# Constellation vs. Direct 3 vs. Shannon Alternative

**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constellation-vs-direct-3-vs-shannon-alternative/503114
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 15, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constellation-vs-direct-3-vs-shannon-alternative/503114 "2009-07-15T15:23:04Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![ZomZom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zomzom/32/5620_2.png) [@ZomZom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZomZom)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constellation-vs-direct-3-vs-shannon-alternative/503114/1 "2009-07-15T15:23:04Z")

</div>

I’m having a hard time forming an opinion on which Shuttle-replacement plan I prefer. At first glance the Ares 1 does seem to be a safer way to get humans into orbit, but the Shannon Alternative is a lot cheaper. Direct 3 has been causing a lot of buzz, so there must be something to it, right?

Maybe I’m just dissappointed in that all three plans seem to be a giant step backwards in terms of aestethics/sexiness. Is there even that much of a difference between these contenders?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constellation-vs-direct-3-vs-shannon-alternative/503114/2 "2009-07-15T15:48:12Z")

</div>

What does sexy have to do with it? Your only concern should be placing as much payload in orbit (or thrown into space) as possible for as little as possible. But I will say that given the issues NASA has had in keeping a side mounted object “safe” I’m surprised anyone would go with the Shuttle C idea.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constellation-vs-direct-3-vs-shannon-alternative/503114/3 "2009-07-15T16:26:38Z")

</div>

What is the “Shannon Alternative”? Googling those words brings up nothing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constellation-vs-direct-3-vs-shannon-alternative/503114/4 "2009-07-15T17:47:21Z")

</div>

A modified heavy lift shuttle evolution –\> [Shuttle-derived vehicle - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Derived_Launch_Vehicle)

> [@](#):
>
> At the same public hearing of the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee, Shuttle Program Manager John Shannon unveiled a preliminary concept for a new “side-mount” variant SDV that NASA had begun studying.

Though I should be fair - if there is no orbiter, then falling ice is really not a concern.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![ZomZom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zomzom/32/5620_2.png) [@ZomZom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZomZom)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constellation-vs-direct-3-vs-shannon-alternative/503114/5 "2009-07-15T18:08:01Z")

</div>

> **[Faster, Cheaper (and Better?) Way to the Moon](https://www.universetoday.com/33782/faster-cheaper-and-better-way-to-the-moon/)**
>
> The word this morning from several NASA Twitterers is that the stacking of the new Ares I-X rocket for its upcoming test flight is temporarily on hold. Everyone is waiting for word from a NASA executive session reconsidering the plan. And perhaps it...

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constellation-vs-direct-3-vs-shannon-alternative/503114/6 "2009-07-15T18:31:56Z")

</div>

Shannon’s SDV looks like a great idea: Change as little as possible, remove the riskiest shuttle parts (no escape stage, reentry surface able to be damaged).

The major drawback I see: only 2 astronauts at a time? That’s a major step back, for both orbital missions as well as lunar missions. I think that might be a project killer.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constellation-vs-direct-3-vs-shannon-alternative/503114/7 "2009-07-15T18:42:47Z")

</div>

Bah, I thought you were proposing an alternate-history version of [this battle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Chesapeake_(1799)#Chesapeake_vs_Shannon) using [this ship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constellation_(1797)), and I wondered what you were up to.
