Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0  (Read 640128 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 4
DIRECT v2.0
« on: 05/10/2007 08:41 PM »
Announcing:
 
DIRECT Goes Live – version 2.0
 
www.directlauncher.com
 
10th May 2007
Cape Canaveral, FL
 
Today the team behind the 2006 DIRECT proposal issues a newly revised study seeking to persuade NASA to re-examine the decision to use two completely different Ares launchers to support NASA's new mandate of returning humans to the moon and taking them to explore the rest of our solar system.
 
At the end of last year, Dr. Doug Stanley, author of NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) Report provided a critique of the version 1 proposal. This revision is a direct result of that critique. All of his comments respecting the Direct launch vehicle were taken seriously, and the entire proposal was re-evaluated in that context.
 
After months of revised calculations, updates, feedback, and critical analysis of the constantly changing situation surrounding the Vision for Space Exploration, our new study identifies a launch vehicle even more closely matched to existing hardware, which we have named the "Jupiter" launch vehicle. Able to double Ares-I's payload performance to stable Low Earth Orbit, "Jupiter" scales, with the use of an upper stage and a 3rd engine, to also produce true heavy lift payload performance greater than 100 tons per flight.
 
This means that this single launch vehicle is capable of accomplishing all the roles expected of the two Ares vehicles, yet does so for less than half the development costs and on a faster schedule.
 
Specifically addressing concerns with our first proposal, we have selected only existing flight-proven engines to power the Jupiter, specifically the Space Shuttle's 4-segment SRB's and a man-rated version of the RS-68 from the Delta-IV program with no performance enhancements what-so-ever.
 
Our optional upper stage is powered by the lower specification J-2X "D" engine variant, but is not required to support the early ISS missions.   The new engines are now not required until the lunar phase of the Jupiter program – beginning around 2017.   This reduces the scheduling pressures and high investment costs currently plaguing Ares-I development while Shuttle operations continue.
 
"Jupiter" removes all of the key "long lead time" from the near-term budget, which would allow NASA, in these lean times, to afford to fund other important programs once again, while still accomplishing all of the VSE's objectives and importantly, doing so ahead of schedule.
 
With Jupiter as its new backbone, and with DIRECT's architecture, NASA could close the Shuttle/Orion gap to just two years, save half of its launch vehicle development costs over the next 10 years, while also benefiting from an increase in 2-launch lunar mission performance by as much as 42% compared to existing plans with Ares-I and Ares-V.
 
While DIRECT's architecture guarantees lunar access with NASA's very first new launch vehicle, the ultimate goal of the gargantuan Ares-V is not removed from the table - it remains a logical upgrade option for the future, because "Jupiter" does not cost any more to develop than Ares-I, yet Jupiter would benefit the Ares-V by pre-qualifying the RS-68 and the J-2XD engines, and creating a versatile Earth Departure Stage – all of which the Ares-V could utilize.
 
To learn more about the DIRECT Architecture and the Jupiter launcher, please visit our website at: www.directlauncher.com
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #1 on: 05/10/2007 09:02 PM »
To all involved in Direct 2... looks great.  But just a suggestion based on the intended audience: switch to American English spelling rather than UK English (e.g., maneuver for manoeuvre, etc.).  ;)

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #2 on: 05/10/2007 09:23 PM »
Have you sent it to Michael Griffin again ? Maybe a copy to Doug Stanley (and Scott Horowitz) might be good too. Keep trying guys, I think either Ares I/V or DIRECT would do the job but yours looks cheaper and quicker if maybe slightly less safer. However with a looming Democrat President I would say DIRECT remains the only feasible political and economic one given the less enthusiasm to manned spaceflight they have with the obvious squeeze on funds that will produce which will mean the Chinese will get there first and take all the helium-3 while the Democrats drone on about Science and saving the Earth ;-).

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #3 on: 05/10/2007 09:25 PM »
Quote
RedSky - 10/5/2007  10:02 PM

To all involved in Direct 2... looks great.  But just a suggestion based on the intended audience: switch to American English spelling rather than UK English (e.g., maneuver for manoeuvre, etc.).  ;)

I've learnt to do that. Got to cater to your main audience :)

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • V
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #4 on: 05/10/2007 09:45 PM »
What's the Jupiter 242? I couldn't find it.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #5 on: 05/10/2007 10:08 PM »
I assume you're referring to the reference to an 'optional vehicle upgrade' for use on future LOR-LOR mission profiles from page 10?

As the numbering designations would indicate, it is a four engined Core variant which could be constructed in the future if additional performance were ever required by NASA.   It is more powerful than the 232 but is NOT backward compatible to the 120, so it becomes a separate stand-alone design.   For achieving the current Lunar architecture payload requirements, however, the 232 is more than adequate, and can be used in 120 configuration to support safe, cost-effective manned operations in the near-term. Because of these reasons, the specific details of the 242 variant are really beyond the scope of this particular document.

What we have here are the two, least costly and safest variants - using the exact same Common Core for both - which accomplish all of the criteria set out in the original ESAS analysis.   The Jupiter-120 and the Jupiter-232 can match Ares-I/V's performance and offer a very easy method to actually improve noticeably upon them.   The 242 variant thus becomes an 'option' which can remain on the shelf for the future.

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

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #6 on: 05/10/2007 10:41 PM »
Quote
RedSky - 10/5/2007  5:02 PM

To all involved in Direct 2... looks great.  But just a suggestion based on the intended audience: switch to American English spelling rather than UK English (e.g., maneuver for manoeuvre, etc.).  ;)

Thanks.   Good suggestion.   That was my error - I still have my UK English dictionary set up :)

Fixed now.

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

Offline Marsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #7 on: 05/10/2007 10:44 PM »

Congratulations on all of you hard work. I can appreciate all of the intense time and effort spent on the proposal. I stand in awe of your persistence and determination. Fantastic job! A minor question: How does the Jupiter 232 equal or beat the Ares V in LSAM mass with a less powerful launcher?


Offline Celeritas

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #8 on: 05/10/2007 11:21 PM »
If all of the above numbers are correct then DIRECT makes too much sense.  Hopefully not too much sense for NASA.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #9 on: 05/10/2007 11:28 PM »
Marsman,
The 232 doesn't beat Ares-V in raw performance - but the 232 is still the *first* rocket - which is equivalent to Ares-I from a cost and schedule perspective.   If the 232 isn't powerful enough, there is no reason why NASA can not make the Ares-V to go with the Jupiter, and still not spend any more than they would for the Ares-I & Ares-V combo.

But if NASA's current budget is any indication, we may never be getting the Ares-V.   Which would you rather be 'stuck' with?   Ares-I or Jupiter?

The Jupiter approach protects against that eventuality.

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

Offline veedriver22

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 260
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #10 on: 05/10/2007 11:31 PM »
I wish you guys the best of luck with this.  Its obvious that a ton of work & passion went into this.   It going to be next to impossible to get the NASA managers to just up & change their plans over night.   Your work will have at least put the Direct launch system in position to be the alternative if Ares becomes unworkable due to major problems or a cutback in funds.

Offline Marsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #11 on: 05/10/2007 11:51 PM »

Quote
kraisee - 10/5/2007 7:28 PM Marsman, The 232 doesn't beat Ares-V in raw performance - but the 232 is still the *first* rocket - which is equivalent to Ares-I from a cost and schedule perspective. If the 232 isn't powerful enough, there is no reason why NASA can not make the Ares-V to go with the Jupiter, and still not spend any more than they would for the Ares-I & Ares-V combo. But if NASA's current budget is any indication, we may never be getting the Ares-V. Which would you rather be 'stuck' with? Ares-I or Jupiter? The Jupiter approach protects against that eventuality. Ross.

Sorry for the poor phrasing, my question was that although the Jupiter 232 has less overall performance to LEO, how can it still put a 38-45mt LSAM on the Moon?

The easy part is over. Now you have to deal with the discussions ;)


Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6578
  • Liked: 863
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #12 on: 05/11/2007 12:53 AM »
Regarding the FAQ.  I think an obvious question would be something like, "were these configurations evaluated by NASA?"  If so, the next obvious question would be, "why weren't they selected?"  If not, the next question would be, "how are these configurations different from what was evaluated, and why are they better than those?".  You've already given plenty of why they are better than what was selected (from your point of view, of course).

Best of luck.

Lee Jay

Offline Jon_Jones

  • Orthogonal
  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • "Thank God for unanswered prayers," he said humbly
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #13 on: 05/11/2007 01:41 AM »
What would it be like If the LSAM Ascent Stage was Launched with the Orion/Jupiter stack instead of the LASM Descent Stage on the second direct launch? I assume, since Jupiter would be able to get more than just Orion to a stable orbit, that  it could get orion and a lunar suface ascent stage there? Being in a stable orbit, Orion would then have the option of doing the classic Apollo/Saturn flip around to pull the LM off of the SIVB. Of course that would depend which way you want to leave earth orbit. I see that as being the main thing against an idea such as that. Perhaps if you used two Jupiter EDS stages, one on each launch. If it's not impossible, would that free up mass on the LSAM for a larger LSAM and therefore more equipment and/or more habitation. Just a thought.

Perhaps then tht would also allow a larger version of Orion. I personally would like to see a larger capsule for four astronauts. but th'ed probably only be in there for 7 days at the most. However, they would be spending a considerable larger portion of the mission on the surface.

Though, it occurs to me that a larger orion in LEO is a larger target for space debris, but that's true anywhere -pertaining to micromeorites.
Speed = Life iff Life = Speed

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12427
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3217
  • Likes Given: 539
RE: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #14 on: 05/11/2007 02:39 AM »
Why "Jupiter"?  This name is associated with a short-lived U.S. nuke warhead ballistic missile system.  Why give it a name at all?

- Ed Kyle

Offline Ankle-bone12

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #15 on: 05/11/2007 02:57 AM »
Im not a rocket scientist, in fact far from it, but I would assume that it could have something to do with the publics appeal to the flashy name of "Jupiter". It could also be viewed as a "next step up" from the Saturn family of rockets.
Alex B.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #16 on: 05/11/2007 03:21 AM »
I won't be around tomorrow to field questions, but let me have a stab at these ones so far...

Marsman: The 232 can place a 38mT LSAM into LEO immediately and perform a routine EOR-LOR mission in precisely the same fashion as Ares-I/V.

However, with 45mT of lift capability, the CLV flight has a 'spare' 23mT of performance available on top of lifting the Orion to orbit.   This extra capacity is not initially required, but as the program evolves and confidence is built with the equipment, it could be utilised to increase performance later for almost no additional cost.

Extra payload can theoretically be transferred to the LSAM during the 3 day voyage between the Earth and the Moon.   The most logical material to transfer would be a single type of propellant or oxidixer.   Note: For safety only one or the other should be transferred, not both.

This general technique also applied to the 232/232 LOR-LOR mission profile available later too.   The first 232 is capable of launching a 48mT, partially fuelled LSAM to Lunar Orbit.   The second brings the 22mT Orion and 28mT of extra propellant to the LSAM.   The propellant is transferred to the LSAM prior to descent, and suddenly you have a 76mT LSAM in Lunar orbit and you're still only using a 2-launch strategy based on one single launch vehicle design.

Lee Jay - A variant of the LV-24/25 vehicle from ESAS, but with 2x RS-68's instead of 3x SSME's was considered, but has lower performance than the SSME version.   It never made it into the document because the LV-24/25 pair offered higher performance.   Neither the LV-24/25 nor the RS-68 variant was fully evaluated with an EDS flying on one flight though.   ESAS missed this option, but the LV-24/25 performance does show the "potential" by demonstrating the basic LV without EDS has a lot of performance available.

Jon Jones: You want to keep Orion's mass as low as possible still.   Always the minimum for the requirements when you're dealing with sensitive hardware on a mass budget for a lunar mission.   Every pound of material it uses in its struture is a pound of material you can't use elsewhere, like for propellant and useful cargo (people, experiments).   I understand that the current Orion is going to be quite "roomy" compared to Apollo, not to mention that the accompanying LSAM Ascent Module will also be fairly spacious.   A four man crew should be acceptably comfortable with the current configurations as is.   Just for the record, the CEV's mass is second only to the mass of the LSAM on the "critical" scale.   The CEV has to go all the way to the moon and back again.   Only the LSAM has to go down into the gravity well of the moon to the lunar surface though - so reducing mass on the LSAM is even more critical than on the CEV.

Orbital Propellant Transfer is a far less precarious option than attempting to integrate an LSAM Ascent Stage to a Descent Stage in orbit.   To make use of extra carrying capacity, this is probably the better alternative and allows NASA to integrate & checkout the LSAM completely on the ground before ever committing to a mission.

edkyle99The name was selected because we combined our DIRECT efforts with some of the members of the Team Vision proposal a while back.   DIRECT saw a lot of value in their Jupiter-1 concept, which was surprisingly similar to DIRECT in concept and execution.

I will let Steve comment on why Team Vision chose that name, but for me it represents the larger brother world to Saturn.   Our standard launch vehicles are designed to fly mostly in pairs to accomplish all mission objectives, and together they offer 262mT launch capability per pair .   262mT is almost double the performance of a single mighty Saturn-V, so seems a fitting name for a successor.

Also, in Roman mythology, Jupiter was the guardian and protector of all the other Gods.   We believe Jupiter will "protect" NASA from the worst of budgetary storms and "guard" our tax investment for the next three decades far better than other options.

And finally, Jupiter planetary systems, the Jovian system is the etmylogical root of the term "jovial" - which represents happiness.   We hope Jupiter will get a chance to make everyone happy ultimately.

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

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #17 on: 05/11/2007 03:35 AM »
Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 10/5/2007  9:57 PM
Im not a rocket scientist, in fact far from it, but I would assume that it could have something to do with the publics appeal to the flashy name of "Jupiter". It could also be viewed as a "next step up" from the Saturn family of rockets.

I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to name a rocket.  ;)  
Besides being an ICBM, a version called the Jupiter C was the rocket that launched the US's first satellite, Explorer I.  I think that model developed into the similar Redstone, that launched the first two manned Mercury suborbital flights.  Then 8 Redstone tanks were planned to be clustered around a Jupiter core.  They needed a name for the new advanced rocket, so the next planet out from Jupiter was Saturn, and that name stuck (it became the Saturn I).  Don't know how true that story is, but it sounds plausible. Of course, following that example the next step beyond Saturn would be... oh, never mind.  :laugh:

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #18 on: 05/11/2007 04:14 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 10/5/2007  9:21 PM
And finally, Jupiter planetary systems, the Jovian system is the etmylogical root of the term "jovial" - which represents happiness.   We how Jupiter will get a chance to make everyone happy ultimately.

You can bet that Griffin, Stanley & Horowitz aren't too jovial right about now.  Too many "independent thought alarms" going off at NASA headquarters for the management to be happy.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12427
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3217
  • Likes Given: 539
RE: DIRECT v2.0
« Reply #19 on: 05/11/2007 04:27 AM »
Quote
RedSky - 10/5/2007  10:35 PM

Quote
Ankle-bone12 - 10/5/2007  9:57 PM
Im not a rocket scientist, in fact far from it, but I would assume that it could have something to do with the publics appeal to the flashy name of "Jupiter". It could also be viewed as a "next step up" from the Saturn family of rockets.

I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to name a rocket.  ;)  

I'm suppose I'm just tired of the overused Greek and Roman naming conventions for rockets and missiles.  How about something original and different?  Weather phenomena ("Hurricane", "Thunder", etc)?, or a river ("Hudson", "Cumberland", "Potomac", etc),  or a bird ("Falcon", "Egret", "Kingfisher", etc.), or a beloved cartoon science fiction dog ("Astro"), etc.?  Or call it "Constellation Launch Vehicle", "Constellation" for short.

 - Ed Kyle


Tags: