DIRECT v2.0

[kraisee]

John,
Grab a copy of VLC Media Player.   It can display most different formats and is free.   It should help.

The baseline design is actually a tapering arrangement, just like Ares-V.

From the Y-ring of the Aft LH2 Tank Dome, the Aft Skirt with the Stringers stretches approximately 3.0m downward.   From there, the tapering section is a truncated cone 8.4m maximum diameter, tapering down to 6.8m and with a length of 6.4m.

The final design is still subject to change of course, but that's the design baseline we're using at the moment.

Ross.

[kraisee]

PaulL - 16/3/2008  11:47 AM

Ross, it is interesting to see how the optimization of your EDS improve the performance of the J-232 rocket.  You are almost at a point were you could go back to a J-120+J-232 moon mission.

Paul,
We could get close to matching Ares performance with that combination, but remember that Ares is currently unable to close its performance requirements.

We have 222.3mT IMLEO for DIRECT's baseline architecture and truth be told that we still only *just* close the actual performance requirements (54,900kg Gross LSAM at TLI & 25,300kg landed on the surface).

Ares-I/V's combined IMLEO number is only around 175mT, and we just can't work out what they're going to do to make this work.

It is little wonder to me that they are being forced to look at options including composite EDS structures, 5.5- and 6-segment composite SRB's and even adding an extra pair of Delta-IV Cores as well as the SRB's in order to get Ares-V to make up the difference.

The real target for these missions is going to be somewhere in excess of 200mT if the target is to achieve missions of 4-people, supporting stays for 7 days, Global Access, Anytime Return.   Irrelevant of Ares-I's issues, I just don't know how they hope to get another 25+mT performance out of Ares-V to close this Lunar performance gap.

I really wish people understood this issue more explicitly.   I don't think NASA has ever shown the mass breakouts for Ares through to Landing compared to their mass targets.   We attempted to demonstrate the difference in our AIAA paper, but that data is already out of date.   You can go read it to get a feel for the subject if you wish.

Essentially though, when you do the math, it just doesn't add up if you aren't quite a bit above 200mT IMLEO.   One of these days I'm going to try to whip up a spreadsheet for folk to go play with for themselves - perhaps that'll help to de-mystify the issue.   Just don't expect anything in the short-term, I've got too many other things on my plate right now

You had mentioned before that you were also looking at doing the J-221 Baseball Card. Is that rocket still part of your plan?

That particular vehicle configuration is on the back burner at this time.   It is useful in a future architecture where all you want is an Orion to fly to rendezvous with a reusable LSAM - but that's a ways off into the future.   We have decided just to stick with J-120 and J-232 for the foreseeable future in order to minimize costs and schedules.   There's just no point in paying for three vehicle configurations when two does every job you want.   A J-221/J-232 can't close the *actual* performance requirements.

I intend to update my CEPE spreadsheet with your new data once you have corrected the above nm to km conversion errors/typos. In addition, I see that you are now using the RS-68 at 102% level instead of the original 100%. However, the RS-68 vacuum thrust remains as before at 340,648 kgf in both Baseball Cards. Is that an error?

PaulL

The original MPL reference was in error.   This one is corrected.   Delta-IV flew the first RS-68 at 101% thrust.   Since then every flight has been flown at 102% as the "standard" MPL.   The actual performance numbers shown in both the old and new DIRECT baseball cards has been correct all along - it is the performance Delta-IV has been using as nominal - 102%, just was marked incorrectly.

Ross.

[A_M_Swallow]

kraisee - 17/3/2008  3:37 AM

PaulL - 16/3/2008  11:47 AM
You had mentioned before that you were also looking at doing the J-221 Baseball Card. Is that rocket still part of your plan?

That particular vehicle configuration is on the back burner at this time.   It is useful in a future architecture where all you want is an Orion to fly to rendezvous with a reusable LSAM - but that's a ways off into the future.   We have decided just to stick with J-120 and J-232 for the foreseeable future in order to minimize costs and schedules.   There's just no point in paying for three vehicle configurations when two does every job you want.   A J-221/J-232 can't close the *actual* performance requirements.

Hmmm.  How about something weird.  Use a SEP tug to get the LSAM and possibly the return fuel to the Moon.  Use a smaller EDS to send the Orion.  How close is the 1.5 launch performance now?

ISP of a 1.0 N Busek BHT-20k Hall Thruster is 2750 seconds.

[rsp1202]

kraisee - 16/3/2008  7:37 PM

The real target for these missions is going to be somewhere in excess of 200mT if the target is to achieve missions of 4-people, supporting stays for 7 days, Global Access, Anytime Return.   Irrelevant of Ares-I's issues, I just don't know how they hope to get another 25+mT performance out of Ares-V to close this Lunar performance gap.

Move the goalposts.

[Bill White]

kraisee - 15/3/2008  12:01 AM

Our *very* talented Philip Metschan has produced an awesome 3D video simply demonstrating the Space Shuttle to Jupiter-120 modifications we need to make.

We wanted to share it with the group here because its so dang cool and thought you guys would appreciate it!

So Please Enjoy it as much as we do!

Thank-you Philip!!!

Ross.

Posting this at YouTube would aid distribution via bloggers and I would encourage the Direct Team to do that.

[Crispy]

I've put the video on youtube:

If the DIRECT guys want me to take it down, just say the word.

[DarthVader]

Excellent video Ross and al, and thanks Crispy for putting it on YouTube, that is an excellent initiative which will help spreading the "word" on how what Direct 2.0 means. I'm gonna blog it right away ;-)

EDIT: Done (http://djvader.blogspot.com/), however, since my audience is VERY limited (I think, I'm my only reader) that won't help much spreading the (good) word about DIRECT 2.0

[hyper_snyper]

DarthVader - 17/3/2008  11:35 AM

Excellent video Ross and al, and thanks Crispy for putting it on YouTube, that is an excellent initiative which will help spreading the "word" on how what Direct 2.0 means. I'm gonna blog it right away ;-)

EDIT: Done (http://djvader.blogspot.com/), however, since my audience is VERY limited (I think, I'm my only reader) that won't help much spreading the (good) word about DIRECT 2.0

I read your blog.  You're on the Centauri Dreams blogroll and I read most of those.

[Bill White]

Concerning the video, I  suggest adding an Ares 1 segment to compare / contrast with Jupiter 120. Also include an animated presentation of the "baseball card" data for both Jupiter 120 and Ares 1:

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/Baseball%20Card%20-%20080316%20-%20120-27.0.x.jpg

Include anticipated delivery dates and estimated budget figures on that baseball card.
 
Repeat with Jupiter 232 and Ares V.

This will present the data in a manner easily grasped by a 22 year old Congressional staffer and doing THAT is how you persuade the Senator or Representative to take a closer look.  

Especially if these materials are going viral on the internet.

[Bill White]

DarthVader - 17/3/2008  10:35 AM

Excellent video Ross and al, and thanks Crispy for putting it on YouTube, that is an excellent initiative which will help spreading the "word" on how what Direct 2.0 means. I'm gonna blog it right away ;-)

EDIT: Done (http://djvader.blogspot.com/), however, since my audience is VERY limited (I think, I'm my only reader) that won't help much spreading the (good) word about DIRECT 2.0

You've just been added to my bookmarks . . .

[Pheogh]

In the works, thank you for the suggestion

[RanulfC]

I wrote:
>>I have to ask, (you probably won't tell me and I can understand that,
>>but I STILL have to ask ) any idea yet when "D" day is going to be?

kraisee wrote:
>No idea!

Which would probably STILL be the answer even if you did I'm guessing ;o)

>We've been sending members of Congress and many other important
>individuals copies of the AIAA paper since it came out. We continue to
>do so. We also got a great response from the Pentagon back during
>v1.0, and we got a lot of interest from a number of other sources too.
>Our campaign isn't limited to Congress.

That's what I was hoping to hear, but as you note later in the post Congress is the ones that are going to have to convinced to 'flex' their policy change muscles and the ones that are going to have to generate the change of direction.

>Congress has actually been very supportive of the Vision for Space
>Exploration (now re-named the US Space Exploration Policy or USSEP).
>There has been strong support on both sides of the aisle and from both
>House and Senate to get NASA going in a new path since Columbia was
>lost and exploring beyond Low Earth Orbit. There does not appear to be
>any change with this fundamental support for NASA.

You'll excuse me being skeptical here but Congress was 'supportive' of the SEI and about two dozen other programs while gleefully sounding-off on thier continued support of NASA while they killed program and projects left and right. Specifically forbiding NASA to develop technology that MIGHT be applicable to a manned Mars mission as a recent example, killing the TransHab program and requireing that NASA delete all records of the program as well as forbidding any researc along those lines again as an earlier example seems to me to regulate Congressional 'support' to its usual practice of telling people what they want to hear.

I will agree that I've seen nothing to indicate any 'change' in Congress' usual support of NASA, but given my outside observations that 'support' could easily turn out to be Congress writing-off the ET and related workforce in favor of just procurring the Aries-1 to keep solid propellant prices low and ensure NASA has no capability beyond Low Earth Orbit. This would be 'in-line' with Congressional 'support' given to NASA over the years.

>I don't think Congress actually cares whether the launch vehicle is Ares,
>DIRECT or a Banana Skin made to fly - just as long as it does all the
>things they want it to.

Congress' 'want' list as of last count required the retention and use of as much of the Shuttle hardware workforce and contracting services as possible, as far as I (and anyone else I've talked to) can tell this requirment hasn't changed. There has been little 'noise' from Congress over workforce losses which have been mounting since the Aries 1 flight delays and the impending shut down of the Shuttle which is worrysome in and of itself given their constant efforts for the last few years to try and keep the Shuttle flying despite lack of parts and supply difficulties.
As I noted of the 'alternatives' only DIRECT seem to offer all the portions required by Congress except for Orbiter workforce maintenance. Which is why I asked the first question as it seems to me, (IMPO) that a Direct blitz at the same time as the proposed "March-Storm" might be an excelent time to make a push.

>If one concept clearly "works", and another "doesn't", Congress does have
>the ability to force the issue. But getting them to decide to exercise that
>power is the trick. We still need to *prove* our concept *is* better. We're a
>long way from there still, but time will tell.

The general problem is not what "works" but what "works-for" Congress, you are of course correct about getting Congress to move on something and popularity or actual usefullness of a program has less often been a motivator than simple politics or other intrenal and interpersonel factors. Still I can see very well where DIRECT could and would be a great benifit to Congress' special and personal interests, I wish you all the luck in the world and am 100% behind you folks when you decide to make the push.

Take Care

Randy

[TrueGrit]

Just a small nitpick...  But the RS-68 maximum power level is termed "Full Power Level" or "FPL".  "MPL" refers to throttle condition which is termed "Minimum Power Level".

[kraisee]

We're using MPL in the context of "Mission Power Level".

Ross.

[Michael Bloxham]

It might be wise to take note of Bill White's suggestions. IMHO, the DIRECT effort would benefit from a little smarter (& sneakier?) marketing.

Ross, I'm interested to know: Now that you have published Direct 2.0, what are your plans for the future?

[renclod]

kraisee - 16/3/2008  8:01 AM

... 3D video simply demonstrating the Space Shuttle to Jupiter-120 modifications we need to make.

The LAS element looks like the ALAS but the text is "MLAS" (just nitpicking).

[Damon Hill]

What sort of ground support/start equipment will the RS-68 require, and how does that compare to the SSME (or other engines, for that matter)?  I'm wondering to what extent this will require modifications to the MLS platform and pad facilities.  Seems like the Delta IV goes through a lot of helium, where as the ET/SSME uses very little, if any?

[Jim]

Damon Hill - 18/3/2008  4:43 AM

What sort of ground support/start equipment will the RS-68 require, and how does that compare to the SSME (or other engines, for that matter)?  I'm wondering to what extent this will require modifications to the MLS platform and pad facilities.  Seems like the Delta IV goes through a lot of helium, where as the ET/SSME uses very little, if any?

just He.

[kraisee]

Michael Bloxham - 18/3/2008  2:59 AM

Ross, I'm interested to know: Now that you have published Direct 2.0, what are your plans for the future?

We've got a number of irons in the fire at present.

v2.0 as shown in the AIAA paper is no longer *quite* the same approach we are using now ~6 months later.   We are working on a revision of the old v2.02 documentation to showcase the new baseline.

We're also working intensively on both Lunar and Mars applications for the systems.   We want to demonstrate *precisely* how we can close the performance targets.

Stephen is taking the lead on a new AIAA paper for this year, which takes the >100mT lift performance of the Jupiter-232 as a starting point and goes on from there to implement a variety of Lunar, NEO and Mars missions - amongst others.

And we keep plugging away at our regular work on this too.

Ross.

[kraisee]

renclod - 18/3/2008  3:23 AM

kraisee - 16/3/2008  8:01 AM

... 3D video simply demonstrating the Space Shuttle to Jupiter-120 modifications we need to make.

The LAS element looks like the ALAS but the text is "MLAS" (just nitpicking).

Yeah, just a minor thing.   We have plans to update the video in the future - probably all the way to the Jupiter-232 - but its more than good enough to get the basic idea across.

Not sure if we will do a comparison between Ares and Jupiter or not.   It would be effective, but its an awful lot of work...

Ross.