Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1  (Read 1228223 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #500 on: 06/06/2009 06:38 pm »
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"

???

I got my Verbosity right here...

Ross (heading out for a few hours -- 'tis the weekend after all!)
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 06:40 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 #501 on: 06/06/2009 06:39 pm »
"DIRECT -- An Affordable means to Flexible, Sustainable, High Performance"

???

Ross (heading out for a few hours -- 'tis the weekend after all!)

OK by me

Stan

Offline SoFDMC

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #502 on: 06/06/2009 06:42 pm »
It will be a challenge to convince NASA that DIRECT's intention is to save their goal of going to the moon and Mars.

Something along the lines of, 'We're not against NASA, we want NASA to succeed even in these lean times and this is why we are proposing this'.

For those who don't know, NASA's official website has updated its video gallery on its Constellation program, the timing suggests it has something to do with the upcoming Commission.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/index.html

Online MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #503 on: 06/06/2009 07:07 pm »
I am therefore going to amend all of the Baseball Cards now.


Ross,

if you're going to re-issue, at least one of the 29 deg baseball cards is described as an ISS vehicle, which I think is incorrect.

cheers, Martin

Online MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #504 on: 06/06/2009 07:17 pm »
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.


OK, here's a question. It's not intended to be contentious, just looking for a little insight.

Would it be fair to say that Ares V is what you get from "what's the most we can lift per launch with Shuttle-type hardware"?

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"?

cheers, Martin

Online MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #505 on: 06/06/2009 07:21 pm »
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.


Ross,

again, I always thought that was the definition of DIRECT (possibly assumed from the AIAA-2007-6231 paper). Certainly using the phrase explicity in that way is completely consistent with the informal way that you both have been using it up until now (I'd be very sensitive to any other usage), which is good for anyone Googling and learning about DIRECT from a mixture of old & new statements.

cheers, Martin

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #506 on: 06/06/2009 07:24 pm »
It will be a challenge to convince NASA that DIRECT's intention is to save their goal of going to the moon and Mars.

NASA already knows this, it just thinks its way will do the job better. The argument is technical, it should remain that way with any emotion left aside. DIRECT 3.0 is technically and fiscally ready, Ross/Chuck have the right attitude now to present it in the best light, calm and measured. I also suggest they present a copy of their rebuttal after their presentation talk as reading material to be left behind as no doubt Hawes will already have the original study in his mind when judging, minus all the controversial accusatory bits though ! The IDEA has to do the shouting now, not its fans or presenters. Less is more now so close to prime-time.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 07:28 pm by marsavian »

Offline fotoguzzi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Phobos first!
  • PDX, Oregon, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #507 on: 06/06/2009 07:27 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"?
What programme can safely complete foreseeable missions using existing personnel and infrastructure in a reasonable amount of time and in a development order that helps to reduce the gap?

Edit: insert: "and interoperate with existing Shuttle operations" somewhere.

To me, the affordable part follows because you are maximizing the payload for the powerplant.  It just seems like it would be a cheaper way to go and I believe the DIRECTheads have made a good case with real numbers.

Edit: comma removal; apostrophe removal
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 07:41 pm by fotoguzzi »
My other rocket is a DIRECT Project 2

Offline fotoguzzi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Phobos first!
  • PDX, Oregon, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #508 on: 06/06/2009 07:39 pm »
On the less confrontational tone:

If the Committee will review all material fairly, then there is no reason to elbow anyone in the ribs.  If the Committee is fixed, then it doesn't matter what is said. 

The fact that the Committee was called is a good omen that someone important would like to take a pause--and this is a good reason for a cessation of hostilities.

Modify: Now to find a nice way to say that it is not nice to destroy existing infrastructure if you haven't designed YOUR rocket yet.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 08:26 pm by fotoguzzi »
My other rocket is a DIRECT Project 2

Offline ChuckC

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #509 on: 06/06/2009 08:06 pm »

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!

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!

Agreed, cautious optimism is the best way look at it.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #510 on: 06/06/2009 08:14 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"
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 08:15 pm by robertross »

Offline ChuckC

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #511 on: 06/06/2009 08:21 pm »

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.

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.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #512 on: 06/06/2009 08:25 pm »

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.

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.

Now that I agree with. They can call it anything they want to so long as they fly it.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline jeff.findley

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #513 on: 06/06/2009 08:53 pm »

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.


And because a Mars mission, even nuclear, will need so much propellant, likely LH2, this will require multiple launches over some period of time, even with in-space assembly.  In order to enable this, storage of LH2 in LEO will need to be perfected.  Note that this is one of the main stumbling blocks for LEO fuel depots as well.

Also, note that in-space assembly would also require the ability to connect multiple LH2 tanks in LEO and feed that LH2 either to a LH2/LOX engine or a nuclear engine.  Note that this is another of the main stumbling blocks for LEO fuel depots.

What stumbling blocks are left for a LEO fuel depot that are not also shared by an in-space assembly architecture for a Mars mission?

Propellant depots would be a "game changing" technology for manned space exploration, specifically exploration of Mars.  One of the biggest pitfalls of NASA's current approach to implementing ESAS is that it contains nothing game changing.  Because of this, it appears to me to be as economically unsustainable as Apollo.  If politicians see it the same way, ESAS is doomed unless NASA changes direction, and soon.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 09:04 pm by jeff.findley »

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #514 on: 06/06/2009 09:08 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 ?

Edit: I also wanted to ask you this, why did you omitted the lunar cargo mission description from the ISDC'09 presentation ?

« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 09:22 pm by renclod »

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #515 on: 06/06/2009 09:16 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"

robert-

Ooooohhh...I LIKE that last one!

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #516 on: 06/06/2009 09:18 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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #517 on: 06/06/2009 09:21 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 ?


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #518 on: 06/06/2009 09:24 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. Jupiter is sized to properly do the full-up lunar mission without a propellant depot at all. That would be a 2xJupiter launch. But once a depot comes online we could do a full-up mission with a single launch. That's the way we sized it, so that while we don't *need* a depot, unlike Ares-V we are not the enemy of a depot and are properly sized to take full advantage of it.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #519 on: 06/06/2009 09:36 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.

I got it, no is no. You are not going to propose going straight to propellant depots - before starting exploration in full - even if your collective heart is with the p.d.

« Last Edit: 06/06/2009 11:24 pm by renclod »

Tags:
 

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