Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1  (Read 1228228 times)

Offline WellingtonEast

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Wellington, New Zealand
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #320 on: 06/05/2009 12:53 am »
Yeah, I was also thinking about a two-stage TLI/LOI/crasher architecture, except mine is a bit simpler:

Launch Altair on J-24x then Orion on J-24x.  Retain both upper stages to EOR.  Dock eyes in nozzles out.  Start TLI with Orion JUS (~70mT remaining propellant) and jettison on burnout.  Reverse attitude and finish TLI with Altair JUS (~45mT remaining propellant).  Reverse attitude and fire Altair JUS again for LOI and, after separating from Orion, a final burn for deorbit.  Jettison on burnout and crash it into the moon.

Besides the increased lunar payload, the lander center of gravity is substantially lower, the PLFs are less complicated/empty, and the EOR is simplified to a single docking maneuver much like Constellation.  Seems like a winner to me, as long as the brief coast between TLI burns for separation and reorientation isn't a big problem.


Two problems with that:-

1) During first EDS burn, you're putting huge stresses on the Orion / Altair connection. At best, you'd have to really beef up both vehicles and the docking mechanism. Probably lose all your mass savings.

2) The first EDS burn pushes Altair & EDS #2 "upside down", which I don't believe is a load path currently accomodated. (To be fair, I think Orion may gently accelerate Altair "upside down" during rendezvous manoeuvres).

cheers, Martin

Another concern with that approach is that the crew on the Orion has absolutely no possible way to escape from between those giant EDS' in the case of anything going wrong during the TLI.

Even on the 'regular' approach, facing the LSAM, the Orion has a chance to use the LSAM's Ascent Module to try to get them away from problems.   Its better than nothing.

Ross.


Hi,

As a long time lurker, great job the Direct guys and good luck. 

It might sound negative, but I keep seeing parallels between NASA and ancient Rome.  Rome ruled the world with leading technology and clear direction but then lost its way as it turned inward and rested on past glories.

While its not strictly Direct 3 territory, I have been very interested on the recent discussions here about EDS configuration for TLI and LOI with altair/orion.  The result is I am confused by some of the contributors comments which I find conflicting. Hence are there any pictures that outline the various options being discussed??

Cheers   




Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #321 on: 06/05/2009 02:07 am »
ment to try and clear things up, and included a link to directlauncher.com.   Sorry if I messed anything up, but I just wanted to leave a short summary for casual readers and a link for the more curious.

They have a Thursday night show (tonight) if you want to call in and give them any clarifications.

I have both posted a comment there and also directly e-mailed the hosts of the show to see about options for providing corrections.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #322 on: 06/05/2009 02:22 am »
While its not strictly Direct 3 territory, I have been very interested on the recent discussions here about EDS configuration for TLI and LOI with altair/orion.  The result is I am confused by some of the contributors comments which I find conflicting. Hence are there any pictures that outline the various options being discussed?

I am attempting to produce some Mission Profile diagrams to demonstrate the different potential options, but with everything else that has been going on yesterday and today, it is taking me a lot more time than I had hoped.   Please be patient -- they are in the pipeline.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #323 on: 06/05/2009 02:24 am »
On the Direct 3.0 video to the Augustine Commission, I agree with mars.is.wet in general that videos in such a forum are not good.  But your video has no audio and really is more of a moving PowerPoint presentation you can talk to while it plays in the background.  If you treat it like this, I think it would work.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #324 on: 06/05/2009 02:28 am »
That's what we did at ISDC (and other places too).   Essentially we use the video to explain the basic arrangement of the Jupiter launcher and how it relates to Shuttle's existing systems.

As such, it is *really* powerful when used as a "moving PowerPoint slide".

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #325 on: 06/05/2009 02:34 am »
That's what we did at ISDC (and other places too).   Essentially we use the video to explain the basic arrangement of the Jupiter launcher and how it relates to Shuttle's existing systems.

As such, it is *really* powerful when used as a "moving PowerPoint slide".

Ross.

But realize that they will likely control the machine ... and if they ask questions, your timing will get off.  Like the supreme court, its actually not much about the presentation and more about the questions.  If you are lucky they will read your material ahead of time.  Usually the charts are due 3-5 days before.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #326 on: 06/05/2009 03:09 am »
Ross, I had a long involved post typed up, but it got lost because my session timed out before I submitted it.  Arggh.

But what I wanted to suggest is that you simplify your materials by omitting the numeric suffixes.  When you refer to the Jupiter-130 and the Jupiter-246, people naturally assume you are referring to two separate vehicles.   I have lost count of the number of times that you or Chuck has pointed out that the Jupiter has a common core, and that the J-130 core is identical to the J-246 core.  The numeric suffix is a spiffy and concise way of distinguishing between the LEO and the Lunar versions, or better yet the single-stage and the two-stage versions, but it is confusing to newcomers and lay people.

The concept seems obvious once you "get" it, but people just do not intuitively grasp it.  Or they use the opportunity to sow a little confusion by treating them as two separate vehicles even when they know darn well that they are not.  (NASA Analysis, anyone?)  To most lay people, two separate names imply two separate vehicles.  Even people who are obviously industry insiders repeatedly get this issue confused.

So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material.  It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter.  Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.

Only when the industry insiders need more detailed info, that is when you can whip out the baseball cards and spreadsheets, and all of the possible variants.  Otherwise, make the effort to just refer to it as "Jupiter".  I think that will help clear up some of the confusion, and make for a clearer message.

Just an idea!

Mark S.



Offline Cale

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Bowmanville, ON Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #327 on: 06/05/2009 03:26 am »
That's what we did at ISDC (and other places too).   Essentially we use the video to explain the basic arrangement of the Jupiter launcher and how it relates to Shuttle's existing systems.

As such, it is *really* powerful when used as a "moving PowerPoint slide".

Ross.

Hopefully, if we get the Orbiter version fully up-and-running, that could serve as a further visual aid.

Best,

Cale
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 03:27 am by Cale »

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2132
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #328 on: 06/05/2009 03:43 am »
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material.  It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter.  Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.

When there's a need to distinguish between the two variants how about "Jupiter with core only" for J-130 and "Jupiter core plus upper stage" for J-246? The former has an obvious and descriptive short form: "Jupiter core". The latter is harder to shorten; possibilities include "Jupiter plus" and "full Jupiter".

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #329 on: 06/05/2009 03:52 am »
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material.  It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter.  Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.

When there's a need to distinguish between the two variants how about "Jupiter with core only" for J-130 and "Jupiter core plus upper stage" for J-246? The former has an obvious and descriptive short form: "Jupiter core". The latter is harder to shorten; possibilities include "Jupiter plus" and "full Jupiter".


I think the naming concept is pretty easy to understand, doesn't even need explanation anyway. The people on the commission will be used to nomenclature and long strings of numbers. One of the members actually already knows what DIRECT is and is a supporter. If they have questions they can ask them or leaf through the hard copies.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #330 on: 06/05/2009 03:58 am »
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material.  It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter.  Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.

When there's a need to distinguish between the two variants how about "Jupiter with core only" for J-130 and "Jupiter core plus upper stage" for J-246? The former has an obvious and descriptive short form: "Jupiter core". The latter is harder to shorten; possibilities include "Jupiter plus" and "full Jupiter".


Yeah, it's hard to come with a good way of distinguishing them without creating the impression of multiple vehicles.  You and I know what "J-130" and "J-246" mean, it is good shorthand and clear to those who are in the know.

Even the professionally written article in Popular Mechanics failed to make this issue easily understandable, and that was with the full cooperation of the DIRECT team.

So I think the best thing to do is not create the confusion in the first place.  Always refer to the vehicle as just "Jupiter".  For instance, instead of saying "The Jupiter-246 is capable of launching over 100 metric tonnes to low Earth orbit", one could say "The Jupiter launcher, with its powerful upper stage added, can launch over 100 tonnes to LEO".  Sure, it is a little longer to write, but it makes clear that it is still the same vehicle that is used for LEO operations.

Mark S.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #331 on: 06/05/2009 04:12 am »
So my humble suggestion is to just drop the suffix in online fora and in your marketing material.  It shouldn't be the "Jupiter-130" and "Jupiter-246", or even J-130 and J-246, but just Jupiter.  Maybe you could add Phase-I and Phase-II, but even that is not needed in normal conversation.

When there's a need to distinguish between the two variants how about "Jupiter with core only" for J-130 and "Jupiter core plus upper stage" for J-246? The former has an obvious and descriptive short form: "Jupiter core". The latter is harder to shorten; possibilities include "Jupiter plus" and "full Jupiter".


I think the naming concept is pretty easy to understand, doesn't even need explanation anyway. The people on the commission will be used to nomenclature and long strings of numbers. One of the members actually already knows what DIRECT is and is a supporter. If they have questions they can ask them or leaf through the hard copies.

I agree that it is easy once you "get it".  But if it was that obvious and easily understandable, it wouldn't constantly be brought up so often in these very threads.  Or in other online forums and blogs, or even official NASA documents.  This confusion has already been used by DIRECT detractors to muddy the waters, as seen in the NASA Analysis document.  Two names = two vehicles.

After all, was creating Delta-IV as simple as adding an upper stage to Delta-III?  Was going to Atlas-III as simple as adding an upper stage to Atlas-II?  Or even Atlas-III to Atlas-V?   Just because a launcher has the same first name with some kind of difference in suffixes, does not imply that the vehicles are identical at all.  If fact, I would say the opposite, that any difference in rocket names, even just a suffix, normally means a major difference between the two vehicles.

Anyway, the point is probably moot this late in the game.  Just thought I'd throw it out there...

Mark S.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 04:15 am by Mark S »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #332 on: 06/05/2009 08:15 am »
I don't think we're going to mess with the naming convention this late in the game.

Those who know already, will "get it", we will just make sure its clear to everyone in the presentation at the time.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Online MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #333 on: 06/05/2009 08:56 am »
Jupiter phase 1 & Jupiter phase 2

Jupiter basic & Jupiter enhanced

Jupiter single & Jupiter staged

Jupiter basic & Jupiter EDS

cherrs, Martin

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #334 on: 06/05/2009 09:04 am »
Jupiter & Jupiter Plus sounds good to me. Or maybe even Jupiter Medium & Jupiter Heavy?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #335 on: 06/05/2009 09:08 am »
How about Jupiter and Jupiter++. :-)
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline SimonFD

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #336 on: 06/05/2009 09:12 am »
How about Jupiter and Jupiter++. :-)

Aha! A programmer!  ;D
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #337 on: 06/05/2009 09:23 am »
I don't think we're going to mess with the naming convention this late in the game.

Those who know already, will "get it", we will just make sure its clear to everyone in the presentation at the time.

Ross.

There's no need to scrap the number designations, just refer to them using more common terms when talking to the media.

Just refer to the J-130 as simply the 'Jupiter' and the J-246 as the 'Jupiter Plus'. Simple.

- Mike

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #338 on: 06/05/2009 09:30 am »
You could even apply the new terms retrospectively; i.e. you could henceforth refer to ALL your J-130's, J-120's etc. as 'Jupiters' and all your J-232's, J-246's, etc. as 'Jupiter Pluses'. That seems like the most intuitive solution to me.

- Mike
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 09:31 am by Michael Bloxham »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #339 on: 06/05/2009 09:46 am »
If I were going to recommend a name convention change, which I'm not really inclined to, I would probably suggest using the simplest descriptions of just the "Jupiter" vehicle and the "Jupiter with Upper Stage".

I don't think it gets much simpler than that, and the names help make it really obvious that they are the same vehicle, just one has an additional stage on top.

Although I *like* Stephen's "++" suggestion -- its very "21st century net-savvy uber-geek speak" and that appeals to my own inner-geek ;)

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 09:49 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Tags:
 

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