Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3  (Read 1123079 times)

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2300 on: 03/27/2009 11:25 pm »
Milestones?

The SSME-based Jupiter-130 would allow the Orion to fly in 2012, a few months before that election.

The SSME/RL-10-based Jupiter-246 would enable a Cargo-only Altair to deliver 20,000kg to the Lunar surface in Q1 2016 and a Crew to follow-up around 6-9 months later -- again, before that election.

The SSME/RL-10-based Jupiter-246 would allow a full-scale precursor mission to an NEO in 2017.

The SSME/RL-10-based Jupiter-246 would allow the complete Lunar Outpost to be landed and made fully operational within 36 months -- by 2020.


ISS can also continue to be maintained and upgraded so it can continue to operate through to at least the mid-2020's. Unlike CxP's current Ares plans, DIRECT does not require the added budget for ISS in order to successfully accomplish the Lunar Program.


In addition to that, with double the available budget for the Science Mission Directorate, the following missions could all be fully funded by 2020:   Mars Science Laboratory, James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble-II, Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, Mars Sample Return (small), Mars Sample Return (large) -- and lots & lots of Lunar surface science too.

And NASA could also afford to develop a Cryogenic Propellant Depot and high-performance in-space Nuclear Propulsion technologies as well.


All of that fits within the current "budget box" if we change away from Ares-I/Ares-V and move to the Jupiter-130/246 baseline instead.

Ross.

Will Orion be ready by 2012?

Offline NUAETIUS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2301 on: 03/28/2009 12:17 am »
I think we're about to announce a baseline change to SSME as our baseline engine though.

I thought that part of the pitch for Direct was the man rating of the RS-68 so that we got a Man Rated EELV for "free".  Will moving to the SSME effect the support of Direct the ULA?
“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 tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2302 on: 03/28/2009 12:32 am »
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.

I agree with that idea.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2009 12:33 am by tnphysics »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2303 on: 03/28/2009 12:34 am »

Will Orion be ready by 2012?

That all depends on how much 'information' we have been getting is on the level. So far, things haven't looked so good wrt Ares-I, and they have been looking to push a downsize of Orion to a 4-person crew. That happens during a review this summer. If they do change it, then my answer would be NO.

If we get a new administrator and they decide to go with Direct or EELV, then there's a good chance the current baseline can be kept and 2012 is possible. This is assuming all goes as planned. If they have issues, it could derail things. Certainly a bit more money would help, but all of this should have been done months ago. This 11th hour stuff is for the birds. Change direction, change baseline, trim here, cut there.

Ross has pointed out a few times before that the biggest problem is the MSFC going back to tell them to cut more from Orion because of Ares-I's shortcomings. If that was put to rest and the teams are able to work on Orion without further hinderance, then from all indications we could probably fly in 2012, late 2012.

I'm thinking though that we don't have all the facts and it won't be ready. We were always told Orion won't be ready before Ares-I. Now Ares-I is 2015 at the earliest? I don't know...

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2304 on: 03/28/2009 12:43 am »
I think we're about to announce a baseline change to SSME as our baseline engine though.

I thought that part of the pitch for Direct was the man rating of the RS-68 so that we got a Man Rated EELV for "free".  Will moving to the SSME effect the support of Direct the ULA?

There is nothing free, unfortunately. Someone will have to pay for that upgrade, and it would be NASA because they want it. If they go with an RS-68 upgrade, then NASA might share the costs of that development, but if not, then at the very least it can become the new baseline engine for both vehicles and reduce the overall costs because they are in greater production.

SSME now just makes all the sense. And judging from the reported J-2X issue (if serious), a case could be made to hold off it's development for the moment and ramp-up SSME fabrication & testing. Not that I would advise such a plan, but going with RL-10 is starting to make even more sense too.

From the much misaligned and critically argued comments & discussions, all paths seem to be converging again to a common, practical road to take. And strangely enough, it has been championed by a select few on this thread. Let's hope that dream becomes a reality.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2305 on: 03/28/2009 01:12 am »
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.

Oh, well.   ;)  Just trying to stir up a little excitement for those of us far removed from KSC.

I was hoping you might at least be planning to announce the release of the document that must not be named.  Speaking of which, (or not), will the changeover to SSME cause the document that must not be named to be sent back to square one?  Or would it be more of an added appendix?  It might cause some people to reconsider their entries in the over/under pot here on the NSF DIRECT thread.

Mark S.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2306 on: 03/28/2009 01:24 am »
Would SSME Jupiter be v3.0?

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2307 on: 03/28/2009 01:32 am »
Would SSME Jupiter be v3.0?

That's a good point! Sounds like the begininng of a new thread. :) Probably an idea too for the not-to-be-named document...lol. I'm in no rush though. The timing should coincide nicely in 1-2 weeks time...once a new administrator has their feet wet and a clean desk. It shouldn't be long now.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2308 on: 03/28/2009 02:18 am »
Will Orion be ready by 2012?

Will it currently?   Not a chance given all the other budget pressures limiting the available funding.


Could it?   Yes, it could, but ONLY with significantly more money injected swiftly into the development program early enough to make a difference.

Where do you get that money?

1) Stop paying $1.8bn to develop new boosters.
2) Stop paying $1.2bn to develop new J-2X engines.
3) Stop developing an expensive "never-attempted-before" radical design as Ares-I.
4) Stop attempting to develop the biggest ever rocket of all time when you really don't need it.
5) Remove as many of other expensive re-development work which Ares-I and Ares-V each require in terms of new testing facilities, all-new manufacturing equipment, all-new launch operations hardware etc.

If you can identify a way to remove all those costs, you could quite easily afford to spend a lot more on Orion instead.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2009 02:24 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2309 on: 03/28/2009 02:21 am »
    
I think we're about to announce a baseline change to SSME as our baseline engine though.

I thought that part of the pitch for Direct was the man rating of the RS-68 so that we got a Man Rated EELV for "free".  Will moving to the SSME effect the support of Direct the ULA?

No. We remain solidly behind man rating the EELV as rapidly as makes sense. Having two different man rated launch vehicles capable of launching Orion provides a launch redundancy that increases the stability of the entire manned space program.

Remember, both the Ares and the Jupiter are primarily designed for exploration class missions beyond LEO. They are both designed for the moon, Mars and beyond. LEO belongs primarily to EELV class launch vehicles. Once the Jupiter has accomplished its initial LEO goals, NASA will gradually begin shifting its primary mission to beyond LEO to exploration  class missions, while the EELV class launchers pick up more and more of the LEO mission duties. We have said before, and I repeat for clarity now, whichever launcher is ready to take Orion to ISS first will take Orion to ISS first, but not exclusively. The Jupiter-130 will conduct a series of missions to ISS intended to improve and extend the ISS mission capability. The EELV class launchers will perform the routine crew rotation mission. We are currently baselining two EELV and two Jupiter-130s to ISS each year between 2013 to 2017, after which ISS should be good to go for an extended period and Jupiter will be refocused beyond LEO, as was originally intended. By that time, the man rated EELV should own the LEO sky.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2009 02:22 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2310 on: 03/28/2009 02:26 am »
Remove all those costs and you could afford to spend a lot more on Orion instead.

Would that help though? In software development there is the famous Brooks 'law', which states that adding man-power to a project that is already late makes it even more late. I can see how not having Ares-I throw problems at them would make the Orion team go faster. Other than that, is there much that can be done? Especially if it's true that flight software development is one of the long poles.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2311 on: 03/28/2009 02:30 am »
We were always told Orion won't be ready before Ares-I.

Robert, I think you have been mis-informed.

Orion could always have been made ready before Ares-I.   CxP have restricted its budget so that it is designed to finish at the same time as it's launcher will, but that really is an artificial limitation.

The long-pole for the pair has always been the development schedule of the J-2X engine, followed by the schedule of the 5-segment booster.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2009 02:31 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2312 on: 03/28/2009 02:34 am »
Remove all those costs and you could afford to spend a lot more on Orion instead.

Would that help though? In software development there is the famous Brooks 'law', which states that adding man-power to a project that is already late makes it even more late. I can see how not having Ares-I throw problems at them would make the Orion team go faster. Other than that, is there much that can be done? Especially if it's true that flight software development is one of the long poles.

Software development will be the long pole. There is only so much that can be done to accelerate that. But the rest of the spacecraft is screaming for only two things:
1. "Ares- STOP CHANGING ME AND LET ME GET ON WITH IT!"
2. More money.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2313 on: 03/28/2009 02:41 am »
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.

The change to SSME does make sense in my book. Have you gotten any word on what NASA has found in there own studies on the potential switch to SSME on Ares V? This could be of some help.

On one hand, the SSME switch is good, but on the other hand is there any worry that such a change will cause confusion? We saw this when Direct switched to 2.0 and NASA used numbers from 1.0. I guess this is the one risk you take when changing things up.

On another note, didn't some of the early "Direct-like" proposals use SSMEs?


Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2314 on: 03/28/2009 02:45 am »
Software development will be the long pole. There is only so much that can be done to accelerate that. But the rest of the spacecraft is screaming for only two things:
1. "Ares- STOP CHANGING ME AND LET ME GET ON WITH IT!"
2. More money.

OK, sounds like a good reason to give them more money. But it sounds as if we're going to have to live with the fact that Orion is going to be late.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2315 on: 03/28/2009 02:56 am »
A question for the DIRECT folks.

NASA's Constellation organization and the launch vehicle development group in particular appear to be highly dysfunctional.  Based on the latest news, in the three and a half years since the ESAS was released, IOC for Ares/Orion has slipped six years.

Do the cost and schedule models you use for DIRECT have any corrections applied to account for the demonstrated difficulty Constellation and MSFC have performing up to industry standard expectations?
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2316 on: 03/28/2009 04:04 am »
A question for the DIRECT folks.

NASA's Constellation organization and the launch vehicle development group in particular appear to be highly dysfunctional.  Based on the latest news, in the three and a half years since the ESAS was released, IOC for Ares/Orion has slipped six years.

Do the cost and schedule models you use for DIRECT have any corrections applied to account for the demonstrated difficulty Constellation and MSFC have performing up to industry standard expectations?

Does anyone remember "Safe, simple, soon".  If 12 years is soon (2004 - 2016), i would hate to see what late is!!!

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2317 on: 03/28/2009 04:08 am »
Does anyone remember the ESAS study?  Did they study the TLI being done by RL10's?

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2318 on: 03/28/2009 04:18 am »
Tell me if I have got it wrong for Direct:

J-232 uses RS68 and J2.      needs money for development for J2.
J-246 uses SSME and RL10.  No development of new engines.

Do you have LOC\LOM number for new J-246?

Is the Direct team not leading themselves open if they switch to the J-246, like NASA that they keep on refining their plans?  All good, PM know that Planning is good, and there will be refinement as you know more but at some point you have to implement.  Is the Direct team basically saying that the Constellation team really needs to revaluate the whole program due to the wrong assumptions that they made in the ESAS study.  That would take a strong leader at NASA to say, we may have made a mistake in the ESAS study.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2009 04:20 am by HIP2BSQRE »

Offline MP99

Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2319 on: 03/28/2009 08:51 am »
Tell me if I have got it wrong for Direct:

J-232 uses RS68 and J2.      needs money for development for J2.
J-246 uses SSME and RL10.  No development of new engines.

Do you have LOC\LOM number for new J-246?

Is the Direct team not leading themselves open if they switch to the J-246, like NASA that they keep on refining their plans?  All good, PM know that Planning is good, and there will be refinement as you know more but at some point you have to implement.  Is the Direct team basically saying that the Constellation team really needs to revaluate the whole program due to the wrong assumptions that they made in the ESAS study.  That would take a strong leader at NASA to say, we may have made a mistake in the ESAS study.


J-232:-

Probable major RS-68 mods to regen nozzle.
Human-rate RS-68.
J2-X.

Two major engine development programmes.


J-246:-

SSME as is.
Human-rate RL-10, which is already in the plan for Altair, but needs to be moved forwards.

One engine development programme that you were going to do anyway (and I think smaller than J2-X development, but stand to be corrected on that).


Both engines are extremely efficient - they achieve the same mission whilst having to lift less into orbit. Both have long and hugely successful flight heritage. If you had a clean sheet of paper and asked "what engines would I use to guarantee the safety of the crew", they are probably the ones you would pick regardless of their performance advantages.

From an outsiders' perspective, these just feel like the right choices, regardless of whether NASA publicly choose SSME for Ares-V. Shuttle extension (if it happens), also keeps the SSME infrastructure alive & vibrant [edit: which would previously have been a major impediment to baselining SSME for Jupiter].

Sad to say, the "fall back" to RS-68 would be a little disappointing at this point! Several times Chuck has had to remind us that RS-68 is still the baseline, but the buzz is around SSME.

cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 03/28/2009 09:59 am by MP99 »

Tags:
 

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