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 TierneyFounder, The DIRECT Teamwww.directlauncher.comTutus Simplex Ocius Ut Astrum
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: mars.is.wet on 06/05/2009 02:14 pmConcepts 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
With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.
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.
Multiple Presentations?Yikes -- the coordination is tough enough just doing this one...Ross.
Quote from: adamsmith on 06/05/2009 02:53 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=16559.0These 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.
Now, what about my point concerning no Mars without PD.