Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0  (Read 644294 times)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3720 on: 03/21/2008 12:29 AM »
Quote
clongton - 20/3/2008  9:22 PM

All this without asking Congress for any “additional” money.

But even if Obama becomes President and follows thru on his statements about a delay (which is not cast in stone), if the Jupiter-120 replaces the Ares-I, it can wait out his presidency for 4 or 8 years. All that’s needed to kick it off again is authorization to build an upper stage because the Jupiter-120 is the foundation for “everything” going forward. If the Jupiter-120 gets the nod, the VSE is safe.

If President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:
Delaying the Ares-I by 5 years will handle his money saving promise.
Fill the manned flight to the ISS gap with a new rocket based on shuttle parts called the Jupiter-120.  This is twice the size of the EELV and COTS rockets.
Work on the Moon rocket called the Jupiter-232 will not start until Obama's second term.
The Jupiter-120 has an upper stage allowing bigger loads which will appear a few years after the lower stage.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3721 on: 03/21/2008 12:50 AM »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008  9:29 PM

Quote
clongton - 20/3/2008  9:22 PM

All this without asking Congress for any “additional” money.

But even if Obama becomes President and follows thru on his statements about a delay (which is not cast in stone), if the Jupiter-120 replaces the Ares-I, it can wait out his presidency for 4 or 8 years. All that’s needed to kick it off again is authorization to build an upper stage because the Jupiter-120 is the foundation for “everything” going forward. If the Jupiter-120 gets the nod, the VSE is safe.

If President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:
Delaying the Ares-I by 5 years will handle his money saving promise.
Fill the manned flight to the ISS gap with a new rocket based on shuttle parts called the Jupiter-120.  This is twice the size of the EELV and COTS rockets.
Work on the Moon rocket called the Jupiter-232 will not start until Obama's second term.
The Jupiter-120 has an upper stage allowing bigger loads which will appear a few years after the lower stage.
Andrew;
As soon as you put an upper stage on the Jupiter-120, it becomes a Jupiter-2xx.

The naming sequence for the Jupiter Launch Vehicle Family describes the vehicle configuration, in much the same way as the Atlas vehicles are identified. The name consists of “Jupiter-“ followed by a 3-digit number.

Digit #1. represents the number of cryogenic stages it takes to reach orbital insertion.
Digit #2. represents how many engines are on the core stage.
Digit #3. represents how many engines are on the upper stage.

A pair of 4-segment RSRM is always assumed.

While always possible, there are no 3-stage versions of this launch vehicle being considered.

Thus the Jupiter-120 has one (1) cryogenic stage, there are two (2) RS-68 engines on it and there are no upper stage engines because there is no upper stage.

Thus the Jupiter-232 has two (2) cryogenic stages, there are three (3) RS-68 engines on it and there are two (2) upper stage engines on the upper stage.

It makes it really easy to know exactly which vehicle configuration is being discussed.
 :)
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3722 on: 03/21/2008 01:14 AM »
Quote
clongton - 21/3/2008  2:50 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008  9:29 PM


If President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:

{snip}
Andrew;
As soon as you put an upper stage on the Jupiter-120, it becomes a Jupiter-2xx.

I know.  You gave an engineering answer where as I was making political points.

Obama has stated that the Moon mission is being delayed for 5 years i.e. his second term.  So officially no work can take place on the J-232/Ares-V until 2013.  Upper stage J-120 keeps the rocket designers in work between the J-120 flying and the official start of the J-232.

A couple of things I left off the list.
The Ares-I does not get officially cancelled until the J-120 flies and for political reasons Congress is forcing NASA to report large cuts.  Killing a rocket programme should make some nice newspaper headlines.
NASA can save money by discovering that it can use the larger J-232 for the J-22x LEO missions.

Offline SolarPowered

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3723 on: 03/21/2008 03:01 AM »
And what are the forecasts for a President McCain?  (I'm hoping the U.S.A. doesn't actually hire a CEO with a blank resume.)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3724 on: 03/21/2008 04:00 AM »
Quote
mojo - 20/3/2008  6:02 PM

When will you reach the "point of no return" as the shuttle derived manufacturing systems that Direct is relying on are being canned?

There isn't actually a point of no return anywhere really.   But as soon as the Shuttle infrastructure starts being torn out and staff are given their pink slips, the costs start increasing in order to put it back again.   It starts slowly later this year (Q4 calendar), but rapidly builds to significant sums by SSP retirement in 2010.

The only point of no return comes if A.N.Other system actually completes the first Lunar mission.   All the way to there it can still be replaced if it isn't working correctly.

But I do think this year is a crucial one, and from what I'm currently hearing I think this could very well be our year.

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 v2.0
« Reply #3725 on: 03/21/2008 04:05 AM »
Quote
TrueGrit - 20/3/2008  6:24 PM

Another thing before I forget...  The 5-segment booster need not be abandoned.  ATK and NASA were already studying a 5 segment booster for the Shuttle before the change in direction (see AIAA-2003-5127).  These studies involved making the change a drop-in without any ET tank attachment changes.  I see no reason the 5-segment booster couldn't have a low level activity preserved with the goal of on-ramping it later as a performacne enchancement.

Very true.   We can certainly use the 5-seg SRB's if we do reach the point where *not* using it becomes a pointless exercise - a point I don't believe we have reached yet.   We want to retain the option to build 5-segs as an upgrade for the future if we should want additional performance.

But we are, across the board, hoping to reduce the development costs as much as possible to allow us to fund other things - particularly additional missions.

The least possible number of changes from Shuttle remains our target criteria.

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 v2.0
« Reply #3726 on: 03/21/2008 04:20 AM »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008  9:29 PM

If President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:
Delaying the Ares-I by 5 years will handle his money saving promise.
Fill the manned flight to the ISS gap with a new rocket based on shuttle parts called the Jupiter-120.  This is twice the size of the EELV and COTS rockets.
Work on the Moon rocket called the Jupiter-232 will not start until Obama's second term.
The Jupiter-120 has an upper stage allowing bigger loads which will appear a few years after the lower stage.

The key problem with shutting down the program for five years is that you essentially tell every experienced worker, both NASA Civil Servant and Contractor alike, to go get another career because this entire industry sector is completely unstable.   Not a master-stroke in times of economic difficulties like at present.

That's essentially what NASA did in the mid 70's - and when they tried to get them back again for Shuttle is it any surprise that less than 1 in 10 Apollo workers agreed to come back?

And that does not mention the host of supplier companies who went out of business because they relied upon Apollo work - they were never heard from again either with countless workers hitting the unemployment lines.   All that talent was lost forever to NASA.   When they started Shuttle they simply never got back anywhere near the depth of skill and experience they had had just a few years earlier - and is it little wonder that serious problems crept into the design of Shuttle thanks to that.

Both the Rodger's commission after Challenger and the CAIB after Columbia identified this "brain drain" as a critical reason why the Shuttle failed.   The lack of experience led directly to compromises in the basic design in both cases.

We *must* learn this lesson very well or we risk repeating it again.   Having lost 14 lives as a partial result of this mistake previously I just can't support any plan to replicate the same circumstances over again now.

And dare I bring up the idea of 130,000+ current Shuttle-related workers all around the nation looking for work at the same time?   In the current economic climate we really don't need that many people joining the unemployment lines.

If we canned the program for 5 years we may as well just resign the whole US program to flying Orion on Delta-IV Heavy to ISS and just forget about the Moon or anything beyond LEO.   To re-create the whole 130,000 strong infrastructure afresh after a 5 year sabatical is unlikely at best.   Certainly it will take a lot of additional time and money to get anything like the same capability back up and operational again.   A 5 year program delay would *actually* result in something like an 8 year schedule slip - putting the Lunar landing back to around 2027.   China will certainly be there long before then.   I suppose it will still be fascinating watching a Taikonaut explore the Apollo 11 landing site via the TV.   Wonder if we can convince them to broadcast it in HD...

I much prefer our plan.

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 v2.0
« Reply #3727 on: 03/21/2008 04:30 AM »
Quote
SolarPowered - 20/3/2008  12:01 AM

And what are the forecasts for a President McCain?  (I'm hoping the U.S.A. doesn't actually hire a CEO with a blank resume.)

From what I can see he talks the talk of supporting the VSE, but doesn't seem especially interested.

My guess is that as long as NASA doesn't do something to embarrass his administration (late programs, massive cost overruns, accidents etc) and as long as the agency makes good progress on their plans, I don't think he'll try to cut their budget.   But he isn't likely to support any budget increases either.

I think he would support a more efficient use of the budget and a greater science return for the same monies.   I think that DIRECT might look good to his science/NASA advisers.

From what I can tell, I think he will pretty-much "leave well alone" and let NASA get on with whatever they're getting on with.   I don't think he particularly cares one way or the other.

Clinton IMHO will do something similar, although there could be a grievance with the VSE having been promoted by a Republican she clearly dislikes.   Not sure if that would affect policy, but I wouldn't like to bet a $100bn program on it either way.   A better solution than currently proposed "under a Republican" could probably win her over too.

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 v2.0
« Reply #3728 on: 03/21/2008 04:39 AM »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008  10:14 PM

A couple of things I left off the list.
The Ares-I does not get officially cancelled until the J-120 flies

It will be one or the other.   We just don't have the money to develop both.


Quote
... and for political reasons Congress is forcing NASA to report large cuts.  Killing a rocket programme should make some nice newspaper headlines.
NASA can save money by discovering that it can use the larger J-232 for the J-22x LEO missions.

J-22x?   Not sure what you're referring to.   We had a Jupiter-221 configuration which was a ~90mT small version of the Jupiter-232.   But we found that developing the extra configuration was a lot less cost efficient than just using the Jupiter-232 as-is.   It's still an option (along with Jupiter-231, Jupiter-244 and others) but not one which we are actively pursuing any longer.

With 50mT of lift capacity, Jupiter-120 should be able to support almost any LEO mission I can think of.   You can pull out the Jupiter-232 "big gun" (oh, there's a cool name for it!) if you really need to launch something bigger than 50mT.   There isn't much actual need for a third configuration somewhere between those and the added development cost would be significant.

Did you mean something else?

NASA can certainly make big cost savings by making the switch - I've no doubts about that.

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

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10275
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2047
  • Likes Given: 628
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3729 on: 03/21/2008 11:14 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 21/3/2008  1:30 AM

Quote
SolarPowered - 20/3/2008  12:01 AM

And what are the forecasts for a President McCain?  (I'm hoping the U.S.A. doesn't actually hire a CEO with a blank resume.)

From what I can see he talks the talk of supporting the VSE, but doesn't seem especially interested.

My guess is that as long as NASA doesn't do something to embarrass his administration (late programs, massive cost overruns, accidents etc) and as long as the agency makes good progress on their plans, I don't think he'll try to cut their budget.   But he isn't likely to support any budget increases either.

I think he would support a more efficient use of the budget and a greater science return for the same monies.   I think that DIRECT might look good to his science/NASA advisers.

From what I can tell, I think he will pretty-much "leave well alone" and let NASA get on with whatever they're getting on with.   I don't think he particularly cares one way or the other.

Clinton IMHO will do something similar, although there could be a grievance with the VSE having been promoted by a Republican she clearly dislikes.   Not sure if that would affect policy, but I wouldn't like to bet a $100bn program on it either way.   A better solution than currently proposed "under a Republican" could probably win her over too.

Ross.
I think McCain would be rather "Direct-Friendly" if he picked Charlie Crisp, Republican governor of Florida, for a running mate. That's not an endorsement, just taking note of an attractive combination. I agree that Clinton would likely be "similar", but I have no idea who the running mate would be. There's much more to picking a President than just NASA.

In any case, here is a very big caution: There was a thread for this kind of discussion but it got locked because people kept taking it off topic. So let's not take my "observation" as fodder for OT discussion. Keep it on the Direct Architecture and Jupiter Launch vehicle family. Besides there are (rocket) things stirring in the wind that will prove "interesting", if I may toss that out. Let's not get the thread locked, blocking our avenue to "share". Please, stay on topic.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3730 on: 03/21/2008 12:04 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 21/3/2008  6:39 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008  10:14 PM

A couple of things I left off the list.
The Ares-I does not get officially cancelled until the J-120 flies

It will be one or the other.   We just don't have the money to develop both.


"A rose by another name would smell as sweet"
William Shakespeare

Politics not engineering.

Anything that has been indefinitely postponed has been cancelled.

Real rockets: J-120, J-232

Paper rockets: Ares-1, Ares-V, J-22x

Not what is seems: J-120 upper stage (actually J-232 upper stage)


One of the weird things about NASA (and DOD) is that cuts actually fire people.  In most government organisations 9% cuts simply means that the agency grows by 1% rather than the 10% in the budget request.

Once Direct start the postponed rocket projects never get any money or people but they do ask for it.  That way the politicians can claim to have saved money by postponing Ares for a year.

I did not invent this, it comes from the "Yes, Minister" tv program, which came from real life.

Edit: Delete after a day.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3731 on: 03/21/2008 03:59 PM »
Quote
clongton - 21/3/2008  9:36 AM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 21/3/2008  11:52 AM

I was deeply disappointed when the Direct team chose to go to the Jupiter nomenclature in Direct 2.0. I felt then that they were putting themselves on the outside looking in, rather than remaining part of the team. If they had continued to pitch Direct as Ares II (Jupiter 120) and Ares III (Jupiter 232) this would have greatly reduced the perception of changing horses in midstream.  

Norm;
What you need to bear in mind is what we were trying to accomplish by doing that. At that time we still believed there was the possibility that Griffin would adopt the Direct architecture, if there was some obvious way that they could take ownership of it and not appear to have been upstaged. The clearest path to that was the naming of the vehicle. Griffin would be able to field what we now called the Jupiter-120 and rename it as the Ares-II, and the Jupiter-232 as the Ares-III. In fact that very specific offer was communicated directly to him, along with the offer that if he did that we would very quietly just fade away, leaving the entire thing in NASA's hands. We were all prepared to completely disappear, never to be heard from again. That way they could take ownership, not only of the architecture, but also of the transition from Ares-I to Ares-II, claiming that their initial hopes for the Ares-I weren't panning out, so in order to keep the VSE on track, they were advancing their design to a more powerful launch vehicle. We offered him the launcher, the architecture and the face-saving, with no strings attached.

Unfortunately for everyone, it turned out he wasn't interested.
But this is OT for this thread. It really should go over to the Direct thread.

Moved from another thread. (BTW not really OT since the discussion on the other thread was whether NASA could change to another vehicle in light of the current information on Ares I. But given James' current mission, removed.)

IMO it was and is a great mistake, unfortuantely there is now so much bad blood between the Direct team and the current NASA administration that it is all water under the bridge.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3732 on: 03/21/2008 04:33 PM »
Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what is the lift capacity to LEO for the J-232?  And if you have it for the J-244?

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3733 on: 03/21/2008 04:37 PM »
Quote
spacenut - 21/3/2008  12:33 PM

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what is the lift capacity to LEO for the J-232?  And if you have it for the J-244?

Could someone point me please to the image with all Jupiter configurations? I can`t find it...

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6639
  • Liked: 913
  • Likes Given: 137

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6639
  • Liked: 913
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3735 on: 03/21/2008 04:50 PM »
Quote
spacenut - 21/3/2008  11:33 AM

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what is the lift capacity to LEO for the J-232?  And if you have it for the J-244?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7868&start=3662

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3736 on: 03/21/2008 06:39 PM »
This thread is now 250 pages long and doesn't work with the Search engine any longer.

I have therefore created a new thread (the 3rd major DIRECT thread - now over 380 pages!) and ask everyone to please move all the discussions over.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12379&posts=1&start=1

Thank-you,

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

Tags: