blood to give us life – let’s do our share and save the life that gives us this miracle to live and enjoy life to the fullest. Love the heart you have inside of you.
One of the vitamins for high blood pressure is potassium – always make sure that you get enough of this everyday. Should you prefer to get your potassium from foods then, vegetables, dairy products, fish and fruits are good sources to consider.
Vitamins for high blood pressure can also include magnesium and calcium. Magnesium is a good vitamin for high blood pressure because deficiency of such can cause a surge in the blood pressure. It can also be found in your leafy green vegetables, legumes, whole grains, purslane, poppy seeds and string beans. Calcium is of likewise importance in over all health – take at least 1 gram of it everyday. Foods that are good sources of calcium are milk, broccoli, yogurt, cheese, salmon, tofu and mackerel.
Essential fatty acids are also excellent vitamins for high blood pressure. Vitamin C and zinc can help any hypertensive person as well.
These vitamins and minerals when taken with good exercise and diet can bring enormous change to one’s health, let alone, one’s heart. Nothing beats a healthy lifestyle – so whenever you have the urge to grab that oily food, think again of the damage that it can do to your heart. We only have one heart and so we have the responsibility to take good care of it. It pumps blood to give us life – let’s do our share and save the life that gives us this miracle to live and enjoy life to the fullest. Love the heart you have inside of you.
Govt exceeds indirect tax collection estimate
NEW DELHI: The government today said indirect tax collections for FY2010-11 have exceeded the revised estimate of Rs 3.34 lakh crore for the fiscal on the back of strong economic activities and the partial withdrawal of fiscal stimulus measures.
According to Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) Chairman S Dutt Majumder, the Finance Ministry expects at least Rs 7,000 crore more than the revised estimate for the last fiscal.
"... Over and above the revised estimate, we expect Rs 7,000 crore minimum, it may be more also," Majumder told reporters on the sidelines of an Assocham event.
He further said the Finance Ministry has exceeded the revised target by Rs 6,000 crore, with the total indirect tax collection at Rs 3.40 lakh crore already.
"I expect more. This does not take into consideration customs collection of March 30 and 31. That should be another Rs 1,000 crore," Majumder added.
He said that customs collection up to March 29 this year stood at Rs 1.32 lakh crore, while the service tax mop-up was Rs 70,200 crore.
The upward revision in the tax collection target was due to robust economic growth in the last fiscal. The country's GDP is expected to grow 8.6 per cent in 2010-11.
The buoyancy in indirect tax collections during the last fiscal can also be attributed to partial withdrawal of economic stimulus measures in the Budget 2010-11.
In the Budget 2010-11, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee raised excise duty by 2 per cent to 10 per cent as part of a plan to gradually withdraw the incentives given to industry to combat the impact of the global financial meltdown.
According to Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) Chairman S Dutt Majumder, the Finance Ministry expects at least Rs 7,000 crore more than the revised estimate for the last fiscal.
"... Over and above the revised estimate, we expect Rs 7,000 crore minimum, it may be more also," Majumder told reporters on the sidelines of an Assocham event.
He further said the Finance Ministry has exceeded the revised target by Rs 6,000 crore, with the total indirect tax collection at Rs 3.40 lakh crore already.
"I expect more. This does not take into consideration customs collection of March 30 and 31. That should be another Rs 1,000 crore," Majumder added.
He said that customs collection up to March 29 this year stood at Rs 1.32 lakh crore, while the service tax mop-up was Rs 70,200 crore.
The upward revision in the tax collection target was due to robust economic growth in the last fiscal. The country's GDP is expected to grow 8.6 per cent in 2010-11.
The buoyancy in indirect tax collections during the last fiscal can also be attributed to partial withdrawal of economic stimulus measures in the Budget 2010-11.
In the Budget 2010-11, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee raised excise duty by 2 per cent to 10 per cent as part of a plan to gradually withdraw the incentives given to industry to combat the impact of the global financial meltdown.
soal indirect
- We took an indirect route.
- These plants grow best in bright indirect light.
- He gave only vague, indirect answers to our questions.
- They used indirect methods of investigation.
- There were many indirect references to his earlier books.
soal direct
verb (used with object)
—Related forms
1.
2.
to regulate the course of; control: History is directed by a small number of great men and women.
3.
to administer; manage; supervise: She directs the affairs of the estate.
4.
to give authoritative instructions to; command; order or ordain: I directed him to leave the room.
5.
to serve as a director in the production or performance of (a musical work, play, motion picture, etc.).
6.
8.
to channel or focus toward a given result, object, or end (often followed by to or toward ): She directed all her energies toward the accomplishment of the work.
9.
to address (words, a speech, a written report, etc.) to a person or persons: The secretary directed his remarks to two of the committee members.
10.
to address (a letter, package, etc.) to an intended recipient.
–verb (used without object)
11.
12.
to give commands or orders.
–adjective
14.
proceeding in a straight line or by the shortest course; straight; undeviating; not oblique: a direct route.
15.
16.
Mathematics .
a.
(of a proportion) containing terms of which an increase (or decrease) in one results in an increase (or decrease) in another: a term is said to be in direct proportion to another term if one increases (or decreases) as the other increases (or decreases).
b.
(of a function) the function itself, in contrast to its inverse. Compare inverse ( def. 2 ) .
17.
without intervening persons, influences, factors, etc.; immediate; personal: direct contact with the voters; direct exposure to a disease.
18.
straightforward; frank; candid: the direct remarks of a forthright individual.
19.
absolute; exact: the direct opposite.
20.
consisting exactly of the words originally used; verbatim: direct quotation.
21.
Government . of or by action of voters, which takes effect without any intervening agency such as representatives.
22.
inevitable; consequential: War will be a direct result of such political action.
23.
allocated for or arising from a particular known agency, process, job, etc.: The new machine was listed by the accountant as a direct cost.
24.
Electricity . of or pertaining to direct current.
25.
Astronomy .
b.
appearing to move on the celestial sphere in the direction of the natural order of the signs of the zodiac, from west to east. Compare retrograde ( def. 4 ) .
26.
Surveying . (of a telescope) in its normal position; not inverted or transited.
27.
(of dye colors) working without the use of a mordant; substantive.
–adverb
28.
in a direct manner; directly; straight: Answer me direct.
Origin:
1325–75; Middle English direct (adj., adv.), directen (v.) (< Anglo-French ) < Latin dīrēctus, dērēctus (the latter probably the orig. form, later reanalyzed as dī- di-2 ), past participle of dērigere to align, straighten, guide ( dē- de- + -rigere, combining form of regere to guide, rule)
1325–75; Middle English direct (adj., adv.), directen (v.) (< Anglo-French ) < Latin dīrēctus, dērēctus (the latter probably the orig. form, later reanalyzed as dī- di-2 ), past participle of dērigere to align, straighten, guide ( dē- de- + -rigere, combining form of regere to guide, rule)
—Related forms
di·rect·a·ble, adjective
di·rect·ness, noun
pre·di·rect, verb (used with object)
self-di·rect·ing, adjective
sem·i·di·rect, adjective
sem·i·di·rect·ness, noun
DIRECT
DIRECT is a proposed alternative Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle architecture supporting NASA's Vision for Space Exploration, which would replace the space agency's planned Ares I and Ares V rockets with another family of launch vehicles named "Jupiter".
DIRECT is advocated by a group of space enthusiasts that asserts it represents a broader team of dozens of NASA and space industry engineers who actively work on the proposal on an anonymous, voluntary basis in their spare time. September 2008[update], the DIRECT Team was said to consist of 69 members[1], 62 of whom were NASA engineers, NASA-contractor engineers, and managers from the Constellation Program. A small number of non-NASA members of the team publicly represent the group.
The project name "DIRECT" refers to a philosophy of maximizing the re-use of hardware and facilities already being used for the current Space Transportation System (STS) program, hence a "direct" transition. The DIRECT Team asserts that using this approach to develop and operate a family of high-commonality rockets would reduce costs and the gap between retirement of the Space Shuttle and the first launch of Orion, shorten schedules, and simplify technical requirements for future US human space efforts.
Three major versions of the DIRECT proposal have been released with the latest, Version 3.0, having been unveiled in May 2009. On 17 June 2009, the group presented its proposal at a public hearing of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, a panel reviewing US space efforts, in Washington D.C.[2]
With the October 11th signing of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (S. 3729) by President Obama mandating work on the Space Launch System Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, the DIRECT Team has declared success of their effort. They have since announced the formation of a new space technology company: C-Star Aerospace, LLC.
DIRECT's Jupiter vehicle is an "in-line" Space Shuttle-derived launch vehicle. This broad category of Shuttle adaptations, postulated since before the first Shuttle launch, removes the winged Space Shuttle Orbiter, moves the liquid main engines to the bottom of the cryogenic tankage (typically proposed to be adapted from the Shuttle External Tank), and relocates the payload to above the tankage.
The first official study of the concept was conducted in 1986 by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in the aftermath of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.[10] It was promoted as one of the alternatives for launching unmanned cargo and would have potentially allowed a re-started lunar program as well. There were, however, no funds available to NASA for building any new vehicles while the Space Shuttle Program continued. The idea was shelved and NASA concentrated on fixing and operating the Space Shuttle instead.
DIRECT has a resemblance to the 1991 National Launch System effort. Proposed jointly by NASA and the Department of Defense as an alternative to the Titan IV, the design was based on the same Solid Rocket Boosters and modified External Tank, but instead of the reusable Space Shuttle Main Engine, specifed four of the proposed disposable, less expensive Space Transportation Main Engines. The United States Congress did not appropriate funding for the development. A great deal of reference material exists in the public domain regarding NLS[11][12][13][14].
NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) of 2005 included a similar design to the DIRECT proposal using three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME). Known as LV-24 in Crew launch form, and LV-25 in Cargo configuration, the idea was dismissed because it did not have sufficient performance for the proposed lunar program - however the concept was not considered using an Earth departure stage (EDS).
DIRECT's re-exploration of the SDLV idea began in 2006 in frustration with the high cost and delays of Ares I and worries that any similar issues with the giant Ares V might put the whole Constellation Program in jeopardy. An additional goal was to maintain American ability to launch crews to space with as short a gap as possible after the planned retirement of Shuttle.
The next change in DIRECT's development was in response to NASA dropping the Space Shuttle Main Engine on the Ares V design due to the high manufacturing cost of the SSME engines and the difficulty in producing the required number of units per year with existing manufacturing facilities. NASA specified five RS-68 engines as the core engines for Ares V. The DIRECT proposal specified that its core should include two RS-68 engines. Additional performance for carrying payloads to Low Earth Orbit would be provided by upgrading the main engines with Regenerative Cooling Nozzles to improve their efficiency.
The v1.0 proposal was submitted on October 25, 2006 to NASA's Administrator, Michael D. Griffin, and a wide range of industry, political and advocacy groups involved in the Constellation program.
Expanded diagram of the DIRECT v2.0 Jupiter-232 configuration 
Direct v2.0 proposed to use a human-rated version of the existing RS-68 engine design.On May 10, 2007, a revised DIRECT proposal was released. To address criticism of relying on engine studies rather than working engines, DIRECT v2.0 specified human-rating the standard performance RS-68 as used on existing Delta IV launchers and for the upper stage chose the lower of two specifications of J-2X engine which Rocketdyne is currently developing for NASA's Ares launchers. DIRECT v2.0 introduced a scalable, modular family of Shuttle-derived launch vehicles, starting with the Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232.
According to the proposal, the single-stage Jupiter-120 could achieve low Earth orbit with two standard ablative RS-68 engines, while an extra RS-68 was required on the core stage of the heavier two-stage Jupiter-232. The Earth Departure Stage for Jupiter-232 now required two standard J-2X engines instead of one.[15]
The DIRECT Team produced a 131-page DIRECT v2.0 exploration architecture study that was released on September 19, 2007 at the AIAA "Space 2007" Conference in Long Beach, CA. According to the group, this paper was created within a 9-month study. The paper provided detail on how the launch vehicles would be one component of a wider-reaching architecture for enabling the US to maintain the ISS, fly lunar missions, and provide additional capabilities for the NASA human spaceflight program. These capabilities included missions to Mars, Lagrangian point staging architecture options, and mission architectures for visiting Near-Earth object destinations.[16].
In July 2008, following NASA statements of no special studies on DIRECT, the space agency released some internal studies conducted in 2006 and 2007.[10][18][19][20] Nearly a year later, on May 18, 2009, the DIRECT team released a rebuttal to the charges raised by NASA, concluding: "NASA’s October 2007 analysis of DIRECT, on the surface, appears to be a carefully executed analysis of the DIRECT architecture and its central launch vehicle, Jupiter. However, a closer examination of the document reveals significant flaws in the evaluation of DIRECT that set up a scenario where DIRECT would inevitably look inferior when compared to Ares. The errors are so numerous that the only conclusion possible is that this document cannot be used to properly assess the value of the DIRECT alternative."[21][22]
Expanded diagram of the DIRECT v3.0 Jupiter-130 configuration 
To save development time and costs, Direct v3.0 proposes to use "off the shelf" Space Shuttle Main Engines which are already human-rated.On 29 May 2009, DIRECT spokesperson Stephen Metschan gave a presentation to the 28th Annual International Space Development Conference in Orlando, Florida entitled, "Direct 3.0: Landing Twice the Mass on the Moon at Half the Cost."[23] In April 2009, following NASA trade studies comparing use of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) to the originally planned RS-68 engine for Ares V, the DIRECT Team announced that future DIRECT proposals would recommend SSME as the core-stage engine.[24] The engine change was due to concerns that the ablatively-cooled RS-68 would not survive the intense heat produced by the nearby exhaust plumes of the Space Shuttle SRBs. DIRECT asserts that the higher cost of the regeneratively-cooled SSME will be offset by the time and money saved by not human-rating the RS-68. Similarly, for the upper stage, the DIRECT Team recommends using six of the flight-proven RL10B-2 engine.
In May 2009 the Office of Science and Technology Policy announced the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee to be chaired by Norman R. Augustine.[25] On 17 June 2009, team member Stephen Metschan presented the DIRECT v3.0 concept to the Committee, which was formed to offer independent advice to the incoming Obama Administration.[2][26] The Committee's final report did not directly compare DIRECT to the Constellation Program, but did offer budget, schedule, and mission combinations where a shuttle-derived launch vehicle could be used.[27][28]
On 19 January 2010, amid rumors that NASA would propose a DIRECT-like inline launch vehicle, the DIRECT team made a presentation to NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, Douglas Cooke, and NASA Associate Administrator for Space Operations, William H. Gerstenmaier, in a meeting convened by NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden, Jr
DIRECT is advocated by a group of space enthusiasts that asserts it represents a broader team of dozens of NASA and space industry engineers who actively work on the proposal on an anonymous, voluntary basis in their spare time. September 2008[update], the DIRECT Team was said to consist of 69 members[1], 62 of whom were NASA engineers, NASA-contractor engineers, and managers from the Constellation Program. A small number of non-NASA members of the team publicly represent the group.
The project name "DIRECT" refers to a philosophy of maximizing the re-use of hardware and facilities already being used for the current Space Transportation System (STS) program, hence a "direct" transition. The DIRECT Team asserts that using this approach to develop and operate a family of high-commonality rockets would reduce costs and the gap between retirement of the Space Shuttle and the first launch of Orion, shorten schedules, and simplify technical requirements for future US human space efforts.
Three major versions of the DIRECT proposal have been released with the latest, Version 3.0, having been unveiled in May 2009. On 17 June 2009, the group presented its proposal at a public hearing of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, a panel reviewing US space efforts, in Washington D.C.[2]
With the October 11th signing of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (S. 3729) by President Obama mandating work on the Space Launch System Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, the DIRECT Team has declared success of their effort. They have since announced the formation of a new space technology company: C-Star Aerospace, LLC.
DIRECT's Jupiter vehicle is an "in-line" Space Shuttle-derived launch vehicle. This broad category of Shuttle adaptations, postulated since before the first Shuttle launch, removes the winged Space Shuttle Orbiter, moves the liquid main engines to the bottom of the cryogenic tankage (typically proposed to be adapted from the Shuttle External Tank), and relocates the payload to above the tankage.
The first official study of the concept was conducted in 1986 by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in the aftermath of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.[10] It was promoted as one of the alternatives for launching unmanned cargo and would have potentially allowed a re-started lunar program as well. There were, however, no funds available to NASA for building any new vehicles while the Space Shuttle Program continued. The idea was shelved and NASA concentrated on fixing and operating the Space Shuttle instead.
DIRECT has a resemblance to the 1991 National Launch System effort. Proposed jointly by NASA and the Department of Defense as an alternative to the Titan IV, the design was based on the same Solid Rocket Boosters and modified External Tank, but instead of the reusable Space Shuttle Main Engine, specifed four of the proposed disposable, less expensive Space Transportation Main Engines. The United States Congress did not appropriate funding for the development. A great deal of reference material exists in the public domain regarding NLS[11][12][13][14].
NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) of 2005 included a similar design to the DIRECT proposal using three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME). Known as LV-24 in Crew launch form, and LV-25 in Cargo configuration, the idea was dismissed because it did not have sufficient performance for the proposed lunar program - however the concept was not considered using an Earth departure stage (EDS).
DIRECT's re-exploration of the SDLV idea began in 2006 in frustration with the high cost and delays of Ares I and worries that any similar issues with the giant Ares V might put the whole Constellation Program in jeopardy. An additional goal was to maintain American ability to launch crews to space with as short a gap as possible after the planned retirement of Shuttle.
[edit] DIRECT v1.0
According to the DIRECT team, the first version of the DIRECT proposal was the product of a three-month study produced by more than a dozen NASA engineers and managers working in their free time, and a small group of engineers and non-engineers outside of NASA. DIRECT took the final ESAS recommendation of using the EDS during the ascent phase of the flight to gain additional launch performance on the Cargo LV, and applied this same methodology to the LV-24/25.The next change in DIRECT's development was in response to NASA dropping the Space Shuttle Main Engine on the Ares V design due to the high manufacturing cost of the SSME engines and the difficulty in producing the required number of units per year with existing manufacturing facilities. NASA specified five RS-68 engines as the core engines for Ares V. The DIRECT proposal specified that its core should include two RS-68 engines. Additional performance for carrying payloads to Low Earth Orbit would be provided by upgrading the main engines with Regenerative Cooling Nozzles to improve their efficiency.
The v1.0 proposal was submitted on October 25, 2006 to NASA's Administrator, Michael D. Griffin, and a wide range of industry, political and advocacy groups involved in the Constellation program.
[edit] Criticism of v1.0
In late 2006, head of the ESAS Study, Dr. Doug Stanley, declared that the DIRECT v1.0 proposal could not work as it relied on overly-optimistic and speculative performance specifications for an upgraded RS-68 Regen engine. Dr. Stanley produced official specifications from Rocketdyne about the RS-68 Regen upgrades as evidence for his point.[edit] DIRECT v2.0
According to the proposal, the single-stage Jupiter-120 could achieve low Earth orbit with two standard ablative RS-68 engines, while an extra RS-68 was required on the core stage of the heavier two-stage Jupiter-232. The Earth Departure Stage for Jupiter-232 now required two standard J-2X engines instead of one.[15]
The DIRECT Team produced a 131-page DIRECT v2.0 exploration architecture study that was released on September 19, 2007 at the AIAA "Space 2007" Conference in Long Beach, CA. According to the group, this paper was created within a 9-month study. The paper provided detail on how the launch vehicles would be one component of a wider-reaching architecture for enabling the US to maintain the ISS, fly lunar missions, and provide additional capabilities for the NASA human spaceflight program. These capabilities included missions to Mars, Lagrangian point staging architecture options, and mission architectures for visiting Near-Earth object destinations.[16].
[edit] Criticism and Rebuttal of v2.0
In June 2008, David King, director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center stated that NASA has considered DIRECT as well as many other rocket proposals, and that the Ares family was the right set of rockets for the mission.[17] "DIRECT v2.0 falls significantly short of the lunar lander performance requirement for exploration missions as specifically outlined in Constellation Program ground rules. The concept also overshoots the requirements for early missions to the International Space Station in the coming decade. These shortcomings would necessitate rushed development of a more expensive launch system with too little capability in the long run, and would actually increase the gap between space shuttle retirement and development of a new vehicle. Even more importantly, the Ares approach offers a much greater margin of crew safety - paramount to every mission NASA puts into space."In July 2008, following NASA statements of no special studies on DIRECT, the space agency released some internal studies conducted in 2006 and 2007.[10][18][19][20] Nearly a year later, on May 18, 2009, the DIRECT team released a rebuttal to the charges raised by NASA, concluding: "NASA’s October 2007 analysis of DIRECT, on the surface, appears to be a carefully executed analysis of the DIRECT architecture and its central launch vehicle, Jupiter. However, a closer examination of the document reveals significant flaws in the evaluation of DIRECT that set up a scenario where DIRECT would inevitably look inferior when compared to Ares. The errors are so numerous that the only conclusion possible is that this document cannot be used to properly assess the value of the DIRECT alternative."[21][22]
[edit] DIRECT v3.0
In May 2009 the Office of Science and Technology Policy announced the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee to be chaired by Norman R. Augustine.[25] On 17 June 2009, team member Stephen Metschan presented the DIRECT v3.0 concept to the Committee, which was formed to offer independent advice to the incoming Obama Administration.[2][26] The Committee's final report did not directly compare DIRECT to the Constellation Program, but did offer budget, schedule, and mission combinations where a shuttle-derived launch vehicle could be used.[27][28]
On 19 January 2010, amid rumors that NASA would propose a DIRECT-like inline launch vehicle, the DIRECT team made a presentation to NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, Douglas Cooke, and NASA Associate Administrator for Space Operations, William H. Gerstenmaier, in a meeting convened by NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden, Jr
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)