DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 248 Next
Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1  (Read 341167 times)
kraisee
Expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 9729
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL



WWW
« on: 06/01/2009 03:45 PM »

Now that DIRECT v3.0 has been shown at ISDC, it is time to open a specific thread for appropriate discussions here.

Over the course of today I will try to upload a variety of material to kick this thread off properly.

I will leave the v2.0 thread open for any continued discussion about the older variant of DIRECT, but this should now become the new primary discussion thread.


I will start this thread by uploading the latest animation sequences.

Ross.
Advertisement
« on: 06/01/2009 03:45 PM »

 
Crispy
Member
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 362
Location: London


« Reply #1 on: 06/01/2009 03:48 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/diD20nLA8YM&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/diD20nLA8YM&rel=1</a>
Alpha Control
Veteran
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 464
Location: Washington, DC


« Reply #2 on: 06/01/2009 03:48 PM »

Great to be here, and congratulations on the new animation. Can't wait to get home and see it.  Chuck, I beat you to the thread! :)

Edit: so much for being first!  :)
kraisee
Expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 9729
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL



WWW
« Reply #3 on: 06/01/2009 03:49 PM »

MPEG 4 version.
Danny Dot
Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2522
Location: Houston, Texas



« Reply #4 on: 06/01/2009 03:51 PM »

Your video says "LOX tank extension".  This implies a bigger mod than you might be doing.  Are you just changing the shape of the end of the tank?

You might make a note of this for your next release.

I would also be interested in the total weight on the pad of Shuttle and Jupiter 130.  Given they have the same engines and prop, the gross weight on the pad is probably the same.  This might be an easy way to show the performance of Jupiter 130 does NOT defy the laws of physics.

Danny Deger
kraisee
Expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 9729
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL



WWW
« Reply #5 on: 06/01/2009 03:52 PM »

WMV version.
Alpha Control
Veteran
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 464
Location: Washington, DC


« Reply #6 on: 06/01/2009 03:52 PM »

Ross, thanks for the link to the "The Space Show". Looking forward to tuning in tomorrow night.
kraisee
Expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 9729
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL



WWW
« Reply #7 on: 06/01/2009 03:57 PM »

Your video says "LOX tank extension".  This implies a bigger mod than you might be doing.  Are you just changing the shape of the end of the tank?

You might make a note of this for your next release.

It refers to the fact that the "barrel" section of the LOX tank is "extended" instead of using the Ogive section.


Quote
I would also be interested in the total weight on the pad of Shuttle and Jupiter 130.  Given they have the same engines and prop, the gross weight on the pad is probably the same.  This might be an easy way to show the performance of Jupiter 130 does NOT defy the laws of physics.

They're similar, but Jupiter is actually slightly lower.   We've done that because we are including extra margins.   While Shuttle is a mature system, Jupiter will be a new one and we would rather have greater margin, at least until Jupiter also matures.

Ross.
ar-phanad
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 68
Location: Midwest

world systems architect


WWW
« Reply #8 on: 06/01/2009 03:59 PM »

Is there a summary of updates somewhere from 2.0 to 3.0?
kraisee
Expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 9729
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL



WWW
« Reply #9 on: 06/01/2009 03:59 PM »

Here are some more "treats" from Philip...

Enjoy,

Ross.
Crispy
Member
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 362
Location: London


« Reply #10 on: 06/01/2009 04:04 PM »

Love the detail in those renders. Very nice :)
clongton
Expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 5812
Location: Connecticut



WWW
« Reply #11 on: 06/01/2009 04:07 PM »

I never tire of watching that video
dougkeenan
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 128
Location: Indianapolis



WWW
« Reply #12 on: 06/01/2009 04:07 PM »

Wallpaper, yum!
kraisee
Expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 9729
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL



WWW
« Reply #13 on: 06/01/2009 04:09 PM »

Is there a summary of updates somewhere from 2.0 to 3.0?

It's pretty simple really:

RS-68 main engines swapped for SSME's.

The higher efficiency of the SSME's on the Core allow for the Upper Stage to be made quite a bit smaller.

A smaller Upper Stage means that other engine choices can also be considered, like RL-10 and RL-60, not just J-2X.

While we aren't specifying any "final decision" on the Upper Stage engine selection yet, we are strongly recommending an RL-10B-2 solution be considered because that would mean that all the engines (4-seg SRB's, SSME's and RL-10B-2's) are all essentially "off the shelf".

That results in removing all of the highly expensive engine development programs which are usually the determining factor in the development schedule too.


In a nutshell, DIRECT v3.0 offers a solution needing no engine developments at all for supporting all of the ISS and Lunar objectives.


From there, the architecture is designed to fit that capability while providing nice healthy margins in all areas; performance, budget and schedule.

Ross.
ar-phanad
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 68
Location: Midwest

world systems architect


WWW
« Reply #14 on: 06/01/2009 04:11 PM »

Fantastic, Ross. Thank you.
Tags:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 248 Next
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC
All content © 2005-2009 NASASpaceFlight.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.035 seconds with 21 queries.