Quote from: MP99 on 06/04/2009 10:24 amQuote from: butters on 06/04/2009 09:34 amYeah, 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, MartinAnother 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.
Quote from: butters on 06/04/2009 09:34 amYeah, 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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: Mark S on 06/05/2009 03:09 amSo 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".
Quote from: deltaV on 06/05/2009 03:43 amQuote from: Mark S on 06/05/2009 03:09 amSo 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.
How about Jupiter and Jupiter++. :-)
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.