DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 2

[phantomdj]

A common fallacy is that the "gap" is men in orbit.  No, the gap is brain-drain, the loss of talented people able to make the program work.  Yes, there may be a gap of men in orbit for a year or two, but there would be no gap for flights while the Orion is prepared.  That means no brain drain, no loss of the skilled staff needed to keep the program going, no relearning of lost skillsets as we had for the Apollo-Shuttle gap.  If the DIRECT teams claim of a J130-X launch in 2012 is accurate, and by all signs it is, there will be no "gap" in where it counts, the skills needed to run the program.  No launch gaps, no manpower gaps. 

<snip>

A shuttle run to 2013 for the ISS, with Jupiter running supply runs for 2014 and manned runs once Orion comes online in 2015 is a single year gap of manpower in orbit, and no gap in functionality or support.  That is what I am referring to when I talk about gap.

Absolutely. Well stated. Now if we can only get  Congress and the Administration to understand and get on board.

[simon-th]

I am irritated by your response, Downix.

I already told you where my statement "the Committee determined that STS to 2015 is the only viable solution to close the HSF gap" comes from. It's in the congressional hearing transcript - you can find that here: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/related_documents/index.html, it's also in the Sally Charts which I attach to this post and it's also in the summary report published 3 weeks ago.

Page 14 of the Senate hearing transcript in the above link on the gap:

HUTCHISON:
     And is it also your view that the Constellation program together with an extension of the
shuttle flight program would be a good approach to closing the gap and utilizing the space
station?
AUGUSTINE:
     We looked at a lot of options to try to close the gap. And it's our view that the gap is likely
to be more like seven years instead of the five years that people have talked about. The only
option we can find, viable option, to close that gap is to continue to operate the space shuttle. To
do that, one of course has to commit funds to the shuttle which otherwise could be spent on the
exploration -- preparing for the exploration program.

In the hearing Augustine was also defining the gap as the "period of time the US could not put humans into space with a US launch vehicle." (e.g. on page 2).

I honestly want to engage in a civilized discussion here. Cross my heart and hope to die.

You stated that you have read a document from the Augustine Committee (you referred to it as a summary) that you have read that stated J-241 will be read in 2015. I just asked whether you can point me to that document. That's all.

No need to answer me Downix, if you do not want to talk about Augustine's statement, the Sally Charts or the summary that you referred to that stated J-241 would be ready in 2015.

Best,
Simon

[Downix]

I am irritated by your response, Downix.

I already told you where my statement "the Committee determined that STS to 2015 is the only viable solution to close the HSF gap" comes from. It's in the congressional hearing transcript - you can find that here: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/related_documents/index.html, it's also in the Sally Charts which I attach to this post and it's also in the summary report published 3 weeks ago.

Page 14 of the Senate hearing transcript in the above link on the gap:

HUTCHISON:
     And is it also your view that the Constellation program together with an extension of the
shuttle flight program would be a good approach to closing the gap and utilizing the space
station?
AUGUSTINE:
     We looked at a lot of options to try to close the gap. And it's our view that the gap is likely
to be more like seven years instead of the five years that people have talked about. The only
option we can find, viable option, to close that gap is to continue to operate the space shuttle. To
do that, one of course has to commit funds to the shuttle which otherwise could be spent on the
exploration -- preparing for the exploration program.

In the hearing Augustine was also defining the gap as the "period of time the US could not put humans into space with a US launch vehicle." (e.g. on page 2).

I honestly want to engage in a civilized discussion here. Cross my heart and hope to die.

You stated that you have read a document from the Augustine Committee (you referred to it as a summary) that you have read that stated J-241 will be read in 2015. I just asked whether you can point me to that document. That's all.

No need to answer me Downix, if you do not want to talk about Augustine's statement, the Sally Charts or the summary that you referred to that stated J-241 would be ready in 2015.

Best,
Simon

I already cleared this up, stating my error in utilizing the date you provided, and you continue to ignore that, so I can either assume you do not understand, or you deliberately are choosing not to understand, or that you understand fully and are simply trying to argue for the sake of arguing.  I've already answered you, and if you cannot accept that, I am sorry, but no more of your games.

Incidentally, your link is broken.

[K-P]

Had a nice cup of tea this morning with my souvenir mug from London on the table and... well... I just had to post my vision here. 

[dougkeenan]

Incidentally, your link is broken.

Works fine here.

[Will]

I don't understand how "Shuttle-C SM" could get better performance marks to LEO than J-130.  What were the performance metrics used in that comparison category?

mt to LEO of course.

The information is right there on the internet. J-130 performs worse than HLV Block I for LEO missions in terms of mt to a circularized LEO orbit - and that apparently has been confirmed by Aerospace.

The most interesting thing of the chart IMO is the "cargo to LEO+" and "crew to EOLR" parts which show that overall the side-mounted LV was ranked 1 point higher in total (if you sum everything up) than J-241. Of course it also clearly shows why the Committee lumped those two options together, the assessment doesn't show any wild deviations for the use of directly derived SDLVs for the beyond-LEO program. And for ISS crew and cargo, other launchers and spacecraft than HLVs are going to be used anyway.

So the single-stage sidemount SDLV gets better performance to LEO than a single-stage inline SDLV?  How is that?  If they both use the same ET/Core, the same SSMEs, and the same 4-seg SRBs, then it should boil down to the mass of the associated flight hardware.  And I don't see how the J-130 thrust structure and PLF would mass more than the side-mount pod and its thrust structure and huge PLF.

Of course I realize that the J-130 is not actually optimized for its single-stage role, and it carries some extra weight because it is designed to the J-24x loads.  Is it that large of a difference, or is DIRECT being penalized for including larger margins in its designs?

Mark S.

The side-mount design presented to the Augustine Committee included an upper stage. It was assumed to have better payload than J-130 and worse than J-24x, exactly as you'd expect.

[Reck]

Well, like I explaned above, I don’t think you’d need the depot right away.  So it wouldn’t be different than Direct/baseline in that way.  You should be able to get both J-24x’s up with enough fuel for the mission with a LOR and propellant transfer from Orion’s ACES-181 to Altair’s.  If the JUS is just an upscaled ACES-41/71 like you said, and “ACES-181”, then it would have that “propellant transfer/Docking Interface” in the aft thrust structure of each ACES module.  So you can do Orion and Altair’s ACES-181 modules at the aft to transfer propellants, then dock at the nose to transfer crew.  So I don’t think we disagree on this either. 

Hello Lobo,

I do like the clever and tidy approach ULA proposed, however, I fear that the requirement for new technologies (propellant depots) introduces a great deal of program risk in exchange for debatable gain when compared to a simpler mission profile.

If I have the facts of your proposed modification from the quote above wrong, I apologize, but my understanding is that you will dock for propellant transfer, and the elements which will do the docking are launched together. If this is the case, it seems that you effectively have a depot in your system, just one that does not need to operate independently for a period of time. The technologies necessary for propellant transfer must still be developed for this mission to work.

If the propellant transfer technologies are proven, then the analysis obviously changes, but until such a time, I can only support mission-critical propellant transfer in more theoretical exercises.

Thanks,
Chad

[Robotbeat]

We aren't in a race. We need to have in-space infrastructure this time. The Apollo approach is not sustainable.

[kraisee]

We aren't in a race. We need to have in-space infrastructure this time. The Apollo approach is not sustainable.

Yes, you have a grasp of what is probably the most important issue before us today.

Ross.

[WellingtonEast]

Hi,

with the talk about Shuttle extension, in case you have not read it,
Wayne Hales latest blog is illuminating.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/posts/index.html


Cheers

Why do you need the STS extended to 2015 when Jupiter 130 can fly in 2012?

There won't be a crew vehicle ready to put on top of the Jupiter by 2012.  Until Orion is ready to fly, there is no way to lift people on top of the rocket.

Who says that the shuttle extension is only there to lift people?  The main point of the extension is for maintaining the people on the ground and servicing the ISS. 

If you had bothered to read the DIRECT proposal, you'd know that they suggested extending the existing flights to 2013 or 2014 in order to keep the manned option there, reducing the # of flights per year, which means no more flights.  Having the J130 there, ready for service in 2013 after first flights in 2012 means that the Shuttle can reduce its workload until Orion is ready in 2014, retirement without additional flights to fill the gap.

[Eerie]

We aren't in a race. We need to have in-space infrastructure this time. The Apollo approach is not sustainable.

And yet people keep bringing China into the argument...

[Lobo]

I figured someone would have posted this already, but didn't see it here:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ares-i-x-processing-rollout-hlv-alternative-progress/

SD HLLV (HLV) Latest:

In the event of a decision to change paths and cancel Ares, one of the leading candidates to become its replacement – the SD HLLV or HLV – is continuing to show favorable results via design and mission capability evaluations.

Due to the vehicle’s close relation to the Shuttle, twice weekly progress notes are being published on the Shuttle Standup/Integration reports (acquired by L2).

Interestingly, one of the first openly-noted problems with the vehicle was noted back on September 10, when a mass issue came to light with the payload carrier that would ride uphill with the External Tank and Twin Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), in the position of the orbiter in the current configuration.

“Loads associated with the additional carrier weight are being investigated. The payload carrier weighs more than the Orbiter,” noted the September 10 update via SSP (Space Shuttle Program) manager John Shannon. “This work will require several weeks.”

However, just two weeks later, additional notes claimed no show stoppers had been found via the mass evaluations into the carrier.

“Results of the loads assessment was received from the elements regarding the added weight for the payload carrier. The projects provided first class support in this effort. No show stoppers were discovered through this analysis. This work will continue as the design matures,” noted the Standup on September 24.”

Work is continuing into an effort to show the various capabilities of the HLV via the design of reference missions – ranging from both unmanned to manned. According to Mr Shannon – via the Standup reports – the HLV is being very well received and supported by industry experts, including those attending the recent AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) convention in California.

“Went to the AIAA 2009 convention at Pasadena, CA last week. It was the largest crowd they have ever had. Probably the keynote speech by (NASA deputy administrator) Lori Garver was the best supported event. Had many good papers. The HLV paper went very well, and was well supported. It was using the HLV to demonstrate an application (not clarified).

“No new information from the Augustine Panel. We are just standing by, and when he receives direction, it will be passed along.”

This week also saw the presentation of the progress made so far to Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator of the powerful Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD). Again, the tone of the progress notes were positive.

“A family of design reference missions was identified that will demonstrate the foundational capability of the HLV. This includes four types of missions: 1) supporting the ISS; 2) lunar missions – manned and unmanned; 3) geo-synchronous orbit flights to deploy satellites; and 4) L1 support,” added the Standup.

“Provided static and dynamic loads on the heavy lift cases to all the key elements. No show stoppers so far. The analysis is close to complete. Will review their results formally, as well as looking at looking at trades for a Lunar Reference mission in prep for reviewing it with Bill Gerstenmaier.

“Things are going well.”

[robertross]

@ JMSC
The Aerospace Corporation did a launch vehicle assessment.
Two of the nine options assessed are the Jupiter variants.
The Jupiters received pretty good marks.
It is public, in the 378994main_HSF Presentation-Bo Bejmuk.ppt

I have extracted the comparative metrics in a more readable form :

Thanks for the chart!

I also find it interesting that this (skewed) chart has a box filled in for D4H in almost every row, despite the odd reds.

Anyway...this chart, as Ross & others have shown, really call into question how the powers that be can make an accurate assessment of the facts, when there are so many errors.

We spend all this money on studies: long, short, detailed, cursory, and in the end it doesn't matter. There are times I get the sense we are doomed to the political process.

Hopefully an alternate universe makes better decisions, this one can get frakking ridiculous.

[Analyst]

We aren't in a race. We need to have in-space infrastructure this time. The Apollo approach is not sustainable.

And yet people keep bringing China into the argument...

... because these people are desperate and have no real justification for HSF and their beyond LEO dreams. Oh wait, because there isn't, but this is for another thread.

Analyst

[alexterrell]

I figured someone would have posted this already, but didn't see it here:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ares-i-x-processing-rollout-hlv-alternative-progress/

SD HLLV (HLV) Latest:


“.... The payload carrier weighs more than the Orbiter,” noted the September 10 update via SSP (Space Shuttle Program) manager John Shannon.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but the above statement ought to consign side mount to the bin?

According to Ross Side Mount has been studied extensively before. Is the current study going further, or simply new money for old rope?