Author Topic: "DIRECT" Goes Live  (Read 340020 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #20 on: 10/27/2006 03:59 AM »
Here's a novel concept which DIRECT could offer as a performance upgrade.

Our very own Chuck Longton from this forum, suggested this idea to me earlier this evening.   A quick bit of tinkering with the artwork, and I can show it to you all now...

It is basically a "cargo bay" squeezed in between the Crew Module and Service Module of the CEV.


Even the basic variant of DIRECT certainly has more than enough performance to lift such an item as this to the ISS.

It does not change the aerodynamic profile for the CLV, although there is no reason it could not be lengthened if required.

A transmission tunnel running up the spine of the new module connects the CM and SM together largely as normal.

This would immediatly offer the ability to deliver the remianing ISS elements which are no longer planned to fly, and are simply gathering dust, and any other valuable hardware which will be relegated to the scrapheap with Ares-I.


Consider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.

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

Offline ryan mccabe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #21 on: 10/27/2006 04:09 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2006  9:08 PM

   One thought I have had - with 48.9mT of spare lift capability in the SLA under the CEV, I wonder if flights going without cargo couldn't instead carry a large 48mT water tank just under the CEV itself?   That would provide one heckuva "bullet proof vest", located immediately under the CEV, in case of problems "back there".


Ross, you've created a very interesting  scenario with so much extra lift available on a standard ISS or LEO flight. Certainly with the funds liberated from Ares development, more ISS flights than the two currently alloted in the initial manifest are possible. I really believe that when you create a capability, someone will find something to do with it.

In the commercial sector, perhaps NASA could offer to place several Bigalow modules in orbit for little to no cost. That gives Bigalow somewhere to send his Atlas-launched crew vehicle, and makes the whole venture considerably more plausible. In return, NASA greatly increases the probability of private space access.

So, perhaps if you want your DIRECT vehicle to work, see if Bigalow will endorse it.

Also, I suggest a "get involved" link on your website. If nothing else, I can prepare a form letter that you can place online so people can write their congressmen, senator, etc. I would love to help!

Ryan

Offline Zachstar

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
  • Washington State
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #22 on: 10/27/2006 04:10 AM »
After the extreme spending that has been going on in our .gov I think the taxpayers deserve to ask "Isnt there a better, cheaper idea?"

Thats why I can't thank you enough for you and SimC's efforts! If anything it will perhaps help the .gov be on their toes.

With the Democrats in a good position to take back congress and the sure deadlock that will happen. They mise well be talking about the real issues.

"Why 2 different rockets to get back to the moon?" Instead of "Why ought that dude get to marry that other dude?"

"Why is America paying for things like the Ares I-1 test flight uselessly?" Instead of " We need a new law to ban this video game!!!"

I suggest we start to email this idea to congress. It's time we stop handing blank checks to bad ideas. America deserves better.

Offline Far Reach

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #23 on: 10/27/2006 05:24 AM »
Given the latest performance figures released on L2 show the CLV can't lift 20mT to -30X100 now, even after the massive re-design of the 'stick' to help the crisis they are in, NASA can stay this course as much as they want, but they'll not have a VSE.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31282
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9568
  • Likes Given: 299
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #24 on: 10/27/2006 11:39 AM »
Quote
ryan mccabe - 26/10/2006  11:52 PM

In the commercial sector, perhaps NASA could offer to place several Bigalow modules in orbit for little to no cost. That gives Bigalow somewhere to send his Atlas-launched crew vehicle, and makes the whole venture considerably more plausible. In return, NASA greatly increases the probability of private space access.

So, perhaps if you want your DIRECT vehicle to work, see if Bigalow will endorse it.

NASA can't use it for commercial sector.  Not allowed by law.

Offline Wolverine

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 70
    • Santos Design Solutions
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #25 on: 10/27/2006 11:46 AM »
My hat is off to you guys.  You've obviously put a lot of work and passion into this project and it shows.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31282
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9568
  • Likes Given: 299
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #26 on: 10/27/2006 11:51 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2006  11:42 PM

Here's a novel concept which DIRECT could offer as a performance upgrade.

It is basically a "cargo bay" squeezed in between the Crew Module and Service Module of the CEV.

Consider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.

Ross.

I don't think that is a viable method.  Messes up the CEV and the LV to "cargo bay" interface is iffy.  It causes most of the load to be "hung" vs axial compression.  Anyways, there won't any ISS modules left on the ground.  If you are talking CAM (or any other module), it can be redesigned/modified by the time it would be flown on a Direct Vehicle*.  It would be best to do it like the Apollo LM or ASTP docking module and have the "ISS" module behind the CEV in a "CLA" and have it extracted like the LM.  The CEV could deliver it (since it has lunar mission fuel capacity) near the ISS like the HTV, and the station arm grabs the module.  The CEV undocks from the module, the arm moves it out of the way and the CEV docks with the station.


*  You need a name of the vehicle.  Direct is the concept but.......

Offline rumble

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 584
  • Conway, AR
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #27 on: 10/27/2006 01:17 PM »
Jim, I thought about docking to extract the payload, but is there enough time after MECO and before the 1st circularization burn to turn around & pull it out?  Or should we allow the core to become orbital (60X160 or something), then put retros on it to make it suborbital again after the CEV extracts the payload?

The other idea I had is having a small kick stage just behind the payload module so it could perform the 1st post-MECO burn, buying more time before the CEV had to dock with it.

Name:  Should DIRECT be the Ares II?

Offline ryan mccabe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #28 on: 10/27/2006 01:41 PM »
Quote
Jim - 27/10/2006  6:22 AM

NASA can't use it for commercial sector.  Not allowed by law.

What prevents that law from being changed? I doubt the law was written with any consideration of a vehicle like the DIRECT concept where so much extra mass could be made available. The possible scenarios (limited ones, at that) where commercial payloads could be flown would be very different than any situation NASA carried commercial payloads on the Shuttle.

I don't see the point in having a Wright Amendment for space...

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #29 on: 10/27/2006 01:48 PM »
That'd be cool, have a NASA subsidized vehicle offering free rides to space. I bet the other launch providers would be overjoyed.

Offline ryan mccabe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #30 on: 10/27/2006 01:50 PM »
Quote
Jim - 27/10/2006  6:22 AM

NASA can't use it for commercial sector.  Not allowed by law.

What prevents that law from being changed?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31282
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9568
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #31 on: 10/27/2006 02:24 PM »
Because the law says NASA can't compete against the commercial sector.   Who would change such a law?  There is no way to spin it positively.

Why bother with Bigelow then.  NASA can build and put up the hotel space station and then fly the vistors there.

Bigelow or anyone else can find and pay for their own way.   NASA does not provide commercial launch services.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31282
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9568
  • Likes Given: 299
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #32 on: 10/27/2006 02:32 PM »
Quote
ryan mccabe - 27/10/2006  9:24 AM

Quote
Jim - 27/10/2006  6:22 AM

NASA can't use it for commercial sector.  Not allowed by law.

What prevents that law from being changed? I doubt the law was written with any consideration of a vehicle like the DIRECT concept where so much extra mass could be made available. The possible scenarios (limited ones, at that) where commercial payloads could be flown would be very different than any situation NASA carried commercial payloads on the Shuttle.

I don't see the point in having a Wright Amendment for space...

It is no different than the shuttle


Offline charlieb

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
  • King of Prussia, PA, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #33 on: 10/27/2006 02:33 PM »
Just sent an email with the DIRECT link to Jeff Hanley and Mark Geyer.  I wonder if I even get a reply...
Former Shuttle Mission Ops Eng  (In them days DF24 - INCO GROUP/COMMS, Now DS231-AVIONICS BRANCH).

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #34 on: 10/27/2006 02:43 PM »
Quote
rumble - 27/10/2006  8:00 AM

Name:  Should DIRECT be the Ares II?

Exactly. This is my opinion as well. I'm writing down my view about Ares family (Ares 1, Ares II and Ares V) and I'll publish it here next week. If I wouldn't have other obligations it would have been here already.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31282
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9568
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #35 on: 10/27/2006 02:51 PM »
I wouldn't call it Ares, to keep it away from being associated with the stick

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #36 on: 10/27/2006 02:59 PM »
Stick belongs to Ares family but it doesn't have the core.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • London
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: \
« Reply #37 on: 10/27/2006 03:29 PM »
Front Page story, Chris?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #38 on: 10/27/2006 04:36 PM »
I'm actually proposing that this should just simply replace the Ares-I directly (okay, pun intended).

The basic DIRECT CLV should be the NEW ARES-I.

ARES-II would be with the Upper/Earth Departure Stage.

ARES-III would be the Growth Option CLV.

ARES-IV would be the Growth Option with EDS.

That's my personal preference, but I'll settle for whatever is most popular.

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

Offline aftercolumbia

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #39 on: 10/27/2006 05:09 PM »
I don't mean to be rude or arrogant, but I think the commercial sector (especially once I get into it) could come up with a vehicle even Direct Launcher would have a very difficult time in competition with.  The thing is that Direct Launcher is a 70,000kg class booster; the biggest in the commercial market are 25,000kg class.  The private market at 70,000kg is currently nil, and in the next 20 years, probably 2, 3 if you're lucky, launches.  These launches would be space hotels or GEO commercial waystations and use smaller boosters for primary operations.  Also, if a GEO commercial waystation can be built from Ariane (or other CSG launcher) launches, that's one fewer.

I wouldn't say the law can't be changed, but I might say it doesn't need to be.  Given how NASA has traditionally absorbed and ostensibly endorsed commercial and commercializable Air Force programs like DC-X, only to spongefest and porkbarrel them into oblivion, it might not be such a good idea to get that law changed.

Tags: