Author Topic: "Direct" Alternative  (Read 58177 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
"Direct" Alternative
« on: 08/30/2006 10:44 PM »
I'm going to start putting information about "Direct" in this thread instead of spreading it around.

I'd appreciate constructive analysis and feedback into the concept.

I'll start by showing a modified version of the "Stumpy" drawing presented previously, but showing "Direct" and "Direct + EDS" for comparison purposes, and Ares-V too.

Ross.

EDIT: I will also add the three previous diagrams I had already posted.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #1 on: 08/30/2006 11:36 PM »
Some areas to address, in no particular order.  Is this the same launch vehicle as LV 24/25 in the ESAS report (page 420)?  Is it going to need a support tower to withstand wind loads during rollout?  (the Cd for a cylinder is 0.6, the Cd for a flat plate is ~1, pitch seems to be the relevant axis, and it looks like Direct will have more bending loads at it's base than STS).  Can you sketch a rough budget sand-chart and manifest through first lunar flight?  It feels like this requires spending a lot of money up front for launch vehicle development and then carrying the subsequent large-ish operating costs during the EDS and LSAM development and shakeout periods when there will be comparatively low flight rates.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #2 on: 08/31/2006 12:01 AM »
Quote
yinzer - 30/8/2006  7:23 PM

Some areas to address, in no particular order.  Is this the same launch vehicle as LV 24/25 in the ESAS report (page 420)?  Is it going to need a support tower to withstand wind loads during rollout?  (the Cd for a cylinder is 0.6, the Cd for a flat plate is ~1, pitch seems to be the relevant axis, and it looks like Direct will have more bending loads at it's base than STS).

I think the basic "Direct" would have less problems than STS because the wings and stabiliser of the orbiters will "catch" substantially more wind forces from most directions than the cone on the top of a fairly regular stack IMHO.

But "Direct+EDS" needs to be studied to answer the wind/bending moments.   The unfuelled EDS with the maximum 35mT payload in a 5mT shroud on top would mass 60mT or so, on top of the 'ET'.   That is roughly half the mass of the yesterday's 115mT Shuttle hanging off the side during rollback with the payload still in the payload bay, so I suspect we should be okay.

Given that the SRB mounts are designed already to sustain the "twang" during STS launch and do so repeatedly in the case of test-firing of the MPS at the Pad, I'm thinking that the stack & MLP interface can sustain a *huge* amount of latteral force.

The interface between the Core stage and EDS might be a weak-point, but that can only be answered IMHO, with detailed analysis, and I don't have those tools.   I'd say that interface is still probably a lot stronger than the three connections to the orbiter though...

If it should require a stabiliser, a much thinner umbilical tower can be mounted on the MLP, nothing like as wide or heavy as the LUT being designed for the Ares vehicles.   Something closer to the Atlas-V umbilical tower would probably be able to offer sufficient stability gains to bring everything into the 'green'.


Quote
Can you sketch a rough budget sand-chart and manifest through first lunar flight?  It feels like this requires spending a lot of money up front for launch vehicle development and then carrying the subsequent large-ish operating costs during the EDS and LSAM development and shakeout periods when there will be comparatively low flight rates.

I have the detailed budget analysis done during ESAS, but not released.   I could do a comparative rough sketch perhaps, but it'll take some time to work it out.   Haven't done one of those before...

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #3 on: 08/31/2006 01:16 AM »
The wings and the stabilizer are also much lower to the ground than the area above the ET, and so generate much smaller bending moments.  The Ares I is going to require a new MLP because of the weight of the LUT; the Direct has another million pounds of SRB on the MLP during rollout, so even a small LUT could push it over the limit.

The LO2 tank will have to be redesigned to be much stronger than it currently is to support the payload and shroud.  This isn't impossible, but will increase the dry weight of the tank, which trades 1:1 with payload.  But whatever - maybe the payload goes down to 65 or 70 tons from 73.

The cost and schedule are the really critical things.  Possibly saving $1B in 2020 is much less valuable than saving $1B in 2009; being able to fly the CEV in 2011 vs. 2015 has big influences for mission safety and political support, and so on.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #4 on: 08/31/2006 04:07 AM »
The ADFT-I-1 will not require a LUT, so I suspect the stability is not actually the issue.   The huge LUT on the Ares-I MLP appears mainly to be there to provide service access.   The umbilicals don't require anything like that size of tower.

Anyway, that's getting off the subject at hand :)

I don't think the tanking will overall require much mass change.   As I said earlier, it is currently designed that the LH2 tank has to support the 115mT of orbiter hanging on the side - and that is a far more difficult proposition from an engineering PoV than mounting something above a cylindrical tank structure.

The stresses involved in hanging something piggy-back-style, like the orbiter requires a lot of internal strengthening which can now be removed.   There will have to be re-design work done, but it will be one of those 'take from here (LH2 tank), give to there (LO2 tank)' things.   From what I've been able to research, there is actually a very good chance of a slight mass *decrease* overall with the in-line configuration compared to the side-mount one.   Not much, between 1 and 2 tons, but any advantage is better than a penalty :)

As for costs, there is no way Direct would cost more to develop or operate compared to Ares-I and Ares-V together.   It should actually cost no more than Ares-V alone.   In fact, for the same limited number of missions currently being planned, you save close to $2Bn per year from about the third year of CaLV development () onwards.

Using the break-down of CLV and CaLV costs as a guideline, I've got a *rough* estimate for total costs from development through operations...

I've re-created part of the graph from the ESAS Report for the original CLV and CaLV costs to give it some comparison...   CEV costs remain the same as ESAS.   LSAM and EDS costs are the same as ESAS, but are brought forward two whole years because they utilise monies previously being used to develop the CaLV.   This means Lunar missions can start flying two years earlier for less overall money.

Both costs assume 2 operational ISS missions per year thru 2016, and 2 Lunar missions every year from inception of Lunar flights.

Using the current Ares 1.5 launch solution:   First Lunar Mission (2018) total expenditure: $104.6Bn.

"Direct" saves over $30Bn to get to the first Lunar mission, and saves more than $2Bn every year after that, to do just the same schedule of flights.   First Lunar Mission (2016) total expenditure: $72.7Bn.

Alternatively, for the same annual budget as currently being planned, 3 to 4 extra Lunar missions would be possible every year.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3674
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 669
  • Likes Given: 1236
Re: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #5 on: 08/31/2006 08:08 AM »
On the face of it; it sounds good. You are a steely-eyed missile man!! ;)
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #6 on: 08/31/2006 07:51 PM »
I have a feeling that there's no possibility though.

Latest info I have is that all of the Ares-I's "concerns" are as good as 'fixed' already, and NASA just committed to building the new MLP's for the Ares-I.   That's a fair-sized chunk of cash to commit IMHO, so they're firmly on their current track from where I sit, with little motivation to change course.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2643
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 513
  • Likes Given: 879
Re: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #7 on: 08/31/2006 10:44 PM »
I am not entirely sold on the CLV being the best option but its good to be moving forward with the MLPs and CEV contract.  We can't be sure its the best direction but it s a direction so  I will gladly take it.
Excited to be finally into the first Falcon Heavy flow, we are getting so close!

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #8 on: 09/01/2006 12:37 AM »
Yes, I don't believe "perfection" is achievable in the modern climate of economics and politics.

But I think "effective" is possible, and I consider Ares-I and V to be "effective" in their roles.

"Direct" is a better solution still, and continues to fulfill all of the political objectives too IMNSHO. ;)

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2053
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 35
RE: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #9 on: 09/01/2006 01:02 AM »
Another one of my Army lessons:  A piss poor plan executed aggressively is better than a perfect plan poorly executed.  :)

Lets just get flying (after having drunk 4  bourbon and cokes to console myself after LM wins the CEV.  ).

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #10 on: 09/01/2006 04:58 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 1/9/2006  1:24 AM

Yes, I don't believe "perfection" is achievable in the modern climate of economics and politics.

But I think "effective" is possible, and I consider Ares-I and V to be "effective" in their roles.

"Direct" is a better solution still, and continues to fulfill all of the political objectives too IMNSHO. ;)

Ross.

At very least, *Direct* should provide a funny Orbiter addon to play with ;)

António
my pics @ flickr

Offline braddock

  • NSF Private Space Flight Editor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #11 on: 09/01/2006 05:11 PM »
Shesh, you've already modeled it?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #12 on: 09/01/2006 06:37 PM »
António very kindly agreed to make an orbiter model to demonstrate the concept.   As you can see above, he's already well into the development and is doing a *FANTASTIC* job!

It's really wonderful to see the idea 'coming to life' there :)

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Online AndyMc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 201
RE: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #13 on: 09/01/2006 07:58 PM »
Great stuff António. If only the real ones came as fast! How long until you release some of these 'toys'  ;)

I've been a bit busy with a few of my own, based on NASA's DRM - http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2002/TM-1998-208834-REV1.pdf

Some more details of the add-on: http://www.aovi93.dsl.pipex.com/my_orbiter_addons.htm

Anyone working on the Ares V to launch it?


Offline imfan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #14 on: 09/01/2006 10:34 PM »
there is ARES V by uwrumpe somewhere. but not sure if it can lift anything else than EDS+LSAM. like this report too. its been some time I read it last time, but seeing your model, there is probably time to read again. nice work

Offline Zachstar

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
  • Washington State
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #15 on: 09/02/2006 03:11 AM »
Quote
simcosmos - 1/9/2006  11:45 AM

Quote
kraisee - 1/9/2006  1:24 AM

Yes, I don't believe "perfection" is achievable in the modern climate of economics and politics.

But I think "effective" is possible, and I consider Ares-I and V to be "effective" in their roles.

"Direct" is a better solution still, and continues to fulfill all of the political objectives too IMNSHO. ;)

Ross.

At very least, *Direct* should provide a funny Orbiter addon to play with ;)

António

Woah SimC that is one beautiful rocket!!

I hope you are backing up these like what 20 different models now? Sounds like ALIENS is on the backburner again eh? Keep up the good work!

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #16 on: 09/04/2006 06:02 PM »
Hello all,

With a small delay but here go a few answers:


Quote
braddock - 1/9/2006  5:58 PM

Shesh, you've already modeled it?

Hehe braddock: making 3D models about launchers isn't usually too much complicated! The basic shapes are just cylinders or cones with a few holes here and there and I prefer to transfer some of the detail to the textures: this saves modelling time, brings the ability to radically change the visuals with just one simple texture update and increases FPS if the objective is to run the model in a simulator.

Making models for some spacecraft / launch support items might be equally easy: it all depends of how much details we wish to include and how we do the 3D / texture work.


In addition, a few of the Direct launcher components already existed due to the visual / performance update work going on with my NASA VSE SC addon. It was kind of easy - and quick -  to adapt things out for Direct purposes; examples:

a) the ET core's texture has been made having as source the new texture for my conceptual Ares I variant

b) the 4 segment SRB were "recovered" from my older archives and updated for Direct utilization (from some time now that I was just using 5 seg. SRB), etc.


The Orbiter physical implementation should also be somehow quick given that the numbers have STS as starting point (equal to say that are more or less *directly* applied) and, just to give another example, I have also studied the 4 seg. SRB thrust curve in the past.

All that and the fact that this is a smaller project and that it will all be implemented with Vinka's generic dlls (where the masses, "fuel", payload, performance data, etc are quickly implemented in a INI file that everyone can read with notepad) is helping for the quick progress.






Quote
AndyMc - 1/9/2006  8:45 PM

Great stuff António. If only the real ones came as fast! How long until you release some of these 'toys'  ;)


Thanks Andy: you also have nice work being done there ;)

The NASA_DirectSDLV will be a separated addon, with custom directory structure. It should be released much sooner than NASA VSE SC v2.0.

Now... How soon is "much sooner"?

Hummm, I do not like to write about release dates but... I'm trying to upload *something* within some days or a couple of weeks. The amount of direct 'toys' that will be available in such first addon version will depend of real life constraints (running out of free time these days) but, at very least, the interested orbinauts and nasaspaceflight readers will probably be able to play with the Direct CLV (and perhaps with the cargo variant). Components such as custom launch pad, EDS, lunar mission are not certain for the first release, yet (they require extra work)


Quote
AndyMc - 1/9/2006  8:45 PM
I've been a bit busy with a few of my own, based on NASA's DRM - http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2002/TM-1998-208834-REV1.pdf

Some more details of the add-on: http://www.aovi93.dsl.pipex.com/my_orbiter_addons.htm

Anyone working on the Ares V to launch it?


Regarding Ares V: another big side objective of Direct related work is to update the visuals of my planned heavy lifter versions for NASA VSE SC.

This means that:


  • Direct's engine pod will be rotated 45 degrees and will have 2 extra SSME.


  • Direct's core 3D model will be stretched and that the texture dimensions will be adjusted and reapplied to the new core.


  • The new updated parts of Direct's 4 segment SRB will be applied to the 5 segment SRB (already done).



Regarding the EDS, I will still need to make calculations but you can more or less see what I'm aiming for in this old preview:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/180666631/

Direct's EDS still needs to be modelled (using my updated J-2X): it might also later be used as a base to build other NASA VSE SC EDS although, for that my other addon, the basic EDS will probably be ~10m diameter.  

Bottom line: Andy, if you wish one heavy lifter more like the one in ESAS report  (see first variant in the above flickr link) I might do a custom job for your needs (like did for Mars For Less AresI preview - now outdated, btw) using the Direct meshes and textures to update NASA VSE SC heavy lifter's stuff (such update already started).  

Note: it is not in my plans to make a 10m diameter core and use core engines other than SSME derived hardware. If interested, maybe the best is to email me so that we can talk a little about the heavy lifter configuration you wish (beyond the 8.4m diameter / taller SSME powered ET core, you might have options for EDS, fairings and boosters)

If wanting the current (real life) Ares V design: I would be able to do it but, because it would be a different path than what I'm doing now, it would require extra time to research info, etc (I would prefer to spend the time with other projects instead). This to say that I can do it but would not be an higher priority.






Quote
Zachstar - 2/9/2006  3:58 AM

Woah SimC that is one beautiful rocket!!

I hope you are backing up these like what 20 different models now? Sounds like ALIENS is on the backburner again eh? Keep up the good work!

Thanks.

I still work in other projects (very slowly) but yes, my priorities have been more around NASA VSE SC, Mars-Oz and, most recently, these quick Direct 'toys' :)

All the three are somehow inter-linked in some aspects and have potential real life applications: that is why the Science Fiction addons are in the "backburner" from some time now (but not abandoned!) and also why, in part, my site is kind of needing updates (contents, forum still oflline, etc), except for the LivePics or my flickr address, where a few image updates are uploaded with some frequency.


To end this already loooong post: thanks to Ross for the interesting emails about Direct!

Work in progress ;)

António
my pics @ flickr

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #17 on: 09/05/2006 02:02 AM »
Quote
simcosmos - 4/9/2006  1:49 PM

To end this already loooong post: thanks to Ross for the interesting emails about Direct!

António, you're the one doing me the favour!   My thanks to you for all the hard work you've put in on this already, and I can't wait to see the final results of your labours fly in Orbiter!

Thank-you.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #18 on: 09/05/2006 07:29 AM »
Also posting this here.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2053
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 35
RE: "Direct" Alternative
« Reply #19 on: 09/06/2006 03:54 AM »
Ross,

I guess I forgot:  3 or 4 SSMEs in the core stage?

Why an ATV in your CEV/ATV launch diagram?  Why not just a cargo module that the CEV would deliver (or other self-contained space station module)?

I like the idea, it seems to have minimum change.  Agree with Jim that its a little overkill in terms of capacity for the CEV only, but we could orbit some whomping big cargo modules in additon to crew rotations, as well as have high capacity boosters for future projects.

Mike

Tags: