Author Topic: Direct Wikipedia Project  (Read 16621 times)

Offline MagDes

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Direct Wikipedia Project
« on: 08/02/2009 10:22 PM »
There seems to be enough interest in having a thread which deals primarily with updating the Wikipedia article about Direct, so I'm starting one. The wiki article can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT

and the Direct web page and NSF thread can be found here:

http://directlauncher.com/
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=37.0

Offline MagDes

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #1 on: 08/02/2009 10:23 PM »
This was posted to the main direct thread and I'm re-posting it here to continue the discussion.

Offline fotoguzzi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Phobos first!
  • PDX, Oregon, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #2 on: 08/02/2009 10:54 PM »
I would like to find references for some of the claims in the wikipedia article. 

1) DIRECT has studied infrastructure at Canaveral.  It might be enough to document what Ares is planning.  I had seen a request for proposals to alter Highbay 3 and add 22 service floors.  I read in a powerpoint that there are to be three lightweight Ares I Mobile Launch Platforms, the three current MLPs would be adapted early for Ares V, and three more MLPs would be made for Ares V. 

What I do not know is whether Ares V could launch from either launchpad.  I presume DIRECT could, but I do not know for sure.  Maybe it's enough just to wheel another MLP to the same pad after the first Ares V launches. 

I think references to these questions would help the article's claims that DIRECT was better on reuse of existing facilities and not any worse on multiple launches.
My other rocket is a DIRECT Project 2

Offline Varn

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #3 on: 08/02/2009 11:25 PM »
I would like to find references for some of the claims in the wikipedia article. 

1) DIRECT has studied infrastructure at Canaveral.  It might be enough to document what Ares is planning.  I had seen a request for proposals to alter Highbay 3 and add 22 service floors.  I read in a powerpoint that there are to be three lightweight Ares I Mobile Launch Platforms, the three current MLPs would be adapted early for Ares V, and three more MLPs would be made for Ares V. 

What I do not know is whether Ares V could launch from either launchpad.  I presume DIRECT could, but I do not know for sure.  Maybe it's enough just to wheel another MLP to the same pad after the first Ares V launches. 

I think references to these questions would help the article's claims that DIRECT was better on reuse of existing facilities and not any worse on multiple launches.

That's where Direct shines.  The VAB @ KSC, has 4 bays.  One is currently used for the final assembly for the Solid Boosters.  One is also *still* setup for the Saturn V, but it's been used as a "hurricane shelter" for the entire shuttle era and now beyond.

To do Ares I/V you have to dedicate each remaining bay (we're now already using 2 of 4) to dealing with each Ares.  You can't be setup to do a launch to the ISS with Ares I, and want to do an Ares I/V combo launch to the moon the following week.  You just can't get all of those rockets ready.  Due to the Ares plan, LC-39A and LC-39B will be dedicated to totally separate rockets (Ares I/V).  Ares I/V need separate level umbilical's, etc.  They do not play nice together, and nor do they play nice with the shuttle.

The way Direct has designed things, its entirely possible that while say LC-39A is setup to do a Jupiter-130 launch, it should still be able to send up a shuttle.

Not messing with the infrastructure is what has made Direct the way to go, 2 years ago plus.

While I still have down mass issues with Jupiter (and Ares, and Dragon, and the rest of the COTS/EELV/Cx options), getting mass to orbit is the only path to destinations outside of Earth orbit.  We do this now, or we wait for the next total redesign 30 years from now.


Offline Varn

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #4 on: 08/02/2009 11:29 PM »
Re: Above...

Sorry to have posted that, since none of that discussion belongs here.

This should entirely belong to potential edits to the Direct Wiki.

Offline SoFDMC

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #5 on: 08/03/2009 01:59 AM »
I will probably scan the article time and again for grammatical and spelling errors, since my knowledge of what's on with the DIRECT project is limited to what I read here.

Offline rv_rocket

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Denver, Co
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #6 on: 08/03/2009 02:35 AM »
I hope you don't mind my 2c worth here, but I do agree with the comment made by someone else on the main direct thread about the 3/4 SSME comments. When you have 'All 4 SSME's' vrs '3 SSME's (One Removed)' comments in the description, it does seem to me that some people could infer that somehow the version missing a SSME was somehow inferior from the version that gets 'All' the engines. I think just leaving the text saying 3 SSME's and 4 SSME';s is sufficently clear enough (you've stated the condition both graphicaly and in the text), and does not potentially promote a possible misunderstanding with some people.

Another variation that I just realized was that you could say something like 'Only 3 SSME's Required'. That might more clearly convey the thought too.

You did a great job on this! Thanks for soliciting our input!

 

Offline NUAETIUS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #7 on: 08/03/2009 04:15 AM »
If we are going to do this, let's do it right.  Below is the "Payload Capacity" section of the article, anyone see anything that needs to be changed?  I will make the updates on Wikipedia every other day, and post a new section.

Payload capacity

The payload capacity of Ares V to low earth orbit, according to NASA, is 188,000 kg. This is more than the largest proposed Jupiter rocket (Jupiter-246 Heavy with 5 segment SRBS) which is claimed to lift about 120,000 kg to LEO [34[Reference  http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.08001_EDS_090608.jpg ]]. For potential Mars missions more launches per mission would thus be required using Jupiter instead of Ares V and the mission modules would need to be separated in more different parts. However, NASA's Design Reference Mission 5.0 completed in 2007 only requires a 125mt+ launch vehicle with a 10m+ diameter shroud for a Mars mission with 6 separate Ares V launches. The Jupiter rocket fulfills the requirements of the Design Reference Mission with only a very narrow shortfall in payload to LEO , while fulfilling the volume requirements.

The Jupiter rockets are shorter in height than the Ares V, permitting very long payload fairings and thus greater total internal volume than possible with the taller Ares V which quickly encounters restraints due to height limitations within the Vehicle Assembly Building at KSC.
“It has long been recognized that the formation of a committee is a powerful technique for avoiding responsibility, deferring difficult decisions and averting blame….while at the same time maintaining a semblance of action.” Augustine's Law - Norm Augustine

Offline MagDes

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #8 on: 08/03/2009 04:58 AM »
While we're on the subject of doing it right... Who or what constitutes a valid reference? I take anything Ross says as coming strait from the NASA team, but is that good enough for wiki? I think we're safe whenever we can directly site a document, image, or update from the teams website, but can we site entries from the NSF thread?

I'll have the updated image of the PF ready sometime tomorrow.

Thanks to everyone who's chipping in to make the wiki better. Its especially important now that Direct is getting so much press :)

Offline Finn

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #9 on: 08/03/2009 05:09 AM »
« Last Edit: 08/03/2009 05:09 AM by Finn »

Offline MagDes

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #10 on: 08/03/2009 05:16 AM »
Thanks for that, those clarify wiki's position. I still think we need to decide on this thread what we're going to accept as a source, because the wiki rules give us some leeway. Specifically are we going to use what Ross says on the forum as a source (under the `quotation' wiki rules) or should we stick to Directs published literature?

Offline drdave

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #11 on: 08/03/2009 06:59 AM »
Thanks for that, those clarify wiki's position. I still think we need to decide on this thread what we're going to accept as a source, because the wiki rules give us some leeway. Specifically are we going to use what Ross says on the forum as a source (under the `quotation' wiki rules) or should we stick to Directs published literature?

Based on the reliability page:
Quote
Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

So it appears Ross' quotations on NSF might likely not be acceptable as a citation.
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are.  If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong - Richard Feynman

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #12 on: 08/03/2009 08:06 AM »
This could probably be much, much shorter.
And I don't think Ares V is anywhere neat 188 t at present.

If we are going to do this, let's do it right.  Below is the "Payload Capacity" section of the article, anyone see anything that needs to be changed?  I will make the updates on Wikipedia every other day, and post a new section.

Payload capacity

The payload capacity of Ares V to low earth orbit, according to NASA, is 188,000 kg. This is more than the largest proposed Jupiter rocket (Jupiter-246 Heavy with 5 segment SRBS) which is claimed to lift about 120,000 kg to LEO [34[Reference  http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.08001_EDS_090608.jpg ]]. For potential Mars missions more launches per mission would thus be required using Jupiter instead of Ares V and the mission modules would need to be separated in more different parts. However, NASA's Design Reference Mission 5.0 completed in 2007 only requires a 125mt+ launch vehicle with a 10m+ diameter shroud for a Mars mission with 6 separate Ares V launches. The Jupiter rocket fulfills the requirements of the Design Reference Mission with only a very narrow shortfall in payload to LEO , while fulfilling the volume requirements.

The Jupiter rockets are shorter in height than the Ares V, permitting very long payload fairings and thus greater total internal volume than possible with the taller Ares V which quickly encounters restraints due to height limitations within the Vehicle Assembly Building at KSC.

Offline fotoguzzi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Phobos first!
  • PDX, Oregon, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #13 on: 08/03/2009 09:26 AM »
From 10 Sep 2008, pages 4, 5, and 6:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090014767_2009013902.pdf

I don't find anything newer than that.

Modify:  I have added some requests (in pseudo-wiki form) for references or clarifications to the proposed text:

This could probably be much, much shorter.
And I don't think Ares V is anywhere neat 188 t at present.

If we are going to do this, let's do it right.  Below is the "Payload Capacity" section of the article, anyone see anything that needs to be changed?  I will make the updates on Wikipedia every other day, and post a new section.

Payload capacity

The payload capacity of Ares V to low earth orbit, according to NASA, is 188,000 kg{{The rest of the article uses tonnes.  Personally, I would stick to that or change all mass references to kg!}}.{{Citation needed}} This is more than the largest proposed Jupiter rocket (Jupiter-246 Heavy with 5 segment SRBS) which is claimed to lift about 120,000 kg to LEO [34[Reference  http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246H-41.5004.08001_EDS_090608.jpg ]]. For potential Mars missions more launches per mission would thus be required using Jupiter instead of Ares V{{comma?}} and the mission modules would {{need to be separated in more different parts | I think this could be said a little more suavely--I can't beat it at this time, however!}}. However, NASA's Design Reference Mission 5.0 completed in 2007 only requires a 125mt+ launch vehicle {{any vehicle or Ares V as mentioned at the end of this sentence?}} launch with a 10m+ diameter shroud for a Mars mission with 6 separate Ares V launches.{{fact}} The Jupiter rocket fulfills the requirements of the Design Reference Mission with only a very narrow shortfall in payload to LEO , while fulfilling the volume requirements.

The Jupiter rockets are shorter in height than the Ares V, permitting very long payload fairings and thus greater total internal volume than possible with the taller Ares V which quickly encounters restraints due to height limitations within the Vehicle Assembly Building at KSC.{{fact}}

fotoguzzi's note:  Is DRM 5.0 specifying 6 x Ares V launches?  I think a way to rephrase the above is that the DRM 5.0 spec calls for n tonnes mass in 6 x 125 t loads.{{Citation needed}} The Jupiter-whatever would be able to transfer the same mass with n-many more launches with a maximum of n tonnes per launch.{{Citation needed | baseball card}}  DIRECT believes that no single payload module would need to exceed n tonnes of mass.{{Citation needed | this might be very hard to verify}}  Further, DIRECT believes that the total cost of the n launches would be much less than with Ares V.{{Citation needed| I think this might be easier to verify, but still not easy.}}
« Last Edit: 08/03/2009 09:54 AM by fotoguzzi »
My other rocket is a DIRECT Project 2

Offline fotoguzzi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Phobos first!
  • PDX, Oregon, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #14 on: 08/03/2009 11:37 AM »
In the Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0 powerpoint:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2007/presentations/20071001.drake.pdf

Page 30 has:  110 – 125 t to Trans-Mars Injection. 

DIRECT could conceivably meet the bottom of this range.  The design calls for using the payload fairing as the Mars atmospheric entry vehicle.  DIRECT could perhaps add a bit to its capacity because the PLF would become payload itself.
My other rocket is a DIRECT Project 2

Offline MagDes

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #15 on: 08/05/2009 02:33 PM »
Here's the latest version of the PF graphic. The base image was provided by Ross, I pulled the Altair graphic from an early PF image provided by Ross, and I made the engine graphic at the base.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1764
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 8815
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #16 on: 08/05/2009 02:58 PM »
Here's the latest version of the PF graphic. The base image was provided by Ross, I pulled the Altair graphic from an early PF image provided by Ross, and I made the engine graphic at the base.

That looks great!  Nice work.  :)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #17 on: 08/05/2009 03:36 PM »
Okay, my version :)

This is a very high resolution version, using all of the suggestions made so far by everyone.

If this is acceptable I will release it as a Public Domain image.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2009 03:43 PM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 594
  • London
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #18 on: 08/05/2009 03:44 PM »
Take the logo and dates off
« Last Edit: 08/05/2009 03:44 PM by Crispy »

Offline MagDes

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Direct Wikipedia Project
« Reply #19 on: 08/05/2009 04:08 PM »
Looks good to me. I might place the dividing dashed line behind everything. Also is it still a J-246 if it has 1 J2x or 4 RL-60s?

Tags: