Author Topic: Augustine Video - DIRECT  (Read 22285 times)

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 480
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #40 on: 10/30/2009 02:55 AM »
Not so much related to Direct, but the attached chart from the video would be extremely useful every time someone starts the same tired cost comparison of the Shuttle against Soyuz and summarily declares US engineers incompetent, etc. Do you have or know a link to a larger version of the chart. I did a cursory search of the Direct site and greater internet, but didn't find anything.

See page 53 of the Augustine Commission final report for a bigger version of that chart.

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #41 on: 10/30/2009 03:01 AM »
Great video--but too long.  Cut it down to under 5 minutes, 3 minutes would be optimum.  people in the US like things in short clips.  Regean was a great President since he could relate to the people.  Who is the audience is the video for?

Offline ChaseOne

  • Museum Guy
  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • So. Cal
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #42 on: 10/30/2009 04:41 AM »
Well they make a good case for Direct. The whole Augustine thing frustrates me but what can I say. Ares I seems like a simple way to just get a crew up there like the Saturn 1B but the truth is the truth. The video gets to you and tugs at your innerds. I guess I'm a convert now. I have a space exhibit at my museum that I need to change I guess? Hmmmm. 3 years of Ares stuff to trash? Wow.
"Let"s go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard" JFK

Offline alexSA

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #43 on: 10/30/2009 07:15 AM »
Interesting and compelling presentation. I felt it was over-dramatic, but I understand that somewhat in the context of the target audience.

Not so much related to Direct, but the attached chart from the video would be extremely useful every time someone starts the same tired cost comparison of the Shuttle against Soyuz and summarily declares US engineers incompetent, etc. Do you have or know a link to a larger version of the chart. I did a cursory search of the Direct site and greater internet, but didn't find anything.

Thanks.

It's a nice chart, but it is actually misleading and to some extent plain wrong - unfortunately. Here are some of the inconsistencies:

1. The chart misrepresents the capabilities of the HTV, Progress and ATV. The total cargo upmass capacity of the ATV is about 7.6mt, e.g. Propellant, water and air is also required to run the station, leaving them out of a comparison is misleading. In contrast, the Shuttle cannot transfer fuel to the station for stationkeeping. It can boost it's orbit while the Shuttle is docked, but that can be done by the ATV for months, e.g., not just once in a 10-day docking phase.

2. The chart misrepresents that Progress CAN actually bring up unpressurized cargo. Latest example is MRM-2, which weighs more than 4mt.

3. The unpressurized cargo comparison is misleading, as Proton isn't listed in the chart. If the chart lists the cargo upmass (module mass) for the Shuttle, cargo upmass for Proton should also be listed - after all Proton has brought up modules massing 21mt.

4. The real benefit of the Shuttle is its down mass capacity which isn't rivaled by any other vehicle. However, its downmass capacity hasn't actually ever be maxed out with useful payloads - trash is also brought back, which actually could be disposed off by expandable vehicles burning up in the atmosphere.

5. The chart uses the CRS minimum mass requirement for Cygnus and Dragon as the actual upmass (downmass) capacity. While these vehicles have not flown yet (this should have been indicated on the chart), their capacities are actually different - Dragon is supposed to have a pressurized cargo capacity higher than 3mt.
« Last Edit: 10/31/2009 07:00 AM by alexSA »

Offline iamlucky13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #44 on: 10/31/2009 01:53 AM »
Not so much related to Direct, but the attached chart from the video would be extremely useful every time someone starts the same tired cost comparison of the Shuttle against Soyuz and summarily declares US engineers incompetent, etc. Do you have or know a link to a larger version of the chart. I did a cursory search of the Direct site and greater internet, but didn't find anything.

See page 53 of the Augustine Commission final report for a bigger version of that chart.

Ahh...thanks. I haven't gotten that far into it yet.

Alex, your points are well-noted, and I've even brought them up in the sort of conversations I'm thinking of. The point isn't that the shuttle blows everything else away, but that the mix of capabilities put the costs of each system in context.

Offline mrbliss

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Grand Rapids, MI
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #45 on: 10/31/2009 01:20 PM »
Getting back on topic, to the video, I posted the link on Facebook.  Here's the first comment I got:

"Discouraging. We can put a man on the moon but we can't produce a video with even sound levels..."

:(

Steve

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1764
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 8815
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #46 on: 10/31/2009 01:42 PM »
Getting back on topic, to the video, I posted the link on Facebook.  Here's the first comment I got:

"Discouraging. We can put a man on the moon but we can't produce a video with even sound levels..."

:(

Steve

Typical ... and even gets its main argument wrong: we "useta could" put a man on the Moon -- 37 years ago -- but threw that ability away once it was working (a.k.a. "boring").

Offline HIPAR

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 586
  • NE Pa (USA)
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #47 on: 10/31/2009 04:46 PM »
The video oversimplifies the solution to a complex problem that's becoming problem ever more complex what the passage of time.

We are approaching the shuttle no return point (if it hasn't already been crossed).  Really, is engineering a launch system akin to swishing sub-assemblies around in an animated PowerPoint VuGraph show.

I won't declare this propaganda but it's close.

---  CHAS

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #48 on: 10/31/2009 05:54 PM »
What did you expect?  If you tried to explain the details of DIRECT's plan, (a) you'd lose every non-rocket scientist in the audience within two minutes, and (b) you'd have to divulge sensitive information.  Remember, DIRECT is the result of four years of work by several dozen NASA and contractor engineers.  The AC didn't actually assess their plan, but it had a couple options (4B, for instance) that look fairly close if you squint...

Offline phantomdj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
  • Standing in the Saturn V nozzle
  • Merritt Island, Fl
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #49 on: 10/31/2009 06:25 PM »
What did you expect?  If you tried to explain the details of DIRECT's plan, (a) you'd lose every non-rocket scientist in the audience within two minutes, and (b) you'd have to divulge sensitive information.  Remember, DIRECT is the result of four years of work by several dozen NASA and contractor engineers.  The AC didn't actually assess their plan, but it had a couple options (4B, for instance) that look fairly close if you squint...

I think the AC missed one of the best options.  If you take 4B and replace the moon with a flexible path or take 5C and add shuttle to 2015 you have the best of both worlds.  A combo of 4B/5C.
1 percent for NASA.  We spend more than twice that per year on soda.

Offline alexSA

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #50 on: 10/31/2009 07:17 PM »
What did you expect?  If you tried to explain the details of DIRECT's plan, (a) you'd lose every non-rocket scientist in the audience within two minutes, and (b) you'd have to divulge sensitive information.  Remember, DIRECT is the result of four years of work by several dozen NASA and contractor engineers.  The AC didn't actually assess their plan, but it had a couple options (4B, for instance) that look fairly close if you squint...

I think the AC missed one of the best options.  If you take 4B and replace the moon with a flexible path or take 5C and add shuttle to 2015 you have the best of both worlds.  A combo of 4B/5C.

Augustine acknowledged that mixing options is of course possible. They didn't do it, because Augustine wanted to limit the whole affair to basically 3 options, one of them being the baseline option. It would have been better to have a matrix of launch vehicles, destinations and STS to 2015 and assess that matrix.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9683
  • Liked: 1401
  • Likes Given: 877
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #51 on: 10/31/2009 07:39 PM »

Good video. Great images. The graphic with common booster, 2nd stage multiple options was really poignant. Agree about the sound volumes particulary with Augustine.

infocat13 is there not a more appropriate thread for what I would consider your completely off topic post?

(Infocat's post removed as it's impossible to read - Andy).


Infocat, I agree with Vooodooforce, you would be better off posting these comments, here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19199.0

This thread is more about the Direct Video and your comments were more on the report itself.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2009 04:01 AM by Andy USA »

Offline mrbliss

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Grand Rapids, MI
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #52 on: 11/01/2009 03:16 AM »
Getting back on topic, to the video, I posted the link on Facebook.  Here's the first comment I got:

"Discouraging. We can put a man on the moon but we can't produce a video with even sound levels..."

Typical ... and even gets its main argument wrong: we "useta could" put a man on the Moon -- 37 years ago -- but threw that ability away once it was working (a.k.a. "boring").

My point was that the sound levels on the video (a) distract from the point of the video and (b) undermine the respectability of the messengers and the message.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5539
  • Liked: 1068
  • Likes Given: 671
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #53 on: 11/04/2009 06:55 AM »
At 9:48 we hear someone saying "I came in absolutely convinced that 25-metric-ton vehicles were big enough to launch all of the pieces.  I am by no means convinced of that today."  Who was that?  Jeff Greason?

At 10:12, we see Zubrin saying that heavy lift is essential, which is quite a statement coming from him.  Has either Zubrin or Greason (if that's who it was) elaborated anywhere as to why their views on heavy lift have changed?

Offline randomly

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #54 on: 11/04/2009 07:32 AM »
9:48 is Jeff Greason

Offline alexSA

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #55 on: 11/04/2009 09:53 AM »
At 9:48 we hear someone saying "I came in absolutely convinced that 25-metric-ton vehicles were big enough to launch all of the pieces.  I am by no means convinced of that today."  Who was that?  Jeff Greason?

At 10:12, we see Zubrin saying that heavy lift is essential, which is quite a statement coming from him.  Has either Zubrin or Greason (if that's who it was) elaborated anywhere as to why their views on heavy lift have changed?

Greason has said (I think it was in a speech a month ago - I read an article about it) that he thought 25mt isn't enough because they looked at the biggest required item that has to be launched to orbit in one thing (for a mission that isn't extremely complicated) and they determined that it will be somewhere between 40-50mt. That being said, Greason says a vehicle capable of delivering above 40-50mt is required.

I don't know about Zubrin. I thought for a full-blown Mars program he always advocated to develop an HLV?

Offline Charles Hagen

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • on the job
  • Two Rivers, WI
    • Hagen Information Technologies, Inc.
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Augustine Video - DIRECT
« Reply #56 on: 11/29/2009 07:24 PM »
I support the Direct launcher.  I like to see existing, man-rated technology used.

As an Industrial Engineer, I can say mass production of SSME should defray the costs enough to make it competitive.

NASA is in a difficult situation with limited budgets but Ares I launcher will only make it worse.

Tags: