Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 5 - Transition from STS to the new Space Launch System  (Read 615576 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Continuing discussions from Here

Ross.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 12:38 PM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kirghizstan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 663
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 74
is there that much confidence that some form of Direct has been selected for SLS to warrent the thread title?

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1040
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
is there that much confidence that some form of Direct has been selected for SLS to warrent the thread title?

As I understand it, the new launcher architecture proposed by the Senate bill will be called SLS. Be it DIRECT, DIRECT-derived, a "cousin of DIRECT" or something different entirely.

My guess is it will be a "cousin of DIRECT"; something that looks like DIRECT but will be different enough to satisfy the "anything but DIRECT" crowd by clearly being NOT-DIRECT, while being sufficiently close to Ares to keep the "Ares is the greatest, safest and bestest!" crowd happy.

Probably this means:

- 5 seg SRBs (to keep ATK and Ares fanboys happy)
- J2x (to keep Ares fanboys happy)
- modified ET in such a way that the modification does not correspond to the DIRECT SH variant. Just out of spite, never mind if it's practical :P
- new SSME-derived "expendable" engine supposedly "cheaper and more efficient" (although it probably won't be either). Again, just out of spite, because DIRECT proposed SSME. Will be justified by "SSME is no longer produced, workers and contractors laid off, and we have this study that says restarting is more expensive than building a new engine". And this new Engine will have a new name (RS-xx) but will a close copy of the SSME (so what, nobody will notice...)

Do I want this? Ofc not. But that's politics, and that's why I guess even a DIRECT-like SLS will not fly before 2020 and will be a heck of a lot more expensive than what DIRECT would be...
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 01:09 PM by aquanaut99 »

Offline kirghizstan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 663
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 74
is there that much confidence that some form of Direct has been selected for SLS to warrent the thread title?

As I understand it, the new launcher architecture proposed by the Senate bill will be called SLS. Be it DIRECT, DIRECT-derived or something different entirely.

but the title seems to imply that direct was officially selected.  I would be happy with that, just saying the title is miss leading

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17775
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 442
  • Likes Given: 3377
is there that much confidence that some form of Direct has been selected for SLS to warrent the thread title?

As I understand it, the new launcher architecture proposed by the Senate bill will be called SLS. Be it DIRECT, DIRECT-derived or something different entirely.

but the title seems to imply that direct was officially selected.  I would be happy with that, just saying the title is miss leading

Until we have a clear winner (sidemunt or inline), we need to continue to have a thread dedicated to Direct. And since the former thread has exceeded the 250 page mark, we can now continue the progression away from CxP onto something much more sensible. :)
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Thinking positive is fun. What we might get:

- 4 seg SRBs (to keep taxpayers and NASA engineers and Direct members and Direct supporters happy)
- an ET modified into a J-130 core in such a way that it is the practical basis for a reliable and cost effective SSME powered HLV/SLS that can fly in 2014 rather than 2020
- a robust Orion that we can fly for several decades
- J2x (to keep the we are really going to Mars people happy)
- some minimal new research on a SSME-derived "TAN" engine to keep happy the folks in the White House who want a game changing new technology rocket engine (I just had to add this one for fun and because a TAN hyrolox engine seems like a good idea... And I do understand that the resulting engine would be basically a new engine.)

Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Online MP99

- modified ET in such a way that the modification does not correspond to the DIRECT SH variant. Just out of spite, never mind if it's practical :P

The ET is 8.4m, and has a certain length to accommodate the 4-seg SRB.

There's a certain obvious stretch of the core to accommodate 5-seg SRB's or 4-segs with a dummy segment (ie SH or S options).

Without modifying the aft SRB attach point, that's about it in terms of sizing decisions.

Beyond that, Jupiter has a certain design for the actual tank mods (using the NLS mods as it's base, I believe). However, this is something that NASA will design for themselves, and there's no reason to assume they'd choose a sub-optimal design, whether it happens to be close to the DIRECT design, or not.



Quote
new SSME-derived "expendable" engine supposedly "cheaper and more efficient" (although it probably won't be either). Again, just out of spite, because DIRECT proposed SSME. Will be justified by "SSME is no longer produced, workers and contractors laid off, and we have this study that says restarting is more expensive than building a new engine". And this new Engine will have a new name (RS-xx) but will a close copy of the SSME (so what, nobody will notice...)

DIRECT expects the SSME to evolve into an RS-25e, ie expendable. Channel wall skirt, to begin. Other mods may follow.

P&WR restarted production of SSME's (3 of, I think) recently to complete the Shuttle flyout. Unless the tooling and/or expertise has been lost in the meantime, it can be restarted again.



You know, I really don't think the "NASA will do it differently, just to spite DIRECT" talk is helpful. JSC's recent HLLV document shows that some in NASA get the "Shuttle-stack-sized" vehicle thing very well.

cheers, Martin

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10284
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2061
  • Likes Given: 639
Quote from: Nathan
not good if living on the surface at the time. Need propellant depots to fuel spacecraft that aren't designed to fall apart.

That's why the drop tanks would contain enough propellant to do de-orbit, with still more delta-v needed to be expended to complete the de-orbit and land. The drop tanks would overshoot the landing site by a very long way, perhaps a couple of hundred miles.

If dropping into a base of some sort, whether permanent or only a semi-permanent staging area, the "drop zone" for the expendable tanks could serve as a tank collection area to be used as a future material source.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 02:18 PM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 69
Thinking positive is fun. What we might get:

- 4 seg SRBs (to keep taxpayers and NASA engineers and Direct members and Direct supporters happy)
- an ET modified into a J-130 core in such a way that it is the practical basis for a reliable and cost effective SSME powered HLV/SLS that can fly in 2014 rather than 2020
- a robust Orion that we can fly for several decades
- J2x (to keep the we are really going to Mars people happy)
- some minimal new research on a SSME-derived "TAN" engine to keep happy the folks in the White House who want a game changing new technology rocket engine (I just had to add this one for fun and because a TAN hyrolox engine seems like a good idea... And I do understand that the resulting engine would be basically a new engine.)

Cheers!

That would make way too much sense.. I would love to see a thread on a TAN SSME based core stage.. use ccb w/o RD-180s as drop tanks :)

Online MP99

Quote from: Nathan
not good if living on the surface at the time. Need propellant depots to fuel spacecraft that aren't designed to fall apart.

That's why the drop tanks would contain enough propellant to do de-orbit, with still more delta-v needed to be expended to complete the de-orbit and land. The drop tanks would overshoot the landing site by a very long way, perhaps a couple of hundred miles.

If dropping into a base of some sort, whether permanent or only a semi-permanent staging area, the "drop zone" for the expendable tanks could serve as a tank collection area to be used as a future material source.

This was in response to the suggestion to discard the drop tanks in LLO, relying on the shape of the Lunar gravitational field to cause them to crash some indeterminate time later.

This avoids the need to discard the tanks under time pressure during the descent (and presumes the lander uses the drop tank prop to perform LOI for itself and the Orion).

cheers, martin

Online MP99

- J2x (to keep the we are really going to Mars people happy)

MARS DRA 5 uses RL-10's for TMI / MOI / TEI.

cheers, Martin

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
We can only hope that Direct is recognizable when NASA/Bolden/Garver gets through with it.
-John
"We'll remember the Shuttle days with fondness 20 years from now when we still don't have a replacement.  The something we had was better than the nothing we wound up with."


www.apollosaturn.com

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote from: Drkskywxlt
No...because once the Shuttle retires next year or the year after, that money is just folded into development of SLC/Orion.  In the 3 year outlook given by the House and Senate bills, essentially no money is given to payloads.  Perhaps 2014 and beyond will see some, but don't hold your breath...that's when the cost overrun projections for SLS and Orion will start coming in along with inevitable schedule slips. 

Yes, because it was beyond 2014 I was talking about. If NASA can't ever execute a project close to budget or schedule, and this project has a lot of margin by Direct reckoning, then there is no hope, and we should all just give up.

Those who plan to fail... plan to fail.  ;)
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 03:43 PM by kkattula »

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1040
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
You know, I really don't think the "NASA will do it differently, just to spite DIRECT" talk is helpful. JSC's recent HLLV document shows that some in NASA get the "Shuttle-stack-sized" vehicle thing very well.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. And I didn't mean NASA (well, a little, maybe), it was mostly aimed at politicians in the House playing rocket designer (since I expect the end result to be somewhere in between the Senate and House proposals and there is some pretty bad stuff in the House version).

Feel free to delete.

Online MP99

You know, I really don't think the "NASA will do it differently, just to spite DIRECT" talk is helpful. JSC's recent HLLV document shows that some in NASA get the "Shuttle-stack-sized" vehicle thing very well.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. And I didn't mean NASA (well, a little, maybe), it was mostly aimed at politicians in the House playing rocket designer (since I expect the end result to be somewhere in between the Senate and House proposals and there is some pretty bad stuff in the House version).

Feel free to delete.

Sorry, too. I obviously jumped to a conclusion that was aimed at NASA rather than the House, which you'd mentioned. And the House bill does show we're not out of the woods yet.

cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 04:05 PM by MP99 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7000
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 555
  • Likes Given: 643
Quote from: Nathan
not good if living on the surface at the time. Need propellant depots to fuel spacecraft that aren't designed to fall apart.

That's why the drop tanks would contain enough propellant to do de-orbit, with still more delta-v needed to be expended to complete the de-orbit and land. The drop tanks would overshoot the landing site by a very long way, perhaps a couple of hundred miles.

If dropping into a base of some sort, whether permanent or only a semi-permanent staging area, the "drop zone" for the expendable tanks could serve as a tank collection area to be used as a future material source.

Purely FWIW, I dislike the idea of an uncontrolled de-orbit, even onto the Moon.  My drop tank/stage idea includes solid fuel retros to drop the stage down onto a selected part of lunar real estate.  Ultimately, all drop stages would end up there, creating a lunar junk yard that, I suppose, could eventually be recycled once there is infrastructure in place to collect the junk and do so.


[edit]
Oops! Can you tell that I was tired when I posted this?
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 08:14 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 Drkskywxlt

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 152
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Yes, because it was beyond 2014 I was talking about. If NASA can't ever execute a project close to budget or schedule, and this project has a lot of margin by Direct reckoning, then there is no hope, and we should all just give up.

Those who plan to fail... plan to fail.  ;)


Ok, I didn't understand that in your original post.  I'm not planning to fail, but I'm definitely not optimistic.  I don't expect that NASA will select DIRECT, although the final product may bear similarities.  I hope I'm wrong and some of NASA management can wake up to reality. 

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Just letting everyone know, we are putting out an important formal Press Release today, something we've only ever done twice before.

There is a copy in the News section of this forum, and also on our website:   www.directlauncher.com

Ross.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 06:50 PM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3834
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 131
Glad to see that there is a thread 5! And glad to be on it. Bravo Direct :D
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3834
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 131
is there that much confidence that some form of Direct has been selected for SLS to warrent the thread title?

As I understand it, the new launcher architecture proposed by the Senate bill will be called SLS. Be it DIRECT, DIRECT-derived or something different entirely.

but the title seems to imply that direct was officially selected.  I would be happy with that, just saying the title is miss leading
Per the senate bill the only thing that can meet their requirments is DIRECT. And the 5 seg j2x "SH" versions are close enough ;)
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Tags: