Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1  (Read 1228182 times)

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #360 on: 06/05/2009 12:04 pm »
Ross, I agree with all these points. I knew this all from your previous posts already. I am suggesting different wording in your presentation, I am not saying you are factually wrong.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #361 on: 06/05/2009 12:09 pm »
Okay, sorry, I misunderstood your intent.   I'll take a look and see what wording might be more suitable.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 12:10 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #362 on: 06/05/2009 12:13 pm »
I'm going to make a specific appeal to all of our supporters:

Can we all please try to refrain from any "confrontation" with CxP from here onwards.   It isn't helping things.

If NASA is ever going to be able to adopt a plan similar to DIRECT for itself, we need to start working NOW to develop a greater spirit of cooperation between the agency and us.   We can't do that if we keep the conflict going any longer.

We have no choice but to set aside our old differences and complaints.   Believe me, I know that's going to be hard to do given some of the bad blood which has flowed so freely between DIRECT and CxP over the last few years.   But we MUST try to resolve our differences sooner or later.   It would be advantageous for all if we can do so sooner.

Someone has to start the process of healing the rift and I think it should be us -- and I think it should be NOW.


So this is a call to everyone throughout our support base:

Spend your time promoting the positives of DIRECT loudly, vibrantly, for all to hear.   But lets all leave all of the negative diatribe in the car -- it is only going to get in the way from here onwards.

Thank-you for your continued support.   

Ross Tierney
Founder, The DIRECT Team
www.directlauncher.com
Tutus Simplex Ocius Ut Astrum

Hooray.

cheers, Martin

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #363 on: 06/05/2009 01:16 pm »

One thing that has come to my mind of late: The thirty-minute time frame suggests that you are being 'indulged'.  They're expecting a semi-well-informed amateur with a big Internet following who will just try to impress them with his Lego rocket.  Make sure that you emphasise that there is real engineering here.  You might want to have in-depth backup material for their technical advisers to pour over.

As I have said for weeks, short time periods are normal for panels like this.  This is not a slam, it is pro forma.

*might* is not the operative word.  without detailed technical backups including cost and schedule methodologies approved by these guys

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/pae/organization/cost_analysis_division.html

Your proposal won't make it into the analysis phase, and your costs and schedules will be disregarded outright.

Offline gin455res

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • bristol, uk
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #364 on: 06/05/2009 01:17 pm »
Ross,
Are you in the states, as without wanting to sound like your mum, I've noticed you posting at times that look to me like you never sleep (possibly a bit of parental exaggeration)? However, it may be because i'm in the UK and all the times are a bit confused.  I hope you are not burning yourself out.

As a layman, I think the effort you are making, is very important and commendable. Given the political constraints I've heard you outline on the space show, plus the clear benefits of not having to develop much new hardware, I find the direct scheme very persuasive - a  virtual 'no brainer'.

Do you have any representatives in the team, or even independent outsiders who are well acquainted with direct,  that you could suggest answer questions like those that would be asked by people like ben. Not only would this give you more time to work on other priorities, it would also give more of an appearance of a team effort.

You are always clear that you represent a fairly substantial team of experts, that's not at issue and you come across well, but more faces/voices might  (or might not!  - it's just a thought) reflect the size of the team better, in a psychological/marketing sense. 

Or is it a deliberate team strategy to have you as the main spokesperson?



 

Offline adamsmith

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • chicago, IL USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #365 on: 06/05/2009 01:58 pm »

Secondly, to operate a mission in the class of the ones NASA intends requires you to loft about 200 metric tons of hardware to LEO at the start of each mission.   With 20mT-class lift vehicles or 25mT-class launch vehicles you are talking about a fleet of launchers and a fairly substantial orbital assembly task being required for every single mission -- and I would suggest that ISS is a good example of an orbital integration effort.   We're talking about integrating three modules the size and complexity of any of the ISS modules, together with five more launches providing Propellant (and we have no backup if we find that Orbital Propellant Delivery capabilities are more difficult than expected, this arrangement has PD technologies on the critical path to BEGIN the Lunar exploration phase) and then Orion comes in just to add a little extra spice.   All those assembly tasks must be performed by automated systems, or we also have to launch assembly crews as well, and all those additional docking joints and connections all add extra complexity which has to work perfectly every time or the crew on that mission may well die.   And lets not even start talking about the 40+ launches required to support each Mars mission -- its *insane* to propose building a new "ISS"-sized structure in LEO whenever we wish to go to Mars.   Never gonna happen.


Then, in the longer term we are also attempting to create large and healthy new market for commercial delivery systems to LEO with estimated requirements around 400-600mT per year.   That should prove to be a sufficiently large slice of the pie to keep EELV & COTS suppliers happy, no?

Yes, EELV doesn't get the entire pie with DIRECT.   But they sure get a nice slice of it AND we get to protect the Shuttle workforce and make a Heavy Lift system for the future.   Isn't that what's called a "Win Win"?

Ross.

I wanted to focus on two items which I think are related: PD and the politics of EELV.

I understand that the PD is a technology risk, but in the Direct V3.0 presentation slides 37 and 38, it is praised as a high value technology.  I think that this is an issue that Von Braun wanted solved 40+ years ago, and if we had solved it, this thread would not be discussing lunar or even Mars exploration but Jupiter and Saturn.  The PD represents a political opportunity by spreading the wealth.  Lets take the risk, lets just start early. After all,  you can test the system using Jupiter-130.

Stan

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #366 on: 06/05/2009 02:14 pm »
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.

Offline Drapper23

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #367 on: 06/05/2009 02:27 pm »
I agree that we should adopt a totally non-antagonistic attitude towards NASA at this time. Let's forget the conflicts of the past & just present the Direct 3 program to them & the Augustine Committee!!
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 02:28 pm by Drapper23 »

Offline adamsmith

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • chicago, IL USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #368 on: 06/05/2009 02:31 pm »
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.

In 1972 humans left the moon and have not returned since because we did not have a sustainable technology within the cost constraints available.  Propellant Depots  can change that. Ares1/AresV vs. Direct is more than just specific launchers, its about space architecture.  If we don't change the paradigm, we simply won't get to the moon let alone mars.  After all, the taxpayer thinks we've already done it, why do it again?

IMHO

Stan

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 #369 on: 06/05/2009 02:31 pm »
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.

I agree with this.  Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time.  Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them.  Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time.  I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.

Danny Deger
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 02:33 pm by Danny Dot »
Danny Deger

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #370 on: 06/05/2009 02:32 pm »
Ares FY10 Budget Slashed by $360m

http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/124419337485270.xml&coll=1


For three years we have been predicting that this would happen to any proposal trying to build TWO different launch vehicles.

NASA is going to need to change its plans -- soon -- or the VSE will not survive this.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 02:42 pm by kraisee »
"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 #371 on: 06/05/2009 02:52 pm »
Danny & mars,
While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think you realize just how big an impact that idea has *already* had with the political movers and shakers we've spoken with.

When we explain the idea to them, and explain the benefits, their eyes have, quite literally, grown very *wide* with realization.   I actually think it may have made at least as big of an 'impression' than the entire rest of the proposal.

Now, this particular panel isn't made up career-politico's per se, but I would suggest that many of the panel are at least well versed and are politically savvy.

The "Phase 3" plan solves a lot of different issues.   It brings together SDLV, EELV and COTS all into one unified plan where everyone benefits.   It reduces the cost of the EELV/COTS satellite launchers which should finally make the US competitive on the international launch market again.   At opens the door to major practical involvement by international partners -- without ever handing any partner the keys to the car, which prevents any partner from ever disabling the whole architecture if political winds ever turned very sour down the road.   And it increases performance by a very large amount, which benefits both Lunar architectures, but is also very forward-looking when considering other destinations too.

Each of those is a significant benefits worthy of presenting on their own.   Together they make quite a formidable argument.

But, yes, we will probably focus most of our 30 minute presentation on the near- and medium-term benefits of the DIRECT architecture, and leave this for a short slot, along with a more comprehensive set of documentation to accompany it.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 02:54 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline adamsmith

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • chicago, IL USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #372 on: 06/05/2009 02:53 pm »
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.

I agree with this.  Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time.  Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them.  Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time.  I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.

Danny Deger

Now PD becomes "very high risk".

Let me see if I can make a couple of statements that we can all agree upon.

1)  Direct v3.0 is the best way to create a heavy lift capacity the case for which Ross has done such a great job of presenting.
2)  While a two launch system promises to get us back to the moon, it while still not be "cheap'
3)  Without Propellant depots, it is impossible to go to mars.

Now here is the point that I would like to make:

  With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.

With that I will shut up and thank everyone for their patience.

Stan


Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #373 on: 06/05/2009 02:53 pm »
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.

I agree with this.  Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time.  Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them.  Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time.  I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.

Danny Deger

That's the key. 

MULTIPLE Presentations  Anyone with a credible idea has to be allowed to speak.  That means that multiple DIRECT folks (or DIRECT supporters) can present multiple connected or disconnected parts of an architecture if they are structured right.  Don't need to acknowledge the connection between them, but they can reference each other.

Also gives a sense of the larger, diverse DIRECT team ... and that others have leveraged the DIRECT info (even if it is the same team and not technically correct).

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #374 on: 06/05/2009 02:57 pm »
Multiple Presentations?

Yikes -- the coordination is tough enough just doing this one...

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 #375 on: 06/05/2009 02:59 pm »

  With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.


Not being antagonistic, but much like I have asked the DIRECT guys, prove this statement.  It depends on flight rates and non-recurring costs for propellant depots.

Look at a simple, off the shelf upgrade to our DoD communications systems, TSAT.  TSAT went from an $8B, to a $15B, to $20B, to a $26B development for 5 satellites. 5 satellites!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16559.0

These people are not stupid.  This is not government waste and abuse.  Space is hard.  Space is expensive.  The reliability and life we have come to expect in our satellites and launch vehicles comes at a huge development and procurement cost ... and that cost does not go down by wishing it away or by "similarity" to prior systems. 

We are in a different cost environment than Apollo or SSP ... or even NLS.  Things cost WAY more today (MIL-STDS, tighter requirements, DoD directives, FAR) ... How people can claim that things like DIRECT and propellant depots are "low risk" and "are lower cost" without showing their work and still maintain credibility with the people on this board continues to amaze me.

« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 03:03 pm by mars.is.wet »

Offline adamsmith

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • chicago, IL USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #376 on: 06/05/2009 03:08 pm »
Danny & mars,
While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think you realize just how big an impact that idea has *already* had with the political movers and shakers we've spoken with.


The "Phase 3" plan solves a lot of different issues.   It brings together SDLV, EELV and COTS all into one unified plan where everyone benefits.   

And it increases performance by a very large amount, which benefits both Lunar architectures, but is also very forward-looking when considering other destinations too.

But, yes, we will probably focus most of our 30 minute presentation on the near- and medium-term benefits of the DIRECT architecture, and leave this for a short slot, along with a more comprehensive set of documentation to accompany it.

Ross.

Gee Ross,  thanks for saying it so well

Stan

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #377 on: 06/05/2009 03:11 pm »
Multiple Presentations?

Yikes -- the coordination is tough enough just doing this one...

Ross.

Keys to any organization are a clear vision, effective direction and delegation.

Offline adamsmith

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • chicago, IL USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #378 on: 06/05/2009 03:16 pm »

  With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.


Not being antagonistic, but much like I have asked the DIRECT guys, prove this statement.  It depends on flight rates and non-recurring costs for propellant depots.

Look at a simple, off the shelf upgrade to our DoD communications systems, TSAT.  TSAT went from an $8B, to a $15B, to $20B, to a $26B development for 5 satellites. 5 satellites!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16559.0

These people are not stupid.  This is not government waste and abuse.  Space is hard.  Space is expensive.  The reliability and life we have come to expect in our satellites and launch vehicles comes at a huge development and procurement cost ... and that cost does not go down by wishing it away or by "similarity" to prior systems. 

We are in a different cost environment than Apollo or SSP ... or even NLS.  Things cost WAY more today (MIL-STDS, tighter requirements, DoD directives, FAR) ... How people can claim that things like DIRECT and propellant depots are "low risk" and "are lower cost" without showing their work and still maintain credibility with the people on this board continues to amaze me.



PD is not "low risk", and the most important factor in risk reduction is Time.  Start early. Your point about flight rate, is correct and the lower the incremental costs, the more likely to have high flight rates.

Now, what about my point concerning no Mars without PD.

Stan

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #379 on: 06/05/2009 03:23 pm »
Now, what about my point concerning no Mars without PD.

NASA HSF budget would need to increase 4-5x to enable Mars mission (NR is $100-$400B, RE is at least $7B) so the point is effectively moot.

To address the specific point, I don't need PD if I do nuclear, but yes, most of what is launched is propellant.  If you want to call that depots, go ahead, but it could also simply be in-space assembly.

Tags:
 

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