Author Topic: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?  (Read 65268 times)

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #40 on: 03/20/2010 06:06 am »
News Flash:   CxP has NOT been canceled yet.
Nor has Ares -I - many think they will force a restart.

All or nothing is still being fought for as a outcome - even with 50B future funding impossible!

Sorry - screw Cx if it means Ares I. Careful when you deal with the devil.
Yeah, to me, this is the scariest outcome of all... business as usual and the money keeps flowing into the black hole of Ares I and the pipe dream that has become Ares V, ultimately with NOTHING to show for it all but maybe an expensive bad copy of EELV crew in 10 years (Ares I) and a few powerpoints on Ares V "someday when we can afford it".... yeah right! 

(shudder)... even EELV looks better than that!  OL JR :)
« Last Edit: 03/20/2010 06:24 am by luke strawwalker »
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #41 on: 03/20/2010 06:18 am »
Regarding Ross's statement: I've said the exact same thing before on this and other site's forums and have been told, at best; "Don't be silly" and at worst: had my posts removed altogether. I'm glad someone else is finally saying it... :(

Yeah, me too... :) 

In fact just said it again in another thread...

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #42 on: 03/20/2010 11:23 am »
...

Oh Ares V is as shuttle derived as DIRECT is.

The V uses essentially an ET, the engines are SSME's or the 68...the solids are either 5 or 5.5 segment and are in terms of the cost to put them together like the current ones (or  the ones DIRECT) is suppose to use.  And on the V they really would not have the same problems as on the 1. (ie under performing first stage).  They would have similar issues with the J2X however...but thats a second stage issue. 

Thats different from DIRECT how?

Part of the "whats new" is to try and delete the things that are labor intensive in the shuttle stack (like teh avionics).

Otherwise there is no real difference...both have the same "once you build them you cannot afford to fly them" issues.

SDV's have been the Ahab on  Moby Dick of the shuttle world since I was in college...They all suffer from the same problems as the stack with the shuttle...the large standing army.

Robert

Oh, please. If you're that poorly informed on the vast differences between Ares V and Direct, (or even between Ares V & NSC), then you cast serious doubt over all your posts.

It appears you are either:

a) Truly ignorant in this area, but still chose to pontificate.

or

b) Deliberately spreading disinformation.

Please let us know which it is, or provide an alternative explanation.

Given your recent flurry of opinionated posts in multiple threads (97 in 3 weeks?), we would also appreciate knowing you industry background, if any.


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7349
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #43 on: 03/20/2010 11:24 am »
1. Oh Ares V is as shuttle derived as DIRECT Jupiter is.
 
 2. The V uses essentially an ET, the engines are SSME's 
 <snip>
 That's different from DIRECT how?
 
  1. Robert you continue to make the classic mistake of assuming that DIRECT is the *rocket*; it is not, and it never has been. It's an architecture based on a philosophy of design evolution of existing hardware and infrastructure in order to maximize the return on investment of those elements. It includes lunar exploration, Mars and/or Phobos excursions, Mars Sample Return missions, propellant depots and deep space planetary probes. I corrected the wording of your post above. Did you actually read the opening post of this thread? It's a very interesting idea. It's about applying that philosophy to *other* existing elements to see what can be done with them. This thread is not about a specific rocket *at all* so your diatribe above is as off base as a foul ball in a baseball game. Please check your anti-DIRECT bias at the door and get back on topic or you will likely get alerted again, and nobody really wants that.
 
  2. Your statement indicates to me that you do not understand the differences between the Ares-V and the Jupiter HLV. May I suggest, for your own edification, that you go to the DIRECT website and read it again. Please do not say that you already understand it because if you do then the only possible conclusion is that you are hijacking this thread in order to express your disdain for something which is not the topic of this thread. (If that is the case then please go start your own anti-DIRECT thread and leave us alone. Trust me; you will have lots of company there for self-reinforcement.) The rest of us want to discuss *this* topic, not your dislike of a government-built HLV.
 
  3. Then return to this thread and dedicate your posts to the actual topic, which I repeat, is *not* about the existing DIRECT proposal which used the Jupiter HLV as a means to its ends.
 
  *** Note to all posters: This thread is not about DIRECT v1.0, 2.0 or 3.0. The JLS is only a point of reference for this thread, not its topic. Please try to keep this thread clean.
 
  *** Note to Ed Kyle: This might be a good thread in which to re-introduce your earlier concept for a replacement to the Ares-I. I think it might fit in with this topic as long as we can fit the philosophy. I always liked what you did with that.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2010 11:27 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #44 on: 03/20/2010 11:38 am »
Returning to the topic of this thread, IMO, no, it's not time for Direct 4.0 yet.

If/when Shuttle is retired and its infrastructure destroyed, then it might be time to look at how to use the then existing hardware and infrastructure to implement a BEO exploration plan.

Probably something like the ULA ACES depot plan.

At that point the debate would be; do it now using existing hardware (Direct 4.0) or do it later using new technology we still have to develop.

I doubt the current Direct team would be leading the charge though?  So better call it something else out of respect for their years of extreme effort.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2010 11:40 am by kkattula »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #45 on: 03/20/2010 12:09 pm »
My high school economics teacher once said, "Always follow the money." He was also a politician.

Cheers!
« Last Edit: 03/20/2010 12:12 pm by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #46 on: 03/20/2010 01:33 pm »
kkattula wisely noted, "Returning to the topic of this thread, IMO, no, it's not time for Direct 4.0 yet."

The Shuttle System hasn't been retired yet and its infrastructure is still largely intact. The ISS  has been designated as a National Laboratory and the current President is planning on using it for preparations for BEO. Space Shuttle extension with two missions to ISS per year makes good sense and so does a commercial J-120, or J-130, or J-140SH. NASA's original Orion may or may not be continued, but an Orion Lite plus other human rated spacecraft should be part of any smart plan.

The ISS has a future that may extend two or more decades and needs robust support that can overcome any of the serious problems it may encounter. It is a huge spacecraft that travels in space on a mission that will be measured in decades and accomplish the testing of the modules and other hardware that will take us BEO. In the short term, the Space Shuttle is the only reliable means to provide the strong support that the ISS needs. Politicians who want a successful ISS National Laboratory and all the international cooperation and prestige that goes along with the International Space Station should support the Space Shuttle extension.

Congress and many other folks requested that a Space Shuttle derived heavy lift rocket be developed. NASA engineers clearly understood this request and developed the J-130. The J-130 meets the expectations of Congress and the short-term and long-term needs of America and our ISS Partners. 

Cheers!
« Last Edit: 03/21/2010 04:46 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #47 on: 03/20/2010 02:30 pm »
...
It includes lunar exploration...propellant depots
...

Now this is what I want to know more about, and haven't explored the DIRECT site enough to find this discussion.  This is outlined in greater detail on your website?

Backing up to the OP.

I think it is almost time for Direct 4.0.  Should you guys get the go-ahead, after all the sausage making is done, you will need to revise your proposal to reflect how the architecture will be divided up amongst the various private entities involved.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Borderline

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #48 on: 03/20/2010 02:50 pm »
clongton

the "system" (DIRECT etc) has been as a whole rejected by the Administration, the leadership of NASA and is not endorsed by Congress. 

ARES V and Jupiter...both use SSME's (or the 68 or some non reusable version of the SSME for the Jupiter that has not been developed), the ET and solids...they both use the shuttle workforce, infrastructure and The AC found not a lot of difference in cost.

I've looked at both systems fairly hard, talked to people who were on the AC whose value of DIRECT and or Jupiter was indicated by the lack of any real endorsement of it (or acceptance)...and while it is clear to those who really believe in the system that it is unique; some who are less personally involved dont see it.  And that is just not "me" it is most everyone.

Robert

Offline Borderline

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #49 on: 03/20/2010 02:56 pm »
kkattula

the alternate explanation is that the distinctions that many see are not all that distinct to others.

That I think includes a lot of folks.

Robert


Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #50 on: 03/20/2010 02:57 pm »
Ben the Space Brit

not bad...

in my view where this is going politically is just where Augustine wanted (or actually was told) it needed to go.

Federal policy in the US is changed in two ways 1) Presidential fiat or 2) Presidential desires enabled by commissions which are primed with the "results" wanted.

Augustine was commissioned to do the latter.  The space industries in The Republic, absent ATK which is stuck like tar to the shuttle...has figured out that there is no growth in the shuttle or its derivative systems...ie there is nothing that is ever going to happen to those systems that is not at the whim of national civilian space policy  IE those systems are never going to be used for true commercial aps...they are just to expensive.

Where the "Move" is, is to get systems which have commercial applications AND which can be used for exploration as national will warrants.  That is the Falcon/Delta/Atlas series of vehicles.

At some point if exploration by humans starts again in human spaceflight, it is going to occur because the systems above (or some other commercial launch system) has become "so cheap" that it can be morphed into being used for exploration.  And they only way that happens as in any "vehicle" is to enable use.

If people would go and understand what was driving the AC on heavy lift...they would understand why no SDV is going to see the launch pad.

Robert
That borders on a conspiracy theory. The AC was a fully neutral non biased commission as they have shown time and time again. There were certain things they did and did not evaluate that people like myself probably wanted to see evaluated but they WERE unbiased. Perhaps the reason they did not evaluate more options is because they were going for record time, and they achieved it to the annoyance of the White House. Why go so fast? Because they recognized that sts needed at least two more missions and the time for extension was quickly running out. Now it may be to late, but I will let the engineers decide.

@Borderline: You are wrong.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2010 02:58 pm by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Borderline

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #51 on: 03/20/2010 02:58 pm »
...
It includes lunar exploration...propellant depots
...

Now this is what I want to know more about, and haven't explored the DIRECT site enough to find this discussion.  This is outlined in greater detail on your website?

Backing up to the OP.

I think it is almost time for Direct 4.0.  Should you guys get the go-ahead, after all the sausage making is done, you will need to revise your proposal to reflect how the architecture will be divided up amongst the various private entities involved.

that is a very sound suggestion.  The future is going to be an evolution of the various "boosters" Hanging around and there is a lot of exploration that can be done with those...All the way to Mars...

Robert

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #52 on: 03/20/2010 03:05 pm »
On the other hand, you can utilize those exact same government resources (which are going to be spent anyway) more efficiently, and much of the same hardware, to create a brand-new evolved capability aimed at doing much, much more.   That new system does not require half the maintenance (so you can also afford to do other things with the money saved), the new system can be used twice as often, and the new systems each use produces 3 to 4 times the performance results (Jupiter/Orion).
kraisee,

You don't need to sell me on DIRECT. I was all for it when it appeared that we were actually going to the Moon. It was the smart solution to the problem. I think you guys did a fantastic job with the idea and just getting a mention in a national in the Augustine committee would have been a major accomplishment, much less being a serious contender in the final report.

However, things have changed. We could build DIRECT ... but where would it go and what will be on it? All that's been killed or is being killed: Altair, Orion, etc. Are we even going to need HLV for 10-15 years?

What is the smart solution now? It seems like it has shifted to something that can be used now and can grow to HLV in the future. That points to something like a single core, 20mT class EELV whose cores can be ganged together to create an HLV in the future.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm not a rocket scientist but after reading NSF for years and watching how things have unfolded, it seems like this is the smart solution right now.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #53 on: 03/20/2010 03:07 pm »
Moving DIRECT 4:

Ben, you suggested an EELV based idea.

What about the idea supported by bolden to develop a new american rp1-lox or TAN engine? Would it be possible to give ULA or better yet, SPACEX a contract to integrate this new engine (post development) with an uprated version of their LV (for spacex and uprated f9h or f9, ula atlas or delta)?

My idea: If spacex proves to be relialbe, use them as the primary EELV provider instead of Atlas/ACES. Spacex already has plans for a much more powerful f9 and f9h (not the current design for f9h using raptor). The only question is how many year before those lvs are online? Perhaps another solution would be:
Build DIRECT v3 for now with sts extension ect. Then, when and if Spacex builds the larger engine and f9 and f9h (uses rs 83 or 84 engine) switch to them or use their LV's in conjuction with a SDHLV. Between the two rockets you would be able to launch ALOT more stuff and there are potential cost savings in not having to fly as many j 246's.

Idea number 2 for direct4:
This is kind of a throwback to direct 3 but I had been meaning to run this by ross and co.
: What if it is too expensive to develop the upper stage of jupiter (jus) and the larger 24x rocket? What if instead, by the time it is needed (2018-2021 or later) VASIMIR is a sucess and can be scaled up? My idea would simply take an existing J 130 and, instead of JUS, attach a VASIMIR that Nasa buys from Ad Astra to the top of the core stage. Orion would then go on top of that. Would this work for BEO or lunar missions? Would it be cheaper then building JUS?

Just some "what ifs" nothing more.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #54 on: 03/20/2010 03:28 pm »
ARES V and Jupiter...both use SSME's (or the 68 or some non reusable version of the SSME for the Jupiter that has not been developed), the ET and solids...they both use the shuttle workforce, infrastructure and The AC found not a lot of difference in cost.

Wrong.  Ares-V uses a 10m-diameter core that looks like the SSET when illustrated but actually requires new tooling and R&D from scratch.  The Jupiter CCB would use the 8.4m tooling already at MAF.  That is a major development schedule and cost advantage for the Jupiter (and the SD-HLLV Sidemount) over all versions of the Ares-V except the 8.4m-diameter 'Ares-V-Classic' that apparently won the Bolden HLV Study.

AFAIK, the switch from RS-68A to SSME/RS-25e was never actually baselined for Ares-V, although most people who knew their rocket engines felt it would be necessary as the budget wouldn't support the development of RS-68B with the regenerative nozzle.  It should also be noted that the Jupiter doesn't need RS-25e.  It can use current SSME Block-IIa; the 'cheaper' argument for the purpose-desgined expendable version isn't absolutely proven yet when development costs are factored in.

It is interesting to note that only at the very end, in the Bolden HLV Study, was NASA willing to accept 8.4m diamater over 10m diameter.  They still wanted a stretched tank and a five-engine core, though.  Nonetheless, accepting 8.4m was somewhat against the trend as all the other options were based on a 10m tank (either hydrolox or kerolox).

I am beginning to see why posters elsewhere on this site wonder if you really know as much about this subject as you make out.

However, we should drop this conversation as it is OT.

What about the idea supported by bolden to develop a new american rp1-lox or TAN engine? Would it be possible to give ULA or better yet, SPACEX a contract to integrate this new engine (post development) with an uprated version of their LV (for spacex and uprated f9h or f9, ula atlas or delta)?

I suspect that all the 'new RP-1' engine will turn out to be will be production of a crew-rated RS-84 or TR-107.  That is likely to appear on both Falcon-9 Block-III and on the Atlas-V Phase-2 as the core engine.  The SpaceX version has already got the working name 'Merlin-2' although it is just a concept at the moment.  I don't think SpaceX have even got far enough on Merlin-2 to call it a 'paper engine'.

As for TAN, I'm not familiar enough with it to judge how quickly it could appear or where best it would be applied.  Given what I know of it, it would be best utilised on something similar to the Delta-IV with RP-1 and LOX 'drop tanks' with the TAN itself that drop away as a unit for recovery and recycling, leaving the hydrolox core to continue its ascent.  The result would be basically a Delta-IVH+2 with drop tanks in the place of SRMs

Quote
My idea: If spacex proves to be relialbe, use them as the primary EELV provider instead of Atlas/ACES. Spacex already has plans for a much more powerful f9 and f9h (not the current design for f9h using raptor). The only question is how many year before those lvs are online? Perhaps another solution would be:

EELV/ACES would be available years before F9H/Raptor; Falcon-9 would also have more years added to demonstrate reliability.  My idea is designed for a quick start to keep attention focussed on the program rather than allowing it to turn into background noise the way SSP did.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2010 03:30 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #55 on: 03/20/2010 03:36 pm »
ARES V and Jupiter...both use SSME's (or the 68 or some non reusable version of the SSME for the Jupiter that has not been developed), the ET and solids...they both use the shuttle workforce, infrastructure and The AC found not a lot of difference in cost.

Wrong.  Ares-V uses a 10m-diameter core that looks like the SSET when illustrated but actually requires new tooling and R&D from scratch.  The Jupiter CCB would use the 8.4m tooling already at MAF.  That is a major development schedule and cost advantage for the Jupiter (and the SD-HLLV Sidemount) over all versions of the Ares-V except the 8.4m-diameter 'Ares-V-Classic' that apparently won the Bolden HLV Study.

AFAIK, the switch from RS-68A to SSME/RS-25e was never actually baselined for Ares-V, although most people who knew their rocket engines felt it would be necessary as the budget wouldn't support the development of RS-68B with the regenerative nozzle.  It should also be noted that the Jupiter doesn't need RS-25e.  It can use current SSME Block-IIa; the 'cheaper' argument for the purpose-desgined expendable version isn't absolutely proven yet when development costs are factored in.

It is interesting to note that only at the very end, in the Bolden HLV Study, was NASA willing to accept 8.4m diamater over 10m diameter.  They still wanted a stretched tank and a five-engine core, though.  Nonetheless, accepting 8.4m was somewhat against the trend as all the other options were based on a 10m tank (either hydrolox or kerolox).

I am beginning to see why posters elsewhere on this site wonder if you really know as much about this subject as you make out.

However, we should drop this conversation as it is OT.

What about the idea supported by bolden to develop a new american rp1-lox or TAN engine? Would it be possible to give ULA or better yet, SPACEX a contract to integrate this new engine (post development) with an uprated version of their LV (for spacex and uprated f9h or f9, ula atlas or delta)?

I suspect that all the 'new RP-1' engine will turn out to be will be production of a crew-rated RS-84 or TR-107.  That is likely to appear on both Falcon-9 Block-III and on the Atlas-V Phase-2 as the core engine.  The SpaceX version has already got the working name 'Merlin-2' although it is just a concept at the moment.  I don't think SpaceX have even got far enough on Merlin-2 to call it a 'paper engine'.

As for TAN, I'm not familiar enough with it to judge how quickly it could appear or where best it would be applied.  Given what I know of it, it would be best utilised on something similar to the Delta-IV with RP-1 and LOX 'drop tanks' with the TAN itself that drop away as a unit for recovery and recycling, leaving the hydrolox core to continue its ascent.  The result would be basically a Delta-IVH+2 with drop tanks in the place of SRMs

Quote
My idea: If spacex proves to be relialbe, use them as the primary EELV provider instead of Atlas/ACES. Spacex already has plans for a much more powerful f9 and f9h (not the current design for f9h using raptor). The only question is how many year before those lvs are online? Perhaps another solution would be:

EELV/ACES would be available years before F9H/Raptor; Falcon-9 would also have more years added to demonstrate reliability.  My idea is designed for a quick start to keep attention focussed on the program rather than allowing it to turn into background noise the way SSP did.
Thank you ben. I agree.
Also: You beat me to it on the "ares v vs. jupiter" correction for borderline. I deleted my post.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7349
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #56 on: 03/20/2010 03:52 pm »

ARES V and Jupiter...both use SSME's (or the 68 or some non reusable version of the SSME for the Jupiter that has not been developed), the ET and solids...they both use the shuttle workforce, infrastructure and The AC found not a lot of difference in cost.

It's off topic but to help set the record straight and provide you with a way to get back on topic I will answer your objections. (With the moderators' tolerant permission?) Then I want to return to this thread's topic and not see this here again. Ok?

If you want to discuss the DIRECT proposal then go to the DIRECT v3.0 thread.

I am sorry Robert, but you are grossly misinformed.

* The Jupiter HLS uses *ONE* rocket, flown with or without an upper stage, sharing all the same manufacturing facilities, launch facilities and workforce while The Ares-V HLS uses *TWO* completely different rockets, with two completely different manufacturing facilities, two completely different launch facilities and two completely different workforces.

* The Jupiter HLV uses existing SSME’s and the Ares-V uses still-to-be-developed Regenerativly Cooled RS-68’s.

* The Jupiter uses existing 4-segment solids and the Ares-V uses brand new 5-segment solids that have nothing in common with the 4-segment except the name of the manufacturer.

* The Jupiter uses the existing 8.4m diameter ET, strengthened to take the load of an upper stage while the Ares-V builds a brand new, bigger ET, 10m diameter ET.

* The Jupiter uses existing ocean-going barges to transport the ET's from MAF to KSC while the Ares-V needs to discard them and launch brand new, bigger ocean-going barges to handle the massive size of the 10m ET.

* Jupiter uses the existing manufacturing infrastructure while the Ares-V destroys the existing facilities and builds all brand new manufacturing facilities.

* Jupiter uses the existing launch facilities at KSC, slightly modified to take the inline configuration in lieu of the side mount Shuttle while the Ares-V destroys the existing facilities and builds all new facilities a decade from now.

* Jupiter retains approximately 2/3 of the existing workforce, letting the other 1/3 go, and can comfortably conduct Jupiter operations with that scaled-down workforce, while the Ares-V fires almost everyone, attempting to hire almost twice as many people back in 15 years.

* The Augustine Commission said that SDHLV (DIRECT and NSC) was affordable within the current budget as long as a Shuttle extension was put in place and carefully managed while the Ares-V based architecture was completely unaffordable without a $3 billion dollar budget increase per year.

See the common thread of evolving *existing* hardware, infrastructure and workforce? That is what *THIS* thread is about, not about one specific proposal (DIRECT v3) that follows that philosophy. This thread asks what other combinations are possible, besides DIRECT v3.0 that do this. It is not about the Jupiter HLS and certainly *not* about the Ares-V system which does none of this.

I have no idea where you are getting your information from, if indeed you actually have any sources at all. If you do have sources then they are also grossly misinformed. If you don’t, then all you are doing is spouting off because you don’t like DIRECT, and that on a thread that isn’t even a DIRECT thread. That's called hijacking and will not be tolerated on this site.

Get properly informed and participate in the proper topic or get off this thread.
I'm done discussing the JLS on here with you. I prefer to discuss the topic of this thread instead.

Now, having answered your objections, can we please return to the topic of *THIS* thread?

I will not address this subject again on this thread. Do so at your own peril. If you persist in this off-topic attempt to hijack this thread expect to get censored or banned.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2010 04:26 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Borderline

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #57 on: 03/20/2010 03:58 pm »
Ben the Space Brit

the ET "widen" is not the long tent in the pole...it is actually much easier to do then just about anything else.  It is far easier to do say then the AiLi issue.  It is about like saying "the 737 800 is more difficult to make then the 300...because it has a new wing and gear...(and is longer).  sounds good...isnt the problem (in either case)

AresV died because of the cost to make it...not the issues developing it.

Robert

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #58 on: 03/20/2010 04:08 pm »

Back on topic:
For Direct 4.0 question for clongton:
1. What about using VASIMIR as the eds/ second stage for lunar missions in the future? This way you would not need JUS (assumes a powerful scaled up VASIMIR for IOC no earlier than 2020.)

2. What about this: Since ULA has indicated they are moving towards a "common upper stage that will boost preformance of both atlas and delta and can be used on both, thus saving money for the company"
I am assuming thats an ACES. So why not, instead of having NASA build JUS, simply purchase ACES stages from ULA when you need them?
« Last Edit: 03/20/2010 04:15 pm by Andy USA »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7349
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Is It Time For DIRECT 4.0?
« Reply #59 on: 03/20/2010 04:16 pm »
@ Borderline: Wrong again.

Back on topic:
For Direct 4.0 question for clongton:
1. What about using VASIMIR as the eds/ second stage for lunar missions in the future? This way you would not need JUS (assumes a powerful scaled up VASIMIR for IOC no earlier than 2020.)

2. What about this: Since ULA has indicated they are moving towards a "common upper stage that will boost preformance of both atlas and delta and can be used on both, thus saving money for the company"
I am assuming thats an ACES. So why not, instead of having NASA build JUS, simply purchase ACES stages from ULA when you need them?

1. VASIMR is good. I like it. Especially if it can be fitted with a polywell fusion reactor for the power source.
2. Depends on the mission needs. The ACES does not have the capability of the JUS but would work for smaller missions. Just need to design the mission around it.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2010 11:02 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1