DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 2

[simon-th]

AND Norman stated to the senate committee yesterday that no gap IE extend shuttle to 2020 would be an extra $ 10 billion+ over the $130 billion.

You can close the gap by going for Option 4B (STS to 2015 and commercial crew to LEO by 2016). And that Option, as stated in the summary report, does not require 10 billion+ over 130 billion.

Augustine was confused by the question of Nelson, who said "what would it cost to have STS to 2020". You don't need STS to 2020 if you got an alternative before then.

[kraisee]

Chuck/Ross, heres the $40Bn question.

Norm Augustine has just gone on record saying that an ISS extension to 2020, coupled with flying Shuttle until Comm.Crew is available and a tech programme developing a more directly shuttle derived HLLV {Option 5C*/Dream Scenario) is about a $4Bn p/a increase to the NASA budget until FY2020.

Can you give a estimate of the reduction if a Direct architecture is adopted, allowing for an earlier flyout of the Shuttle and early flights of J130 to fill the gap?

That really is the $40bn question!

The missing element in this whole debate is the Jupiter-130.

*IF* you had no choice but to go straight to Jupiter-241 (as Aerospace studied), then there is going to be a gap.   For a start you must wait for the J-2X engine to be ready, and for a completely new Upper Stage to be developed & certified.   You must also pay the full total for the entire Jupiter development effort up front before the IOC flight actually happens.

Yes, of course planning to go straight to any vehicle which requires those long-lead-time items is going to take some time.   Duh!


But if you look at our basic approach, we have NEVER proposed going straight to the Jupiter-24x series first.

We have always proposed the interim Jupiter 1xx series as the logical "stepping stone" which gets you operating a viable solution much sooner and for much lower cost than its bigger brother.


If you bother to stop and consider the much less demanding Jupiter-130, which is specifically intended to remove those long-lead-time items from the initial critical-path, you get a solution which solves most of the issues in terms of Cost, Schedule and Workforce:-

* Jupiter-130 re-uses the existing SSME's with no changes.
* Jupiter-130 re-uses the existing 4-segment SRB's with no changes.
* Jupiter-130 re-uses the existing manufacturing facilities at the Michoud Assembly Facility with only moderate changes needed to approx 20-25% of the tooling there today.
* Jupiter-130 re-uses most of the existing facilities at the Kennedy Space Center which are used right now to process Shuttle's, again with only moderate changes required.

These each have a MAJOR positive impact to the budget and the schedule, not to mention the workforce retention issues as well.



What Jupiter-130 brings to the table is a rational way to implement a forward-looking Heavy Lift, High Volume, safe, Crewed launch solution which can realistically become operational in the 2014 time-frame by deliberately and carefully using only existing technologies and capabilities to keep cost and schedule impacts as low as possible -- and which can still then be upgraded to full performance capability a little while later.

Jupiter-130 is the missing part of the puzzle.   Once you "get" that, it opens up a whole new layer of excellent options.


So, in summary, below is what we believe is achievable if we use the general outline of the DIRECT approach, but tailored specifically to fit the proposed "Flexible Path" architecture as described by the Augustine Committee:-

Cost Profile:   Flexible Path w/ hi-priority on Human Lunar Return included.

Standard Augustine Committee Margins assumed throughout:   51% Development and 25% Operational margin.


Schedule Adjustments:

In-Space Refueling:   Deferred 2 years
Other CxP Elements:   Deferred 2 years
Other Non-CxP-Elements:   Deferred 3 years
Beyond LEO Capability:   Deferred 2 years
Technology Development:   Deferred 1 year


Achievable Milestones:

- STS Current 6-flight Manifest "Stretched", not "Extended" to End FY2012 (no extra missions)
- ISS Extended to:   2020   (includes Heavy-Lift launch of ESA Expansion Module around 2017)
- Commercial Crew to ISS:   2016 thru 2020
- Jupiter-130/Orion IOC:   2014   (Gap: Less Than 2 years * )
- Jupiter-246 IOC:   2017   (Option: Jupiter-241 IOC:   +1 year)
- Lagrange Mission:   2018
- Human Lunar Return:   2019
- NEO:   2022
- Phobos:   2025
- Mars:   2028-2030

* - "Gap" refers to the "Crew Flight Gap".   Test flights of initial Jupiter-130-X will occur before the last Shuttle flight, so "Workforce Gap" will be non-existent.

Ross.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Chuck/Ross, heres the $40Bn question.

Norm Augustine has just gone on record saying that an ISS extension to 2020, coupled with flying Shuttle until Comm.Crew is available and a tech programme developing a more directly shuttle derived HLLV {Option 5C*/Dream Scenario) is about a $4Bn p/a increase to the NASA budget until FY2020.

Can you give a estimate of the reduction if a Direct architecture is adopted, allowing for an earlier flyout of the Shuttle and early flights of J130 to fill the gap?

That really is the $40bn question!

The missing element in this whole debate is the Jupiter-130.

*IF* you had no choice but to go straight to Jupiter-241 (as Aerospace studied), then there is going to be a gap.   For a start you must wait for the J-2X engine to be ready, and for a completely new Upper Stage to be developed & certified.   You must also pay the full total for the entire Jupiter development effort up front before the IOC flight actually happens.

Yes, of course planning to go straight to any vehicle which requires those long-lead-time items is going to take some time.   Duh!


But if you look at our basic approach, we have NEVER proposed going straight to the Jupiter-24x series first.

We have always proposed the interim Jupiter 1xx series as the logical "stepping stone" which gets you operating a viable solution much sooner and for much lower cost than its bigger brother.


If you bother to stop and consider the much less demanding Jupiter-130, which is specifically intended to remove those long-lead-time items from the initial critical-path, you get a solution which solves most of the issues in terms of Cost, Schedule and Workforce:-

* Jupiter-130 re-uses the existing SSME's with no changes.
* Jupiter-130 re-uses the existing 4-segment SRB's with no changes.
* Jupiter-130 re-uses the existing manufacturing facilities at the Michoud Assembly Facility with only moderate changes needed to approx 20-25% of the tooling there today.
* Jupiter-130 re-uses most of the existing facilities at the Kennedy Space Center which are used right now to process Shuttle's, again with only moderate changes required.

These each have a MAJOR positive impact to the budget and the schedule, not to mention the workforce retention issues as well.



What Jupiter-130 brings to the table is a rational way to implement a forward-looking Heavy Lift, High Volume, safe, Crewed launch solution which can realistically become operational in the 2014 time-frame by deliberately and carefully using only existing technologies and capabilities to keep cost and schedule impacts as low as possible -- and which can still then be upgraded to full performance capability a little while later.

Jupiter-130 is the missing part of the puzzle.   Once you "get" that, it opens up a whole new layer of excellent options.


So, in summary, below is what we believe is achievable if we use the general outline of the DIRECT approach, but tailored specifically to fit the proposed "Flexible Path" architecture as described by the Augustine Committee:-

Cost Profile:   Flexible Path w/ hi-priority on Human Lunar Return included.

Standard Augustine Committee Margins assumed throughout:   51% Development and 25% Operational margin.


Schedule Adjustments:

In-Space Refueling:   Deferred 2 years
Other CxP Elements:   Deferred 2 years
Other Non-CxP-Elements:   Deferred 3 years
Beyond LEO Capability:   Deferred 2 years
Technology Development:   Deferred 1 year


Achievable Milestones:

- STS Current 6-flight Manifest "Stretched", not "Extended" to End FY2012 (no extra missions)
- ISS Extended to:   2020   (includes Heavy-Lift launch of ESA Expansion Module around 2017)
- Commercial Crew to ISS:   2016 thru 2020
- Jupiter-130/Orion IOC:   2014   (Gap: Less Than 2 years * )
- Jupiter-246 IOC:   2017   (Option: Jupiter-241 IOC:   +1 year)
- Lagrange Mission:   2018
- Human Lunar Return:   2019
- NEO:   2022
- Phobos:   2025
- Mars:   2028-2030

* - "Gap" refers to the "Crew Flight Gap".   Test flights of initial Jupiter-130-X will occur before the last Shuttle flight, so "Workforce Gap" will be non-existent.

Ross.

Then I would make certain that the commitee and the right people know about this option....

[randomly]

This seems like the most politically palatable option on the table so far, and boy do we need something that sounds like good value for the money and keeps as much infrastructure as possible. No matter what 'camp' you are in, if the offer isn't strong enough we won't get the money out of congress and then we have nothing. It's all about selling congress on NASA at this point.  Make the most friends, create the fewest enemies. Show good value for money, use of existing infrastructure, etc.

If they cut the budget on NASA this time around I don't think the american HSF will ever recover. They'll never get that budget back.

[kraisee]

THAT would be a fun graphic to see. A manned Orion on top of the stack and 2 empty replacement "Lifeboat" Orions inside the PLF.

I thought it would be a laugh.   Here y' go!





And before you ask, although a J-24x could actually loft five of 'em in a 12m PLF, no I'm not going to draw it     

Ross.

[grdja]

Considering that NASA isn't going to get 3 billion (as NASA never ever receives all the money it asks for).

Can J-1x0 somehow be developed with just 1 to 2 billion increase in funds. Deffer everything else, HLR before 2020 is impossible anyway, no matter what you or ULA say, budgets will be cut, schedules slipped.

There must be a rock solid argument presented to politicians that containing PoR at 1 or 2 bill increase is nothing but wasting money. Even with just full Agusutine report it is seen that with entire 3 bill increase, PoR isn't going nowhere for a looong time. The "most reliable vehicle ever" of Ares I has so much problems and blackzones one can only cry in vane  why the hell hasn't ULA lobbied hard for  a EELV CLV. If they counted Ares I as a 0.5 launch because it has development shared by Ares V, than already flying EELVs would at most be 0.1 or 0.2 launch architecture.




To repeat my question once more. Can J-130 be made to fly any time soon with a less than 3 billion funding increase. Is it worth forgetting J-23x and using J-130 + depots + ACESS to get somewhere until economic times change for the better.
I dont see how could one get "stuck with J-130" compared to same happening with Ares I or NSC.

[Lancer525]

Re: previous posts, by HIP2BSQRE & randomly:

This is what needs to be sent to your Congressional Representatives, Senators, and to the White House.

Now is the time to stand up and tell the politicians what we want them to do.

We elected them, after all...

IMHO.

[kraisee]

Can J-1x0 somehow be developed with just 1 to 2 billion increase in funds.

Did anyone note that I very deliberately avoided stating just how big a plus-up was included in the budget for the summary I just posted above?

That's because the summary I just posted above is actually based on just a +$1bn increase.

While Norm Augustine & Co. might be pushing for a $3bn increase, and it sure would be nice to get, we still think it would be pretty stupid for us to be banking on that sort of money -- so we simply aren't.

$1bn plus-up actually gets you the schedule above.   And we could actually still make things work with no increase at all.

But if we *DO* get a $3bn plus-up, you can remove all of those "deferred" items and bring the longer-term schedules forward a bit more.


Just keep it under your hat, 'kay?

We really don't want to go de-railing Norm Augustine's well-laid plans to get more money for the agency.

Ross.

[grdja]

Thank you very much. I somehow though above post was with the Augustine's +3G$

[kraisee]

To repeat my question once more. Can J-130 be made to fly any time soon with a less than 3 billion funding increase.

Yes.   See above.

Is it worth forgetting J-23x and using J-130 + depots + ACESS to get somewhere until economic times change for the better.

It is an option, but you still need a large capacity stage if you still want the sort of size missions which CxP have been promoting.   ACES 71 would limit your lander mass to around 60% of the current 4-person/7-day lander which we have all gotten used to -- so even with a cool new design like ULA propose, it would *STILL* lose important functionality without a larger stage (+50% at least) than ACES 71.   Try to remember that ACES 71 is still optimized for a much smaller lifter than Jupiter.

Another way to think of it, is the Jupiter Upper Stage is actually an ACES 181 !   Our JUS has, for two years now, been of precisely that same family of Upper Stages!


And don't forget too, that Mars will need an even larger EDS, not to mention a really decent-sized Depot too!   Trying to make a 300mT capacity Depot out of a stage configuration 5.4m in diameter is going to make it rather long, which increases its surface area, and that reduces its natural boil-off characteristics.   Not desirable for a Depot at that scale.

I dont see how could one get "stuck with J-130" compared to same happening with Ares I or NSC.

Agreed.

In a worst-case scenarios where Jupiter-130 is all we got before the next President pulls the budget plug on the upgrades, the 75mT to LEO capacity of the Jupiter-130 can still provide some really serious support (including Crew lift) for a pretty extensive exploration program on its own, plus a number of possible duties in LEO too.

Ares-I can't do anything useful without Ares-V (especially as all options including Ares-I also require ISS to be splashed at the end of 2015).

And Shuttle-C would become redundant given that crew will very likely never be flown on the side like that.   That means that it would be a $3bn/year program which requires a second crew-launch to make it useful even in LEO -- and that means that any LEO mission costs involving it would be extraordinarily expensive.   That's a sure-fire way to get your program canceled.

Jupiter has quite few LEO uses, both Cargo-only and Crewed, while we wait for the Exploration Elements to come on-line.   It would therefore be relatively safe from any potential "purges".

And the Jupiter Upper Stage really isn't that big of a project, so I would expect that the next President after that could probably be convinced to put it back in the budget again, so the worst-possible-case scenario would really only be "delay", not "cancellation" in a DIRECT world.

Ross.

[adamsmith]

Can J-1x0 somehow be developed with just 1 to 2 billion increase in funds.

Did anyone note that I very deliberately avoided stating just how big a plus-up was included in the budget for the summary I just posted above?

That's because the summary I just posted above is actually based on just a +$1bn increase.
...
Just keep it under your hat, 'kay?

We really don't want to go de-railing Norm Augustine's well-laid plans to get more money for the agency.

Ross.

So am I right that just by undoing half of the cuts in the out years from the FY09 budget to the FY10 guidance that we got this plan made?  Does that include working with ESA on their hab to NEO project?

You know, were not talking about an increase here, we're just talking about reducing the cuts, and that should be a lot easier to sell both OMB and the rest of congress.

Stan

P.S. How did the Commission miss the J-130 part of the Direct Architecture?

[StuffOfInterest]

So, in summary, below is what we believe is achievable if we use the general outline of the DIRECT approach, but tailored specifically to fit the proposed "Flexible Path" architecture as described by the Augustine Committee

This is the type of post which represents why I'd love to see you in front of these committees.  Actually, I suggested just that in a letter to my Congress critters yesterday.

[kraisee]

So am I right that just by undoing half of the cuts in the out years from the FY09 budget to the FY10 guidance that we got this plan made?

If only it were *that* simple!

But essentially, yes.   Devil is in the details though.

Does that include working with ESA on their hab to NEO project?

Augustine's budget profiles all assume the US pays for that work as part of the "Beyond LEO capability" line-item.   We have followed-suit so that our profile is truly Apples-to-Apples.

In practice, we can not recommend strongly enough that NASA needs to talk with ESA about this incredibly valuable contribution which they are offering, which would then allow that money to be utilized elsewhere within the US efforts.

You know, were not talking about an increase here, we're just talking about reducing the cuts, and that should be a lot easier to sell both OMB and the rest of congress.

Yes.   In the current economic climate I don't think any "increase in budget" is going to go down well within the Oval, let alone with the press and the attention-paying public.   But a "rollback of previous cuts" is a much more palatable proposition for everyone.

Ross.

[kraisee]

This is the type of post which represents why I'd love to see you in front of these committees.

I wish I had the "in person" presentation skills to do such a thing, but I've never been gifted with those -- and I know it.

But given a keyboard and some time to think all the factors through properly while preparing my replies and I can usually turn a pretty good phrase or two!

Ross.

[adamsmith]

...
But given a keyboard and some time to think all the factors through properly while preparing my replies and I can usually turn a pretty good phrase or two!

Ross.

Yes you can! And thank you very much for it.

Stanley