Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3  (Read 583175 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 4
DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« on: 01/13/2009 10:16 PM »
Opening this new thread to take over from Thread 2.   Will be locking the older thread now.

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

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6640
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 491
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #1 on: 01/13/2009 10:52 PM »
RE:  JIM

The shuttle ET, there is no other name, as modified for Direct, doesn't leave LEO.

NASA, not just Direct, had plans to put payloads on the nose of the ET, on the aft of the ET, extend the length of the ET for propellant, use it for the basis of the NLS Core.  So what if is wasn't designed for it, it can be easily modified to do this because the diameter stays the same.  Length, skin gage or what attaches to the ends are easy changes.

Lobo:
I understand the ET won't leave LEO, but it was never designed to carry a load that would like it will be used for now.
Like I said, maybe it's not a major obsticle.  Just pointing out some  other consideration that people might not be thinking about, especially when they all get excited about their own ideas.

Just trying to bring some question from ouside the pro-Direct box.  In college, I had to take a Human Factors class.  It was basically a study of psychology and ergonomics in engineering.  And one very interesting thing I learned there that I see all the time in life outside of engineering is the concept of getting married to your original idea.  It's human nature, not an insult.  But the first real idea we get, we tend to cling to and dismiss new data and information which could either improve your original idea, or replace your orginal idea with a better one.  The human brain instinctively clings to the first idea.  It's just our nature, and we'll sometimes irrationally get upset when someone questions our idea.
Now, there's a case to be made that the hanchos at NASA are suffering from this, by clinging to Ares when there might be a better way (and yes, I understand they exampled several designs before settling on Ares, but the basic Ares idea could have been settled on early, to the disregard of other ideas, or it didn't really become THEIR idea until that inital evaluation was done.  Then the blinders go up and that design is clung to.)
However, this can happen with DIRECT supporters too.  Because DIRECT is someone's idea that you guys then grap ahold of and cling to.  Especially the original team who came up with it.  Ares wasn't -their- idea, Direct was. So, it can get clung to in as irrational way as many of you probably think NASA is doing.

I am merely currious if that's the case given some of the hostility I've read in some of the posts here (not towards me per se, but on some of the other comments I've read)  And that's perfectly normal, but if the DIRECT design is the best, then you should be able to succesfully defend it againt questions, without throwing out hypothetical or ad hominem retorts. 

To say Ares V will never be built it hypothetical.  NASA seems to think it will.  To say it's better to use existing tech is hypothetical, as often you need new tech and designes to progess and evolve.  The Titan/Gemini program was completely new from Atlast/Mercury, and Saturn/Apollo was new again.  They weren't trying to use heritage tech from the Titan booster when they built Saturn.

The point is you guys should be able to defend DIRECT as the better option on it's merits and performance (Ross has done this very well to his credit) and not out of just clinging to it because it's -your- baby.

Just something to think about.

And as an Aside, as the DIRECT supporters have often pointed out, Ares would mostly be a new vehicle, so it'd obviously be designed from day one to lift payloads on it's nose and have the rocket engines be attached to the bottom of the tank.  The current ET is designed to have the enngines on a separate module, and attached to 3 side points.  I don't know myself, but maybe you'd have to do major redesign work to shift the structural strength from those connection points to the bottom of the tank, or else the RS-68's will crush the tank like a beer can. 
Maybe that modification will more expensive than people think.  Maybe it will be relatively simple, and even save costs in the future because that layout is easier to make strong than the side layout they currently have to keep the Shuttle from ripping the side out of the tank.

My guy tells me the latter should be true...but are these things that have all been absolutely accounted for?  Can we even know until a buildable blueprint for the new ET has been done?
*shrug*

Online Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #2 on: 01/13/2009 10:57 PM »
Darn! I was the first person to post on Thread 2, and I just missed it here  :)  Chuck, you missed it again too!

David
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline imcub

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #3 on: 01/13/2009 11:25 PM »

To say Ares V will never be built it hypothetical.  NASA seems to think it will.


The fact that there are many enthusiastic "anything space is great" supporters here that think Ares V is to expensive tells me that the President Elect, Congress, and the general public will frown once they see its total cost of Ares V when compared to some other more frugal options.  Just a thought ...   

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6640
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 491
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #4 on: 01/13/2009 11:48 PM »
From Jim:

same goes for Ares I, it doesn't exist.  But Delta IV is flying

Define human rated.
 
Additionally, Ares I doesn't meet the human rating requirement that existed one year ago

"manrating" a Delta IV isn't a big deal

Lobo:

First:  Any idea of how much it would cost to man-rate the Delta 4?
Sounds like it can lift a bit more than Ares 1.  But can it carry Orion and the SM dimensionally?
The Delta 4 is 16.4 ft dia, and Orion is 16.5 ft. at it's widest.
doesn't seem like much, but how much modification to the Delta 4 would be needed to fit the Orion?

Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?  And if so, could they go back to the old cheaper foam because it wouldn't matter that it sheds?
I know the old pictures of the Saturn taking off with literally tons of ice breaking off.  Seems like those could potentiall cause enough problem of striking the SRB gimbles or just the lower part of the stack, or even damaging the pad that you'd probably want to stick with some type of foam.  But could there be some savings to be had there for either Jupiter or Ares?

Lastly, to one of you guys who have all the numbers at your finger tips, could there be even a scaled down version of Jupiter 120 for launching Orion and the SM to the ISS?
What I mean by that is could you actually forgo the SRB's for a core with 3 RS68's?  Would they even produce enough thrust to get off the ground?
Just seems that if Jupiter 120 can lift 45 tons or whatever, but only needs to lift around 20 tons of Orion and SM, could the SRM's be eliminated completely, and just a "slick" Jupter with 3 RS-68's?
I get varing data on the RS68's depending on the std, A or B versions.  The Jupiter 232 will use the B versions, right?  Around 790,000 lbs of thrust each?  The regular is around 700,0000 and the A is around 751,000 lbs of thrust?
How much will the ET with Orion and the SM weigh?
The current SLWT ET is 1,665,400 lbs.  Add the Orion to that with some fairings and the engines, and how much is that?
Can 3 RS68's, A or B do it?  (3 RS68B's would be about 2,370,000 lbs of thrust, based on 790,000 lbs/thrust each)
Could they do it with a 4 engine config?
Would a 3 or 4 engine slick Jupiter be less expensive per flight than the Jupiter 120 for a mission when all you want to do is get Orion to the ISS for a crew rotation or supply run.
Obviously you expend 1 or 2 additional RS68's, but you save the SRB propellant, refurbishing, recover, and transportation costs.
Anyone know the costs for that?  I don't.  But I'd heard even though the SRB's are "reusable" they actually have to go through them to the point to where it's not much cheaper than building new ones.
Is that true?

Just thinking that there's not much need to launch a configuration to the ISS that can carry 45+ tons when all you need is to get 20+ tons there.
The Jupiter 120 could be used for ISS component replacement and large resupply missions.
If a "Slick" Jupiter "130" could be used to just get Orion up there and back, would there be further saving to be had there?
Probably be a little smoother ride for the Astronauts too.

I suppose this would defeat the idea of manrating the Delta 4 and using that for Orion only missions, but it was just a thought.  Especially if you can get it lifted with the same 3 engine endcap as the 232.  Be like a fatter Delta 4

Maybe it's already been thought of, if so, would like to hear what was said about it.

-Lobo

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2428
  • Raleigh, NC
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #5 on: 01/13/2009 11:48 PM »
Ah, that nice fresh smell of a brand new Direct thread.  ;D

As was announced towards the end of the last thread, the Direct facebook group is up and running!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=45545713366
« Last Edit: 01/13/2009 11:56 PM by gladiator1332 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10251
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 1987
  • Likes Given: 616
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #6 on: 01/13/2009 11:52 PM »
Darn! I was the first person to post on Thread 2, and I just missed it here  :)  Chuck, you missed it again too!

David

Darn. I was engrossed with the intricacies of my slide rule. :)
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #7 on: 01/13/2009 11:55 PM »
I understand the ET won't leave LEO, but it was never designed to carry a load that would like it will be used for now.
Like I said, maybe it's not a major obsticle.  Just pointing out some  other consideration that people might not be thinking about, especially when they all get excited about their own ideas.

So you think people, which are working on DIRECT project for 2 years now, somehow "might not be thinking about" whether it is feasible of making ET-derived tank to support this weight.

Surprise! They did think about it, and found out that it is possible, and not even hard.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6640
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 491
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #8 on: 01/13/2009 11:56 PM »

To say Ares V will never be built it hypothetical.  NASA seems to think it will.


The fact that there are many enthusiastic "anything space is great" supporters here that think Ares V is to expensive tells me that the President Elect, Congress, and the general public will frown once they see its total cost of Ares V when compared to some other more frugal options.  Just a thought ...   


Agreed.  Just having a gentleman's discussion here.  :-)

Careful of the new President and Democrat Congress.  They'll be more interested in buying votes with handouts than funding NASA.
My biggest fear is that a change in direction now could allow Congress to come in and rob funds for social engineering programs.
I'm very VERY nervous about that with this crew coming in.

Oh, as a note, maybe you guys could just tell NASA if they go with DIRECT, they can still call it "Ares", and then they can save some face.
heheheh
;-)

The Jupiter 232 could be the "Ares IV", and the 120 could be the "Ares II"
A slick Jupter, less the SRB's could be the new "Ares 1".
Those rocket scientist and their fagile egos and all...


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6640
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 491
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #9 on: 01/13/2009 11:59 PM »
I understand the ET won't leave LEO, but it was never designed to carry a load that would like it will be used for now.
Like I said, maybe it's not a major obsticle.  Just pointing out some  other consideration that people might not be thinking about, especially when they all get excited about their own ideas.

So you think people, which are working on DIRECT project for 2 years now, somehow "might not be thinking about" whether it is feasible of making ET-derived tank to support this weight.

Surprise! They did think about it, and found out that it is possible, and not even hard.

Point taken.

But there's a lot on the forum who seem to think the NASA crew hasn't thought about some relatively innocuous things, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander...as they say.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #10 on: 01/14/2009 12:02 AM »
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.

Quote
I know the old pictures of the Saturn taking off with literally tons of ice breaking off.  Seems like those could potentiall cause enough problem of striking the SRB gimbles or just the lower part of the stack, or even damaging the pad that you'd probably want to stick with some type of foam.

Pad built strong enough to withstand SRB exhaust is damaged by ice? I don't think so.

Quote
Lastly, to one of you guys who have all the numbers at your finger tips, could there be even a scaled down version of Jupiter 120 for launching Orion and the SM to the ISS? What I mean by that is could you actually forgo the SRB's for a core with 3 RS68's?

Answered (a few times I think) n the old thread. No, it can't be used like this without major redesign (=> major $$$), because in DIRECT configurations the tank is supported by SRBs on the pad. It can't stand like that on its own.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2428
  • Raleigh, NC
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #11 on: 01/14/2009 12:07 AM »
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.

Quote
I know the old pictures of the Saturn taking off with literally tons of ice breaking off.  Seems like those could potentiall cause enough problem of striking the SRB gimbles or just the lower part of the stack, or even damaging the pad that you'd probably want to stick with some type of foam.

Pad built strong enough to withstand SRB exhaust is damaged by ice? I don't think so.

Quote
Lastly, to one of you guys who have all the numbers at your finger tips, could there be even a scaled down version of Jupiter 120 for launching Orion and the SM to the ISS? What I mean by that is could you actually forgo the SRB's for a core with 3 RS68's?

Answered (a few times I think) n the old thread. No, it can't be used like this without major redesign (=> major $$$), because in DIRECT configurations the tank is supported by SRBs on the pad. It can't stand like that on its own.

Another reason not to scale down Direct is that everything smaller than the 120 could easily be replicated with the Delta IV. I remember the suggestion of a "Baby-Jupiter" with 1 RS-68, but it was found that at that point, the Delta IV Heavy would be much better.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6640
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 491
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #12 on: 01/14/2009 12:08 AM »

Quote
Lastly, to one of you guys who have all the numbers at your finger tips, could there be even a scaled down version of Jupiter 120 for launching Orion and the SM to the ISS? What I mean by that is could you actually forgo the SRB's for a core with 3 RS68's?

Answered (a few times I think) n the old thread. No, it can't be used like this without major redesign (=> major $$$), because in DIRECT configurations the tank is supported by SRBs on the pad. It can't stand like that on its own.

Ahh, Makes since.  I didn't read all of the previous threads.  Didn't ahve 2 years go kill.  Heheheh

Sounds like the Delta 4 Heavy would be a viable option for basic ISS runs for Orion then, once it was man rated and modified to carry Orion.

Anyone have any cost estimates of a Delta 4-heavy launch, vs. a Jupiter 120 launch vs. the Current shuttle launch, vs (and I know I'm asking a loaded question for this forum) how much the Ares 1 per launch?

« Last Edit: 01/14/2009 12:10 AM by Lobo »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30849
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9091
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #13 on: 01/14/2009 12:32 AM »

My guy tells me the latter should be true...but are these things that have all been absolutely accounted for?  Can we even know until a buildable blueprint for the new ET has been done?
*shrug*


Yes and yes.  Look at the NLS document Ross posted

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30849
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9091
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #14 on: 01/14/2009 12:35 AM »
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.


Incorrect, it is needed.  LH2 will not become stable in the tank without it
« Last Edit: 01/14/2009 12:36 AM by Jim »

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6578
  • Liked: 863
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #15 on: 01/14/2009 12:40 AM »
Incorrect, it is needed.  LH2 will not become stable in the tank without it

Does that mean it will be at a full rolling boil without it?  Would that cause foam or what (besides losses)?

Online Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #16 on: 01/14/2009 12:44 AM »
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.


Incorrect, it is needed.  LH2 will not become stable in the tank without it

Jim, is that why Saturn S-1C stage didn't have external foam insulation, because it was kerosene fuel instead of LH2?
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30849
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9091
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #17 on: 01/14/2009 12:53 AM »

First:  Any idea of how much it would cost to man-rate the Delta 4?
Sounds like it can lift a bit more than Ares 1.  But can it carry Orion and the SM dimensionally?
The Delta 4 is 16.4 ft dia, and Orion is 16.5 ft. at it's widest.
doesn't seem like much, but how much modification to the Delta 4 would be needed to fit the Orion?

Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?  And if so, could they go back to the old cheaper foam because it wouldn't matter that it sheds?


Less than 500 million

Dimensionally is not a problem.  An adapter can be made to fit it to the D-IV

All LH2 vehicles need insulation and the current foam is the best there is.  The older foam is more expensive and less efficient and also comes off

See Delta IV and Centaur
« Last Edit: 01/14/2009 12:56 AM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30849
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9091
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #18 on: 01/14/2009 12:53 AM »
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.


Incorrect, it is needed.  LH2 will not become stable in the tank without it

Jim, is that why Saturn S-1C stage didn't have external foam insulation, because it was kerosene fuel instead of LH2?

yes

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
« Reply #19 on: 01/14/2009 12:59 AM »
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.

Incorrect, it is needed.  LH2 will not become stable in the tank without it

My comment was tongue in cheek  :)

Tags: