Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3  (Read 1123237 times)

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2280 on: 03/27/2009 06:27 pm »
...but this is more trustworthy:-

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/03/aresorion-slipping-18-months-shuttle-extension-upper-hand/

(Note: my highlighting).

-----

Quote
The situation with Ares is known in key areas of the Agency, with a “9th Floor” NASA HQ effort already taking place to evaluate the viability of cancelling Ares I, and replacing the launch vehicle with an EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) - such as an Atlas V Heavy or a Delta IV Heavy - whilst moving the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) effort towards concentrating on Ares V.

----------

Wow, that's strong stuff.

Well, Ross did say that the brown stuff was about to hit the fan. I'd say it's hit, stuck, and is now spraying all over the room.

cheers, Martin

Notice how they are couching the possible cancellation of Ares-I in terms of EELV, in order to preserve the possibility of Ares-V.  Sadly, of the two vehicles, Ares-I is the one least likely to fail, and the least expensive. 

If they cancel Ares-I, then they should just cancel the whole Ares program outright.  There is no way Ares-V is going to be any more successful than Ares-I.

Now, as always, DIRECT is the best alternative plan.  EELV can have a role, as well as various upper stages, but Jupiter is our ticket off this rock.  After more than three years of intense scrutiny, criticism, and fine tuning, DIRECT is a fine jewel, ready to be released from its matrix.

The sooner NASA HQ finally bows to the inevitable, the better for us all.

Mark S.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2281 on: 03/27/2009 06:38 pm »

If they cancel Ares-I, then they should just cancel the whole Ares program outright.  There is no way Ares-V is going to be any more successful than Ares-I.


That would depend on what it looks like when (if) it finally flies -- if it winds up having an uncanny resemblance to a JS-246, I would think it has a good chance for success.

Offline chuck34

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • South Bend, IN
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2282 on: 03/27/2009 07:05 pm »
Does anyone else find it quite interesting that Ross and Chuck haven't been around in a while?  Could be a good sign, maybe?

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2283 on: 03/27/2009 07:19 pm »
Does anyone else find it quite interesting that Ross and Chuck haven't been around in a while?  Could be a good sign, maybe?

I believe they were both going to be at KSC..
Weren't they looking for people to meet up with them for drinks/dinner? Don't remember what day tho..

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2284 on: 03/27/2009 07:19 pm »

If they cancel Ares-I, then they should just cancel the whole Ares program outright.  There is no way Ares-V is going to be any more successful than Ares-I.


That would depend on what it looks like when (if) it finally flies -- if it winds up having an uncanny resemblance to a JS-246, I would think it has a good chance for success.

Remember, they are talking about using EELV for Orion CLV.  That means that Ares-V would still have to be a monster able to lift both the Altair and the Ares EDS, with enough fuel for the TLI burn.

Shrinking the Ares-V down to a Jupiter-sized vehicle will only work if they move to a dual launch (or triple w/EELV) architecture.  The DIRECT plan calls for a dual J-232 launch (or JS-246 etc), with one launching the Orion and Altair to LEO, and the second launching the EDS (with fuel) to meet them.  No Jupiter configuration would be large enough to launch the Altair and the EDS with enough fuel left over for the TLI burn.

Mark S.


Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2285 on: 03/27/2009 07:21 pm »

If they cancel Ares-I, then they should just cancel the whole Ares program outright.  There is no way Ares-V is going to be any more successful than Ares-I.


That would depend on what it looks like when (if) it finally flies -- if it winds up having an uncanny resemblance to a JS-246, I would think it has a good chance for success.

Remember, they are talking about using EELV for Orion CLV.  That means that Ares-V would still have to be a monster able to lift both the Altair and the Ares EDS, with enough fuel for the TLI burn.

Shrinking the Ares-V down to a Jupiter-sized vehicle will only work if they move to a dual launch (or triple w/EELV) architecture.  The DIRECT plan calls for a dual J-232 launch (or JS-246 etc), with one launching the Orion and Altair to LEO, and the second launching the EDS (with fuel) to meet them.  No Jupiter configuration would be large enough to launch the Altair and the EDS with enough fuel left over for the TLI burn.

Mark S.



UNless they're talking Orion on EELV only to close the gap for ISS..
Even DIRECT proposed using EELVs for ISS missions.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2286 on: 03/27/2009 07:22 pm »
Does anyone else find it quite interesting that Ross and Chuck haven't been around in a while?  Could be a good sign, maybe?

I believe they were both going to be at KSC..
Weren't they looking for people to meet up with them for drinks/dinner? Don't remember what day tho..

Hm, very suspicious.  What with the recent rumors of a successful NASA Administrator pick....  I wonder...  Could this so-called 'drinks and dinner' date in Florida really be.... a SECRET ANNOUNCEMENT party?!??

:)

Mark S.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2287 on: 03/27/2009 07:26 pm »

If they cancel Ares-I, then they should just cancel the whole Ares program outright.  There is no way Ares-V is going to be any more successful than Ares-I.


That would depend on what it looks like when (if) it finally flies -- if it winds up having an uncanny resemblance to a JS-246, I would think it has a good chance for success.

Remember, they are talking about using EELV for Orion CLV.  That means that Ares-V would still have to be a monster able to lift both the Altair and the Ares EDS, with enough fuel for the TLI burn.

Shrinking the Ares-V down to a Jupiter-sized vehicle will only work if they move to a dual launch (or triple w/EELV) architecture.  The DIRECT plan calls for a dual J-232 launch (or JS-246 etc), with one launching the Orion and Altair to LEO, and the second launching the EDS (with fuel) to meet them.  No Jupiter configuration would be large enough to launch the Altair and the EDS with enough fuel left over for the TLI burn.

Mark S.



UNless they're talking Orion on EELV only to close the gap for ISS..
Even DIRECT proposed using EELVs for ISS missions.

Maybe.  But I seem to recall that existing EELV are not capable of launching the lunar block Orion, only the block-1 ISS version.  If so, that would leave them still needing a dual Ares-V launch to get to the moon.

And if that's the case, then they can shrink the Ares-V, and maintain that it is NOT Direct or Jupiter at all.  Just a "right-sized" Ares for a dual launch architecture.  Not DIRECT, no siree....

Mark S.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2288 on: 03/27/2009 07:26 pm »
Does anyone else find it quite interesting that Ross and Chuck haven't been around in a while?  Could be a good sign, maybe?

I believe they were both going to be at KSC..
Weren't they looking for people to meet up with them for drinks/dinner? Don't remember what day tho..

Hm, very suspicious.  What with the recent rumors of a successful NASA Administrator pick....  I wonder...  Could this so-called 'drinks and dinner' date in Florida really be.... a SECRET ANNOUNCEMENT party?!??

:)

Mark S.


The next few days may be very interesting!  Hang on to your hats ... ;)

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2289 on: 03/27/2009 07:32 pm »

If they cancel Ares-I, then they should just cancel the whole Ares program outright.  There is no way Ares-V is going to be any more successful than Ares-I.


That would depend on what it looks like when (if) it finally flies -- if it winds up having an uncanny resemblance to a JS-246, I would think it has a good chance for success.

Remember, they are talking about using EELV for Orion CLV.  That means that Ares-V would still have to be a monster able to lift both the Altair and the Ares EDS, with enough fuel for the TLI burn.

Shrinking the Ares-V down to a Jupiter-sized vehicle will only work if they move to a dual launch (or triple w/EELV) architecture.  The DIRECT plan calls for a dual J-232 launch (or JS-246 etc), with one launching the Orion and Altair to LEO, and the second launching the EDS (with fuel) to meet them.  No Jupiter configuration would be large enough to launch the Altair and the EDS with enough fuel left over for the TLI burn.

Mark S.



UNless they're talking Orion on EELV only to close the gap for ISS..
Even DIRECT proposed using EELVs for ISS missions.

Maybe.  But I seem to recall that existing EELV are not capable of launching the lunar block Orion, only the block-1 ISS version.  If so, that would leave them still needing a dual Ares-V launch to get to the moon.

And if that's the case, then they can shrink the Ares-V, and maintain that it is NOT Direct or Jupiter at all.  Just a "right-sized" Ares for a dual launch architecture.  Not DIRECT, no siree....

Mark S.


If it gets us to where we need to be, I (for one) have no problem with that kind of "face-saving" measure.

"It's amazing how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit." -- anon.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2290 on: 03/27/2009 07:59 pm »
Once you accept that you're not going to have a "monster rocket" due to budgetary constraints, once you accept the the biggest rocket you're going to get is whatever you can build with existing engines and hardware derivitives, you realize the architecture is dictated by the LV. But it also doesn't have to be tied to the 1.5-launch paradigm. For example, instead of EOR-LOR "excursions," you might get more, earlier exploration bang from the available architecture by going with an "expediationary" paradigm focused on LOR/Surface. A simple version might be to send an unmanned cargo lander with something like a MoLab on Launch 1. When that's safely landed and working, send an unmanned transport lander, whose only job is carrying the crew from LLO to the surface and back, on Launch 2, a month later. When that's safely waiting and working in LLO, only then send the crew on Launch 3, a month after that. They then spend however long the MoLab supports, exploring and doing science. Three such expeditions a year would only need 9 LVs (and would provide next-up rescue capability by not flying one expedition until the hardware for the next one was on hand at the Cape). None of the hardware is really ready or really even a-building. It's not too late to change a lot of things, even now, and likely the money you would waste by changing horses (what's already been spent on Ares I) is going to go to waste anyway.

Offline NUAETIUS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2291 on: 03/27/2009 08:03 pm »
Would I be correct in assuming a slip of the Ares I test, and a Shuttle extension would help the case for Direct by insuring that the supplier contracts for the shuttle will stay intact?
“It has long been recognized that the formation of a committee is a powerful technique for avoiding responsibility, deferring difficult decisions and averting blame….while at the same time maintaining a semblance of action.” Augustine's Law - Norm Augustine

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2292 on: 03/27/2009 08:12 pm »
This entire situation is explained rather easily, using Michael Griffin's own words . . .

Quote
-Dr. Michael D. Griffin, NASA Administrator May 3, 2005 (Interview with SpaceRef)
"As NASA Administrator, I already own a Heavy Lifter (in) the Space Shuttle stack. I will not give that up lightly and, in fact, can't responsibly do so because any other solution for getting 100 tons into orbit is going to be more expensive than efficiently utilizing what we already own."

and

Quote
-Dr. Michael D. Griffin, NASA Administrator February 5, 2007 (Press Conference at NASA-HQ):
“The FY07 appropriations, if enacted as the House has resolved, will jeopardize our ability to transition safely and efficiently from the Shuttle to the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Ares-I Crew Launch Vehicle. It will have serious effects on people, projects, and programs this year and for the longer term.”

and

Quote
-Dr. Michael D. Griffin, NASA Administrator August 31, 2005 (AIAA Space 2005 Conference & Exhibition)
“From 1975-1981, between the retirement of the Apollo-Saturn system and the first flight of the Shuttle, the United States did not have the capability to send humans into space, our country was not driving the space exploration agenda, and our aerospace workforce was decimated. We lost valuable people from the program, people who never came back. We lost valuable skills that were relearned with difficulty, or not at all. We lost momentum. Let us learn from these experiences. Let us not repeat them. Let us at least make a new mistake.”

EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2293 on: 03/27/2009 08:16 pm »
Does anyone else find it quite interesting that Ross and Chuck haven't been around in a while?  Could be a good sign, maybe?

I believe they were both going to be at KSC..
Weren't they looking for people to meet up with them for drinks/dinner? Don't remember what day tho..

That would be Saturday.
I was half tempted to fly down and literally bow before them...lol.

Seriously, the Ares-I mess (and needless to say the Ares-V as well) has been the whole point of Direct coming about. They have a plan that in all honesty (there's something new) does all the right things.

I think they have a pretty good chance at the review they were looking for. The government will want to know how to salvage something from all this, and Direct can make that happen. And it isn't surprising that EELV is being looked at as an alternative. As soon as that note came out on L2, I knew (know) in my heart that Ares-I is over. Scolese saw the writting on the wall and make the judgement to save face: he will need to have something to present to the people on the hill to squeak out something to keep the ball rolling.

At a time when funds are getting tighter and hard choices have to be made, this choice makes sense: Direct.

(You don't know how relieved I am, after trying to bottle that up, so as not to keep other threads from going OT...)  :)

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2294 on: 03/27/2009 08:22 pm »
Would I be correct in assuming a slip of the Ares I test, and a Shuttle extension would help the case for Direct by insuring that the supplier contracts for the shuttle will stay intact?

Forget the Ares-I test. I honestly think we will be lucky to see Ares-IX fly. Unless you meant Ares-IX...

Shuttle extension is good for many reasons for Direct:

1. Tooling is preserved
2. Workforce is maintained
3. Parts contracts for the tanks (& SRBs, though they were secure regardless)
4. SSME testing will need to continue, which preserves the test stand. THAT is a big one in itself.
5. Depending on the length of extension, new engines could be built. That means a seamless transition to the SSME design heavy lift options.
6. I'm probably missing more than one; read back and you will probably find the answers by Ross himself.

We have yet to see if EELV or Jupiter will be chosen, but I say this: one will be. That is my firm belief.

« Last Edit: 03/27/2009 08:23 pm by robertross »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2295 on: 03/27/2009 09:00 pm »
Hm, very suspicious.  What with the recent rumors of a successful NASA Administrator pick....  I wonder...  Could this so-called 'drinks and dinner' date in Florida really be.... a SECRET ANNOUNCEMENT party?!??

Sorry to carry the pin for your balloon there, but, errr, no.

I think we're about to announce a baseline change to SSME as our baseline engine though.

But that won't be secret if/when we have all voted on the change.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2009 09:00 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2296 on: 03/27/2009 09:14 pm »
Just for giggles, here are images of a J2 and RL10 for visual size comparison purposes.

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2297 on: 03/27/2009 09:37 pm »
Just for giggles, here are images of a J2 and RL10 for visual size comparison purposes.

hey, that's great! Thanks!

What I would give to have one of those babies in my house  :)

probably the RL-10 though...lol.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2298 on: 03/27/2009 09:41 pm »
What I would give to have one of those babies in my house

Really?  I was thinking the RL-10 would make a great anti-tailgater device for my Prius.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2009 09:42 pm by Lee Jay »

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2299 on: 03/27/2009 09:51 pm »
What I would give to have one of those babies in my house

Really?  I was thinking the RL-10 would make a great anti-tailgater device for my Prius.

It'd keep the semis off your back bumper, that's for sure!  ;D

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0