"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"Ross (heading out for a few hours -- 'tis the weekend after all!)
I am therefore going to amend all of the Baseball Cards now.
Ross's concern is understandable. The bottom line is that if everything goes well for Direct, it will have to be assimilated and worked by the very same people who've just recently been working on Constellation with their 'hearts and minds' invested in that. You can change their mind, but it's certainly not just by dumping on NASA and Constellation indiscriminatly.
Martin,You've got it all correct.FYI, explicitly, "DIRECT" now refers to the overall architecture governing all of the different launch vehicles (Jupiter), spacecraft (Orion, Altair, SSPDM etc.), mission plans, options, alternatives and within the proposal -- so suggesting its has a similar scope to CxP is quite reasonable, IMHO.
It will be a challenge to convince NASA that DIRECT's intention is to save their goal of going to the moon and Mars.
Quote from: veryrelaxed on 06/06/2009 06:02 pm indiscriminatly.By comparison would Jupiter be the result if the same team were asked "what's the cheapest that we can lift each kilogram with Shuttle-type hardware"?
indiscriminatly.
Quote from: ChuckC on 06/05/2009 08:41 pmI was thinking mainly of aspects of Direct that would be good selling points to Obama, but I failed to consider one important aspect about Obama’s pattern as president so far. This is that when it comes to the economic matters, his actions have consistently been the opposite of what is really needed. So in this case since Direct makes good economic sense we should expect Obama to decide against it. Come think of it Ares I/V is more consistent with Obama. Thanks!And you just never know. The fact he put together the Augustine commission gives me cautious optimism. Looks like they have real world people on it, and not just politicos. As long as Direct gets a chance to make their case, if they do, the panel gives them a fair shake, and if their recommendation is to go to Direct, I think that could be sticky for Obama to go against. Going against his own commission's recommendations? Hard to explain that.There's a few "ifs" there, but like I said, there's some cautious optimism to be had there. And the Direct team from what I've been reading look to have some optimism in the panel too, which is a good sign. All my fingers and toes are crossed!
I was thinking mainly of aspects of Direct that would be good selling points to Obama, but I failed to consider one important aspect about Obama’s pattern as president so far. This is that when it comes to the economic matters, his actions have consistently been the opposite of what is really needed. So in this case since Direct makes good economic sense we should expect Obama to decide against it. Come think of it Ares I/V is more consistent with Obama. Thanks!
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"
Quote from: ChuckC on 06/06/2009 12:55 amThere is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.In other circumstances, maybe, but not with Ares-I and Ares-V cluttering the landscape.Ares-III and Ares-IV sounds like 2 different rockets, like Ares-I and Ares-V.Sorry
There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.
Quote from: clongton on 06/06/2009 12:58 amQuote from: ChuckC on 06/06/2009 12:55 amThere is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.In other circumstances, maybe, but not with Ares-I and Ares-V cluttering the landscape.Ares-III and Ares-IV sounds like 2 different rockets, like Ares-I and Ares-V.Sorry When you think about it, as far as the final name is concerned the only thing that maters is what NASA wants to call it if they build it. For all I care they can call the boosters Larry, Moe and the upper stage Curly just as long as the build and fly it.
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.
...PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).
Quote from: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:38 pm"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"No no no...but close. It is wanton of something more at the end.(not to go back to the name debate, but heck, you 'invited it') How about:"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to a Flexible and Sustainable Architecture"EDIT: or better yet:"Direct -- One Rocket, One Vision"
Quote from: kraisee on 06/06/2009 06:36 pm...PS -- Here is a quick teaser for the new cards (same data as the last set, but slightly updated logo's and the "heavy" variants are coming too).Ross, I am looking at this card (J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.jpg) and this u/s propellant off-load by 57% makes me wonder, gee ... are you sure ?For a lunar outpost campaign, every second Jupiter will launch with the upper stage more than half empty ? 8x SSMEs, 4x SRBs, 2x 8.4m-cores, 2x WBC/ACES-technology-scaled upper stages (one less than half filled with propellants), 12x RL-10 engines, 2x avionics, LEO docking ... for one (1) cargo load to the moon ? Do you guys call that sustainable ?
...Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.
Quote from: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:18 pm...Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.Are you going to "gird your loins" and tell the Augustine Commission that in all earnest you would not recommend going forward with a lunar outpost - unless propellant depots are established first ?
Quote from: renclod on 06/06/2009 09:21 pmQuote from: clongton on 06/06/2009 09:18 pm...Don't forget that we are also sizing things to take advantage of a propellant depot later on. We don't want to create a new upper stage then. The tankage part of the JUS does not mass all that much so economically, because we have the mass margin to handle it, we're better off making one stage size and under utilizing it for a while than creating and qualifying different size stages. Remember, that was one of the things that the so-called analysis accused us of doing - multiple stage sizes.Are you going to "gird your loins" and tell the Augustine Commission that in all earnest you would not recommend going forward with a lunar outpost - unless propellant depots are established first ?No.