NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV/SLS) => Topic started by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 06:37 pm

Title: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 06:37 pm
Starting a new thread because the other one just hit 250 pages!

Please continue discussions here.   Chris will lock the old thread now.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Alpha Control on 03/21/2008 07:16 pm
I guess I'm the first one here!  :)

Looking forward to following the continuing discussions.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 03/21/2008 07:48 pm
Quote
Alpha Control - 21/3/2008  4:16 PM

I guess I'm the first one here!  :)

Looking forward to following the continuing discussions.
No Fair! I was driving. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/21/2008 08:02 pm
At was stage Ares V will be easier to develop than Jupiter-232? (It also defines the point after which DIRECT will no longer be relevant).

I just wonder what are the chances of a future where Ares 1 exists, but Ares V gets replaced by DIRECT-like alternative.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/21/2008 08:34 pm
Is there a point where Ares-V is easier to develop?

Considering that both Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 together cost less than *either* Ares-I or Ares-V separately, the point of loss is a long way off.   I would say that up until ~2 years before Ares-V becomes operational Jupiter would still be a strong competitor.

Of course, that assumes Ares-V ever receives funding in the first place - which seems virtually impossible at this stage according to almost everyone I've talked to in the last 6 months.   More than 90% of the NASA folk involved in CxP I have spoken with all-but laugh at the idea.   Right now they're all just praying they keep their jobs in an Orion-to-ISS world.

Right now I think Constellation is heading straight for the total-cancellation brick-wall where even Ares-I will be thrown out.   What I'm most concerned about avoiding is that the whole VSE gets thrown out at the same time.

On the one hand are the "shut it all down" crowd (Obama for example) and on the other are those who believe NASA when they tell them Ares-I/V (VI?) is the only way to get VSE working (most people in Congress and the Public).

But the truth is that the VSE is a *great* plan for the US to follow.   It is purely the *IMPLEMENTATION* - in the form of Ares - that what is sucking all the life out of the effort and creating such vast delays and high costs.

There are viable alternatives.   And that is why we're working our butts off to get ours recognized before its too late.

As a group, our #1 overriding priority is to ensure we don't lose the moon, Mars and Beyond plans.   Nothing else - vehicle design included - matters to us compared to that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/21/2008 09:22 pm
I apologize for asking a question that I`m sure was already asked and answered, but the first thread is a bit too long to read.

What, in short, are the reasons that NASA currently pursues Ares I\V? (I mean - how they explain it, and not what may be behind it.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/22/2008 03:55 am
I'm quite happy to answer questions again Eerie.   I'm sure you aren't the only person who has come to DIRECT since these questions were first asked :)


The current response from NASA for more than a year has boiled down to: "Its what were are already working on. We need to continue. Its too late to change".


The real reason is simple though.   A small group of people came up with the basic idea before Columbia but there was no funding available to study it fully so they just sat on it.   Key individuals were obviously Mike and Scott, but there were others too.

When the VSE was announced O'Keefe wanted to abandon the STS infrastructure to remove development costs.   This was not popular in Washington.   O'Keefe left NASA.   There are no coincidences.

Griffin was appointed because he had a proposal which he claimed would not get bogged down with two or three years of studies trying to find a solution.   He had a pre-potted solution ready to go.   He got the job.   He implemented his solution.

They got rid of people who were doing such studies internally and brought their own team in to validate the concept with the ESAS Report.   I think most informed people these days believe ESAS was a wash.

The sad fact is that Ares-I/Orion has since gotten bogged down by its own two years of endless studies - the result of not doing a proper analysis first - and it looks like there are now plenty more delays coming down the pipe too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 03/22/2008 08:25 am
Ross, is there perhaps another issue here: That adopting DIRECT would put the whole Shuttle-era in an even worse light; because DIRECT, by its very nature, is virtually the shuttle system, but with more than triple the capacity, and is also much simpler and cheaper to boot? ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/22/2008 08:53 am
Quote
Michael Bloxham - 22/3/2008  4:25 AM

Ross, is there perhaps another issue here: That adopting DIRECT would put the whole Shuttle-era in an even worse light; because DIRECT, by its very nature, is virtually the shuttle system, but with more than triple the capacity, and is also much simpler and cheaper to boot? ;-)

But was it the current administration that built the Shuttle system?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 03/22/2008 12:46 pm
Shuttle, as a system, played a completely different role in spaceflight. It was specifically designed to be a reusable winged spacecraft, which VSE does not require. Replacing Shuttle with Orion is not an indictment of Shuttle by any stretch of the imagination. It is an acknowledgement that for the VSE, we need a different system. It’s simply time to move on, that’s all.

The debate now centers around the launch system for Orion; and from among all the potential candidates, DIRECT is the best.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/22/2008 01:02 pm
clongton; Shuttle what used lately to carry people to ISS and back, so Orion is kind of a replacement for that function...

But my point was that I don`t see how adopting DIRECT will show Shuttle in a bad light. I mean, it supposed to be the opposite, DIRECT is almost Shuttle, just without the plane...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/22/2008 09:27 pm
I think that the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 made it explicitly clear that Congress *wants* a Shuttle-derived solution and doesn't see much, if anything, bad from such a position.

And as long as we address all of the safety issues we identified after Columbia was lost, we essentially keep all the good part of Shuttle, but can remove all of the bad.

But there are Shuttle derivatives and there are Shuttle derivatives.   Not all are equal.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: KSC Sage on 03/22/2008 09:52 pm
Ross,

By chance, has your team looked at the Jupiter 120 using the RD-180 engine on the core stage?  (I know its a political issue)  I would assume two RD-180s would be about the same thrust as two RS-68s, but I don't know if the tanks would have to change for the different type of propellents (RP1 vs H2).  Just as a thought on maybe a faster development and cheaper engine.

Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 03/23/2008 02:42 am
I'm no real fan of what the Ares program has turned into, but, as far as I can tell, the plan was an okay plan to start with.  They just didn't know a couple of technical things - 1) that the SSME wouldn't be useful in the plan, and 2) that the SRBs shake too much to be used without additional damping.  When they couldn't air start the SSME, they had to dump the SSME for the ARES 1 in favor of a gas-generator cycle engine (J-2X) that had lower ISP.  The SSME was also more costly than they assumed, and they dumped it from the ARES V and replaced it with the RS-68.

So what happened?  The four segment SRB couldn't provide sufficient impulse needed to lift the ARES 1 upper-stage and payload to the necessary separation velocity.  The RS-68 fell short of the needed performance.  The result was a switch to a five-segment ARES V first stage, and the widening of the ARES V core stage from 8.5 meters (ET diameter) to 10 meters.  In one fell swoop, every common component with the space shuttle transportation system was removed from ARES.  It ceased to be an upgrade which only required a few new structural elements (upper-stage tank set, thrust structure, shroud) and became a development project for two completely new rockets.

The politics is another story.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 02:45 am
KSC Sage,
There would have to be a lot more extensive changes to the tanking.   The density of RP1 is radically different from LH2, and the proportions required are also considerably different.   There would be virtually no commonality to the existing ET tanking.

But the key issue is that RP-1/LOX does not have anywhere near the efficiency in vacuum of LH2/LOX.   RP-1/LOX has great thrust, and so are very good options for lower-down in the atmosphere, but you want high efficiency once you get up into vacuum and are just trying to build velocity to reach orbital speeds (the bigger portion of any ascent).

RP-1/LOX works really great for first stages and boosters.   LH2/LOX is far better for upper stages or stages which fly all the way from the ground to orbit - which is what the Jupiter-120 Core (and Shuttle) does.


Now, the Jupiter-232 Core is disposed of part way through the flight.   There is some potential advantage to re-designing it to use RP-1/LOX at some point in the future.   The Upper Stage takes over for the last half of the flight, so high-density, high-thrust performance is desirable there and efficiency is not so important.

But to really keep costs and schedule down, DIRECT chooses not to build two rockets - but to reuse the first one as the basis for a "big brother".   We choose to re-use the same Core from Jupiter-120 - the booster which closes the "gap" to the smallest possible amount.

An RP-1 option might be a future upgrade option at some point in the future when we have lots of money available.   Until then, this option just provides a very realistically achievable solution without breaking the bank.

We were told in no-uncertain-terms that NASA had veto'd use of a Russian engine and would even bother to look at any proposal which included one.   We were also told that F-1, F-1A and RS-84 were all considered too expensive to consider on the critical path to close the gap.   Of course, in the light of 5-seg SRB and J-2X I'm not convinced of this, but that was what we were told we must avoid to have any chance at all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula2 on 03/23/2008 11:29 am
Yes, within reason, propellant density is more important than Isp for a first stage.

A Single Stage To Orbit IS a first stage.

A LOX / RP-1 core using ET derived tanking and RD-180 engines, should put more mass into LEO than J-120, WITHOUT needing any SRB's. It would, however, need 6 or 7 engines. Not 2 plus 2 SRB's.

But yes, using RD-180's is politically unacceptable, and so is stopping use of SRB's.  So Direct is the best all around solution to ALL the requirements.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 03/23/2008 01:27 pm
I'm a huge proponent of a LOX/RP-1 booster stage, but I wholeheartedly agree that DIRECT is not a good application for it in the near future.

You can certainly build an 8.4m core stage that burns RP-1 instead of LH2, but aside from the diameter, everything else would be significantly different.  

Even if you have a politically-viable and immediately-available RP-1 engine right now... if you go with RP-1, it's not DIRECT anymore.  It's probably better-classed as an 8.4m Atlas-derivative.

DIRECT's biggest advantages over Ares how little it "rocks the boat".  Same boosters, similar core tankage, and compared to Ares, dramatically-minimized pad/VAB changes.  

Despite all of RP-1's thrust advantages as a booster stage, it adds complications that DIRECT intentionally avoids.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 03/23/2008 01:50 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 23/3/2008  10:27 AM

I'm a huge proponent of a LOX/RP-1 booster stage, but I wholeheartedly agree that DIRECT is not a good application for it in the near future.

You can certainly build an 8.4m core stage that burns RP-1 instead of LH2, but aside from the diameter, everything else would be significantly different.  

Even if you have a politically-viable and immediately-available RP-1 engine right now... if you go with RP-1, it's not DIRECT anymore.  It's probably better-classed as an 8.4m Atlas-derivative.

DIRECT's biggest advantages over Ares how little it "rocks the boat".  Same boosters, similar core tankage, and compared to Ares, dramatically-minimized pad/VAB changes.  

Despite all of RP-1's thrust advantages as a booster stage, it adds complications that DIRECT intentionally avoids.
You are absolutely correct; we specifically avoid anything like that for the foreseeable future. All kinds of possibilities present themselves later down the line however. For example, see the post over on the DIRECT Derived Vehicles thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12377#M260221
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/23/2008 02:08 pm
I just want to note here people.

What Obama says while on the road and what he will do behind the desk are two TOTALLY different things.

I advise the Direct team to not name names when talking politics of the big dogs. If they have anyone that wants to check up on this they may not take kindly to such talk.

Don't get me wrong! I love Direct. I love it not because of the fact that is the first system designed outside the norms of the industry, but to the fact that I believe it is the ONLY remaining politically possible near term solution for a moon landing and large cargo to orbit.

I get the whole Obama = delays etc.. etc... but lets be clear here.

You are either going to have McCain (Extremely Unlikely due to events in the past few years, Only way he wins is Clinton gets the democratic nomination and screws up badly) or Obama (Extremely Likely)

So with that in mind perhaps you need to FOCUS these efforts on convincing the Obama Administration that Direct is a VIABLE solution that can be done SOON rather than praying for Ares-V funding later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/23/2008 02:20 pm
How many MLPs will be modified, and how long will each take?  I believe shuttle started out with two MLP's during the 80's while the last one was only finished in the early 90's.  For Jupiter-120 flights I can see only needing one at first then maybe a back-up, but with Jupiter-232 dual launches it seems prudent to have three.

Edit:  Also, I remember there being mentioned using Orion as a servicing platform on the DIRECT side.  Have you considered using a modified Strela crane for robotics operations?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Wolverine on 03/23/2008 04:40 pm
Quote
Zachstar - 23/3/2008  11:08 AM



You are either going to have McCain (Extremely Unlikely due to events in the past few years, Only way he wins is Clinton gets the democratic nomination and screws up badly) or Obama (Extremely Likely)

So with that in mind perhaps you need to FOCUS these efforts on convincing the Obama Administration that Direct is a VIABLE solution that can be done SOON rather than praying for Ares-V funding later.

Sorry but that is your opinion, not fact.  It is not extremely likely that Obama will be President.  You kind of act as if he's already won.  You may believe that or want that, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.  All polls currently show McCain beating Obama and Clinton.  Now a lot can happen between now and November, but Obama is not a space-friendly guy.

But if the case were that Obama became POTUS, he would strip NASA of it's money to pay for education, and manned space flight in this country would be in even more jeopardy than it is now with the current NASA overlorld.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 04:51 pm
Quote
Zachstar - 23/3/2008  11:08 AM

So with that in mind perhaps you need to FOCUS these efforts on convincing the Obama Administration that Direct is a VIABLE solution that can be done SOON rather than praying for Ares-V funding later.

That's one of the reasons why we've mentioned it here actually.

We haven't had any success getting in contact with any of his staff.   Repeated attempts are just not getting through.   It seems to be the typical thing of all campaign trails being so busy that everything else essentially becomes just 'noise' in the background.

The DIRECT v2.0 Thread actually got over 2 million reads according to Chris (the forum counter shows a much lower number, I know) so we are hoping that *someone* with a connection to Obama, or better still one of his staff, can find an opportunity which we could squeeze a contact through to get this proposal looked at.

We are 100% convinced that the Obama believes what he says, but that the premise for those comments is historic evidence showing NASA's wasteful tendencies.   We believe that an argument for a much greater return for taxpayers investment dollars would be acceptable to him and his campaign.   We just don't believe anyone has been able to get such a message to him yet.   We are trying - and this is a really easy place to put a message which might spark something down the line.

I don't think the guy is a bad candidate, I'm just not in favour of his stance on this particular subject.   And I think he can still be persuaded otherwise by the right *efficient* proposal.   I just want a chance to try to offer such a thing up to him :)

So if any of you good readers happen to know someone inside the campaign who might be able to get a contact for us - please give us a shout.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 05:06 pm
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 23/3/2008  11:20 AM

How many MLPs will be modified, and how long will each take?  I believe shuttle started out with two MLP's during the 80's while the last one was only finished in the early 90's.  For Jupiter-120 flights I can see only needing one at first then maybe a back-up, but with Jupiter-232 dual launches it seems prudent to have three.

Edit:  Also, I remember there being mentioned using Orion as a servicing platform on the DIRECT side.  Have you considered using a modified Strela crane for robotics operations?

We need one on the same schedule as Ares-I - handover immediately after the Hubble mission.   Ditto for VAB High Bay 3.

It can be modified in a fairly short period of time once the designs are prepared - 6-9 months actual choppin' and weldin'.    It would initially be used for test fitting with a suitable non-flight module built speedily at Michoud from spare parts and new sections, and assembled with some 'spare' SRB segments.

We would however be targeting a real test flight (call it Jupiter-120-X) for 2 months before the last Shuttle flies.   While this would use human-rated SRB's, the main engines would be totally regular RS-68's as flown on Delta-IV today and everything above the new LOX Tank (PLF, CEV, LAS) would be dummy hardware - some of which would have flown on the then-canceled Ares-I-X.

Second test flight (Jupiter-120-Y) would be about a year later in 2011.   LAS eject would be tested, as would payload deployment with an automated Block I CEV.   Some additional human-rated RS-68 engine test flights can be performed using Delta-IV if necessary, and our RS-68 budget analysis would allow for one or two of those if necessary.

A third test flight is, at present, "optional" depending entirely on the schedule for fielding the human-rated RS-68.   We want to fly it on the Y flight, but is a Z is also required, we just do it.

While it is not essential, we would like to have one backup MLP before beginning crew flight ops.   IOC - Initial Operational Capability (AKA "First Crew flight to ISS") for Jupiter-120/Orion is currently set for September 2012.   FOC - Full Operational Capability (allowing 180 day stays at ISS) follows about 6 months later.

The third MLP could either go into service for Jupiter-120 or go straight from Shuttle to test-fit work in preparation for Jupiter-232 in the 2012-2013 time frame.   Jupiter-232-X would fly around December 2014.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 03/23/2008 05:23 pm
Quote
kraisee - 23/3/2008  11:06 AM
We would however be targeting a real test flight (call it Jupiter-120-X) for 2 months before the last Shuttle flies . . . Second test flight (Jupiter-120-Y) would be about a year later in 2011.

Boy, do you know how good that sounds? That's the space program working as it should. If only.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 05:31 pm
Yes we do.   It closes the workforce "gap" to zero at both Michoud and also at KSC.

I have some awesome charts I'd like to show you all, but I'll chat with the other DIRECT guys about releasing those first.   Give me a day or two ;)

Sure, we aren't flying astronauts for two years, but we've already paid for Soyuz through to the end of 2011.   We may as well use those and leave a US crew "up there" for the 9 months of actual 'gap' between the last Soyuz and the first Orion.   I think that's more than manageable.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/23/2008 05:45 pm
Ross, does conversion of the MLP rule out it's use by the Shuttle? Or in other words can the MLP be duel use, Jupiter 120 & STS?

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/23/2008 06:15 pm
kraisee, One of the reasons in my view they may be avoiding the contact is that it will likely lead to the problem of NASA admin. Which leads to more questions about the people he will pick for the various jobs.

The current admin is not looking too great in my view and the next president will have little issue replacing him. And if Obama wants to strip down NASA for education stuffz  he will likely put some kind of "NASA is about exploitation" Pro-ISS past 2016 or whatever admin. That will be a disaster for the VSE because the Ares-V will never be properly put forward for funding.

Yall may want to discuss amongst yourselves suggestions for a new NASA admin. One that can cut to the chase on this exploration stuff and is not completely owned by vested interests in my view.

As even if Obama accepts the proposal you can bet the the current system will push back as much as it can. This will quickly get politically ugly.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 09:43 pm
The key is to get Obama to simply allow the first step - the closure of the gap with a Shuttle Derived vehicle that isn't Ares-I - in this case we're trying to get Jupiter-120.   If he must pull the rest of the plan for 5 years, that's up to him, but this way we at least don't lose the *capability* to do it later.

Ares-I isn't enough to keep the infrastructure intact over a 10 year gap to Ares-V.   With just Ares-I and a delay to Ares-V out to 2024 the workforce will be cut to a fraction of its current levels.   The infrastructure in place now to build all the Shuttle hardware will be scaled back and all the talent & experience will find other careers and be lost to NASA - exactly like after Apollo.

Jupiter-120 is enough though, to sustain a viable and seriously robust science program on top of the Orion ISS missions - not least of which fully enabling ISS too.   So even an extended pause in LEO doesn't kill off the entire workforce & infrastructure.   It remains ticking over throughout the 'pause years'.


But the real key isn't what Obama wishes to do, but what Congress does.   The President simply has to nominate a replacement for Griffin who is open enough to *start* this.   At that point the actual power behind the decisions actually transfers entirely to Congress.   They dictate what money NASA gets and where it must be spent and the Administrator, irrelevant of personal goals, basically has to do what Congress authorizes them to do.   That's the law.   The President can essentially only offer advice from that point onward.   We would all hope the two factions can agree, but in the case of a disagreement Congress always wins because Congress controls the money.

The key for us, is to get someone at the helm of NASA acceptable to both sides.   At that point the President won't (actually can't) block Congress from a VSE program if Congress wishes to do it anyway, but Congress can provide a different way to get the education money the President wants - just another way.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: copernicus on 03/23/2008 10:04 pm
Ross,

   I am a BIG fan of DIRECT, but I do have one nit to pick regarding language.  I have noticed in
the DIRECT proposal on your website, and in your entries on NSF, that the term "crewed" is used.  
Please don't take this personally, but I cringe when the English language is contorted for reasons
of political correctness.  The proper terms should be "manned" or "unmanned."  These are not
terms that imply gender-superiority, but, are simply grammatically correct.  
   I also note that NASA uses the term "crewed," but they are part of the political system.  
If one hears that term, instead of reading it, then it comes across as "crude," which sounds
repulsive.  Perhaps, however, it may be a good term to use for the Ares-1!  
   It is interesting that the Pentagon still uses the terms "manned" and
"unmanned" for their aircraft, e.g. UAV.  


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cb6785 on 03/23/2008 10:49 pm
Quote
We need one on the same schedule as Ares-I - handover immediately after the Hubble mission.   Ditto for VAB High Bay 3.

What's your plan if NASA decides to proceed with the Ares-I plan, let's say (as a worst case) right up to the point before Ares-I-X and then realizes it won't work and decides to turn to DIRECT? Can you start from this point the same way as you would start from the moment after STS-125 (giving just a delay of 8 month or so) or would bigger problems arrise from the new configurations?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 11:12 pm
Quote
copernicus - 23/3/2008  7:04 PM

Ross,

   I am a BIG fan of DIRECT, but I do have one nit to pick regarding language.  I have noticed in
the DIRECT proposal on your website, and in your entries on NSF, that the term "crewed" is used.  
Please don't take this personally, but I cringe when the English language is contorted for reasons
of political correctness.  The proper terms should be "manned" or "unmanned."  These are not
terms that imply gender-superiority, but, are simply grammatically correct.  
   I also note that NASA uses the term "crewed," but they are part of the political system.  
If one hears that term, instead of reading it, then it comes across as "crude," which sounds
repulsive.  Perhaps, however, it may be a good term to use for the Ares-1!  
   It is interesting that the Pentagon still uses the terms "manned" and
"unmanned" for their aircraft, e.g. UAV.

That's my choice.   I would probably use the term "manned" if I were alone on this, but we *are* trying to appeal to the political masters with this too.   Therefore we're doing what needs to be done.   If that means changing a few letters around to make some folk feel more comfortable in this Pee Cee age, then we'll just do it and bite our collective tongues.   Ultimately there's no technical difference between "human rating" vs. "man rating" or between "crewed" vs. "manned".   As long as the work is right, the name used is pretty irrelevant for us.   Call it "banana rated" for all I care - just as long as it ends up being really safe for all genders of human beings, man and woman alike :)

We know that some people think that the Pee Cee thing is a bit of a waste of time and effort, but that is still a lot less of an issue than if we actually offended a potential supporter by using a term they respond very dis-favorably to.   We're just doing what we must to avoid conflict at cross-purposes to what we're trying to really accomplish.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 03/23/2008 11:16 pm
Quote
copernicus - 24/3/2008  9:04 AM

Ross,

   I am a BIG fan of DIRECT, but I do have one nit to pick regarding language.  I have noticed in
the DIRECT proposal on your website, and in your entries on NSF, that the term "crewed" is used.  
Please don't take this personally, but I cringe when the English language is contorted for reasons
of political correctness.  The proper terms should be "manned" or "unmanned."  These are not
terms that imply gender-superiority, but, are simply grammatically correct.  
   I also note that NASA uses the term "crewed," but they are part of the political system.  
If one hears that term, instead of reading it, then it comes across as "crude," which sounds
repulsive.  Perhaps, however, it may be a good term to use for the Ares-1!  
   It is interesting that the Pentagon still uses the terms "manned" and
"unmanned" for their aircraft, e.g. UAV.  



People created the English language. The reason why "manned" and "unmanned" have been used in the past is that society was once Male dominated. People need to remove this bias from the english language as it is a major flaw in the language. "Crewed", "Staffed" are viable words as long as they are defined or redfined to mean what is intended. we need to work on removing gender-bias from our language to ensure it has relevence in the future.
The pentagon is still a male-dominated institution so it is using language appropriate to such a state.
We can be better than that. Direct is, in my opinion, using the correct approach by removing gender references from its documents. The most obvious benefit is that it prevents one from assumng the proposal is aimed at a specific gender and thus opens up readership and hopefully leads to support from a braod cross-section of the community.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/23/2008 11:26 pm
Quote
cb6785 - 23/3/2008  7:49 PM

How's your plan if NASA decides to proceed with the Ares-I plan, let's say (as a worst case) right up to the point before Ares-I-X and then realizes it won't work and decides to turn to DIRECT? Can you start from this point as you would start from the moment after STS-125 (giving just a delay of 8 month or so) or would bigger problems arrise from the new configurations?

We believe the changeover can happen in ~6 months.   At that point by removing the need for all new liquid engines, SRB's, Primary Tanking, Manufacturing equipment and launch processing equipment, our schedule is compressed noticeably.

The critical development issues are fairly well known already - Making sure the RS-68 is re-qualified and has the extra equipment needed for humans to fly with it.   Making sure the tanking is re-specified to handle the different loads and forces upon it within the definitions of the existing manufacturing systems.   Creating the new Aft Skirt and Thrust Structure and creating the new LOX tank sections and Fwd Skirt.

The PLF is relatively straight-forward.   The Orion is well defined already if we simply put all the ZBV parts back in again.

MLP changeover date will probably dictate the date of the first test flight IMHO.   Orion will dictate the date of the first crew flight - but by deleting most of the costs for new engines and SRB's we free up money to throw at Orion to expedite it's deployment date as soon as possible.


There are going to be hurdles, without doubt.   Big development programs like this always have them.   But ours are pretty well understood already and so far have no show-stoppers.

The best bit is that we are flying all the engines currently, so we *KNOW* they essentially work already.   We fly the 102% RS-68 on Delta-IV today.   We fly the SRB's on Shuttle today.   We fly about 70% of the same tanking on Shuttle today too.   Everything else is an "evolution" not a new invention like 5-seg SRB and Ares-I U/S.   This takes an awful lot of the mystery and risks out of the development process right from the start - and puts us a long way up the path compared to Ares-I.

Also, we are fighting continually to squeeze a very slim margin payload (Orion) onto a vehicle barely, if at all, capable of lifting it (Ares-I).   This is causing increased costs and massively increased schedule delays too.   We can by-pass these entirely because we have more than double the payload mass margin to close the first requirements (getting crew servicing capabilities to ISS).   We could afford to "waste" more than 20 tons of payload and still close the requirements.

Thus, we can create a relatively simple "Block_I" design for the Core tanking with the intention of flying it half a dozen times and refining it - exactly as Shuttle went from the initial SWT to LWT after the first 6 flights.

Bottom line is that we have most of the technology already flying in some fashion already, and we do not have to pull out every stop just to fly the first mission to ISS.

We can leave a lot of refinement work for the Block-II configurations later - once we have real flight experience under our belts.   This is a big advantage we will have development-wise compared to Ares-I.

Jupiter-120 IOC would be ~48 months after the Go! order is issued.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cb6785 on 03/23/2008 11:43 pm
Thanks! IMO DIRECT's the way to go and your information is really giving hope that there's a good chance to see effectiv space exploration not just decades from now but within the next years. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/23/2008 11:46 pm
Quote
copernicus - 23/3/2008  7:04 PM

Ross,

   I am a BIG fan of DIRECT, but I do have one nit to pick regarding language.  I have noticed in
the DIRECT proposal on your website, and in your entries on NSF, that the term "crewed" is used.  
Please don't take this personally, but I cringe when the English language is contorted for reasons
of political correctness.  The proper terms should be "manned" or "unmanned."  These are not
terms that imply gender-superiority, but, are simply grammatically correct.  
   I also note that NASA uses the term "crewed," but they are part of the political system.  
If one hears that term, instead of reading it, then it comes across as "crude," which sounds
repulsive.  Perhaps, however, it may be a good term to use for the Ares-1!  
   It is interesting that the Pentagon still uses the terms "manned" and
"unmanned" for their aircraft, e.g. UAV.  



The term is widely used
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/24/2008 05:55 am
Ross I completely understand about the congressional situation. However, Unless the republicans gain back more seats... (I have to admit tho this is extremely possible with the lack of action from the current congress which in my view was voted in to do something about the war)

Well then its obviously likely that they will not go against the delay or whatever he proposes. They could delay it for 50 years and only Texas, FL, and a few other people will complain about it... Nobody really cares about space anymore in comparison to the past..

The only thing I am really REALLY scared about is that the president decides that the ISS is their political playground and shifts the efforts back towards it again.

Sure COTS will get more funding then they could dream of and the Soyuz will be flying more often than Bill Clinton on Air force One (Joke people) Yet you can kiss going to mars before we get some kind of advanced VASIMR or somthin goodbye.

The thought of ISS creaking on up there in 2020 is beyond scary. Yet many people support such an idea.

Have you called many of the candidates for congressional seats this year?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: stefan1138 on 03/24/2008 01:26 pm
It seems direct has received some attention with one democratic comentator:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/145022/460/803/482266
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/24/2008 01:42 pm
Quote
stefan1138 - 24/3/2008  10:26 AM

It seems direct has received some attention with one democratic comentator:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/145022/460/803/482266

Bill White is a member of this site
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: stefan1138 on 03/24/2008 01:49 pm
Quote
Jim - 24/3/2008  9:42 AM

Quote
stefan1138 - 24/3/2008  10:26 AM

It seems direct has received some attention with one democratic comentator:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/145022/460/803/482266

Bill White is a member of this site
 






UPS! :) Stefan


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/24/2008 02:38 pm
Zachstar;

What`s so scary about ISS up there in 2020, if it get`s more COTS funding? Commercial space is good.   :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/24/2008 03:02 pm
ISS will become THE excuse to not go to the moon and mars.

Thanks to years of rather annoying other nations. Our next president may want to keep ISS going which drains an enormous amount of funds.. He/she will call it a international gateway to peace or whatever.... The point is it will distract the masses and few will really care that we arent walking on the moon in 2020.

As for private space getting there. I have heard ideas about how to get Dragon AROUND the moon. Yet a real program to actually land on there is almost out of the question for private space. No SpaceX is not going to pull the BFR out of it's hat before 2020 btw.

And forget mars.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 03/24/2008 03:10 pm
Quote
Zachstar - 24/3/2008  12:02 PM

ISS will become THE excuse to not go to the moon and mars.

Thanks to years of rather annoying other nations. Our next president may want to keep ISS going which drains an enormous amount of funds.. He/she will call it a international gateway to peace or whatever.... The point is it will distract the masses and few will really care that we arent walking on the moon in 2020.

As for private space getting there. I have heard ideas about how to get Dragon AROUND the moon. Yet a real program to actually land on there is almost out of the question for private space. No SpaceX is not going to pull the BFR out of it's hat before 2020 btw.

And forget mars.

If SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy and Dragon both wind up working, it seems like the fuel depot concept would be front and center, when it comes to getting to the Moon, at least.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/24/2008 03:16 pm
Wow more of this fuel station stuff again?

What fuel? hypergolics? How is private industry supposed to do all that support work?

And tho I love SpaceX we are into 2008 and there has been no Falcon 1 launch...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/24/2008 03:22 pm
Zachstar;

To tell you the truth, I don`t particularly care about Moon and Mars landings. Without lower cost of launch, nothing will come from them anyway that can`t be done by robots. And since in an absence of a Space Race we can`t expect larger funds, the only way to make launches cheaper is increase efficiency. And to do so, we must have real commercial competition.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 03/24/2008 03:31 pm
Which will mean little more than SpaceShip3 or Dragon. IE Rich people will pay to go into orbit to dock to a Bigelow station and come home.

For the average user it will mean NOTHING until they suddenly discover a way to go into orbit without a chemical rocket. Which will be FAA certified when? 2075?

DIRECT is now. DIRECT means vessels based on VASIMR can be built and sent to mars. DIRECT means a REAL program to return to the moon.

I love private space as much as the next guy. However, When it comes to anything past a flyby of the moon. The .gov needs to be the one doing it for the time being.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 03/24/2008 03:38 pm
Another way to increase efficiency and lower operations costs is to do evolutionary development, instead of revolutionary development. An example of revolutionary development is the Ares-I/V architecture, and an example of evolutionary development is DIRECT, which is the topic of this thread. We started, not with clean sheets of paper, but with what we already have and is already paid for and asked, “what else can we do with this besides Shuttle?”. The result is the Jupiter launch vehicle family, which saves years off the schedule and tens of billions of dollars off the development and operations costs.
The other subjects are off topic and should go to their own threads.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/24/2008 03:43 pm
Zachstar;

Even if we find a way to go to space tomorrow without a rocket, what does it mean for average user? What is there in space that you can`t get on Earth?  :bleh:

And being able to go to space and dock to Bigelow station will mean much for more people than you think, because experiments in space will become much easier to do.

Anyway, enough with the philosophy. What I meant is, governmental institutions are inherently inefficient. It`s been proven to death by various communist countries. So if you PERSONALLY want to get to Mars someday, the only way it can be done is through commercialisation.

Of course, there is the possibility that space can`t be commercialised because no profit can be done there. In which case, you will never get to Mars, regardless of DIRECT or whatever.  ;)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/24/2008 04:09 pm
Quote
Zachstar - 24/3/2008  12:31 PM

Which will mean little more than SpaceShip3 or Dragon. IE Rich people will pay to go into orbit to dock to a Bigelow station and come home.

Sorry to go off topic, but there is a common misconception that Bigelow is constructing an orbiting hotel.  The truth is that he is  developing a private commercial complex, where research/manufacturing can be performed.

Now for the Direct related question.  I know that after Challenger the shuttle was barred from commercial flights. Would Jupiter have the same affliction?  There may not be much of a market though, but just in case.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/24/2008 04:18 pm
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 24/3/2008  12:09 PM
Now for the Direct related question.  I know that after Challenger the shuttle was barred from commercial flights. Would Jupiter have the same affliction?  There may not be much of a market though, but just in case.

Will there be a market for very large satellites in GTO?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/24/2008 05:30 pm
Quote
Eerie - 24/3/2008  1:18 PM

Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 24/3/2008  12:09 PM
Now for the Direct related question.  I know that after Challenger the shuttle was barred from commercial flights. Would Jupiter have the same affliction?  There may not be much of a market though, but just in case.

Will there be a market for very large satellites in GTO?

The answer to that is how many Ariane V's have flown to GTO with a single payload.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 03/24/2008 05:53 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 24/3/2008  1:30 PM
The answer to that is how many Ariane V's have flown to GTO with a single payload.

So the answer is no?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/24/2008 06:17 pm
There is currently an agreement between NASA and DoD that NASA will not fly any commercial payloads.

But agreements can always be revised if/when circumstances change, and NASA having a capability to lift payloads double or quadruple that of DoD would create a situation where NASA would be in a different market class and would not be competing with the EELV's.   In such a situation, if there was *demand* for such capability, DoD and NASA could likely find a new arrangement.

I would venture to say that as a NASA operation it would likely be a slow thing.   One flight per year maybe.   But there is an option to make it a commercial operation as well.   Either leasing LC-39's facilities from NASA or building something new.   Jupiter-120 as a commercial operation has excellent cost profiles being able to launch twice the payload of satellites as either EELV system currently, yet for quite a bit less than double the cost.   There is certainly a potential economic business model there.   No idea whether anyone will have a go at that or not though - that's a whole other question.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/24/2008 09:48 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/3/2008  3:17 PM

There is currently an agreement between NASA and DoD that NASA will not fly any commercial payloads.


Ross.

It is not a NASA/DOD agreement, it is a US law that forbids NASA from launching commercial payloads.  It is the Commercial Space Act
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/24/2008 09:50 pm
Quote
kraisee - 24/3/2008  3:17 PM

There is currently an agreement between NASA and DoD that NASA will not fly any commercial payloads.

But agreements can always be revised if/when circumstances change, and NASA having a capability to lift payloads double or quadruple that of DoD would create a situation where NASA would be in a different market class and would not be competing with the EELV's.   In such a situation, if there was *demand* for such capability, DoD and NASA could likely find a new arrangement.

I would venture to say that as a NASA operation it would likely be a slow thing.   One flight per year maybe.   But there is an option to make it a commercial operation as well.   Either leasing LC-39's facilities from NASA or building something new.   Jupiter-120 as a commercial operation has excellent cost profiles being able to launch twice the payload of satellites as either EELV system currently, yet for quite a bit less than double the cost.   There is certainly a potential economic business model there.   No idea whether anyone will have a go at that or not though - that's a whole other question.

Ross.

Actually I was thinking more on the lines of lunar supply with the J-232's starting out with a lunar COTS.  However I guess I can see something of a GTO use for J-120, but with Ariane and the EELVs out there, wouldn't be too sure with shat seems to be a saturated market.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/25/2008 02:02 am
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 24/3/2008  6:50 PM

Actually I was thinking more on the lines of lunar supply with the J-232's starting out with a lunar COTS.  However I guess I can see something of a GTO use for J-120, but with Ariane and the EELVs out there, wouldn't be too sure with shat seems to be a saturated market.

Agreed.   I don't honestly see NASA using Jupiter's for much beyond ISS & Hubble in LEO (there's actually quite a lot of work possible there!) and then Lunar and Mars exploration programs.   Beyond that, at most I see another telescope or two going to orbit and the Mars Sample Return mission being enabled (mostly because they're having *extraordinary* difficulties getting it down to a weight an EELV Heavy can even consider lifting).

I think anything beyond that would fall to a commercial implementation (which I know ATK wants from Ares, so I would figure would also be equally applicable to Jupiter).

The market for ~20mT lift capabilities *is* saturated already.   Ariane and Proton get most of the commercial work and the US launchers are only competitive here because there is a law stating the US isn't allowed to buy foreign assets ahead of US assets.   Its effectively a subsidization.

Trying to squeeze a new niche out of this arena can only be done if you can radically reduce costs (Space-X's hope) and undercut the wide range of competition in the central marketplace or by providing a service nobody currently covers - such as larger payload carrying capabilities.

For a human space flight program though, you don't need to explicitly offer it as a commercial venture.   It needs to be a world better value than the suck-it-dry Shuttle Program has been for the last 25 years, but the number one reason for that has been the hand-labor costs involved in the "Orbiter" element of the system.   As long as the new system is truly cost-effective, there is no specific requirement to ever commercialize it.

Of course, it would be nice to *have* the asset for the intended purpose and then to *maybe* have some commercial operations push for use of it.   That is what it will really take - a company like Bigelow lobbying Washington for commercial use of a 50-100mT NASA launch system - to enable the current rules to be changed, laws to be revised and agreements to be amended.

But I'm quite happy if the system does nothing more than get humans beyond LEO within my lifetime.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/26/2008 02:43 am
Quote
kraisee - 25/3/2008  1:02 PM
Of course, it would be nice to *have* the asset for the intended purpose and then to *maybe* have some commercial operations push for use of it.   That is what it will really take - a company like Bigelow lobbying Washington for commercial use of a 50-100mT NASA launch system - to enable the current rules to be changed, laws to be revised and agreements to be amended.

But I'm quite happy if the system does nothing more than get humans beyond LEO within my lifetime.

Ross.

This is a daft question, I know, but what if private industry just bought the rocket direct from ATK etc and rented the pad? Call it a Zeus 232 and use it for those as-yet-undetermined big commercial payloads. SpaceX is already sort of doing this with LC40, although it just amounts to use of the pad; pretty much everything else involved is their problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/26/2008 02:53 am
I think the idea is unlikely at best, but if it were to be done NASA would certainly require priority at its own Pads.

As long as they get that they might theoretically be open to the idea of a commercial agreement allowing the corporations to lobby for access.

You just need to get ATK, Boeing, Lockheed and NASA to switch rails from the Ares and invest the money developing this instead because the private sector isn't going to be able to afford to develop any Heavy Lifters even with so much manufacturing and launch infrastructure already in place.

The purely-private sector - which I define as that which operates without reliance upon Federal budgets - is currently led by Space-X with a considerably smaller vehicle.   Jupiter is considerably larger.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/26/2008 02:55 am
Quote
Lampyridae - 25/3/2008  11:43 PM
 SpaceX is already sort of doing this with LC40, although it just amounts to use of the pad; pretty much everything else involved is their problem.

Not really.  Spacex is using the real estate and not the systems of LC-40.  It is the same thing Boeing did at LC-37 and LM at LC-41
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jimvela on 03/26/2008 03:36 am
Quote
Jim - 24/3/2008  4:48 PM

Quote
kraisee - 24/3/2008  3:17 PM

There is currently an agreement between NASA and DoD that NASA will not fly any commercial payloads.


Ross.

It is not a NASA/DOD agreement, it is a US law that forbids NASA from launching commercial payloads.  It is the Commercial Space Act

Jim is correct, and anyone dabbling in statements about this would do well to read the actual act.

PUBLIC LAW 105–303—OCT. 28, 1998
Commercial Space Act of 1998. 42 USC 14701.

http://corport.hq.nasa.gov/launch_services/PL_105_303.pdf

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/26/2008 03:38 am
Quote
Jim - 26/3/2008  1:55 PM

Quote
Lampyridae - 25/3/2008  11:43 PM
 SpaceX is already sort of doing this with LC40, although it just amounts to use of the pad; pretty much everything else involved is their problem.

Not really.  Spacex is using the real estate and not the systems of LC-40.  It is the same thing Boeing did at LC-37 and LM at LC-41

Sorry, I phrased that badly. I meant SpaceX brings all its own equipment to the party: hoses, gantry, radar, vending machines etc.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/26/2008 03:52 am
Quote
jimvela - 26/3/2008  2:36 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/3/2008  4:48 PM

Quote
kraisee - 24/3/2008  3:17 PM

There is currently an agreement between NASA and DoD that NASA will not fly any commercial payloads.


Ross.

It is not a NASA/DOD agreement, it is a US law that forbids NASA from launching commercial payloads.  It is the Commercial Space Act

Jim is correct, and anyone dabbling in statements about this would do well to read the actual act.

PUBLIC LAW 105–303—OCT. 28, 1998
Commercial Space Act of 1998. 42 USC 14701.

http://corport.hq.nasa.gov/launch_services/PL_105_303.pdf


SEC. 204. SHUTTLE PRIVATIZATION.
(a) POLICY AND PREPARATION.—The Administrator shall prepare
for an orderly transition from the Federal operation, or Federal
management of contracted operation, of space transportation systems
to the Federal purchase of commercial space transportation
services for all nonemergency space transportation requirements
for transportation to and from Earth orbit, including human, cargo,
and mixed payloads. In those preparations, the Administrator shall
take into account the need for short-term economies, as well as
the goal of restoring the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s
research focus and its mandate to promote the fullest
possible commercial use of space. As part of those preparations,
the Administrator shall plan for the potential privatization of the
Space Shuttle program. Such plan shall keep safety and cost
effectiveness as high priorities. Nothing in this section shall prohibit
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from studying,
designing, developing, or funding upgrades or modifications essential
to the safe and economical operation of the Space Shuttle
fleet.


Sounds like a very different direction 10 years ago. Here it says they wanted NASA to use nothing but commercial launch services. I presume this effort fell flat on its face? It would be interesting to see a privately-run Jupiter-232 with NASA just paying for flights. I wonder how this would work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/26/2008 07:59 am
Quote
jimvela - 26/3/2008  12:36 AM

Jim is correct, and anyone dabbling in statements about this would do well to read the actual act.

PUBLIC LAW 105–303—OCT. 28, 1998
Commercial Space Act of 1998. 42 USC 14701.

http://corport.hq.nasa.gov/launch_services/PL_105_303.pdf


There was an amendment in 2004.   Don't forget to cross reference the changes.   The 1998 document is no longer entirely up-to-date.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 03/29/2008 05:48 pm
From
http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/what_is_direct.htm:

    * Shorter "gap" after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
    * Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)

These two points basically follows one from another. May be interpreted as attempt to artificially inflate "good points"

    * Delete all risks associated with a second new launch vehicle
    * Delete all costs associated with a second new launch vehicle

These two points are very similarly looking. At first I even thought that they are tha same. I don't know, maybe rephrase one of them to make it look different?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 03/29/2008 06:35 pm
Quote
gospacex - 29/3/2008  2:48 PM

From
http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/what_is_direct.htm:

    * Shorter "gap" after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
    * Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)

These two points basically follows one from another. May be interpreted as attempt to artificially inflate "good points"

    * Delete all risks associated with a second new launch vehicle
    * Delete all costs associated with a second new launch vehicle

These two points are very similarly looking. At first I even thought that they are the same. I don't know, maybe rephrase one of them to make it look different?
Shorter "gap" is a completely different issue having to do with not being required to lay off over 10,000 people. Earlier return to the moon is only partially related to the shorter gap in that returning to flight sooner does shorten the schedule, but the DIRECT architecture does several other things more efficiently than Ares which brings this about.

Risks and Costs are 2 completely different things.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/29/2008 07:09 pm
Quote
gospacex - 29/3/2008  2:48 PM

From
http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/what_is_direct.htm:

    * Shorter "gap" after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
    * Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)

These two points basically follows one from another. May be interpreted as attempt to artificially inflate "good points"

There is certainly a relationship between the two points, but they are two separate issues.

It would be possible to say a single thing like "Reduces the entire deployment schedule by 2 years" and cover both bases, but that would assume that everyone reading it is already familiar with the dates as currently assumed by CxP.   If they aren't, there isn't any point of reference.

That is why we mention the two primary objectives of CxP right now and place them specifically in context in order to clarify what we actually get for this change-over to DIRECT.

Closing the gap is very important.   Getting back to the moon two years earlier is also very important.   We aren't managing to do just one or the other, but we get to do both.


Quote
   * Delete all risks associated with a second new launch vehicle
    * Delete all costs associated with a second new launch vehicle

These two points are very similarly looking. At first I even thought that they are tha same. I don't know, maybe rephrase one of them to make it look different?

Very good idea.   I'll have a look at it again as soon as I get a few free minuted to be creative :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 03/29/2008 08:02 pm
Quote
kraisee - 29/3/2008  3:09 PM
I'll have a look at it again as soon as I get a few free minuted to be creative :)

Actually I was reading PDF from the website and noticed approx. a dozen or less small typos and the like. How can I report them to the team (preferably not thru this forum)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 03/29/2008 10:17 pm
We're aware of most of them.   We were seriously under the gun when producing that huge report and doing last-minute re-writes and edits right up to the point where AIAA started burning CD's for the conference! :)

Some typo's were missed, and there are a few other minor errors, but it is now too late to go back and re-do them now because the paper has been published officially thru AIAA.

We're just going to leave it "as is" and have moved on to newer documentation.

You could send a list to me by PM or via the e-mail address on the main site if you like, but I honestly don't think we're going to re-publish that document again.   You may therefore prefer not to put all that time in to do a proof-read :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jkumpire on 04/01/2008 02:53 am
Gentlemen,

I would ask you for a moment of patience, because I am going to ask a very simple question, since that is all I can ask:

After all the discussion about Direct vs. Ares vs EELV, vs any other alternative, why is it that NASA sticks with Ares?

After a ton of reading here and other places, Direct claims every advantage over Ares there is. I will assume your analysis is spot on. Why then is NASA sticking totally to Ares w/o even incorporating some of your ideas, or even publishing a fact sheet saying why Ares is more valid than Direct's vision or alternative?

Reading so much of the discussion leads me to say some people are not rational in the debate. Even at the beginning of STS, there was some internal logic as to why STS took the form it did. NASA won some arguments about STS over AAP/Saturn as the future of the American space program. The recent discussions are trying to prove there is no reasonable alternative to Direct that competes with it.

If Direct is the better alternative, what you are asking me and other lay people to believe is that NASA's leadership is so beholden to Ares they are willing to destroy NASA for this idea. Or, the politics are so warped in Washington that NASA is forced to follow a second-rate idea that costs more money to do less for some real or imagined political constituency. Or, that the NASA director is so  vain, that he will get rid of the opponents to Ares and surround himself with yes men to push his personal idea of VSE, even if 2009 comes and the new president dumps it, or 2015 comes and Ares doesn't work. Why would he risk America's space future on something that has holes all through it when a better alternative is bubbling around the Internet?  

I just don't understand either the engineering or the politics: Either Ares is not a dog as opposed to Direct, or NASA is blowing its foot off with a howitzer for the vision of its leader, or some political gain. It makes no sense.

I hope I have made myself clear here, help me to understand what I am reading, or missing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/01/2008 08:50 am
A great question.   If this becomes an off-topic discussion, I'd prefer it go in a separate thread, but let me put forth the best explanation I've heard so far for this...

The tragic loss of Columbia inspired NASA, The President and both houses of the US Congress all equally re-consider the Space Shuttle and to decide a different direction was needed for NASA after 30 years of that program.

A while before Columbia Mike Griffin and a group of colleagues had been considering alternatives outside of NASA.   Scott Horowitz had an SRB-based launcher.   Griffin wanted a big Mars rocket and needed a way to make such a $30bn rocket appeal to Congress.   But there was some common ground between the two rockets, and building the small one could offset a lot of the costs for the second.   A small team formed around this idea.

When Sean O'Keefe left, Griffin had his chance.   O'Keefe left the agency in the position of doing a lot of studies - all based upon EELV architectures which Congress was strongly against because of the jobs situation.   By all accounts they made it *very* clear they wouldn't accept an Administrator who would abandon the STS infrastructure.

Griffin put his plan forward as one which was ready to go.   A plan that didn't need two years of study to implement, and which protected the STS workforce.

While he was the third selectee, he was the first to accept the job.

He came in, threw out all of the "spiral" developments and did what he felt he had to do in order get the program moving as quickly as possible.   This approach was done for a good reason:   Because Shuttle Retirement in 2010 was fast approaching and a replacement had to be ready in double-quick time.   I really can't fault him for that train of thinking.   There's an awful lot of sense in that approach given the circumstances.

The ESAS Report was produced in order to justify the plan.   It was a wash, and everyone knew it.   Griffin quickly put his team - who were the ones most familiar with the new approach and ready to leap upon it - in the top management spots in order to get things moving fast.

Thus he set forth.

However, there have been a lot of unexpected hurdles along the way because the systems proposed changed quite a lot, and changed quite quickly.   They became very un-related to existing Shuttle hardware, and that meant both the costs and schedule impacts were very significant indeed.

And the technical problems they have encountered (low performance, TO, Orion ZBV etc) have ultimately meant we never did avoid the two years of studies anyway.   Worse though, they continue 'studying' the problems because the solutions are still evading them.   All the while, management is still trying to hustle the program through its milestones.

The program reviews are supposed to be going from milestone to milestone, shadowing the DAC.   They haven't been.   DAC-1 should take you up to the SRR milestone.   DAC-2 should take you from there through to PDR.   The DAC's are currently quite a ways behind the milestones, which is completely the wrong way around.   The engineering is behind the management - which isn't a good arrangement.

Anyway, why stick at it even given such a difficult position to fight from?

At this point, Ares-I is the *only* way for Griffin to ever get his "big rocket" - which has always been his personal goal - ask anyone who worked with him at APL or OSC or anywhere else.   He's really *driven* by rockets like Saturn-V.

If Ares-I fails, his big rocket also fails, and that would mean he also fails - at least to himself, anyway.   Of course nobody wants to fail, that's totally normal and true of Mike, you or I.   Thus, to achieve his goal, he is "sticking the course" no matter what - and essentially praying for a miracle to come from somewhere.

Even if Ares-I doesn't ever fly a crew, it still pays for J-2X and 5-segment SRB - both of which he needs for the big rocket.   He has no reason to abandon Ares-I - even if it never flies.

At this point, to do anything else would - to Griffin - bring shame down upon him personally and would bring ridicule down upon NASA as an agency from all the folk who told him two years ago that it was a poor solution.   But worse still, he believes it would shake Congress' confidence, and The President's confidence in NASA.

I don't believe he is thinking about how much worse it will be if he continues to try to drive this square peg into a round hole - only to find the whole thing is screwed up permanently and will never work properly again.    You can't strip the threads off of a bolt and expect it ever to hold something firmly again.

IMHO he has forgotten the fact that the people in Washington couldn't give a rats a$$ about what rocket NASA uses, just as long as they protect the jobs and don't waste time and money on just another bl**dy boondoggle like ISS has proven to be - which is precisely what Ares is shaping up to be.

And if there's any doubt at all, the politicians *are* watching NASA messing around with Ares right now and are not impressed at all.

It's not too late though.   Griffin's career is tied to whether he makes the *PROGRAM* work.   It is not tied to which *LAUNCHER* he makes - it never was.

I just hope his academic smarts aren't the only smarts he's got.   He needs some street smarts right now.   He's found his car is breaking down in the bad part of town late at night, and his academic savvy are just not going to help him at all here.

Ross.

=2c.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/01/2008 04:36 pm
Can the first stage of the Ares V get the Orion to the ISS?
SRB etc. optional.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Takalok on 04/01/2008 05:45 pm
Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  4:50 AM

A great question.   If this becomes an off-topic discussion, I'd prefer it go in a separate thread, but let me put forth the best explanation I've heard so far for this...

.......

I just hope his academic smarts aren't the only smarts he's got.   He needs some street smarts right now.   He's found his car is breaking down in the bad part of town late at night, and his academic savvy are just not going to help him at all here.

Ross.

=2c.

Great summary!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/01/2008 09:11 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 1/4/2008  12:36 PM

Can the first stage of the Ares V get the Orion to the ISS?
SRB etc. optional.

Sadly no.

You have to realize that the Core of the Ares-V is almost the same size as both the S-IC and S-II stages of the Saturn-V put together.   It's truly gargantuan.   And it weighs an awful lot - around 150mT dry and about ten times that when fully fueled.

But with five engines it drains of all its propellant before it would ever reach orbit.   And if you don't fly it with three engines - enough to make the propellant last to reach orbital speeds - it then hasn't got enough power to get off the ground.   It's a catch-22 situation.

Ares-V basically only works in a fairly similar configuration to Ares-V.   There's little flexibility to the design.   The best they came up with was Ares-IV, which used the Upper Stage of Ares-I on top of the Ares-V Core/booster package - but that made a very tall and ungainly rocket which was thrown out already.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/02/2008 02:04 am
The 6-engine Ares V (VI?) might get off the ground though, although it's heckuva expensive and ATK would want their SRBS on it.

If you're going to use an all-liquids launch then you're talking D-IV Heavy. Anything else is a waste of time. Still, could a Jupiter-232 core stage launch an Orion to ISS without SRB and J-2X? I think that's been asked before, though...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 04/02/2008 03:56 am
With a second stage, yes. Otherwise, no.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 04/02/2008 01:37 pm
Basically , even 5-seg or 6-seg SRB's are too small for the Ares-V core. The thing weighs nearly twice as much as a shuttle ET or Jupiter core. Separation takes place too low and slow, wasting a lot of that extra propellant. You would need 4 x 4-seg to get the same relative performance as the other two.

This is why the J-232 puts only a little less mass in orbit, despite being quite a bit smaller than Ares-V.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 04/02/2008 09:22 pm
Direct Team

Soon I hope to start PR efforts on forums such as Democratic Underground to grow support for the hopeful Obama Administration to stop this madness with Ares 1 and go with DIRECT.

I think the fact that Direct was more or less a grassroots effort will resonate well with them and together we can go on a sensible path towards replacing the shuttle. And a path that is not nearly so easy to cancel as Ares V currently is.

Direct is a way to "Hope" in my view. Instead of relying on some distant dream later we can have the basis of travel to the moon soon and on the books now rather than 2016.

I hope those who are for McCain will do similar efforts such as on Free Republic to gain support there as well.


I think the discussion is just about over and we have our choices that we need to make. If we can't admit Ares 1 is a failure at what it was supposed to achieve and go with something different then we have no business thinking about returning to the moon.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 04/02/2008 09:59 pm
Ross, Chuck, Stephen & Co:

In a related vein to Zachstar's comment, are you folks trying to make inroads with the three remaining candidates' policymakers in this field (such as Lori Garver for the Clinton campaign)?

Seems like those would be fairly important people to be talking to right now.


Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 04/02/2008 10:00 pm
Hey - Direct is on the agenda for tomorrow's Ares hearing in Congress!

See here:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/house-may-attac.html

and check out page 9 of the hearing doc:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2008/Space/3apr/Hearing_Charter.pdf

What are the chances that some of the congresscritters will ask some good questions of Dr. Griffin & co and get some straight answers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rocketguy101 on 04/02/2008 10:49 pm
Wow--somebody has been listening!!  Cool!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/02/2008 11:06 pm
While the Wired article indicates its a party issue it actually isn't.   There's support for this push on both sides of the aisle.

Ross
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 04/02/2008 11:49 pm
Quote
kraisee - 2/4/2008  5:06 PM

While the Wired article indicates its a party issue it actually isn't.   There's support for this push on both sides of the aisle.

Ross
Good to hear it. Even the perception of a particular issue being split down party lines can turn off a lot of people, no matter how good the case.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 04/03/2008 12:14 am
I hope that NASA switches to DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/03/2008 01:10 am
Great to see mention of Direct in the document. I hope the right questions get asked, for example

The DIRECT proposal indicates that development costs are approximately halved, since only one medium sized vehicle is developed using existing Shuttle elements and infrastructure with minimum modifications. This is compared with the current solution of developing two very different size vehicles requiring extensive changes to existing Shuttle elements and infrastructure. Do you agree with these DIRECT cost estimates?

The DIRECT proposal indicates that by using the existing Shuttle solid rockets and  external tank modified with two updated commercially available rocket engines, it would be ready to launch the Orion spacecraft to the International Space Station in 2012. The current vehicle being developed is expected to be available in 2015, due to having to develop a longer solid rocket, a new upper stage, a new rocket engine, and solve other problems such as thrust oscillations. Do you think DIRECT's estimate of a three year earlier launch date is possible?

The Shuttle program is expected to end in 2010. What would be the impact on Kennedy Space Center job losses if Orion could be launched in 2012, compared to waiting for the current vehicle to launch in 2015?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 04/03/2008 01:57 am
Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  4:11 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 1/4/2008  12:36 PM

Can the first stage of the Ares V get the Orion to the ISS?
SRB etc. optional.

Sadly no.

You have to realize that the Core of the Ares-V is almost the same size as both the S-IC and S-II stages of the Saturn-V put together.   It's truly gargantuan.   And it weighs an awful lot - around 150mT dry and about ten times that when fully fueled.

But with five engines it drains of all its propellant before it would ever reach orbit.   And if you don't fly it with three engines - enough to make the propellant last to reach orbital speeds - it then hasn't got enough power to get off the ground.   It's a catch-22 situation.

Ares-V basically only works in a fairly similar configuration to Ares-V.   There's little flexibility to the design.   The best they came up with was Ares-IV, which used the Upper Stage of Ares-I on top of the Ares-V Core/booster package - but that made a very tall and ungainly rocket which was thrown out already.

Ross.

Using my CEPE version 1.2 spreadsheet, I estimated the Ares V (51.0.39) "core only" payload to a 51.6 degrees 55.5 x 222 km orbit at -11500 kg. So this core would have to be about 31.5 mT lighter to be able to put send the CEV to the ISS. Interestingly, the J-130 "core only" is a much better SSTO vehicle as it has a CEPE estimated payload capacity of +3700 kg for the same orbital parameters.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/03/2008 03:12 am
If people wish to write, here is a link to the members of the commitee:

http://science.house.gov/about/members.htm.  You need to write and contact your congressman ASAP.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/03/2008 04:42 am
Having Direct at the conferance last year..has helped Direct and I hope that Direct becomes Ares III!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/03/2008 05:18 am
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 2/4/2008  9:10 PM

Great to see mention of Direct in the document. I hope the right questions get asked, for example

The DIRECT proposal indicates that development costs are approximately halved, since only one medium sized vehicle is developed using existing Shuttle elements and infrastructure with minimum modifications. This is compared with the current solution of developing two very different size vehicles requiring extensive changes to existing Shuttle elements and infrastructure. Do you agree with these DIRECT cost estimates?

The DIRECT proposal indicates that by using the existing Shuttle solid rockets and  external tank modified with two updated commercially available rocket engines, it would be ready to launch the Orion spacecraft to the International Space Station in 2012. The current vehicle being developed is expected to be available in 2015, due to having to develop a longer solid rocket, a new upper stage, a new rocket engine, and solve other problems such as thrust oscillations. Do you think DIRECT's estimate of a three year earlier launch date is possible?

The Shuttle program is expected to end in 2010. What would be the impact on Kennedy Space Center job losses if Orion could be launched in 2012, compared to waiting for the current vehicle to launch in 2015?

It's a very complex balancing act, but we have an approach which doesn't harm the workforce at KSC or MAF at all.

Because we are avoiding most of the costly engine and booster development work, and avoiding the high costs of replacing all of the manufacturing infrastructure and launch infarstructure - utilizing what we have rather than building all-new - we save a lot of cash year-on-year in the budget.   The number obviously varies each year, but we're talking about $1.5-2.5bn each year thru 2012 and even more after that because we don't have any second launch vehicle development program at all.

We use some of this cash to accelerate the hardware development we are doing, such as the Jupiter Core, human-rating of the RS-68 and the Orion spacecraft.

We are able to fund a very aggressive Test Flight schedule out of KSC (Jupiter-120-X - Q4 2010, Jupiter-120-Y - Q3 2011, Jupiter-120-Z (maybe) Q1 2012).   Together with the MPTA and a Test Fit article this will represent 5 additional ET-sized items flowing through MAF along-side the last ET's are being produced for Shuttle - and all on (mostly) the same equipment.   This essentially eliminates the "gap" in production at MAF entirely, and means there are only two 6-month long gaps between the test-flights at KSC - which would be more than manageable.

See the charts below to get a feel for how the parallel production of the External Tanks would go.

We have analysed the budget in a LOT of detail and are confident the work can be apportioned to get Jupiter-120 operational by September 2012 with a greater than 85% confidence level.





Just FYI:   The Dark Blue Upper Stage marked "JUS-4" and accompanying "JCS-14" shown on the far right of the second chart represent one of the pair of Core/EDS combinations which will actually land our first crew back on the Lunar surface in 2017.


The #1 long-pole item driving our schedule is the Orion spacecraft though - not the launcher and not the facilities.   The RS-68 human rating effort is #2.   And the DDT&E for the new Aft Skirt/Thrust Structure/Plumbing arrangement is #3 - although Orion is likely to be ~12 months longer than either of those.

To that end, we are proposing that with Jupiter-120's high performance envelope the Orion project just put all the ZBV safety hardware back in to the design (making the Astronaut Corp much happier in the process and replacing the Land Landing baseline to help encourage re-usability in the future) and then just press straight on to PDR without further delays.   Mass would no longer be a critical issue for the program, and evolutionary improvements can be included in the design as we gain flight experience over the 5.5 years (11 missions) of operations before attempting a full-blown Lunar Landing mission.   That shortens development time now, and provides us with sufficient time to also make a Block-II improved variant for those missions.

We further propose that we don't require the new 10,000lbf thrust OME variant to be ready for the first flights of Orion.   Orion will be placed directly into stable 220x100nm, 51.6deg orbit by the Jupiter-120 Core for all ISS missions (because of the payload module).   So the spacecraft will not have to perform any long burns to reach stable orbit itself.   This means that the current 6,000lbf thrust OME from Shuttle would be powerful and efficient enough to be utilized for orbital maneuvering duties in LEO.

Further, there are going to be a handful of OME's from the Shuttle Program in 2010 with useful 'life' still available.   To save time (and budget), these should be utilized on the first Block-I Orion spacecraft.   They can later be replaced for the Lunar missions by either the more powerful 10KOME's or even potentially by a Methane-based engine if it proves to be desirable (needs trade studies).   But neither of those developments would stand in the way of Orion flying to ISS with a crew in the 2012 time frame.

With the budget analysis we have just completed, we can match NASA's 65% confidence level in saying Orion will be ready for Initial Operational Capability (IOC) by September 2012.   We are >85% confident it will be ready by March 2013 as a backup date.


This budget process has been specifically tailored to allow us to fully-fund both KSC and MAF to their current FY2008 budget levels from Shuttle Retirement at the start of FY2011 all the way through FY2020.

The transition is considerable, make no mistake.   But because of the inherent commonality to Shuttle in utilizing the SRB's unchanged and re-using an ET-derived Core Stage, we are in a very strong position to make use of all the staff across just a 2-3 year gap.   There is an awful lot of work needing to be done and we have worked out ways and means to keep everyone busy.   As part of this plan, we have added about one dozen smaller projects to "take up the slack" during the "transition years" while we await hardware from the EDS and LSAM projects.

We are planning a lot of workforce "shuffling", but no large rounds of layoffs.   The *only* staff reductions we are planning for, is simply not to replace those staff lost to natural retirement processes.


We are not yet ready to present the budget charts publicly, sorry, but they have been worked out in finite detail to accommodate the above schedule for all elements.   Currently the proposed DIRECT budget matches the top-line figures for NASA's FY09 Budget Request thru 2013.

After 2013 however, the top-line budget numbers part ways from NASA's projections.   With only the one launch vehicle project DIRECT remain permanently $1.1 to $3.2bn below NASA's current plans in every year from 2014 thru 2020.   Yet this lower budget includes 12 extra showcase missions such as the "Apollo-8" Lunar Crew Flyby in 2013 and two more HSM's in 2014 and 2019.


I haven't had any chance to update this comparison chart with these latest (even worse) figures - this data is from 2007 - but it's still similar, so this'll do for now in order to just demonstrate the difference in terms of workforce effects between the approaches:-




Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 04/03/2008 08:47 pm
Excellent charts Ross. With the recent consideration of returning to a 4 segment booster for Ares-1 can't help but wonder whether all this info is out of date now !!! J2X is still the long pole so Direct has the advantage regardless.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 04/03/2008 09:40 pm
Here's an idea: reduce core stage dry mass by launching the tankage upside down. This takes loads off of the LH2 tank and reduces its mass by more than the mass penalty of greater LOX tank loading. A new feedline and tank wall thickness would be required.

How would this affect the numbers (including cost)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/03/2008 10:01 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 3/4/2008  5:40 PM

Here's an idea: reduce core stage dry mass by launching the tankage upside down. This takes loads off of the LH2 tank and reduces its mass by more than the mass penalty of greater LOX tank loading. A new feedline and tank wall thickness would be required.

How would this affect the numbers (including cost)?


That doesn't work.  CG is too far aft
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steve G on 04/03/2008 10:15 pm
I apologize if this has been asked before, but is a Griffin partial Face Saving Compromise, is there any future potential of a 5 segment SRB for the Direct architecture?  This assumes that we start off with the 4 seg SRBs and then evolve to a 5 segment derivative with a more capable upper stage.  This way Griffin at least gets to keep his 5 segment SRB.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/03/2008 10:16 pm
Quote
Jim - 3/4/2008  6:01 PM

That doesn't work.  CG is too far aft

They just ignore that problem with Ares-I though!

Yeah, I know... ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/03/2008 10:32 pm
Quote
Jim - 3/4/2008  4:01 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 3/4/2008  5:40 PM

Here's an idea: reduce core stage dry mass by launching the tankage upside down. This takes loads off of the LH2 tank and reduces its mass by more than the mass penalty of greater LOX tank loading. A new feedline and tank wall thickness would be required.

How would this affect the numbers (including cost)?


That doesn't work.  CG is too far aft

I think having a beam through the center of the Hydrogen tank wouldn't be such a great idea either.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 04/04/2008 12:30 am
From another thread;

Quote
renclod - 3/4/2008  3:38 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 3/4/2008  9:00 PM
No. He said that Direct does not work due to the laws of physics. While that is a strange comment,

Dr. Gilbrech said a different thing, a very precise thing.

Transcript:

1:25:50 into the podcast
Mr. Lampson: Dr. Gilbrech, one of the more controversial decision in the exploration program was the decision to develop the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles rather than modifying the existing EELV family use by DOD. In addition some have criticized NASA for developing two new launch vehicles rather than a single launch vehicle as proposed in the so called "Direct" concept. Did NASA examined the alternative of using either an EELV-based architecture or the Direct architecture instead of the Ares I and Ares V approach - and if so, why did you wind up rejecting those approaches ? You can provide more detailed answer...[inaudible]... whatever you can now.

Dr. Gilbrech: Yes, sir...[reject EELV]... The other one you mentioned, the Direct launcher, there was a similar achitecture like that that was in the ESAS ...Ummm... the claims for the Direct launcher... we've actually had our Ares projects look at that and we can't justify based on laws of physics the performances that were being claimed by that approach... so ... we don't claim to have a market on good ideas but we also like to go investigating and make sure they're credible, and we beleive we have the best architecture on the books.

[next question]


Quote
renclod - 3/4/2008  4:05 PM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 4/4/2008  2:00 AM

Now that definitely sounds like a reference to the original v1.0 review done by Dr. Stanley and company.

When and where did we last publicly run POST 2 on Direct v2 performance claims ?!

Your conclusion does not hold water, sorry.


So Ross, when was the last time a POST 2 analysis was run on Direct v2, anyway?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 04/04/2008 02:34 am
Quote
Jim - 3/4/2008  6:01 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 3/4/2008  5:40 PM

Here's an idea: reduce core stage dry mass by launching the tankage upside down. This takes loads off of the LH2 tank and reduces its mass by more than the mass penalty of greater LOX tank loading. A new feedline and tank wall thickness would be required.

How would this affect the numbers (including cost)?


That doesn't work.  CG is too far aft

I knew that that was the problem on STS with its side-mounted Orbiter and SSME's, but the RS-68s are on the bottom of the Core on the Jupiter, and S-II and S-IVB both had rear-mounted tanks. Are things different for the Jupiter Core? I am thinking thrust unbalance under engine-out conditions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/04/2008 03:48 am
Norm,
The same question was asked over on the Hearing thread, so here's the same answer :)

Not sure when CxP ever did a series of runs.

Our last POST run was performed by staff from MSFC for us in early February into our 27.0.x series. Both Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 configurations were run, in both CLV and CaLV configurations to both 130nm, 29.0degree and also 220nm, 51.6degree orbits - for a total of 8 separate runs. The results came back approximately 2% higher than our own numbers, as tends to be the case with most of our runs.

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/04/2008 03:57 am
Quote
Steve G - 3/4/2008  6:15 PM

I apologize if this has been asked before, but is a Griffin partial Face Saving Compromise, is there any future potential of a 5 segment SRB for the Direct architecture?  This assumes that we start off with the 4 seg SRBs and then evolve to a 5 segment derivative with a more capable upper stage.  This way Griffin at least gets to keep his 5 segment SRB.

It's certainly an option.   There was a lot of work done by ATK into creating a 5-segment SRB for Shuttle, which would continue to utilize the standard mounting points on the External Tank.

We would be able to support a very similar arrangement.

Our position is that as long as we can save a lot of money by not developing them, we don't want to spend anything we don't have to.   But at a certain point - probably around 2013 when the first test flight is due - it will be too late to save anything significant, so they'd probably get baselined at that point because more performance is always nice.

As a political compromise to get this working, they aren't bad either.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/04/2008 02:01 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/4/2008  6:48 AM

Our last POST run was performed by staff from MSFC for us in early February into our 27.0.x series...

Quote
kraisee - 3/4/2008  4:35 PM ( from another thread,  #264705)

... got the current 2x Jupiter-232 architecture with 240mT IMLEO performance.

Dual J-232 with 240mT IMLEO - did you get that through POST , Ross ?

Last time it was 109mT. Now is 120mT. I'm not saying not possible, just asking.

Thanks.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/04/2008 09:00 pm
IMLEO includes the burnout mass of the EDS Stage itself - which normally isn't mentioned as part of the "payload" in any other context but Lunar missions.

Two payloads in orbit plus the one EDS you use for TLI equal approximately 240mT IMLEO with Jupiter.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: osiris on 04/05/2008 01:51 am
I am relatively new on this site and I would like to start by saying that it is a very good and interesting site for a long time amateur of rocketry, astronautic an astronomy like me. I am a french Canadian (sorry for my bad English) and no I am not a rocket scientist like some of you (actually I am an economist).

I read a lot of threads about Direct, Constellation and Orion and I have some comments and questions for the Direct team.

I think that;

i) first, the Ares 1 rocket will never work and fly. The new President (whoever he or she is) will kill it in 2009.
ii) the danger is that, given the failure of the Ares (after the X-33), NASA credibility will suffer and a new President could, in that context and given the economic context, flushed the whole thing and go back to a very simple ELO vehicule (Taxi) for the station send by a Delta IV rocket (to save the political apparence of a human space program
iii) this could happen eventhough there is a cheaper, faster and safe alternative which is Direct
iv) It is very sad to see that the only reason why NASA is in this situation is the ego of some of its leaders. Egos run the world... This situation could kill human flight at NASA and waste a lot of human capital linked to STS. I am very dissapointed by NASA. The little boy in me that miss school to watch the first space shuttle launch is sad.
v) Politicaly, Direct is suffering from the fact that it is perceived has a external to NASA solution and not has a solution built by the best brains of NASA. NASA is using that to try to destroy the credibility of Direct.

It seems to me that the Direct Team should try to;

i) focus on trying to convince the 3 Presidential candidates. The problem though is that from the moment where a candidate will make Direct his or her baby the other candidate will feel the need to back another option just to be different.
ii) focus on the fact that Direct rely on existing technologies that were design, built and used by NASA and for NASA. Also, initially Direct was design at NASA. It is NASA.
iii) find some very high profile scientists to back the project.
iv) Try to create a group of actual and ex- astronauts to back the project
v) show to the Obama team that Direct is less expensive than Constellation and part of these savings could finance education (I know it means that NASA would get less money but under the current economic context it might be necessary to save the Vision).
vi) may be another compromise to do to convince Obama would be to keep Mars only has a long run unschedule goal and be very gradual not to scare the politician that has a lot more priorities. These steps could be first the Jupiter 120/Orion then the EDS/Altair then the lunar architecture, not everything at once.
vii) try to develop a Direct option for a lunar architecture that does not rely on fuel depot. Just to show that it could do it.

I also have couple of questions;

i) it is obvious that the development and the R&D cost of Direct is way less important then Constellation, but what about the operation costs (variable costs)? I am thinking about for a lunar mission - Constellation 3 five segments boosters + 5 (or 6) RS-68 and 2 J2-X vs - Direct 4 four segments boosters + 6 RS-68 and 4 J2?
ii) It is my understanding that the SSME is a very safe and reliable engine. Does the RS-68 is as safe then the SSME? Could-you use 3 SSME for the Jupiter 120 and 4 for the Jupiter 232?
iii) For ELO missions the Jupiter 120 has a excess capacity that could be unused for some ISS missions for instance. How does the operation cost of a single Jupiter 120 compare to the cost of a single Ares 1 rocket?

Thank you to all the Direct Team. You are possibly in the process of saving NASA human space program.

That was my humble contribution to the discussion.

René :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/06/2008 10:10 pm
Norm Hartnett - 23/1/2008 1:30 PM in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11584&start=76 asked:

"I would like to challenge both the DIRECT group and the EELV group to respond to this speech on a point-by-point basis.
Good luck."

I haven't seen any arguments for Ares I & V over DIRECT or EELV, so is there someone in the Ares I & V group who can give good technical reasons why Ares is superior to either DIRECTS or EELV? Good luck.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: copernicus on 04/06/2008 11:55 pm

   I think that the DIRECT team has won a major victory in the release of the GAO report on the
"issues" plaguing the Ares-1.  Mind you, this is not THE victory, but still, it is a victory.  In addition,
it appears that the media has noticed DIRECT and is now willing to mention it as a distinct alternative
to the ESAS approach.  Also, a Congressman was willing to ask a question regarding DIRECT during a NASA
oversight hearing.  These are all major steps in getting DIRECT accepted and approved.  
    If Congress and the next President look at DIRECT, they will want to know more about how it can
achieve manned lunar landings.  That is where I believe that the DIRECT team needs to do a little more
work.  As it now stands on the DIRECT web site, the downloadable documents all mention, and describe,
the propellant-depot scheme for lunar missions.  I believe, however, that I saw on this web site a comment
from Ross mentioning that this propellant-transfer scheme is no longer the official mission design for
lunar DIRECT missions.  It seems, as I recall, that the DIRECT team now proposes a simpler mission design.  

   1.  Could you explain, in detail, this new lunar DIRECT mission design?  
 
   2. Could the DIRECT team update their website with this new scheme?  

  I think that as we approach the time when DIRECT becomes official NASA policy, that
the DIRECT team needs to state clearly how a manned lunar mission is achievable with
DIRECT launchers and why that mission design is better than the Are-1/Ares-5 alternative.  



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/07/2008 12:45 am
Quote
osiris - 5/4/2008  11:51 AM
I think that;

1. first, the Ares 1 rocket will never work and fly. The new President (whoever he or she is) will kill it in 2009.

2. focus on trying to convince the 3 Presidential candidates. The problem though is that from the moment where a candidate will make Direct his or her baby the other candidate will feel the need to back another option just to be different.

3. it is obvious that the development and the R&D cost of Direct is way less important then Constellation, but what about the operation costs (variable costs)? I am thinking about for a lunar mission - Constellation 3 five segments boosters + 5 (or 6) RS-68 and 2 J2-X vs - Direct 4 four segments boosters + 6 RS-68 and 4 J2?

5. ii) It is my understanding that the SSME is a very safe and reliable engine. Does the RS-68 is as safe then the SSME? Could-you use 3 SSME for the Jupiter 120 and 4 for the Jupiter 232?

6. iii) For ELO missions the Jupiter 120 has a excess capacity that could be unused for some ISS missions for instance. How does the operation cost of a single Jupiter 120 compare to the cost of a single Ares 1 rocket?

Thank you to all the Direct Team. You are possibly in the process of saving NASA human space program.

That was my humble contribution to the discussion.

René :)

Bienvenu au NSF, René!

I'm not part of DIRECT but these are commonly asked questions so I'll just answer them for you as best I can (apologies for assumptions and mistakes... :P ).

1. It can fly, it's not breaking the laws of physics. It's whether it can fly safely, cheaply and soon. Which it can't, by all accounts.

2. Team DIRECT are following most of your suggestions. There is support all over the place but Obama and Clinton are too busy thrashing each other to bother with paper rockets. McCain might be a possibility.

3. That requires big changes to the launch pad and crawler. Current Jupiter requires little in the way of change. Some very big Jupiter derivatives were sketched out but Jupiter is currently big enough for any payload.

5. SSME just too expensive ($50m versus $20m for man-rated RS-68, $12m for ordinary RS-68). Also underperforms for lunar missions, RS-68 actually better.

6. A bit more expensive I believe but there's 20-30 tonnes payload available. Jupiter-120 plus Orion can haul shuttle-class payloads for about 1/3 the price, or so I believe.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: osiris on 04/07/2008 01:02 am
Thank you for your responses. On the SSME vs. RS-68 issue, I knew that the SSME is more expensive but I wonder if the man-rated RS-68 is as safe as the SSME which flew a lot more without a single incident (I believe). Also I agree that the Ares I can fly but I think it will not happen because it will be to costly and unsafe for the next administration.

René
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 04/07/2008 01:40 am
Quote
copernicus - 6/4/2008  4:55 PM
I think that the DIRECT team has won a major victory in the release of the GAO report on the
"issues" plaguing the Ares-1. Mind you, this is not THE victory, but still, it is a victory. In addition, it appears that the media has noticed DIRECT and is now willing to mention it as a distinct alternative to the ESAS approach. Also, a Congressman was willing to ask a question regarding DIRECT during a NASA oversight hearing. These are all major steps in getting DIRECT accepted and approved.

You're overstating the case. The GAO report dumps on Ares, but doesn't push Direct. Media coverage that parrots NASA's line that Direct doesn't measure up, is not a positive. And a congressman asking a question at this hearing doen't constitute much of anything. A major victory in the near-term would be a fair hearing re: Direct v2 before Congress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/07/2008 03:02 am
Quote
osiris - 7/4/2008  11:02 AM

Thank you for your responses. On the SSME vs. RS-68 issue, I knew that the SSME is more expensive but I wonder if the man-rated RS-68 is as safe as the SSME which flew a lot more without a single incident (I believe). Also I agree that the Ares I can fly but I think it will not happen because it will be to costly and unsafe for the next administration.

René

Well, the RS-68 was originally a low-cost expendable version of the SSME. The SRBs have failed catastrophically once, but were retained with a few mods. Anyway, catastrophic failure is what Orion LAS is for. I guess most of the safety gains came from that little rocket on top. At least 1 Soyuz crew has been saved by it IIRC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 04/07/2008 03:18 am
Quote
osiris - 4/4/2008  9:51 PM
I also have couple of questions;

i) it is obvious that the development and the R&D cost of Direct is way less important then Constellation, but what about the operation costs (variable costs)? I am thinking about for a lunar mission - Constellation 3 five segments boosters + 5 (or 6) RS-68 and 2 J2-X vs - Direct 4 four segments boosters + 6 RS-68 and 4 J2?
ii) It is my understanding that the SSME is a very safe and reliable engine. Does the RS-68 is as safe then the SSME? Could-you use 3 SSME for the Jupiter 120 and 4 for the Jupiter 232?
iii) For ELO missions the Jupiter 120 has a excess capacity that could be unused for some ISS missions for instance. How does the operation cost of a single Jupiter 120 compare to the cost of a single Ares 1 rocket?
René :)

Rene:
If you dig through the posts in the first Direct 2.0 thread or through the Direct proposals, you'll find more detailed costing info. But basically:
J-120 has a variable cost of $140 million vs Ares I @ $130 million
J-232 has a variable cost of $220 million vs Ares V @ $280 million

Direct has $1.9 billion in fixed annual costs vs Ares $2.9 billion.
Plus, as you mention, Ares also requires many billions more in development and engineering costs.

So, for each baseline lunar mission, Ares costs $410 million for the launch vehicles vs @440 million for Direct. But by needing to support only one launch vehicle, Direct saves over $1 billion per year in fixed costs. The result is that Direct ends up costing far less per year for the same number of Lunar missions. Or, to put it another way, with the current manned spaceflight budget, NASA can only afford 2 lunar missions per year with Ares (and no ISS) - but for the same budget, Direct can support 4 lunar missions per year (or perhaps 3 ISS missions and 3 lunar missions).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: osiris on 04/07/2008 03:41 am
These numbers are very interesting. It makes you wonder why NASA choose ARES I and V?

I just saw that there is another Thread about that question...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 07:07 am
Quote
jml - 6/4/2008  10:18 PM

If you dig through the posts in the first Direct 2.0 thread or through the Direct proposals, you'll find more detailed costing info. But basically:
J-120 has a variable cost of $140 million vs Ares I @ $130 million
J-232 has a variable cost of $220 million vs Ares V @ $280 million

Direct has $1.9 billion in fixed annual costs vs Ares $2.9 billion.
Plus, as you mention, Ares also requires many billions more in development and engineering costs.


There's a DIRECT chart I've seen and refound in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Commonality_DIRECT.jpg

which shows the variable cost of each DIRECT flight at $140 million per flight. Was that DIRECT 1.0, and if so why have the costs increased so much?

At $140 million J-120 is competitive for ISS resupply though not including the fixed costs is unfair competition on other launchers.

I can't think of any other demand for a J-232 apart from VSE. Though Bigelow is trying to learn how to make low cost space hotels. A single J-232 launch could put up quite an impressive hotel, especially if the External Tank were retained.

Either way, the fixed cost show the challenge is to get the flight rates up. This has provided impossible with STS, but should be feasible with DIRECT 2.0.

I'm actually coming round to thinking DIRECT 2.0 is as good as a commercial approach based on EELVs, Falcon, Zeniths and Protons.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 07:18 am
Quote
jml - 6/4/2008  10:18 PM

Or, to put it another way, with the current manned spaceflight budget, NASA can only afford 2 lunar missions per year with Ares (and no ISS) - but for the same budget, Direct can support 4 lunar missions per year (or perhaps 3 ISS missions and 3 lunar missions).

I would have thought that 2 missions per year is not sufficient to maintain a base of any sorts, or to build anything substantial in the way of lunar infrastructure.

If crew surface time is six months, then the best Ares can do is crew exchange. Without the surface infrastructure, crew stay time is limited and all NASA have is Apollo plus. Why not call the missions Apollo 18, 19 etc.

With 4 missions however, 2 could be cargo missions, and 2 could be crew exchange. Anyone know the latest estimate for what DIRECTS 2.0 could deliver as cargo to the lunar pole?

Once some infrastructure is deployed, crew stay could be extended to 6 months and beyond, making a base viable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 11:55 am
Quote
osiris - 4/4/2008  9:51 PM

I am relatively new on this site...(SNIP)

Then welcome to the site René!

Lots to answer, been away for the weekend. I'll try to answer everyone, but I will also *try* to be brief!   Yeah, I know! :)

Before I begin, thanks to both jml and Lampy for answering your questions before I could.   Much appreciated guys!


Your thoughts are right on the mark IMHO René.

Good suggestions.   We're doing most of those already.   Will look at the others too. Thank-you for your contribution.

Questions:
i) The operational costs are a mix of both fixed and variable costs.   The variable element changes depending on flight rate too.   It's a complex calculation, but the fixed part represents the bulk by a long way.   DIRECT essentially cuts the fixed costs by a little over $1bn per year and takes a 'hit' of only $10-40m per Lunar mission.   It's a good trade in my opinion.   There is also the fact that Jupiter Core is used more often too, and that actually brings the per-unit cost down considerably so you don't *actually* suffer that 'hit' anyway :)   An even better trade IMHO.

ii) RS-68 has a short flight history so far, so it is too early to really tell if there are any design glitches in there.   So far it has operated perfectly though, which is a good early indication.   RS-68's main benefits though are that its gas-generator system operates at much lower stress levels (indicated by the much lower Isp) than the staged combustion process of SSME, and also the fact that while it produces roughly twice as much thrust as SSME it has 80% fewer parts in its construction.   Ultimately that really means there is less to go wrong.   So far they have never had a major engine-wide failure of an RS-68 in flight nor even in testing.   I don't believe anyone really knows what it takes to kill one yet.   By comparison, SSME's testing suffered 12 major engine-wide failures during testing with, thankfully, none in-flight yet.

iii) Oh boy.   *Big* subject this.   And complicated by "1-vehicle, 2-launch" solution we're employing compatred to the "2-vehicle, 2 launch" solution employed by Ares.   Ours shares a lot more of its operational costs between our two configurations of the same vehicle compared to Ares' two completely different vehicles - so we're always going to be cheaper.   Here are the details:

Ares-I:
Development: ~$14,400m
Fixed: $800m/year.
Variable: $130m/flight @ 1 per year, $105m/flight @ 4 per year.

Ares-V:
Development: ~$15,000m
Fixed: $2,000m/year.
Variable: $240m+90m (for the EDS)/flight @ 1 per year, $194m+$73m/flight @ 4 per year

Jupiter-120:
Development: ~$9,500m
Fixed: $900m/year.
Variable: $140m/flight @ 1 per year, $113m/flight @ 4 per year, $102m/flight @ 8 per year

Jupiter-232: (J-120 has already paid Fixed Costs for SRB + Core, so just add EDS + 1 more RS-68):
Development: ~$4,000m
Fixed: $800m/year
Variable: $110m/flight @ 1 per year, $93m/flight @ 4 per year

Thus the baseline of: 2 ISS per year + 2 Lunar Crew per year + 2 Lunar Cargo per year total up to:-

Ares: $29.4bn Development (non-recurring). $2,800m Fixed, $1,488m Variable = $4,288m per year (recurring).
DIRECT: $13.5bn Development (non-recurring). $1,700m Fixed, $1,374m Variable = $3,074m per year (recurring).

Difference: $15.9bn Development (non-recurring).   $1.214bn per year (recurring).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 04/07/2008 12:10 pm
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  2:18 AM

Quote
jml - 6/4/2008  10:18 PM

Or, to put it another way, with the current manned spaceflight budget, NASA can only afford 2 lunar missions per year with Ares (and no ISS) - but for the same budget, Direct can support 4 lunar missions per year (or perhaps 3 ISS missions and 3 lunar missions).

I would have thought that 2 missions per year is not sufficient to maintain a base of any sorts, or to build anything substantial in the way of lunar infrastructure.

If crew surface time is six months, then the best Ares can do is crew exchange. Without the surface infrastructure, crew stay time is limited and all NASA have is Apollo plus. Why not call the missions Apollo 18, 19 etc.

With 4 missions however, 2 could be cargo missions, and 2 could be crew exchange. Anyone know the latest estimate for what DIRECTS 2.0 could deliver as cargo to the lunar pole?

Once some infrastructure is deployed, crew stay could be extended to 6 months and beyond, making a base viable.

On April 3rd, Hinners testified about the prospects of a lunar exit strategy to free up the resources needed for a Mars mission.

If there is to be a lunar exit strategy, building infrastructure would be a bug, not a feature.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:11 pm
Quote
copernicus - 6/4/2008  7:55 PM

I think that the DIRECT team has won a major victory in the release of the GAO report on the
"issues" plaguing the Ares-1.  Mind you, this is not THE victory, but still, it is a victory.  In addition, it appears that the media has noticed DIRECT and is now willing to mention it as a distinct alternative to the ESAS approach.  Also, a Congressman was willing to ask a question regarding DIRECT during a NASA oversight hearing.  These are all major steps in getting DIRECT accepted and approved.

Agreed.   As a first step, its great.   But to keep the analogy going lets all make sure we realize that this is a full 25-mile marathon ahead of us and that is just one step taken so far.


Quote
If Congress and the next President look at DIRECT, they will want to know more about how it can achieve manned lunar landings.  That is where I believe that the DIRECT team needs to do a little more work.  As it now stands on the DIRECT web site, the downloadable documents all mention, and describe, the propellant-depot scheme for lunar missions.  I believe, however, that I saw on this web site a comment from Ross mentioning that this propellant-transfer scheme is no longer the official mission design for lunar DIRECT missions.  It seems, as I recall, that the DIRECT team now proposes a simpler mission design.

That is correct.   We still want the Propellant Depot's, but we realize that they aren't very paletable at present.   We realize that to have any chance of being acceptable we need a much more similar arrangement to that planned right now because that is what people are familiar with.   So we have come up with just such a solution.


[/QUOTE]   1.  Could you explain, in detail, this new lunar DIRECT mission design?[/QUOTE]

We are preparing a revision to our old v1.2 documentation which will hopefully come out later this week.

Essentially it boils down to one Jupiter-232 launching with nothing but the maximum possible quantity of propellant on-board its Upper Stage.   That is followed a few days later by the mission flight bringing up the Crew in the Orion plus the LSAM.   The mission package then docks to the awaiting EDS and performs the TLI.   Orion Transition to LSAM occurs before the docking with the EDS, which will result in the same 'eyes out' TLI approach.   There is an alternative to this baseline whereby the LSAM/Orion remain attached to the PLF and stay in launch configuration after separating from their launcher.   This whole 3-part unit docks to the EDS and performs TLI.   Then the Orion transitions and extracts the LSAM en-route to the moon.   Performance is lower though because you carry the mass of the PLF thru TLI.

Either way though, we are 'wasting' almost 20mT of lift performance on the mission flight which could be utilized in the future to enhance the overall performance.

We would like to push for a crasher stage for the LSAM too, because this could *drastically* increase performance in this arrangement, but again, we don't think its paletable so are leaving it out of our baseline solution for now.


Quote
  2. Could the DIRECT team update their website with this new scheme?

It's been in-work for a while, but is very nearly complete.   Please expect it shortly.


Quote
I think that as we approach the time when DIRECT becomes official NASA policy, that
the DIRECT team needs to state clearly how a manned lunar mission is achievable with
DIRECT launchers and why that mission design is better than the Are-1/Ares-5 alternative.

Agreed.

I am also writing a simple web-page up to showcase the performance requirements for achieving the Lunar missions as proposed in ESAS.   They will showcase fairly simply how our architecture is able to "close" the required performance targets and how far Ares still has to go.   I think you will all be quite surprised to see the numbers for yourselves.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:15 pm
Quote
Lampyridae - 6/4/2008  8:45 PM

Bienvenu au NSF, René!

I'm not part of DIRECT but these are commonly asked questions so I'll just answer them for you as best I can (apologies for assumptions and mistakes... :P )...(SNIP)

All correct as far as I can tell, thanks for the summary while I was away.

Although I would alter the Obama/Clinton thing.

I'm not writing either of them off as potential DIRECT supporters yet.   We are beginning to make inroads to both their campaigns and I think they're both quite open to realistic options for reducing the cost and schedule for Shuttle's replacement as long as it also protects the voting workforce.   9,000 votes has to be worth a few seconds sound-bite! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:20 pm
Quote
rsp1202 - 6/4/2008  9:40 PM

Quote
copernicus - 6/4/2008  4:55 PM
I think that the DIRECT team has won a major victory in the release of the GAO report on the
"issues" plaguing the Ares-1. Mind you, this is not THE victory, but still, it is a victory. In addition, it appears that the media has noticed DIRECT and is now willing to mention it as a distinct alternative to the ESAS approach. Also, a Congressman was willing to ask a question regarding DIRECT during a NASA oversight hearing. These are all major steps in getting DIRECT accepted and approved.

You're overstating the case. The GAO report dumps on Ares, but doesn't push Direct. Media coverage that parrots NASA's line that Direct doesn't measure up, is not a positive. And a congressman asking a question at this hearing doen't constitute much of anything. A major victory in the near-term would be a fair hearing re: Direct v2 before Congress.

That would indeed be a major victory.

But what has happened so far is all encouraging steps towards that goal as far as I'm concerned.

While GAO hasn't said anything about DIRECT, it has questioned the Ares officially.   We won't ever get a hearing unless there are doubts about Ares, so that report is going to be quite valuable to us.

Steady progress is all we need to convince people.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:30 pm
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  3:07 AM

There's a DIRECT chart I've seen and refound in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Commonality_DIRECT.jpg

which shows the variable cost of each DIRECT flight at $140 million per flight. Was that DIRECT 1.0, and if so why have the costs increased so much?...(SNIP)

Zoiks! That's an old version of that chart.   I *really* need to update that... :)


Quote
I'm actually coming round to thinking DIRECT 2.0 is as good as a commercial approach based on EELVs, Falcon, Zeniths and Protons.

Took me a while to realize that myself, but you're right.   Jupiter could certainly carry a number of satellites to LEO (or GEO with an upper stage like either Centaur-V2, Delta-IV or the full EDS) in a single flight, or could fly some extremely large or heavy (or both) payloads which can't eve be conceived of currently.

By all accounts ATK are really trying to make a commercial launcher out of Ares-I.

I personally don't see any sense in them trying to get into the already-saturated EELV/Proton/Ariane/Falcon-class market though.

There's insufficient business there right now to be competitive - unless you can get your costs down to Space-X's claimed figures and that ain't happening with Ares-I for damn sure.   Taking a different chunk of the market - one nobody else has a chance of competing in - such as the 50mT class - would mean you have the whole of that world cake all to yourself.   J-120 as a commercial launcher could be fairly interesting IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:32 pm
Quote
osiris - 6/4/2008  11:41 PM

These numbers are very interesting. It makes you wonder why NASA choose ARES I and V?

I just saw that there is another Thread about that question...

Yes.   It's taken a few years, but more and more and more people are coming to that realization.   Its been true from the start (ESAS), but very few people ever realized it.

It should be noted that folk on here - like Jim - were saying so from day #1 too.

I just hope its not too late.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 12:32 pm
Bill White: "On April 3rd, Hinners testified about the prospects of a lunar exit strategy to free up the resources needed for a Mars mission.

If there is to be a lunar exit strategy, building infrastructure would be a bug, not a feature."

Perhaps the aim should be to make an exit strategy unviable. An exit strategy from lunar operations would confine NASA to Low Earth Orbit for a few more Administrations.

Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  7:11 AM
We would like to push for a crasher stage for the LSAM too, because this could *drastically* increase performance in this arrangement, but again, we don't think its paletable so are leaving it out of our baseline solution for now.

This is interesting. Could you elaborate on the terms "crasher stage" and "drastically"?

I can't see in the architecture document the method for delivering cargo only? Can this be done with a single launch?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 12:42 pm
Quote
Bill White - 7/4/2008  8:10 AM

Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  2:18 AM

Quote
jml - 6/4/2008  10:18 PM

Or, to put it another way, with the current manned spaceflight budget, NASA can only afford 2 lunar missions per year with Ares (and no ISS) - but for the same budget, Direct can support 4 lunar missions per year (or perhaps 3 ISS missions and 3 lunar missions).

I would have thought that 2 missions per year is not sufficient to maintain a base of any sorts, or to build anything substantial in the way of lunar infrastructure.

If crew surface time is six months, then the best Ares can do is crew exchange. Without the surface infrastructure, crew stay time is limited and all NASA have is Apollo plus. Why not call the missions Apollo 18, 19 etc.

With 4 missions however, 2 could be cargo missions, and 2 could be crew exchange. Anyone know the latest estimate for what DIRECTS 2.0 could deliver as cargo to the lunar pole?

Once some infrastructure is deployed, crew stay could be extended to 6 months and beyond, making a base viable.

On April 3rd, Hinners testified about the prospects of a lunar exit strategy to free up the resources needed for a Mars mission.

If there is to be a lunar exit strategy, building infrastructure would be a bug, not a feature.

That depends on how you classify the exit strategy though Bill.

If you're going to abandon everything you've done on the moon, then you're also going to have to mothball your launch infrastructure for "x" years too - because you won't have any destinations to go.

But if your exit strategy only refers to continuing the Lunar build-up - but retains the routine operational aspects of Lunar usage you will be keeping your launcher infrastructure well-oiled while developing the Mars hardware.   At that point the cost to send a few crew rotations to the moon is actually a fairly small amount.

IMHO, DIRECT has this one fairly well covered.   By cutting the operational costs, we can back-off the Lunar program to a 'tick-over' pace once we have an established presence there.   We can further share costs of missions with foreign partners lifting propellant to the Depot, and that free's up a very nice chunk of cash (about $1.5bn added to the $2bn from ISS budget when it is retired) every year to *also* pursue the Mars program.   I think $3.5bn per year is going to be sufficient for that program to get really moving given the fact that the LV's, Orion and a related Lander System are already fully funded in addition.

I therefore don't believe that under the DIRECT architecture it has to be an "either/or" situation.

I have no doubts that there's no choice under Ares without getting extra cash from Congress, but that's not something I want to rely upon.   Ares' high operational costs make it a cul-de-sac solution for the moon if we ever want to go to Mars.   It forces us to choose one or the other, not both.

I think DIRECT would allow us to realistically afford to have BOTH though - and I *really* like that idea :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/07/2008 01:09 pm
I would like to echo Ross’ comment about being able to retain both the lunar and Martian programs. The early years of the lunar program, if handled properly, could build up infrastructure that is designed to be operated and maintained by multi-national agencies. If part of that initial buildup is, as Ross stated above, and as the team has espoused in several other places, a depot-based architecture, then more and more of the cost of maintaining the human presence on the lunar surface will begin to spread out over several nations and other NGOs. The lunar base or outpost will be manned by multi-national crews, whose presence is paid for by their respective national agencies. Over time, even commercial entities should be able to participate and, if executed properly, NASA’s role on the surface will switch to being one of an “enabler”, rather than an exploiter.

As this paradigm becomes more and more the norm, the Mars efforts will gradually begin to gain momentum, funded in part by monies released from NASA’s previous role on the lunar surface as that cost becomes increasingly spread among others.

When the Vision espouses us returning to the moon to stay, far too often that is misinterpreted as a strictly American effort and presence, funded strictly using American sources. Nothing could be further from the real meaning of that vision. It is to be a human presence, funded from human sources, spread across the spectrum of humanity, with America picking up its share of the tab, not paying the whole tab. In the beginning it will be an American effort but that should change as rapidly as possible to a multi-national effort. It all depends on the wisdom of the leaders we pick to manage the affairs of the nation and the civil space agency.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 01:15 pm
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  8:32 AM

Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  7:11 AM
We would like to push for a crasher stage for the LSAM too, because this could *drastically* increase performance in this arrangement, but again, we don't think its paletable so are leaving it out of our baseline solution for now.

This is interesting. Could you elaborate on the terms "crasher stage" and "drastically"?

Sure.

A "Crasher Stage" adds a disposable 'stage' to the LSAM.   Exactly as you dispose of stages during ascent to get rid of mass, you can also 'stage' during descent.   You can dispose of un-necessary mass part-way through the descent and make the final lander configuration considerably lower mass.   It also improves your final performance by a considerable amount.

In this context, there are difficulties with the height of the current LSAM - even inside the 10m payload fairing.   It's nearly four stories tall, which means that its Center of Gravity is going to be very high indeed as it comes in to land with empty descent stage tanks.   That makes its stability an issue.

If you could offload, say, 75% of the fuel needed for descent to a simple stage which you dispose of 5-10 miles above the Lunar surface, your Lander's Descent Stage can be a lot smaller.   You improve your payload performance too.

What I picture is something like perhaps a 5.4-6.4m diameter Wide Body Centaur with 2-4 RL-10's being mounted immediately under the much shorter LSAM.   This unit can then perform some of the TLI burn to get increased performance.   It also performs the LOI burn 'braking' into Lunar orbit, and then performs about 75% of the Descent burn too.   The much smaller LSAM itself "stages" and completes the last of the Descent.   Payload to the surface is much improved - not just by the use of the staging approach, but also through the use of the 20mT of spare lift performance we have on the "mission" J-232 flight.

The Crasher itself continues to fall in the Lunar gravity well after staging, but that is perfectly safe for the people on the ground because there will still be a lot of horizontal velocity relative to the ground.   It will continue a ballistic trajectory and will impact many, many miles downrange of where the LSAM is trying to land.   You just need to keep a "range" clear downrange during landing operations.

We believe this is good for placing the *equivalent* of a 32-34mT lander on the Lunar surface (25mT is the current target NASA can't even achieve) - although the Descent Stage will *actually* be a lot smaller.

The down side is that there is an extra staging event and there are extra engines - all of which increase risk to the crew.   The questions then become "by how much?" and "is it worth it?"

We think its certainly worth investigating thoroughly before making *any* firm architecture decisions.   We are of the belief that considering the number of staging events they've already gone through to get to this point, that this isn't all that big of a deal.   While we don't have numbers either way yet, we think its going to trade very well.   But politics is preventing us from even considering it for our baseline at the moment.

I'll try to whip-up a drawing for you if I have time today.


Quote
I can't see in the architecture document the method for delivering cargo only? Can this be done with a single launch?

Yes.   A single Jupiter-232 has approximately 80% of the "throw" capability of Ares-V.   It can do almost everything Ares-V is planned to do, and if there's a shortfall you can fly one extra flight every four to make up the difference.

One extra flight every few years is a lot more economically sound than spending $15bn extra in development and another $1.2bn every year.

And once we do get the Propellant Depot architecture up and running it raises the theoretical limit for each Lunar Lander (lifted dry on a single J-232) to around 180-200mT!   The real limit is ultimately defined by how much fuel you can afford to lift.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 04/07/2008 01:38 pm
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  7:42 AM

I think DIRECT would allow us to realistically afford to have BOTH though - and I *really* like that idea :)

Ross.

Me too, of course. And I say that as a fellow who originally came to space advocacy from the Mars-side.

Therefore I believe I need to advocate "the other side" of ESAS versus DIRECT as creatively as I can since talking about more "lunar infrastructure" to those folks who wants Mars will only enhance their opposition rather than their support.

You will need to demonstrate the capability to go to Mars via DIRECT within a reasonable time frame and without massive new funding and without a lunar exit strategy.

When I quipped that you need to persuade Robert Zubrin I was serious, if we use Zubrin as a placeholder value for the Mars-lovers in general.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 01:49 pm
I would *LOVE* to engage Dr. Zubrin in a deep discussion of how to make our systems viable with his, but given that we're a bit of a hot potato currently I understand if he wishes to keep out of this for now.

But something behind the scenes would be well worthwhile for our 2008 AIAA paper - which is already well underway.   It going to focus upon Mars and the reverse-engineered architecture for the moon which will act as an "analogue" for those later missions.

Zubrin's skills and the whole Mars Society skill-base would be *amazingly* valuable if we can put it together with a 100mT launch system along with Propellant Depot facilities in LEO (at least).

We are currently suggesting Mars should be achievable around 2031.

One 'cute' thing I do like in our plan is the suggestion to test some of our full-size Mars EDL systems with a Mars Sample Return mission a number of years before committing crews.   That would potentially get us around some of the restrictions imposed currently against dedicated Mars/human development work.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 04/07/2008 02:14 pm
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  8:49 AM

I would *LOVE* to engage Dr. Zubrin in a deep discussion of how to make our systems viable with his, but given that we're a bit of a hot potato currently I understand if he wishes to keep out of this for now.

Ross.

The 2008 Mars Society Convention is in August.

Could you present a preliminary or abridged version of the 2008 AIAA paper, or at least some of the Mars-centric elements of the paper?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 03:47 pm
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  8:15 AM

In this context, there are difficulties with the height of the current LSAM - even inside the 10m payload fairing.   It's nearly four stories tall, which means that its Center of Gravity is going to be very high indeed as it comes in to land with empty descent stage tanks.   That makes its stability an issue.

Ross.

Thanks - for cargo unloading, the current LSAM presents huge challenges. You want to unload 18 tons of cargo (only 3 tons in lunar g) from a height of 10m! What mass is wasted on the unloading mechanism.

A crasher stage would have huge benefits for cargo landing.

On the other hand, it doesn't take us towards reusable architectures, which might be desirable if ISRU becomes an option.

Have you also looked at drop tanks which get some of the benefits of a crasher stage without the restart issue? Needs a deep throttling engine though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 03:54 pm
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  8:15 AM

And once we do get the Propellant Depot architecture up and running it raises the theoretical limit for each Lunar Lander (lifted dry on a single J-232) to around 180-200mT!   The real limit is ultimately defined by how much fuel you can afford to lift.

Ross.

Direct has some interesting possibilities here, though I understand for now you want to make it as comparable as possible to Ares.

There's a thread here on Momentum Exchange Tethers. A single J-232 launch could put in place a tether able to move a 10 ton propellant delivery from a low orbit into a Lunar Transfer Orbit - perhaps for rendez-vous at L1. A Falcon 9 launch per month could then give 10 tons of LOx per month at L1, or in a HEEO. Would that help?

What's really clever with Direct 2.0 is the approach "here's what we can do with minimum capital expenditure, and here are all the future possibilities".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/07/2008 03:58 pm
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  11:47 AM

Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  8:15 AM

In this context, there are difficulties with the height of the current LSAM - even inside the 10m payload fairing.   It's nearly four stories tall, which means that its Center of Gravity is going to be very high indeed as it comes in to land with empty descent stage tanks.   That makes its stability an issue.

Ross.

Thanks - for cargo unloading, the current LSAM presents huge challenges. You want to unload 18 tons of cargo (only 3 tons in lunar g) from a height of 10m! What mass is wasted on the unloading mechanism.

A crasher stage would have huge benefits for cargo landing.

On the other hand, it doesn't take us towards reusable architectures, which might be desirable if ISRU becomes an option.

Have you also looked at drop tanks which get some of the benefits of a crasher stage without the restart issue? Needs a deep throttling engine though.
Ross and I have actually been doing a fair amount of brainstorming on this kind of design and both scenarios (crasher stage and drop tanks) have their own significant benefits. My *personal* preference is for drop tanks without needing another engine start during the descent, but it is more difficult to arrange.

As to your comment regarding the ISRU, we don’t know yet if that is something we will actually be able to do on a scale that is economically viable. We *think* we can, but truth be told, we really don’t know that. The best policy therefore, imho, is to design for what we know, being fully aware that as other additional technologies become viable (ISRU), *IF* they become viable, there may need to be a new lander design at sometime in the future, because that would actually be an architecture change. I do not think it wise to invest heavily in a lander design that depends on our ability to execute an ISRU capability that we are not capable of yet and don’t know that we could actually do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/07/2008 04:43 pm
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  11:54 AM
 A Falcon 9 launch per month could then give 10 tons of LOx per month at L1, or in a HEEO. Would that help.

Why Falcon 9?  And once a month? Using how many pads?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 08:23 pm
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  11:54 AM

What's really clever with Direct 2.0 is the approach "here's what we can do with minimum capital expenditure, and here are all the future possibilities".

That's it in a nutshell.   It levers the Heavy Lift system we have right now into a system which can allow us to do anything we like in the future.

50mT Lift coupled with 100mT Lift *for a reasonable cost*, done by keeping both in the same basic system based very closely upon on existing hardware is a good investment because it opens so many doors which are currently closed to us today, yet the price isn't too high.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/07/2008 09:22 pm
Quote
Jim - 7/4/2008  11:43 AM

Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  11:54 AM
 A Falcon 9 launch per month could then give 10 tons of LOx per month at L1, or in a HEEO. Would that help.

Why Falcon 9?  And once a month? Using how many pads?

According to the NASA tether paper, the tether mass can launch about 1/8th of its mass on a monthly basis. The tether paper assumed a Zenith Sea Launch (20 tons) and a regular 2.5 ton payload.

A J-232 can deliver a tether system of about 130 tons (including ET as counter mass). Assuming the same ratio, we have about a 15 ton capability. That makes Falcon 9 a bit light weight at 10.5 tons, especially given the need for a plane change to an equatorial orbit. (So would be launched from Kwajein or Kouranu, or both).

A Zenith sea launch might also be an option, though the launch rate would be difficult.

Though of course, if a J-232 really can deliver 100 tons of fuel to LEO for $200 million, then a tether may not be financially viable. (A SEP reusable upper stage might still be).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 09:32 pm
I like the concept of a "Propellant Barge".   As long as you can essentially eliminate boiloff issues using active cooling systems, there's aren't many problems with it taking time to get to different places - that just becomes a logistics issue then.   I see a lot of good potential architecture options which can utilize depots in locations other than LEO.

* LLO will be great once you have ISRU facilities and a reusable lander system.

* EML-1 / EML-2 offer great staging areas for exploration missions beyond Earth's gravity well.

* SEL-2 also offers very valuable options for staging missions headed out into the deeper solar system.

Having the capability to deliver large quantities of propellant to any of these locations opens the door to new architectural options we can exploit in the future.   That's always a good thing to keep in mind while we are essentially developing the initial "highway system" here - which is what I see as the true underlying purpose of the VSE/USSEP.

Tethers, SEP and Ion propulsion all offer interesting technology paths for these architecture growth options and they should all be pursued and allowed to mature.   It would be nice to have the available funding to do so though.   I don't see that happening with Ares in the mix though. This is a specific area where having 1 launcher, not 2, makes a lot more sense.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 04/07/2008 09:35 pm
Quote

Yes.   A single Jupiter-232 has approximately 80% of the "throw" capability of Ares-V.   It can do almost everything Ares-V is planned to do, and if there's a shortfall you can fly one extra flight every four to make up the difference.

One extra flight every few years is a lot more economically sound than spending $15bn extra in development and another $1.2bn every year.

And once we do get the Propellant Depot architecture up and running it raises the theoretical limit for each Lunar Lander (lifted dry on a single J-232) to around 180-200mT!   The real limit is ultimately defined by how much fuel you can afford to lift.

Ross.

Hi Ross,
Would the same upper stage be used for single lauch cargo only as it would for dual launch? developing multiple upper stages would increase development cost and would provide a reason not to support direct. I've seen graphics of Diret with a large number of upper stage varieties. this worries me a bit.

Nathan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 09:59 pm
Nathan,
We're baselining for a single Upper Stage only.

Using the Lockheed Martin WBC (or Boeing ACES for that matter) Upper Stage the difference in mass between a stage optimized for dry Cargo carrying vs. a stage optimized for propellant Cargo carrying is pretty small - just a couple of mT difference.

Our opinion is that it isn't worthwhile developing multiple stages for that sort of small gain.   We'd rather throw that sort of 'big money' into something more effective instead.


There have been multiple stage designs through the course of DIRECT's evolution over the last two years because we haven't closed the door on any options until we've had a specific reason to close it.   We don't like taking options off the table completely.   That and whenever we make a change to the system we spend time to optimize the configuration to get the best performance out of it.   The J-232's Upper Stage has gone through a series of evolutions along the development cycle so far, and will likely see yet more changes before we're done :)

The key though, is that we like the fundamental flexibility in the system.   While we have a baseline (consisting of just Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232) which we believe can do everything on the list of requirements for the next 12-20 years or more, there *are* alternatives within the architecture which might be suitable if the requirements were ever to change.

The design approach can support a wide variety of options *if* there is any worthwhile purpose for them.   What you normally see us talking about here on NSF is usually just the "best fit" for the current set of requirements.   We then throw in a sprinkle of the 'options' just to demonstrate that we aren't tied to any single solution - that there are more options available beyond our baseline proposal.


For example, while we are not actually proposing these options be built, there are *potential* situations where it might become economical to consider the Jupiter-221 or 231 configurations for example.   They work very economically indeed as 1-launch Lunar solutions if all your propellant is being delivered to an awaiting Depot by a large number of foreign partners - a scenario we hope will become a reality one day, but which we are not banking upon.

Also *potentially* if there were ever a specific requirement which demanded a 150mT or 180mT lifter (although I can't think of any off the top of my head) then there are Core and Upper Stage combinations which we can implement to get us there such as the Jupiter-254 Heavy.

Those are just *potential* options though.   We just aren't recommending them as optimal for our current  requirements.


But for now, our baseline only consists of the Core vehicle (Jupiter-120) with a single upgrade of an Upper Stage (making it into a Jupiter-232).   This Upper Stage is carefully optimized for the maximum possible delivery of propellant to LEO because that's the most demanding aspect of the architecture.   This same stage design is then re-used for the crew flight where it doesn't have to be quite so optimally suited - it's close, but not quite optimal.

This chosen approach keeps development and operations costs to a minimum yet maximizes the performance of the 1-vehicle, 2-launch Lunar architecture we are proposing and also provides an much earlier and very cost-effective means to convert Shuttle into a new system to close the "gap" after the Orbiter's are retired.


In addition, the exact same Upper Stage can also fully support the 1-launch solution we envision if/when we get the Propellant Depot operational and have international partnerships to fill it up.

The same Upper Stage can form the basis of the Propellant Depot too.

The same Upper Stage can also form the basis for a very effective Mars architecture too.   We have 4-, 5- and 6-launch architectures mapped out in rough already, although they work best with once you have the Propellant Depot systems.


Therefore we believe that this particular baseline solution of a single Upper Stage works extremely well for all these different scenario's.   We don't foresee any requirement for additional elements beyond this which will be needed to fulfill all the current LEO, Lunar or Mars applications.   If something new did crop-up though, we have done our homework sufficiently that we are confident we have flexibility enough to face any new challenges.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/07/2008 10:24 pm
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  4:47 PM
{snip}

On the other hand, it doesn't take us towards reusable architectures, which might be desirable if ISRU becomes an option.
{snip}

Refuelling the lander at a propellant depot goes a long way to producing a reusable architecture.  Design the ascent stage to be reusable.  We may be able to make fuel and fuel tanks on the Moon but it is going to be a long time before engines can be made there.  So a partially expendable descent stage may be simpler.

A reusable rocket that carries both landing and ascent fuel will be enormous.  A sling may be a better way of getting ISRU propellant to the depot than a rocket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/07/2008 10:27 pm
Vacuum.Head,
I would recommend that you post your 'radical ideas' in its own thread here in the "Alternative Exploration" section of the forum.

Begin slow and as simple as you can.   Lay out the basic reasoning behind your thinking and lay out the broad strokes of what you're proposing.   Then fill in the blanks of the basic idea as it begins to be discussed.

Its very difficult to get across any sort of highly technical ideas immediately in one hit.   Trust me :)

You often need a simple "primer" to get people initially to think along the direction you're after.   Once you have people interested and considering the issue, then that is the time when you can cover the solution and only once you have that can you hope to begin to get more technical details across.

Just a suggestion :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Vacuum.Head on 04/07/2008 11:29 pm
Thank you Ross! We shall see :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: strip mine the moon on 04/08/2008 12:20 am
Crasher stage?  Why not have a crew lander(s) that lands a crew only.  Then land the cargo/habitat on a its own dedicated lander.  The crew lander would carry a beacon device that would allow the cargo/habitat to make its own initial approach.  The crew lander would handle the final approach.    The crew lander could be smaller aka Apollo.  Cargo/habitat lander has to be similar in mass to a crasher stage.  One advantage is that the cargo/habitat doesn't get fried when the ascent stage of the crew lander goes back up.  This gives you a habitat to visit over and over, assuming you can restock it.  Just a thought.  Hate to see things trashed or filled with trash and deorbited.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 04/08/2008 12:35 am
Dear Ross & Chuck,

Having been a big fan of Orbiter Space Simulator for a few years, I stumbled upon Antonio's Direct v.01 addon and was very impressed.  In his readme file, he referred to your real-life proposal.  I've read it and have been blown away.  I won't try to go too much into superlatives; suffice to say that I pray that smarter minds prevail and your proposal (which is infinitely more sensible and realistic than the current Ares I/Ares V approach) comes to fruition.  Alas, I'm Canadian and don't have a congresscritter or senator to write.

I do have a question regarding the proposal.  In the Lunar Architectural studies, you mention an Apollo 8 style mission.  I completely agree with your assemssment that such a mission could indeed recapture the public's attention and fascination.  I wasn't too sure in looking at the loadout for such a proposed mission (some of the images from the PDF I downloaded didn't print very well):

1.)  Would it use a 2-engine or 3-engine CCB?
2.)  Would the EDS have 1 or 2 engines?
3.) Would the EDS be jettisoned after TLI?  Based on the current specs I've seen for Orion, it has a max delta V of ~1800 m/s.  This seems tight for the CEV to do both LOI and TEI.  One of the key arguments for switching to the JLS would that it would allow for a more robust, lunar-capable CEV.  Does your proposal base this proposed mission on updated specs?

The reasons for my curiosity is twofold.  One, just personal interest.  Plus, I've been playing around with Antonio's addon and have constructed a scenario that includes a one-engine EDS on top of a Jupiter 120 (think that makes the entire stack a Jupiter 221) and want to see if I can do it "by the book" as much as possible.

I wish you gents the best of luck in convincing the higher-ups at NASA and Congress in re-evaluating the current planned implementation of the VSE.

Respectfully,

Cale Nicholson
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/08/2008 12:55 am
Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  5:22 PM

A J-232 can deliver a tether system of about 130 tons (including ET as counter mass). Assuming the same ratio, we have about a 15 ton capability. That makes Falcon 9 a bit light weight at 10.5 tons, especially given the need for a plane change to an equatorial orbit. (So would be launched from Kwajein or Kouranu, or both).

A Zenith sea launch might also be an option, though the launch rate would be difficult.

Though of course, if a J-232 really can deliver 100 tons of fuel to LEO for $200 million, then a tether may not be financially viable. (A SEP reusable upper stage might still be).

Zenith is not viable.  US gov't can't use it.

Question still stands, why just Spacex?  They haven't even launched one yet.  They haven't proven capable of doing the mission
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: osiris on 04/08/2008 01:32 am
Ross & others,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

René
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/08/2008 02:10 am
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  10:15 PM

Quote
Lampyridae - 6/4/2008  8:45 PM

Bienvenu au NSF, René!

I'm not part of DIRECT but these are commonly asked questions so I'll just answer them for you as best I can (apologies for assumptions and mistakes... :P )...(SNIP)

All correct as far as I can tell, thanks for the summary while I was away.

Although I would alter the Obama/Clinton thing.

I'm not writing either of them off as potential DIRECT supporters yet.   We are beginning to make inroads to both their campaigns and I think they're both quite open to realistic options for reducing the cost and schedule for Shuttle's replacement as long as it also protects the voting workforce.   9,000 votes has to be worth a few seconds sound-bite! :)

Ross.

Hmmm, I had written off both the Dems but I'm sure Obama could make a U-turn (he is after all, a politician). Good to hear you are making progress with them! Now if I was voting, it would come down to the really important things... like which one has a 5 o'clock shadow during the big debate...

Seeing as how Florida's often been a deciding vote, I think it would be good to sweeten the NASA crowd, plus a larger number of "vacuum heads" out there, although they're not conveniently located in one state that could go either way... and let's not forget that most of those 9 000 workers will have spouses that can vote as well!

Quote
By all accounts ATK are really trying to make a commercial launcher out of Ares-I.

Ah hah... I thought their COTS proposal looked a little too familiar!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/08/2008 02:17 am
Quote
Cale - 7/4/2008  8:35 PM

Dear Ross & Chuck,

Having been a big fan of Orbiter Space Simulator for a few years, I stumbled upon Antonio's Direct v.01 addon and was very impressed....(SNIP)

Glad you found it and enjoyed it.   We were amazed at Antonio's work when we first saw it too.   Since then he has continually provided us with endless brilliant artwork to benefit the DIRECT effort.   I know he has been working on an update for Orbiter recently, but computer issues have been slowing his work up a bit.

A Jupiter-221, as you correctly identify it, with an optimized EDS should be more than capable of launching an Orion to the moon.   It should have considerably more impetus than is actually needed.

We are actually working on a configuration whereby we launch a human-rated Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage inside the PLF under the CEV to accomplish this mission even before the EDS is ready to fly.   We're aiming for the year immediately following Orion becoming operational - December 2013 would be really special being the 45th Anniversary of the original Apollo 8 mission.

As you've already noticed, the Orion's dV budget is indeed very tight for this mission.

We know the configuration can achieve at least a highly elliptical Lunar Orbit with this, but we're still fine-tuning whether we can get it down into circular, or even near-circular Low Lunar Orbit.

The full-size Jupiter EDS would have sufficient propellant to perform (most of) the LOI as well - just as long as the J-2X can be restarted a sufficient number of times.   Watch this space for an announcement whenever we finalize this mission profile - its coming.

If you have a go at the Delta-IV variant of this mission and get it working, make sure to take notes.   They might give us some interesting pointers for the real analysis :)   Antonio has previously done quite a few "Beta-Test" profiles for the team using Orbiter.   It's a pretty good simulator for early testing of the practicality of ideas like this.

BTW, Antonio is here on this forum too.   He can probably answer any detailed questions you may have about implementing the DIRECT Orbiter addon - although you probably ought to start a "DIRECT in Orbiter" thread of some sort for that discussion.

Thanks for your support,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/08/2008 02:22 am
Quote
osiris - 7/4/2008  9:32 PM

Ross & others,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

René, its a pleasure.   We *try* to answer most questions if we can.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/08/2008 03:32 am
Quote
kraisee - 8/4/2008  3:17 AM

We know the configuration can achieve at least a highly elliptical Lunar Orbit with this, but we're still fine-tuning whether we can get it down into circular, or even near-circular Low Lunar Orbit.

High Lunar Orbit will work providing you find something to photograph.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/08/2008 06:57 am
Quote
Jim - 7/4/2008  7:55 PM

Quote
alexterrell - 7/4/2008  5:22 PM

A J-232 can deliver a tether system of about 130 tons (including ET as counter mass). Assuming the same ratio, we have about a 15 ton capability. That makes Falcon 9 a bit light weight at 10.5 tons, especially given the need for a plane change to an equatorial orbit. (So would be launched from Kwajein or Kouranu, or both).

A Zenith sea launch might also be an option, though the launch rate would be difficult.

Though of course, if a J-232 really can deliver 100 tons of fuel to LEO for $200 million, then a tether may not be financially viable. (A SEP reusable upper stage might still be).

Zenith is not viable.  US gov't can't use it.

Question still stands, why just Spacex?  They haven't even launched one yet.  They haven't proven capable of doing the mission

At the moment, Zenith, Proton are the lowest cost operators. Spacex is expected to join them. Based on the costs of Directs, even with a tether, Atlas and Delta are probably too expensive.

US Government can use them all. Just won't.

It's a bit like some Westerner who only buys products made in his country. His choice to pay double, his stupidity. (Unless you take the view that NASA is not there to explore, boldly go etc, but to dish out pork and create state employment :) )


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/08/2008 11:54 am
Quote
alexterrell - 8/4/2008  2:57 AM

At the moment, Zenith, Proton are the lowest cost operators. Spacex is expected to join them. Based on the costs of Directs, even with a tether, Atlas and Delta are probably too expensive.

US Government can use them all. Just won't.

It's a bit like some Westerner who only buys products made in his country. His choice to pay double, his stupidity.



Wrong.  US Gov't  (not just NASA) can't use Zeniths or Proton.  It is against the Commercial Space Act (a law).  Know what you are talking about before making statements.  

"Probably too expensive"  That doesn't cut it.   Use factsbefore making statements.

Spacex is "expected" to join them.  Spacex is not pregnant.   It is not a sure thing.  Why isn't the same thing said the Tesla electric car.   Isn't it going to take out Ford and GM?

Look in the mirror first before calling "some" Westerns stupid.   There are reasons for such laws.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 04/08/2008 01:24 pm
It is in my opinion that Direct could become the Soyuz of the future.  The workhorse of future Moon and Mars missions.  If it is ever implemented.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/08/2008 10:50 pm
Quote
Jim - 8/4/2008  6:54 AM

Quote
alexterrell - 8/4/2008  2:57 AM

At the moment, Zenith, Proton are the lowest cost operators. Spacex is expected to join them. Based on the costs of Directs, even with a tether, Atlas and Delta are probably too expensive.

US Government can use them all. Just won't.

It's a bit like some Westerner who only buys products made in his country. His choice to pay double, his stupidity.



Wrong.  US Gov't  (not just NASA) can't use Zeniths or Proton.  It is against the Commercial Space Act (a law).  Know what you are talking about before making statements.  

"Probably too expensive"  That doesn't cut it.   Use factsbefore making statements.

Spacex is "expected" to join them.  Spacex is not pregnant.   It is not a sure thing.  Why isn't the same thing said the Tesla electric car.   Isn't it going to take out Ford and GM?

Look in the mirror first before calling "some" Westerns stupid.   There are reasons for such laws.


A bit off topic - should have said USA can but won't use them. Last time I checked, the USA was a sovereign state allowed to make its own laws. If the USA prefers that NASA be first and foremost an employment agency, then that's the choice of the USA. A European country on the other hand would not have this choice, being bound by supra-national laws.

There are no facts on costs yet, so we can't use them. What would Boeing charge in a competitive tender for 24 Delta IV launches over a 2 year period?

Apart from Musk, Tesla has no similarities to Spacex. Tesla will have as much impact on GM and Ford as internet retailers had on Walmart and Macys. Falcon 1/9 are surer things than Ares I/V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 04/09/2008 12:46 pm
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  6:55 AM

iii) Oh boy.   *Big* subject this.   And complicated by "1-vehicle, 2-launch" solution we're employing compatred to the "2-vehicle, 2 launch" solution employed by Ares.   Ours shares a lot more of its operational costs between our two configurations of the same vehicle compared to Ares' two completely different vehicles - so we're always going to be cheaper.   Here are the details:

Ares-I:
Development: ~$14,400m
Fixed: $800m/year.
Variable: $130m/flight @ 1 per year, $105m/flight @ 4 per year.

Ares-V:
Development: ~$15,000m
Fixed: $2,000m/year.
Variable: $240m+90m (for the EDS)/flight @ 1 per year, $194m+$73m/flight @ 4 per year

Jupiter-120:
Development: ~$9,500m
Fixed: $900m/year.
Variable: $140m/flight @ 1 per year, $113m/flight @ 4 per year, $102m/flight @ 8 per year

Jupiter-232: (J-120 has already paid Fixed Costs for SRB + Core, so just add EDS + 1 more RS-68):
Development: ~$4,000m
Fixed: $800m/year
Variable: $110m/flight @ 1 per year, $93m/flight @ 4 per year

Thus the baseline of: 2 ISS per year + 2 Lunar Crew per year + 2 Lunar Cargo per year total up to:-

Ares: $29.4bn Development (non-recurring). $2,800m Fixed, $1,488m Variable = $4,288m per year (recurring).
DIRECT: $13.5bn Development (non-recurring). $1,700m Fixed, $1,374m Variable = $3,074m per year (recurring).

Difference: $15.9bn Development (non-recurring).   $1.214bn per year (recurring).

Ross.

Ross,

Due to workload and personal difficulties such as my parents declining health, I have not kept up with the forum this year and I am just now catching up.  There has been a lot of great discussion.  

I put the above numbers in a spreadsheet and all of my calculations matched yours except for Direct's $1,374m Variable cost for the baseline of 2 ISS per year + 2 Lunar Crew per year + 2 Lunar Cargo per year.  I tried several combinations but could never get the $1,374m Variable cost.  I am sure that I have a misconception or wrong number somewhere.  Could you break that one out in more detail please?

CSJ
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/09/2008 01:17 pm
Quote
kraisee - 7/4/2008  4:49 PM

I would *LOVE* to engage Dr. Zubrin in a deep discussion of how to make our systems viable with his, but given that we're a bit of a hot potato currently I understand if he wishes to keep out of this for now.

But something behind the scenes would be well worthwhile for our 2008 AIAA paper - which is already well underway.   It going to focus upon Mars and the reverse-engineered architecture for the moon which will act as an "analogue" for those later missions.

Zubrin's skills and the whole Mars Society skill-base would be *amazingly* valuable if we can put it together with a 100mT launch system along with Propellant Depot facilities in LEO (at least).



Ross.

Guess what...

The Mars Society is pleased to announce the addition of Dr. Scott Horowitz and Richard Heidmann to our Board of Directors. These two distinguished gentleman will join an already prestigious Board that includes Dr. Robert Zubrin, Dr. Penelope Boston, and Declan O'Donnell.

"I am very happy that Doc Horowitz and Richard Heidmann have agreed to join our board," said Zubrin. "With the help of these two talented and accomplished individuals, we will be able to make major breakthroughs towards advancing the cause of human Mars exploration."




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/09/2008 01:39 pm
Quote
Nathan - 8/4/2008  12:35 AM

Quote

Yes.   A single Jupiter-232 has approximately 80% of the "throw" capability of Ares-V.   It can do almost everything Ares-V is planned to do, and if there's a shortfall you can fly one extra flight every four to make up the difference.

One extra flight every few years is a lot more economically sound than spending $15bn extra in development and another $1.2bn every year.

And once we do get the Propellant Depot architecture up and running it raises the theoretical limit for each Lunar Lander (lifted dry on a single J-232) to around 180-200mT!   The real limit is ultimately defined by how much fuel you can afford to lift.

Ross.

Hi Ross,
Would the same upper stage be used for single lauch cargo only as it would for dual launch? developing multiple upper stages would increase development cost and would provide a reason not to support direct. I've seen graphics of Diret with a large number of upper stage varieties. this worries me a bit.

Nathan.

The same question goes for LSAM/Altair. Would a unique lander design lend itself to triple uses ? (single launch - dual launch - re-fuel at depot)

ESAS's 1.5 architecture is flexible. Single Ares V - Altair - cargo only. Dual launch Ares I/V for manned mission. Both types of mission use a single unique lander design- just the payload is different: ascent module plus single digit tonnes cargo (I/V), or double digit tonnes cargo only (V).

IMHO.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/09/2008 03:17 pm
Quote
alexterrell - 8/4/2008  6:50 PM

1.  If the USA prefers that NASA be first and foremost an employment agency, then that's the choice of the USA. A European country on the other hand would not have this choice, being bound by supra-national laws.

2. There are no facts on costs yet, so we can't use them. What would Boeing charge in a competitive tender for 24 Delta IV launches over a 2 year period?

.

1,  Again, it is the US gov't (DOD, NRO, NOAA, etc) and not just NASA that can't use Zenith and Proton.

2.  It doesn't matter because spacex can't launch that many
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/10/2008 04:10 am
Quote
renclod - 9/4/2008  9:39 AM

The same question goes for LSAM/Altair. Would a unique lander design lend itself to triple uses ? (single launch - dual launch - re-fuel at depot)

For DIRECT there are a few options.

The Dual launch (w/ CEV) is the default.   The closest pure cargo option would actually be a dual launch solution still.

A single J-232 launch would be about 80% that of an Ares-V in all aspects including mass on the lunar surface.   The LSAM would need to be scaled to suit to get optimum performance though, so this would no longer be ideal for the 2-launch solution...

There are a number of options.   An LSAM suitable for both missions could be designed with optional tanks and optional engines - but that would be an expensive option to pursue.

One approach we've been looking at is the Crasher Stage though.   Both missions could be supported by simply varying the size of the Crasher element.   Barrel stretches to the tanking would be the only required changes to support virtually any realistic configuration.

This approach actually allows for a fairly huge variance in LSAM size.   It can theoretically support both single and dual launch options, perhaps even three-launch for *really* big payloads.   The key to making that work would be having an engine with deep cycle capability able to support the largest planned mission.   The same engines would be operated below max for many instances, but operating an engine below maximum stress levels is not a bad thing! :)

I'll try to get some drawings and numbers put together soon, but I've got my hands full with other things right now so please be patient.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/10/2008 04:20 am
Quote
renclod - 9/4/2008  9:17 AM

The Mars Society is pleased to announce the addition of Dr. Scott Horowitz ... to our Board of Directors.

Great.   Just the right person to be advising Zubrin.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/10/2008 07:29 am
Quote
kraisee - 9/4/2008  11:10 PM

This approach actually allows for a fairly huge variance in LSAM size.   It can theoretically support both single and dual launch options, perhaps even three-launch for *really* big payloads.   The key to making that work would be having an engine with deep cycle capability able to support the largest planned mission.   The same engines would be operated below max for many instances, but operating an engine below maximum stress levels is not a bad thing! :)

I'll try to get some drawings and numbers put together soon, but I've got my hands full with other things right now so please be patient.

Ross.

I suppose the limit is a fully fueled LSAM plus cargo needs to mass less than the J-232 launch load, which would imply 50 tons of cargo at least.

I look forward to the figures / drawings.

Cargo is very important if the aim is a lunar base. If however, the aim is to undertake Apollo 18, 19, 20 etc, then cargo is relatively unimportant. I'm still not sure what the aim is.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 04/10/2008 01:19 pm
Quote
kraisee - 9/4/2008  9:20 PM

Quote
renclod - 9/4/2008  9:17 AM

The Mars Society is pleased to announce the addition of Dr. Scott Horowitz ... to our Board of Directors.

Great.   Just the right person to be advising Zubrin.

If there was only some way to get him on board the Chinese program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 04/10/2008 09:01 pm
Chuck asked me to move this question about the Commercial Ares-1 vehicle to this thread:

Ok, ok, This not conspiracy talk, and I am not attempting to change this into a DIRECT thread,.. buuuuut, If you will just bear with me because I honestly don't know the answer. Would ATK stand to make more money with the 5, 5,5, 6 Segment SRB R&D development through the Ares program, plus the Commercial launch market,.. OR ... Would they be more profitable with the published Jupiter Series flight rate of the Standard 4-Segment SRB?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/10/2008 09:08 pm
Quote
Pheogh - 10/4/2008  5:01 PM

Chuck asked me to move this question about the Commercial Ares-1 vehicle to this thread:

Ok, ok, This not conspiracy talk, and I am not attempting to change this into a DIRECT thread,.. buuuuut, If you will just bear with me because I honestly don't know the answer. Would ATK stand to make more money with the 5, 5,5, 6 Segment SRB R&D development through the Ares program, plus the Commercial launch market,.. OR ... Would they be more profitable with the published Jupiter Series flight rate of the Standard 4-Segment SRB?
We have actually looked at this and over the long haul, because of the anticipated flight rate based on using Jupiter in lieu of Ares-I, ATK would make more money servicing the 4-segment RSRB for the Jupiter than they would on the 5-segment RSRB for Ares-I. Of course, the ATK executives would need to be willing to set aside their big bonus for developing the 5-segment booster if it were actually halted. But there remains the possibility that the 5-segment development effort could get so far down the line that it becomes more appropriate for DIRECT to incorporate it instead of shutting it down. That decision would be based entirely on political concerns and ATK's development schedule. If that were to happen, ATK would make even more money with the Jupiter than with the Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/11/2008 02:50 am
Quote
alexterrell - 10/4/2008  3:29 AM

I suppose the limit is a fully fueled LSAM plus cargo needs to mass less than the J-232 launch load, which would imply 50 tons of cargo at least.

Works best with Propellant Depot.

That limit becomes 108mT *dry* spacecraft mass then.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/11/2008 02:58 am
Quote
alexterrell - 10/4/2008  3:29 AM

Cargo is very important if the aim is a lunar base. If however, the aim is to undertake Apollo 18, 19, 20 etc, then cargo is relatively unimportant. I'm still not sure what the aim is.

Yes, it does seem pretty hazy right now.

I can't speak for NASA, but here is what we propose:   Starting around 2018 we begin a 5-year concerted effort to try to land as many cargo modules as we can, in order to build a viable habitat on the Lunar surface.   DIRECT can afford 6 Lunar missions per year for Ares' cost of just 2 missions.   That's about 20 Cargo-only missions (full 2-launch size) plus 10 Crew/Cargo missions in that 5 year period - that's an awful lot of hardware and exploration we can do relatively quickly.

20 Cargo-only missions should be more than sufficient to build a fairly descent outpost.   As soon as that is completed, we would begin to scale-back the Lunar efforts by re-directing all the experienced Lunar hardware development teams to the Mars effort - aiming for a Mars Mission attempt around 2031.

During the 'scale-back', we would assume Lunar flight rate would reduce to 2 crew rotations to the Lunar surface per year, with 1-2 cargo missions to support them.   Hopefully we can encourage International Partnerships to help offset some of the costs too, but we aren't banking upon it - just to be safe.

Somewhere around 2031 we send our first crewed Mars mission - while continuing our exploration of the moon - albeit at a slower pace for a time.

The Mars technologies also allow us to explore other targets too - such as NEO's.   We can then begin a regular (1 per year or so) long-duration mission program over time visiting lots of interesting sites.

But essentially once all the development work is finally scaled back (mid 2030's), having achieved the realistic goals of the VSE, we would then have sufficient monies to be able to sustain a very robust human exploration program regularly visiting the moon, Mars and a good number of NEO's all at the same time.

This, to me, seems to be an effective way to create mankind's first-generation "highway network" infrastructure enabling robust human expansion beyond this biosphere to a variety of useful destinations.

The development monies, now free'd up after creating the Mars/NEO capability, could then be turned to a variety of possible purposes around 2035-40.   My personal preference would be to seriously begin utilizing the vast resources then made available to us in all *three* destination programs.

That's what our budget forecasts allow DIRECT to do with only an inflationary increase to NASA's budget every year.   I've seen NASA's costings, and I'm 100% convinced the Ares solution couldn't possibly hope to afford anything like the same though.   DIRECT allows this effort to encompass the Moon and Mars and NEO's - not "or".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/11/2008 07:19 am
Hmm, this gets more and more interesting. I wonder what a Jupiter mission launched by Jupiter rockets could be like? Ironically it would directly leverage off a lot of lunar experience, and ISRU on Callisto would be a doddle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/11/2008 12:43 pm
Just for S&G’s I took a few minutes yesterday to go back and listen to President Bush’s speech on January 14, 2004, when he announced the VSE. He very specifically spoke about spacecraft for planetary missions being “assembled on and launched from” the moon in order to avoid the expense of climbing up earth’s gravity well every time for every mission. But I have seen nothing of this in CxP releases. I bring this up because the last few posts have nibbled around the edges of transitioning from a lunar to a Mars centric architecture in terms of how many lunar missions per year considering Jupiter vs. Ares launches.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/11/2008 03:49 pm
Chuck,

If the objective is to build an industrial base on the moon capable of assembling and launching large complex spacecraft from the moon, then it will be in the next century before we get to mars and not in current year + 30.  Of course, perhaps I am misinterpeting this as "building", but in either case we will have to lift components, tools, etc from earth to the moon, so I don't see the short term value.  Long term perhaps.  But in the short term, its easier to launch from earth and go DIRECT to Mars.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/11/2008 03:55 pm
Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  11:49 AM

Chuck,

If the objective is to build an industrial base on the moon capable of assembling and launching large complex spacecraft from the moon, then it will be in the next century before we get to mars and not in current year + 30.  Of course, perhaps I am misinterpeting this as "building", but in either case we will have to lift components, tools, etc from earth to the moon, so I don't see the short term value.  Long term perhaps.  But in the short term, its easier to launch from earth and go DIRECT to Mars.  
Mike,
I’m not suggesting that is what we should do. All I am saying is that is what the President actually said. I only mentioned it because of the direction the conversation was heading and wanted to see if anyone else had noticed that and was wondering how others viewed his statement in light of the desire to use the moon as a way-stop vs. an assembly and launching location. Personally, I do not support such a scheme in the near term.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/11/2008 05:15 pm
Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  10:49 AM

Chuck,

If the objective is to build an industrial base on the moon capable of assembling and launching large complex spacecraft from the moon, then it will be in the next century before we get to mars and not in current year + 30.  Of course, perhaps I am misinterpeting this as "building", but in either case we will have to lift components, tools, etc from earth to the moon, so I don't see the short term value.  Long term perhaps.  But in the short term, its easier to launch from earth and go DIRECT to Mars.  
I assume whoever wrote that speach knows that. What I suspect he means is a middle ground of launching LOx, and maybe Hydrogen, to L1 and then staging the mission at L1.

I'd actually argue that even in its almost literal sense (build an industrial base on the moon capable of supporting the creation of large Mars ships in Earth orbit), this would be a faster way to Mars colonisation than Mars Direct, based on Directs v2.0 architecture.

Of course, for Mars flags and footprints, the moon is a waste of time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/11/2008 05:19 pm

Chuck,

 <sigh> It seems I frequently misinterpet what you reference vice what you mean.  Sorry.  I think that such a capability is possible, on the other hand, you don't see an industrial base being emplaced in Antarctica which is pretty remote by itself.  :)

 Mike

 

Quote
clongton - 11/4/2008 11:55 AM
Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008 11:49 AM Chuck, If the objective is to build an industrial base on the moon capable of assembling and launching large complex spacecraft from the moon, then it will be in the next century before we get to mars and not in current year + 30. Of course, perhaps I am misinterpeting this as "building", but in either case we will have to lift components, tools, etc from earth to the moon, so I don't see the short term value. Long term perhaps. But in the short term, its easier to launch from earth and go DIRECT to Mars.
Mike, I’m not suggesting that is what we should do. All I am saying is that is what the President actually said. I only mentioned it because of the direction the conversation was heading and wanted to see if anyone else had noticed that and was wondering how others viewed his statement in light of the desire to use the moon as a way-stop vs. an assembly and launching location. Personally, I do not support such a scheme in the near term.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/11/2008 05:22 pm

I don't think Flags and Footprints is a wrong thing to do, provided it is undertaken as a part of a rational expansion.

 To me, Flags and Footprints = reconnaissance, like Amundson and Perry's trips to the south pole.

Next, establishment of outposts, expanding to science stations.  Finally, as resources are found and methods made to extract them, and, preferably, manufacture of products or exploitation of resources to trade with Earth, will then foster the ability to drive an economy in space.

I think for the foreseeable future, the best we will be able to get to is outposts/science stations.  An interplanetary economy is far off.

I worry about the Viking Syndrome.

Mike 

 

 

Quote
alexterrell - 11/4/2008 1:15 PM
Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008 10:49 AM Chuck, If the objective is to build an industrial base on the moon capable of assembling and launching large complex spacecraft from the moon, then it will be in the next century before we get to mars and not in current year + 30. Of course, perhaps I am misinterpeting this as "building", but in either case we will have to lift components, tools, etc from earth to the moon, so I don't see the short term value. Long term perhaps. But in the short term, its easier to launch from earth and go DIRECT to Mars.
I assume whoever wrote that speach knows that. What I suspect he means is a middle ground of launching LOx, and maybe Hydrogen, to L1 and then staging the mission at L1. I'd actually argue that even in its almost literal sense (build an industrial base on the moon capable of supporting the creation of large Mars ships in Earth orbit), this would be a faster way to Mars colonisation than Mars Direct, based on Directs v2.0 architecture. Of course, for Mars flags and footprints, the moon is a waste of time.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 04/11/2008 05:28 pm
Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  12:22 PM

I don't think Flags and Footprints is a wrong thing to do, provided it is undertaken as a part of a rational expansion.

 To me, Flags and Footprints = reconnaissance, like Amundson and Perry's trips to the south pole.

Next, establishment of outposts, expanding to science stations.  Finally, as resources are found and methods made to extract them, and, preferably, manufacture of products or exploitation of resources to trade with Earth, will then foster the ability to drive an economy in space.

I think for the foreseeable future, the best we will be able to get to is outposts/science stations.  An interplanetary economy is far off.

I worry about the Viking

Quote

Key question is - do you need manned flight for reconnaissance?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/11/2008 10:02 pm
My personal opinion is that we do need to develop ISRU technologies, but that we should have the capability to go on even if they prove so difficult and expensive when we finally do try them, that they are deemed untenable.

The Mars Direct approach of catalyzing the atmosphere for the return propellant looks to be simple enough that it will likely be a workable technology.   As long as the cost/mass for it doesn't kill the idea it should be considered for Mars missions.

But mining the Lunar regolith for oxygen or other materials is a long way from being proven so far.   We haven't ever mined anything.   We have never tried separating such materials in space.   We have never tried processing and refining those materials in space either.   There are a lot of high cost developments going to be needed before the moon is going to release her resources to us in useful quantities - by which I mean quantities measured in tons per year to Lunar Orbit.

We need to begin this process as soon as possible, so we can begin learning what we need to learn though.   We need precursor ISRU missions in the manifest IMHO.   A handful of different vying technologies all given the opportunity to prove their value.   From there NASA can budget for a larger scale solution.   And from those tests, eventually, NASA can hopefully settle on an architecture and a specification fof the heavy equipment which needs to be lofted to the moon - assuming the cost structure does not end up being prohibitive of course.

IMHO, this is an area where a Commercial Operator would actually do better than NASA.   NASA should perform the tests, get the hard data results and then hand the operational aspects to some sort of "Bigelow"-like operation who take that knowledge and run with it commercially.

But I don't see this happening overnight.   I see lots of maintenance issues for such hardware (when we the last time you saw a mine on Earth that didn't require extensive routine maintenance work? Does anyone realistically expect a maintenance-free solution?).   I therefore see a permanently staffed outpost of some sorts will be a requirement in order to perform that maintenance at the very least.   Not yet mentioning maintenance of the launchers used to deliver propellant to orbit too.

This is going to be a big and quite expensive operation far exceeding the size and scope of "sortie" missions or even the scientific outpost NASA has been proposing - but which is no longer being funded BTW - though that's a topic for a different thread I think.

I believe that Lunar, Martian and asteroid ISRU capabilities will be needed for the long-term exploration, exploitation and colonization of our solar system and the sooner we can get these capabilities on-line the better.   But we have to start slow and build up to these heavy-industry capabilities and not expect them to magically appear overnight.   This is going to take a lot of planning and work to get anywhere near to a useful capability even in the medium-term of this program - especially at current funding levels.

All we are working on right now are the initial exploration moves.   The infrastructure follows behind this push.   But this push has to happen or the infrastructure will never come.   So our most important goal is to get these early steps right and allow ourselves to build systems which we can use for a long time to come.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/11/2008 10:12 pm
Key question is - do you need manned flight for reconnaissance?
-----
One percent for me!

Mind the "gap".


I certainly think so.  Even Steve Squyres said what takes his rovers 8 hours to do, a man could do in a minute.  That doesn't mean you can't use robotic probes to conduct pre-recon missions so that you put your manned recon parties in the best places.  And the best way to do that may well be have a manned orbital spacecraft dropping them on the planet so they can be controlled, monitored, and augmented in real time...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/11/2008 10:18 pm
With regard to schemes using estoric means of propulsion (tethers) and talk of lunar/martian bases mining and processing materials and launching them from their surface to do the same with Astroids, my feeling, perhaps foolhardy, is that the average American hears of them, thinks they are harebrained, says those people at NASA are nuts, and chooses not to support the space program.

That same person may well support the program if the program is presented in a rational build up with a series of intermediate steps.

Similary, I believe that these steps, if they last longer than 8 years, are doomed to failure because of the short attention span of the President, congress, and the american people.  You better accomplish the goal within 8 - 10 years, and have a series of these goals to tie them together in a long term plan.  Taking so long to return to the moon, much less go to Mars, will probably fail to garner much support in the long run.

Just my opinion of course.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/11/2008 10:56 pm
Agreed.

Nobody in DC seems interested in anything much beyond the next political cycle.   The funding issues surrounding even the Lunar program is "way out there" to the vast majority of members of Congress.   Only a very small handful are even considering much beyond that.

What they are most interested in right now is a solid solution to close the gap, within the current budget and which doesn't put thousands of American's out of work.

Give them that 3-box solution the way they like it and the rest becomes a sell which you just don't have to really do until some time after 2010.   You must have it planned and in the bag, but you won't actually be asked very much about it.


That essentially means that the #1 priority right now is making the transition from Shuttle to Orion as painless and as fast as possible.

Once you get that approved, phase 2 later-on will be evolving that base into the Lunar architecture.

Once you have secured that funding you will be trying to plan phase 3 where you actually utilize that architecture for a while to make the development worthwhile.

Only then will you really begin to talk about anything beyond the moon in phase 4.

Each of these phases would 'broadly' be considered to fit within a political cycle, one following the next in a series, building upon accomplishments and stretching further with each successive success.   Each is an individual step in the greater path.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/12/2008 06:30 pm
I don't recall where I said I would whip up some drawings to show a notional Crasher Stage, but here is a very quick'n'dirty image to show the approximate arrangement.

It is *very* notional, but should set the stage sufficiently enough to show the option clearly.



Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/13/2008 08:33 am
Currently testing of the lunar lander and crasher stage are constrained until the large cargo launch (J-232 or Ares-V) vehicles fly.  Some sort of ferry launchable on an EELV (or J-120) would be useful to take an unmanned lander to low lunar orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/13/2008 08:55 am
Quote
kraisee - 11/4/2008  11:02 PM

My personal opinion is that we do need to develop ISRU technologies, but that we should have the capability to go on even if they prove so difficult and expensive when we finally do try them, that they are deemed untenable.

The Mars Direct approach of catalyzing the atmosphere for the return propellant looks to be simple enough that it will likely be a workable technology.   As long as the cost/mass for it doesn't kill the idea it should be considered for Mars missions.

Getting things to Mars from the Earth is so expensive and uses so much fuel that to produce a net saving any ISRU equipment we send has to be reusable.  That includes the Mars launch vehicle used to carry the fuel from the surface to the fuel depot.  If each of the experimental ISRU equipment, experimental Mars RLV, fuel depot and cargo SEP ferry [Mars version] can all be kept under 45 mT then they can be lifted to LEO by a J-120.  Experimental versions can be smaller than the real ones.

Rather than throw away any say methane produced it could be sent to low lunar orbit for use in moon landing and returning people to Earth.  Methane can also be used at EML2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/13/2008 09:32 am

Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  11:12 PM

Key question is - do you need manned flight for reconnaissance?


That depends on what you mean by reconnaissance.  We can probably have machines on Mars extracting chemicals from Mars's atmosphere.  Interesting to see if they can run unmanned.

If 2CO + O2 = 2CO2 can be turned into ISRU rocket fuel a commercial product may exist.

Machines to process regolith could be tested on the Moon whilst the big rockets needed to get people to the planets is tested.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/13/2008 12:02 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/4/2008  5:32 AM

Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  11:12 PM

Key question is - do you need manned flight for reconnaissance?


That depends on what you mean by reconnaissance.  We can probably have machines on Mars extracting chemicals from Mars's atmosphere.  Interesting to see if they can run unmanned.

If 2CO + O2 = 2CO2 can be turned into ISRU rocket fuel a commercial product may exist.

Machines to process regolith could be tested on the Moon whilst the big rockets needed to get people to the planets is tested.

Andy,
Any ISRU done on the moon would have no applicability to Mars. The transferability of Lunar ISRU to Martian ISRU is a common misconception. We are dealing with chemical processes that require the same chemicals in both places before it can be transferred. Moon and Mars have different chemical elements in their soil, while the Martian atmosphere and the lunar atmosphere, tenuous as it is, are utterly different. In essence, other than the basic "concept", there isn't anything in lunar ISRU that could be used on Mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/13/2008 12:13 pm
Quote
clongton - 13/4/2008  1:02 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/4/2008  5:32 AM

Quote
mike robel - 11/4/2008  11:12 PM

Key question is - do you need manned flight for reconnaissance?


That depends on what you mean by reconnaissance.  We can probably have machines on Mars extracting chemicals from Mars's atmosphere.  Interesting to see if they can run unmanned.

If 2CO + O2 = 2CO2 can be turned into ISRU rocket fuel a commercial product may exist.

Machines to process regolith could be tested on the Moon whilst the big rockets needed to get people to the planets is tested.

Andy,
Any ISRU done on the moon would have no applicability to Mars. The transferability of Lunar ISRU to Martian ISRU is a common misconception. We are dealing with chemical processes that require the same chemicals in both places before it can be transferred. Moon and Mars have different chemical elements in their soil, while the Martian atmosphere and the lunar atmosphere, tenuous as it is, are utterly different. In essence, other than the basic "concept", there isn't anything in lunar ISRU that could be used on Mars.

I have noticed.  This was on the unmanned rather than Moon <=> Mars reuse.

On Mars we make carbon monoxide and oxygen from gasses.

On the Moon we make magnesium, iron and oxygen from solids.

Both experiments can go on whilst the large rockets are being developed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/13/2008 12:40 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 13/4/2008  7:13 AM

On Mars we make the carbon monoxide and oxygen from gasses.

On the Moon we make magnesium, iron and oxygen from solids.

Both experiments can go on whilst the large rockets are being developed.

It would be good to see some competitions launched followed by some research followed by lunar precursor missions to trial some of the technologies.

Do NASA have a large vacuum chamber with simulated lunar regolith, temperatures, radiation and gravity? (Just kidding on the last one).

These should then lead into precursor missions (seperate thread) testing Lunar diggers, solar towers, bulldozers, and ISRU (Lox production, and if possible, polar water production).

I don't really see a need for more than one manned mission (if that) to the moon before most of the components of a base have been landed and part assembled.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/14/2008 02:55 am
Quote
kraisee - 13/4/2008  4:30 AM

I don't recall where I said I would whip up some drawings to show a notional Crasher Stage, but here is a very quick'n'dirty image to show the approximate arrangement.

It is *very* notional, but should set the stage sufficiently enough to show the option clearly.

Ross.

I like that approach you took with the LEM design option. You can remove the barrel sections from the lander and use an RL-10 instead for the landing, meaning fewer alterations overall. More options could include using methane / LOX RL-10 for the ascent stage, although that might mean using a common RL-10 engine with different tankage for descent... maybe reducing the height and diameter of the descent stage even more, using the spherical LOX tanks as the basis for the methane. There's some knock-on benefits from that, such as making the stuff easier to store and scavenge, as with all-hypergolic ascent and descent stages.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/14/2008 06:42 am
You can also change the length of the Crasher Stage using simple barrel stretching techniques to vary the amount of capability it has too.

If you then also combine this with Propellant Depot facilities you essentially make the system unlimited in capability.   As long as the Descent Engine can handle the final mass you can land it.   So we want NASA to *start* out with this in mind, flying a Descent Engine 50% more powerful than initially needed - so the systems doesn't have to be completely redesigned at great cost when we 'up' the capability.   That's actually a great option anyway, because operating an engine at 67% should make it even more reliable - a good feature to have while we're still 'finding our feet' in the early missions.


You can fairly easily put more RL-10's (or even a J-2X) on the Crasher Stage and increase Descent performance in a relatively simple evolutionary step-by-step process over the next 30 years of this program.   The program ends up significantly bigger and more capable than we start out with, but the cost to upgrade is kept small if designed-in from the start like this.

And this approach is *far* more closely related to what we ultimately need to do for Mars missions than the current architecture is...   It would be good learning for us.

A single Jupiter-232 would easily be able to launch the CEV, LSAM and Crasher in a single flight if you fill 'er up at a Depot.


And finally, this completely removes the 4-day EDS/Crew rendezvous limit of the current architecture too.   The crew mission only flies when there's enough propellant waiting for them.   With active cooling on the Depot, you can launch 1, 5 or 30+ days late and have no further concerns.


This is an option which we strongly believe is a *LOT* better than the current architecture.   It's cheaper, simpler and has vastly more growth capability.

We aren't yet including it in our baseline though, because we have a big enough fight on our hands just getting DIRECT accepted :)   But the Jupiter LV is not the be-all and end-all of the larger DIRECT architecture.   Our AIAA paper was designed to give a glimpse of some of the options we create by abandoning the 2-vehicle solution and pursuing a 1-vehicle solution which evolves directly from the existing Shuttle hardware.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/14/2008 09:03 am
Quote
kraisee - 14/4/2008  9:42 AM

We aren't yet including it in our baseline though, because we have a big enough fight on our hands just getting DIRECT accepted :)   Ross.
So... glimpses aside... what is the "Direct" current architectural baseline ?

I would like to see it in simple terms. NASA current:

1/ Cargo to ISS: COTS; single launch
2/ Crew to ISS: Ares I / Orion; single launch
3/ Cargo to Luna: Ares V / Altair / xx tonnes cargo; single launch
4/ Crew to Luna: Ares I / Orion + Ares V / Altair / Ascent Module / x tonnes cargo; dual launch


"Direct" team's proposal, current (please fill in baseline):
1/
2/
3/
4/

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/14/2008 09:09 am
Quote
kraisee - 12/4/2008  1:30 PM

I don't recall where I said I would whip up some drawings to show a notional Crasher Stage, but here is a very quick'n'dirty image to show the approximate arrangement.

It is *very* notional, but should set the stage sufficiently enough to show the option clearly.

Ross.

This looks much better, but its still got the payload 6 (?) metres or so off the deck. Would it be worth revisiting the LM proposal for a long thin lander with close to ground level unloading?

For a base (as opposed to Apollo 18 etc), you might expect the first payload to have some sort of fork-lift truck (lowered by built in crane on the first cargo lander?). That would be quite a big forklift truck.

Or maybe some sort of wheeled crane that astronauts assemble? (In 1/6g that might be lighter than a forlift truck).

Or could you fit the landers with ramps? But that would need to be quite a long ramp to climb 6m or so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 04/14/2008 02:14 pm
Quote
alexterrell - 14/4/2008  2:09 AM
This looks much better, but its still got the payload 6 (?) metres or so off the deck. Would it be worth revisiting the LM proposal for a long thin lander with close to ground level unloading?

I'm watching development of the Mars Science Lab "flying crane" descent stage. Scaled up, it solves some problems with "tall" LM landers -- especially cargo versions -- essentially having to land on a graded parking lot to reduce tip-over. Obviously, unloading becomes easier, too. But the crane design raises certain other concerns.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/14/2008 09:55 pm
Quote
alexterrell - 14/4/2008  5:09 AM

Quote
kraisee - 12/4/2008  1:30 PM

I don't recall where I said I would whip up some drawings to show a notional Crasher Stage, but here is a very quick'n'dirty image to show the approximate arrangement.

It is *very* notional, but should set the stage sufficiently enough to show the option clearly.

Ross.

This looks much better, but its still got the payload 6 (?) metres or so off the deck. Would it be worth revisiting the LM proposal for a long thin lander with close to ground level unloading?

I think the general opinion within NASA is not to take a fresh approach, but is instead to try to replicate the successful approach already proven during Apollo - but with improvements.

This is just an option to make this approach work better.   The question of whether to abandon the proven Apollo style of lander at all is really beyond the scope of what this is doing here.

There are so many powerful pro's and con's involved in such a radical change in approach that we aren't even going to try to get involved in that discussion :)   This is just an option to consider if we continue down the previously successful Apollo path, an option enabled more easily by the DIRECT approach to LV's.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/14/2008 10:13 pm
Quote
renclod - 14/4/2008  5:03 AM

Quote
kraisee - 14/4/2008  9:42 AM

We aren't yet including it in our baseline though, because we have a big enough fight on our hands just getting DIRECT accepted :)   Ross.
So... glimpses aside... what is the "Direct" current architectural baseline ?

I would like to see it in simple terms. NASA current:

1/ Cargo to ISS: COTS; single launch
2/ Crew to ISS: Ares I / Orion; single launch
3/ Cargo to Luna: Ares V / Altair / xx tonnes cargo; single launch
4/ Crew to Luna: Ares I / Orion + Ares V / Altair / Ascent Module / x tonnes cargo; dual launch


Sure...

"Direct" team's proposal, current (please fill in baseline):
1/ Cargo to ISS: Utilize best combination of Progress, ATV, HTV and COTS - all single launch.

2/ Crew to ISS: 2012 - Jupiter-120/Orion (Can carry additional ~20mT payload with every flight) - single launch.

2b/ Crew Luna Flyby: 2013 - Jupiter-120+D-IV-US/Orion - single launch.

2c/ Hubble Servicing Mission #5: 2014 - Jupiter-120/Orion - single launch.

2d/ Mars Sample Return Mission: 2015 - Jupiter-120+D-IV-US - single launch.

3/ Cargo to Luna: 2017 - Jupiter-232/EDS + Jupiter-232/Altair; ~75mT LSAM thru TLI (CxP Target: ~53.6mT, CxP Current: ~41.2mT) - dual launch (smaller single launch also possible w ~42.9mT)

4/ Crew to Luna: 2017 - Jupiter-232/EDS + Jupiter-232/Orion + Altair; ~78.1mT thru TLI (CxP Target: 75.1mT, CxP Current: ~61.4mT) - dual launch.

Hope that helps

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/14/2008 10:54 pm
Quote
kraisee - 14/4/2008  6:13 PM

2/ Crew to ISS: 2012 - Jupiter-120/Orion (Can carry additional ~20mT payload with every flight) - single launch.
Ross.
As Administrator of NASA, one would expect that Dr Michael Griffin would be astute enough to recognize the obvious. However, I would like to point out something here that "should" be obvious, but it obviously isn't obvious to Dr Griffin. He has stated, in a speech, that Jupiter is too much for LEO operations. Now check this out:

1. Jupiter can deliver a manned spacecraft to ISS, accompanied by ~20mT of payload.
2. Shuttle can deliver a manned spacecraft to ISS, accompanied by ~20mT of payload.

That makes Orion/Jupiter very nearly a one-for-one functional equivalent of Shuttle.

Somebody please tell me why that makes the Jupiter "too much" for LEO operations.
Unless Dr. Griffin also thinks that Shuttle is "too much" for LEO operations?

 :o
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/15/2008 03:36 am
Deliberately or otherwise, Dr. Griffin is mistakenly assuming that all 2-launch solutions would use the Lunar vehicle unchanged for supporting ISS missions - i.e. a 100mT+ launcher.

This would be the case for a vehicle like Atlas Phase 3B, but is not the case for DIRECT's Jupiter LV's.

Jupiter plans around the 100mT launcher for 2-launch Lunar use.   But we don't conform to Griffin's assumptions from that point on.   We use that same vehicle, but without the upper stage to produce a smaller and less costly launcher capability with sufficient performance to comfortably lift Orion CEV's to ISS.

I would actually agree with Dr. Griffin that a 100mT+ launcher would be too much for ISS servicing.   Which is precisely why we have never proposed such a thing.

Of course, its rather convenient for Dr. Griffin not to acknowledge that a Lunar vehicle could be configured to be smaller.   Proliferating the *idea* - as he did in his STA presentation - that you could never use a 100mT Lunar vehicle in a smaller configuration serves only the 1.5-launch solutions argument - even though it is clearly incorrect to anyone familiar with DIRECT.

Essentially at STA he said a 2-launch solution was cheaper, simpler, quicker and better performing and that the only reason not to go down that path was because it was too big for ISS use.

Our reaction to that has always been "wow - if that's all that's wrong with it I'm sure we could still make do even if there were no other choices - but I'm glad we do have another choice".

We have taken even that underpinning out from under his argument by proposing the Jupiter-120 configuration *of the same vehicle*.

And as Chuck says, Jupiter-120 CLV has enough in its back pocket to also allow us to replicate the current lift capabilities of Shuttle: Crew + ~20mT to ISS.   That capability would offer a lot of options down the 30-40 year long road we are mapping out - not to mention open doors to 50mT unmanned payloads in a 10m diameter fairing - a capability *nobody* in the world currently possesses.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/16/2008 01:38 pm
We are just finalizing the release of an updated "simple" document based upon our old v1.1.2 summary, updated and re-worked to showcase the current baseline for DIRECT v2.0.

It's not going "live" just yet, but here is an early glimpse for everyone here on NSF at the draft copy which looks 'just about there'.

This represents the first clear view for everyone of the baseline we have been refining for the last few months since the AIAA 2007 paper.   As you will see, there are some changes - most critical being the deletion of the 'Lox transfer module' from the AIAA baseline.   Propellant Transfer is now out of the baseline and we still close all of NASA's performance targets correctly.   PD is now a growth option, not a requirement - albeit a growth option which we are still explicitly recommending.



Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/16/2008 02:38 pm
This looks good, but I still want to see the one-pager that goes straight to the point on why we should switch from Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 04/16/2008 03:29 pm
Ross: A recommendation.  You had one picture somewhere where you depicted the 10m core of the Ares V in white, rather than in the ET's orange color.  I thought it helped visually to indicate that there is more "different" here than meets the eye (8.4m to 10m diameter is hard to discern in a document).  

You might think about doing the same in this new document.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 04/16/2008 04:30 pm
Dark Side Lunar based VLBA  Radio Telescope   (DALI)

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080416-tw-telescope-moon.html

Would this be a good candidate for placement by Jupiter based launchers?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 04/16/2008 05:55 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 16/4/2008  3:38 PM

This looks good, but I still want to see the one-pager that goes straight to the point on why we should switch from Ares.
A one-pager would be good, but I also think this 'short' document is still too wordy. Wide, dense paragraphs, with long run-on sentences. It's not an easy read. What's your specific audience for this piece?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 04/16/2008 07:17 pm
Ross & Chuck,

Noticed in a post above that you're proposing a "lunar flyby" using the D4H upper stage.  Does this mean you would scrap the "Apollo 8" mission profile entirely, or just put it off to a later date as a J-2X EDS is available?

I've tried an Apollo 8 style mission using Direct in Orbiter but (based on the Delta IV US specs) don't have enough propellant to get into lunar orbit.  Are you still basing your plan on the current 606 CEV's delta v of ~1800 m/s?

Cheers,

Cale

P.S. Am going to open a "DIRECT in Orbiter" thread as per your suggestion.  Hopefully you'll like the screenshots!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 04/16/2008 07:38 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 16/4/2008  9:38 AM
This looks good, but I still want to see the one-pager that goes straight to the point on why we should switch from Ares.

I read the file. Wow! I like it. I really like it! Good job Ross!

As to one-pager-ness, well, that can be a separate document.
However, this one may benefit from trimming down in places too.

Like here:

> While no specific architecture has yet been selected for a manned Mars mission, most scenarios explored so far require between 300 to 500mT in LEO depending on In   Situ   Resource Utilization ( I S R U ) architecture and propulsion technologies/assumptions.

Well, USRU is really not a topic of discussion in DIRECT paper, so you can safely just end the sentence at "500 mT".



> Main Engines: The 3 familiar Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) are designed to be reused approximately 20 times before requiring replacement. Because these are reusable engines, they are expensive to manufacture. To be utilized on a disposable stage like this they would be too expensive to be realistic. DIRECT proposes to use the considerably less expensive Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68...

Again, use of RS-68 is not a point of contention between NASA and you. You do not need to explain why you don't use SSME. First two sentences can be removed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 04/16/2008 07:46 pm
Page 8:

> As with Ares-I and then with Ares-V also, new plumbing.

A verb is missing. Probably "new plumbing is required" ?


> Even that could be reduced to just 0.01% per day if active cooling.

Same here.


Hmm...

> Both Lockheed-Martin and Boeing have completed studies into low boil-off as low as 0.1% per day with passive systems. Even that could be reduced to just 0.01% per day if active cooling.
DIRECT is not dependent   in any way   on these technologies, but they would greatly enhance the potential for an orbital Propellant Depot system in the future   which can be very valuable indeed. [another paragraph snipped]

Well... but your paper is not about propellant depots! This text also can be removed if you want to trim down the document.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/16/2008 10:56 pm
Can the J-130 (J-232 without EDS) perform any useful missions?
For example to send an Orion to EML1/2  (the service module may need to carry more fuel).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/16/2008 11:37 pm
Ross, please check [email protected]

I did a rather extensive edit that may hopefully assist you in clarifying/shortening the paper
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/16/2008 11:49 pm
The introduction needs to say what DIRECT is.

"DIRECT is a family of space rockets able to lift people and heavy cargoes into orbit around the Earth.  The Jupiter-120 is designed to lift astronauts and their space capsule into orbit - initially for docking with the International Space Station (ISS).  The larger Jupiter-232 launch vehicle can lift over 100 metric tons of cargo into space.  Working together the Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 can send people and a lunar lander to anywhere on the moon.  The combination is also ideal for in space construction of large machines like the Mars Transfer Vehicle."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/17/2008 02:37 am
i AGREE...who is the paper for?  Also--what about talking about employment?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/17/2008 01:27 pm
Thanks for the feedback so far guys.

This paper is essentially a "what has changed?" reference to show how our baseline has matured since the September 2007 AIAA paper.   It serves as a new, more up-to-date reference point and replaces some of the 6-month old data there.

Its secondary role is as a "primer" for anyone new to DIRECT or for anyone who didn't ever want to wade through the full 131 page AIAA paper.   It's not designed to be a 'soundbite' one-page piece, but a reasonably comprehensive reference summary touching on most of the key points.   It therefore wasn't planned to be uber-short - my target was to keep it under 20 pages, so I'm quite comfortable with this length.

I think that yes, the employment information is missing when it does need to be included.   I will add a relevant page or two because that is such a critical concern.   I will probably have to expand the costs section to do so though...

I will also look over all of the edit suggestions and integrate many of them - thank-you.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/17/2008 01:34 pm
Aside: DIRECT Witch Hunt Information request

We have information that there is a new round of witch-hunts to try to close down any sources who have been assisting DIRECT.   This is apparently in response to the fact that Congress is beginning to ask "questions" - as the hearing on the 3rd proved.

If anyone here works within the agency and hears of such a thing occurring, or feels pressured themselves, we are collecting such information.

If you wish to, please contact us by Private Message (PM) here on NSF - that should help protect your identity - even from us!   You should contact either myself (user: kraisee) or Chuck Longton (user: clongton).

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 04/17/2008 10:32 pm
Quote
kraisee - 17/4/2008  8:27 AM

Thanks for the feedback so far guys.

This paper is essentially a "what has changed?" reference to show how our baseline has matured since the September 2007 AIAA paper.   It serves as a new, more up-to-date reference point and replaces some of the 6-month old data there.

Its secondary role is as a "primer" for anyone new to DIRECT or for anyone who didn't ever want to wade through the full 131 page AIAA paper.   It's not designed to be a 'soundbite' one-page piece, but a reasonably comprehensive reference summary touching on most of the key points.   It therefore wasn't planned to be uber-short - my target was to keep it under 20 pages, so I'm quite comfortable with this length.

I think that yes, the employment information is missing when it does need to be included.   I will add a relevant page or two because that is such a critical concern.   I will probably have to expand the costs section to do so though...

I will also look over all of the edit suggestions and integrate many of them - thank-you.

Ross.

Ross, it would be interesting to add in your document the Baseball card of the J-120 + Delta IV US rocket to be used for "Apollo 8" and unmanned exploration missions. This is an interesting SDLV/EELV hybrid rocket with good payload capability for a relatively low cost once you have the J-120.  This rocket would be called "J-221" I guess.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 04/18/2008 12:06 pm
What about using the Jupiter (either version) to launch large Space Station modules?

The J-232 could build the ISS in just a few launches.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/18/2008 12:25 pm

Quote
clongton - 15/4/2008  9:54 AM  Unless Dr. Griffin also thinks that Shuttle is "too much" for LEO operations?   :o

 

Who doesn't? Shuttle is cargo and crew. The new vehicle shouldn't mix the two.
 

It shouldn't matter, though, if you are indeed providing that 20 mT for free (over Ares I - if I understand, you claim the DIRECT to ISS with 20mT payload will cost the same as Ares I, per flight)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/18/2008 12:50 pm

Quote
kraisee - 15/4/2008 2:36 PM And as Chuck says, Jupiter-120 CLV has enough in its back pocket to also allow us to replicate the current lift capabilities of Shuttle: Crew + ~20mT to ISS.

Sounds good but NASA may not want it. Cargo and crew don't mix anymore, and this recommendation was made in the context of the shuttle. You are talking about replicating the shuttle lift capabilities
 

How do you respond to the possibility that your liquid fuelled first stage is not as 'reliable' as the RSRB on Ares I? ...TO will put the crew at risk? etc. - Engineers are working on the problems. No engineering will remove the liquid engines from Direct.

This could be interpreted as marginally addressing the real vehicle requirements (crew no. 1, no crew and cargo), while satisfying those that don't exist (payload).

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/18/2008 02:41 pm
It's a common misunderstanding that crew and cargo cannot be mixed.  There is no law anywhere out there that makes this illegal.  It was a recommendation of the CAIB this be implemented, not a requirement.  Besides, there is no issue with launching cargo in the same launch as long as the there is an escape mechanism from the crew.  This of course, is a function of design and design of the shuttle does not allow for any real practical escape.  

Think of it this way.  How many of you would seriously buy a car where it only had seats and no trunk or any way to carry anything else?  That is essentially what the crew from cargo folks are arguing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/18/2008 02:59 pm
Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  10:41 AM

Think of it this way.  How many of you would seriously buy a car where it only had seats and no trunk or any way to carry anything else?  That is essentially what the crew from cargo folks are arguing.

No, That is incorrect  analogy.  Crew and cargo together would be like a bus that has people and cargo in the same area.

A car with luggage is ok
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/18/2008 03:00 pm
I have spent the last couple of days pouring over the CAIB report, which is a vast document. There is absolutely no statement of intent, or even any recommendation, anywhere within the CAIB report that I could find which actually recommends separating crew from cargo as a design parameter for any follow-on spacecraft design. It's an urban myth. I believe the statement actually comes from a press conference statement by the head of the CAIB sometime after the release of the document. As such, it does not have the same force of recommendation. It is his personal opinion, without the force of the CAIB behind it. NASA is under no obligation to comply what-so-ever.

If anyone can actually find a statement to the contrary, I will gladly retract this, but the document is huge and I’ve been over it 3 times. No joy. Like I said, if anyone can find it, I'd appriciate that. Your turn.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/18/2008 03:19 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  9:59 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  10:41 AM

Think of it this way.  How many of you would seriously buy a car where it only had seats and no trunk or any way to carry anything else?  That is essentially what the crew from cargo folks are arguing.

No, That is incorrect  analogy.  Crew and cargo together would be like a bus that has people and cargo in the same area.

A car with luggage is ok

Huh? it's the same analogy.  Ok, so as it stands right now Orion will have some lockers to carry the crew's spare underwear.  I think you're splitting hairs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 04/18/2008 03:21 pm
The no crew + cargo safety argument has always seemed a little odd to me. No crew without LAS seems more to the point. Shuttle doesn't carry crew and cargo "in the same area." Cargo goes in the payload bay. What's in the crew cabin with the crew is "luggage." The Shuttle could have been designed with an ejectable, thermally protected crew cabin, although at considerable payload cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/18/2008 03:22 pm
No it is not. , a bus with people and cinderblocks and boxes of motor oil  (cargo, not luggage)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 04/18/2008 03:45 pm
No crew + cargo makes sense when regarding a follow on to the shuttle. If you want to launch something on the shuttle, to take advantage of the launch environment (trunion pins, no need for separate RCS etc) then you have to launch people to control the shuttle. You are there by endangering the people even if the mission could be done without them.

If it can be put on an unmanned rocket then do so.

However I think the risk off adding cargo to a J-120 is different, so long as the people are launching anyway, and there is some extra space then cargo is ok. So long as it doesn't add risk to the mission.

Make sense?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/18/2008 04:05 pm
Quote
nacnud - 18/4/2008  10:45 AM

No crew + cargo makes sense when regarding a follow on to the shuttle. If you want to launch something on the shuttle, to take advantage of the launch environment (trunion pins, no need for separate RCS etc) then you have to launch people to control the shuttle. You are there by endangering the people even if the mission could be done without them.

If it can be put on an unmanned rocket then do so.

However I think the risk off adding cargo to a J-120 is different, so long as the people are launching anyway, and there is some extra space then cargo is ok. So long as it doesn't add risk to the mission.

Make sense?

No.  You are contradicting yourself.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 04/18/2008 04:20 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  11:22 AM

No it is not. , a bus with people and cinderblocks and boxes of motor oil  (cargo, not luggage)

I don't actually know what interstate buses haul in their payload bay (the space under the passenger bay) other than passenger luggage, or what the federal regulations are for such cargo. I do know that several years ago, an airliner full of passengers went down in the Everglades because hazardous cargo that was certainly not passenger luggage ignited in the cargo hold. I suspect (though I do not know) that airliners still carry passengers and cargo together. Are trains required to carry either passengers only or cargo only? I have no idea, but when I see them going by, it does look like some trains have a mixture of coaches and boxcars. I suspect the reason buses don't have passangers and cinderblock together in the passenger compartment is economic and logistical. Possibly merely a matter of tradition. Buses are set up the way buses have always been set up (in my lifetime, at least), and I don't recall seeing any with easy-disconnect seating.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/18/2008 04:42 pm
There is need to risk crew to launch a GEO spacecraft or any other type, even with an escape system.  That is the same argument that is now championing UAVs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: texas_space on 04/18/2008 04:51 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  11:42 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  12:07 PM

Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  10:22 AM

No it is not. , a bus with people and cinderblocks and boxes of motor oil  (cargo, not luggage)

Fine.  There is no point arguing with you about something this stupid.  All hale Jim, the man who (thinks) he knows everything!

Have some experience on projects other than shuttle and maybe then you will know something

There is need to risk crew to launch a GEO spacecraft or any other type, even with an escape system.  That is the same argument that is now championing UAVs.

Doesn't this point to the US developing an auto-docking system for station modules like the Russians have used for years on Mir and ISS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 04/18/2008 04:55 pm
We have ordered parts, that were delivered by bus before.  We picked them up at the bus station.  Now, I think the reason, no crew and cargo, is because some cargo to space has fuel on board, like satelites with hypergols, which is dangerous.  Not much protection on the shuttle between the crew and cargo.  With J-120 you do have some distance, protection, and an excape rocket during launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/18/2008 06:00 pm
The point of my analogy is that flying crew and cargo is not and has never been a bad thing.  The criteria for crew and cargo could be launched together would be the following:

1.  Obviously, you will not be launching something that has nothing to do with the reason the crew is going into space
2.  The next government manned launch vehicle is going to be in use for some time.  It makes sense to design it so that some useful cargo (this is not meant to include the basic support equipment - clothes, food, etc - that will be carried on Orion as "cargo") could be brought along with the crew so that in the future as new mission possiblities appear it may not require multiple launches.  
3.  The crew needs a have an abort system that can give them a reasonable chance of survival during all phases of launch, which again depends on design of the vehicle.  

This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another.  It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil.  I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/18/2008 06:07 pm
Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  2:00 PM

This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another.  It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil.  I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.

 See Progress and Soyuz.   Silliness, I don't think so.  Prefect examples of not mixing.  

Orion doesn't need to do cargo when there is CRS (COTS II)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/18/2008 06:09 pm
Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  2:00 PM

The point of my analogy before I was accussed of knowing nothing by a know-it-all who likes to pretend to be some higher power on a message board, is that flying crew and cargo is not and has never been a bad thing.  The criteria for crew and cargo could be launched together would be the following:

1.  Obviously, you will not be launching something that has nothing to do with the reason the crew is going into space
2.  The next government manned launch vehicle is going to be in use for some time.  It makes sense to design it so that some useful cargo (this is not meant to include the basic support equipment - clothes, food, etc - that will be carried on Orion as "cargo") could be brought along with the crew so that in the future as new mission possiblities appear it may not require multiple launches.  
3.  The crew needs a have an abort system that can give them a reasonable chance of survival during all phases of launch, which again depends on design of the vehicle.  

This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another.  It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil.  I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.
Which is one of the many advantages of the Jupiter-120 over the Ares-I and the Jupiter Launch Vehicle Family over the Ares-I/V system. Versatility, flexibility, adaptability, expandability and affordability.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/18/2008 06:09 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  1:07 PM

Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  2:00 PM

This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another.  It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil.  I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.

 See Progress and Soyuz.   Silliness, I don't think so.  Prefect examples of not mixing.  

Orion doesn't need to do cargo when there is CRS (COTS II)


We're not the Russians and we're talking about doing other things than servicing a station.  If you would read before pouncing, you would see I talk about future missions.  I'm talking about giving the system some flexibility to meet future requirements.  None of that has to do with Orion, ISS or COTS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 04/18/2008 06:39 pm
In the past few days I have been watching the HBO miniseries From the Earth to the Moon (might be my 100th time watching some of these episodes). The one lesson that can be learned from watching this series is that the Saturn V didn't just fall from the sky like some gift from God. Changes had to be made along the way. The first Moon landing is more than a decade away...NASA changed their entire method of rendevous only a few years before the first Moon landings.
Apollo succeeded because NASA didn't say, "We're too far along now to make change".

I know NASA has been trying to replicate Saturn I and Saturn V with Ares I and Ares V, but if this really is the goal, in my opinion Jupiter 120 is a closer replacement for the Saturn I. It just seems like the perfect launch vehicle.

Ross and co...keep pushing for this guys, it really seems all the dominoes are starting to be put in place. Now we just need someone to make them fall.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 04/18/2008 06:42 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/4/2008  12:42 PM

There is need to risk crew to launch a GEO spacecraft or any other type, even with an escape system.  That is the same argument that is now championing UAVs.

That seems like an issue of degree, not kind. Even if you buy into the all-things-to-all thinking on the Shuttle, it could have been flown unmanned for missions where crew was unnecessary to the mission. Even before Challenger, I was concerned about the then upcoming Centaur G mission (Galileo, I think), which seemed to be tempting fate. There has to be a reasonable middle ground between a LAS-less crew riding up with a crygenic upper stage in the cabin with them and saying anything much bigger than a boxed lunch has to ride up on its own rocket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/18/2008 06:50 pm
Quote
William Barton - 18/4/2008  12:20 PM
 I suspect (though I do not know) that airliners still carry passengers and cargo together. Are trains required to carry either passengers only or cargo only? I have no idea, but when I see them going by, it does look like some trains have a mixture of coaches and boxcars.

Ever sit at logan watching the line of little white boxes containing live lobsters march up the conveyor into the cargo hold? Yes airlines do mix cargo with cattle, er humans in order to maximize revenue for each flight. It is a risk they are willing to take, recently a cargo jet had to divert to logan because in the cargo hold was 10 tonnes of minched onions bringing the crew to tears. Bad things can happen.

Cargo mixed with passengers only makes sense if they are going to the same place. Airlines don't drop off lobsters in colorado on passenger flights headed to florida. At the same time FedEx does not fly passengers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/18/2008 08:10 pm
This cargo question is really stupid.  While there may be (and probably are) sound reasons not to mix hazardous cargo with a crewed vehicle such as a satellite with hyprgolics, there is no reason why staples (food, water, general supplies) or non-hazardous repair parts, or other items needed to sustain the space station cannot be carried in a seperate payload manual underneath the CEV, that is then pulled from the launch vehicle and attached to the ISS by the CEV for unloading as needed.  It need not even have the ability to have the crew move through the whole vehicle.

By this reasoning, we cannot mix the lunar module (seperate vehicle with hazardous propellents) on a launch vehicle (if we had one) that was capable of lifting the Orion/Artimis at the same time.  Further, when Orion docks with the EDS/Artemis stack, then it is again transporting cargo during the LOI burn.

Therefore, the preferred mission architecture should be Orion is propelled to the moon by its own EDS as is Artemis, and they rendevoz in lunar orbit.  Orion than returns alone.

Buses transport passengers and cargo, as do airplanes.  And for the record, at least in 1991, FEDEX did indeed move passengers.  However, we did not have any cargo in the passenger compartment with us.  It was all in the cargo bay.  We even had seats and stewardesses.

The army has a few rules about mixing people and cargo and cargo and cargo.

wounded are not evacuated with the dead.
Class III (fuel) and Class I (food) are not carried on the same truck.
Class III (fuel) and Class V (ammo) are not carried on the same truck
Dead can be moved on anything going back to the logistic trains, so long as there is no wounded.
Wounded should be moved on ambulances, but can be moved on anything that has room for them, medical condition permitting.

While some rules like this may make sense for the space program, the matra Do not mix crew and cargo should be discarded.  It is not a law, it is a policy and those (and even laws) can be changed.

Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/18/2008 08:17 pm
Quote
mike robel - 18/4/2008  2:10 PM
While some rules like this may make sense for the space program, the matra Do not mix crew and cargo should be discarded.  It is not a law, it is a policy and those (and even laws) can be changed.
Mike

I agree.  It seems like the logical rules should be:

- Don't launch a crew to deliver cargo if the crew is not needed for the task.

- If you do launch crew and cargo together, be able to separate the crew from the cargo in an abort situation.

As a side note, ATV-1 is carrying a wide variety of mixed cargo, including tons of toxic stuff as well as food and drinking water.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 04/18/2008 08:26 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 18/4/2008  2:50 PM

Quote
William Barton - 18/4/2008  12:20 PM
 I suspect (though I do not know) that airliners still carry passengers and cargo together. Are trains required to carry either passengers only or cargo only? I have no idea, but when I see them going by, it does look like some trains have a mixture of coaches and boxcars.

Ever sit at logan watching the line of little white boxes containing live lobsters march up the conveyor into the cargo hold? Yes airlines do mix cargo with cattle, er humans in order to maximize revenue for each flight. It is a risk they are willing to take, recently a cargo jet had to divert to logan because in the cargo hold was 10 tonnes of minched onions bringing the crew to tears. Bad things can happen.

Cargo mixed with passengers only makes sense if they are going to the same place. Airlines don't drop off lobsters in colorado on passenger flights headed to florida. At the same time FedEx does not fly passengers.

I won't be surprised when the day arrives that airline passengers fly at the convenience of the cargo, and if the seats get any smaller I'll be more comfortable riding with the lobsters.  :laugh: I think that's the point most people are trying to make. Often the cargo and crew are headed for the same place. Riding comsats on the Shuttle was politics. Not to mention no LAS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/18/2008 10:05 pm
It is not so much about, not mixing crew and cargo,

as it is about,

not mixing an exploration program with a nascent LEO commercial venue.

The CAIB edict in question must be read like... no cargo bay (full or empty) in the crew escape item, and no cargo bay in the crew entry item. Where "cargo" and the crew item are comparable in mass and volume, not orders of magnitude apart.

NASA's Ares projects are worked as part of an exploration architecture. The ISS, from NASA's vantage point of view, will soon stop being an exploration item. While crew transport to LEO is still rare and demanding, cargo to ISS no longer counts as exploration.

IMHO

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 04/19/2008 12:56 am

Quote
MB123 - 18/4/2008  8:50 AM

How do you respond to the possibility that your liquid fuelled first stage is not as 'reliable' as the RSRB on Ares I? ...TO will put the crew at risk? etc. - Engineers are working on the problems. No engineering will remove the liquid engines from Direct.

Hmmm... would this seem to be a reasonable response:
 

Ares I CLV: 1 new, never before flown 5-seg RSRB + 1 new, never before flown, air-lit J-2X. If the liquid engine doesn't start, LOM occurs and crew abort required.

Direct J-120 CLV: 2 existing, proven 4-seg RSRB + 2 ground-lit, existing, proven RS-68. If the liquid engines don't start on the pad, countdown is halted and we try again a few days later after the problem is fixed.

Yep, one of these sounds risky to me and one doesn't. No amount of engineering removes the liquid engines from either vehicle.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 04/19/2008 01:05 am
Quote
jml - 18/4/2008  8:56 PM

Quote
MB123 - 18/4/2008  8:50 AM

How do you respond to the possibility that your liquid fuelled first stage is not as 'reliable' as the RSRB on Ares I? ...TO will put the crew at risk? etc. - Engineers are working on the problems. No engineering will remove the liquid engines from Direct.

Hmmm... would this seem to be a reasonable response:
 

Ares I CLV: 1 new, never before flown 5-seg RSRB + 1 new, never before flown, air-lit J-2X. If the liquid engine doesn't start, LOM occurs and crew abort required.

Direct J-120 CLV: 2 existing, proven 4-seg RSRB + 2 ground-lit, existing, proven RS-68. If the liquid engines don't start on the pad, countdown is halted and we try again a few days later after the problem is fixed.

Yep, one of these sounds risky to me and one doesn't. No amount of engineering removes the liquid engines from either vehicle.


Not to mention Ares I: LOM occurs if it shakes itself into a billion pieces upon ascent.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/19/2008 01:23 am

Yes yes the finer points of crew and cargo are well discussed, but - I am talking about shuttle-class cargo.

If the direct alternative to Ares I has the same lift capacity as the shuttle - as Ross is marketing it, I doubt it would be sensibly used for food, consumables, etc. You would have to not use it at all.

You would have to launch an MPLM every time.

Best left to unmanned/commercial launchers

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/19/2008 03:35 am
My interpretation of CAIB on this subject is twofold:-

1) That the next crew spacecraft must not be compromised in any way in order to accommodate a payload.   Orion is a pretty good interpretation of this aim, but Orion is completely unaffected if the payload flies as a separate module below it.

2) That a payload that has nothing to do with a crew should not be flown with a crew.   There's a big difference between a communications satellite and an MPLM or LSAM.   One has nothing to do with a crew, the other has considerable crew relationship.


There is no common sense at all in not utilizing lift 'capability' just as long as it is easily available and doesn't compromise crew safety.

It just isn't an option with Ares-I.   It would become an option with Jupiter.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 04/19/2008 03:39 am
Ross, in the Baseball cards of your document version 2.0.1 (17 April 2008), you have significantly increased the burnout mass of the Jupiter core stage (by about 6 mT) compared to the baseball cards you promulgated on 16 March 2008.  I saw also that you called this heavier core stage Block 1.  Are the 16 March 2008 core stage data what you expect to achieve with the Block 2 optimization?

By the way, the J-2X Engine thrust level in lbs (273,500 lbs) showed in the J-232 baseball card does not match the metric values displayed (116,120 kgf/1,139,134 N)

One more issue with your latest document: The figures 15 and 16 show an ISP of 448 for the LSAM. The LSAM is expected to be equiped with RL-10B engines, not the J-2X. So it would be better to change the LSAM ISP to 462 to match the RL-10B value.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: taka2k7 on 04/19/2008 03:41 am
Quote
kraisee - 17/4/2008  7:34 AM

Aside: DIRECT Witch Hunt Information request

We have information that there is a new round of witch-hunts to try to close down any sources who have been assisting DIRECT.   This is apparently in response to the fact that Congress is beginning to ask "questions" - as the hearing on the 3rd proved.

If anyone here works within the agency and hears of such a thing occurring, or feels pressured themselves, we are collecting such information.

If you wish to, please contact us by Private Message (PM) here on NSF - that should help protect your identity - even from us!   You should contact either myself (user: kraisee) or Chuck Longton (user: clongton).

Thanks,

Ross.

Interesting.  I had actually written to my local Representative to ask him to ask NASA to give DIRECT a good look at.  I don't work for NASA however.  I hope my letter didn't contribute to the witch hunt.   :o

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: taka2k7 on 04/19/2008 03:49 am
One disadvantage of a mixed crew / cargo launch is delays due to issues with the cargo.  I expect that resupply missions wouldn't have this problem, but any time your launching anything sufficiently complex, you may well run into launch delays.

There are probably work arounds to maintain the economics and avoid a crew only Juputer 120 launch though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/19/2008 04:39 am
Quote
PaulL - 18/4/2008  11:39 PM

Ross, in the Baseball cards of your document version 2.0.1 (17 April 2008), you have significantly increased the burnout mass of the Jupiter core stage (by about 6 mT) compared to the baseball cards you promulgated on 16 March 2008.  I saw also that you called this heavier core stage Block 1.  Are the 16 March 2008 core stage data what you expect to achieve with the Block 2 optimization?

Yes.   Actually we think we can probably beat even those March 16 numbers by a good few more mT.   But we're being uber-uber-uber conservative given NASA's recent tack of suggesting our performance defies the laws of physics :)


Quote
By the way, the J-2X Engine thrust level in lbs (273,500 lbs) showed in the J-232 baseball card does not match the metric values displayed (116,120 kgf/1,139,134 N)

Oops.   I copied the wrong number from my spreadsheet!   The correct values are 124,057.51kg, 273,500.00, lb. 1,217,004.21N

Thanks for spotting that before this is actually published.   Its a problem I've had before with these, because the baseball card has to be written completely manually every time in CorelDRAW.   With all the numbers I have here, it can be very easy to copy the wrong cells from my tables - and that was a perfect example!

I'm trying to double and triple check the numbers myself, but this is why I released a draft first :)


Quote
One more issue with your latest document: The figures 15 and 16 show an ISP of 448 for the LSAM. The LSAM is expected to be equiped with RL-10B engines, not the J-2X. So it would be better to change the LSAM ISP to 462 to match the RL-10B value.

PaulL

Latest CxP baseline seems to be more conservative.   There is a preliminary LSAM document on L2 showing 448s for the p771-B lander concept.

Whenever we see various numbers in published documents, we usually always assume we should always use the lowest performance versions.   That way, we're baselining to the minimum capability and any improvements which we get are a very welcome addition.

If we instead baseline to a higher value nearer to the top of a given 'range' of values and the actual achievable value ends up going 'low', then we will be forced to chase extra performance elsewhere.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 04/19/2008 05:07 am
Nice, easy to read and understand, well illustrated summary. Any chance of making the fonts bigger in Figures 15 and 16 as they are so small now that they are an exercise in pain to try and read ? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/19/2008 05:24 am
The Core Stage essentially IS the second stage.   It is just made big enough that it can be lit on the ground to ensure engine start is nominal before committing to a launch.   Shuttle has experienced 6 such off-nominal engine starts in its history and aborted the launch safely in each case because it was still bolted to the ground.   This gave the program the chance to fix each of those problems before successfully launching the same spacecraft and payload a few days later.   Aborting in-flight totally messes that up.


It has been a long time since a major engine had a catastrophic failure enough to take out the whole stage.   The major elements such as Turbo-pumps and Combustion Chambers are pretty well understood pieces of hardware these days, and are designed to shut down safely in all but the most unusual situations.   The vast majority of liquid engine failures represent a fairly safe shutdown.   In the case of a crit. failure though, there's about 50ft between the Crew Module and the Stage itself.   That's a lot more than Ares-I is going to offer.   That buys you extra time to to safely abort ahead of any harmful explosive wave-front energies.   Also the J-2X engine on Ares-I is a lot closer to the Orion than the RS-68's will be on Jupiter.


I strongly believe that as part of any abort procedure due to critical structural failure on either Ares-I or on Jupiter in the first two minutes of flight, that the SRB's be automatically terminated just after the Orion's LAS fires.   I would rather throw away some SRB hardware than have the chance of them chasing after the crew as the LV breaks up.   I think its essential to make sure the boosters don't go flying on their own like they did after Challenger.   This is an issue for all large-scale SRB-based vehicles carrying crews and I think the same solution needs to be applied to all.


Jupiter's Core is designed to keep structural integrity if all main engines do shut down during the SRB phase.   If the MPS shutdown is benign, the mass of the big Core Stage would 'hold the SRB's back' while the crew aborts away.   Depending upon a pre-determined point in the flight, if the SRB's still present any danger, they should automatically be terminated before they pose any risk to crews.   The key is that if there is a clear and present danger to the crew, our computers should do it and we should not have to wait for range safety to do it.


Having a second engine on the Jupiter-120 though, gives you a lot more ATO capability than a single engine design would ever have.   Lose one engine, or even just find that one engine produces lower thrust than expected and in *most* situations Jupiter can carry on and complete the mission as an 'engine-out ATO'.   Lose the single Ares-I engine or lose some thrust and its always going to be an abort - going to just -11x100nm it just doesn't have any margin to do otherwise.   Jupiter can continue in many scenarios where missions would become failures on Ares-I.   There are some situations where Jupiter-120 has Abort to Orbit capability as early as T+45 seconds into the flight.


And as a bit of an aside, don't forget that RS-68 and J-2XD engines are both less "stressed" engines than the full J-2X. will be.   They will both operate at lower internal pressures than J-2X must.   That's always going to help reliability.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/19/2008 03:11 pm
Quote
jml - 19/4/2008  11:56 AM  

Quote
MB123 - 18/4/2008  8:50 AM

How do you respond to the possibility that your liquid fuelled first stage is not as 'reliable' as the RSRB on Ares I? ...TO will put the crew at risk? etc. - Engineers are working on the problems. No engineering will remove the liquid engines from Direct.

Hmmm... would this seem to be a reasonable response:
 

Ares I CLV: 1 new, never before flown 5-seg RSRB + 1 new, never before flown, air-lit J-2X. If the liquid engine doesn't start, LOM occurs and crew abort required.

Direct J-120 CLV: 2 existing, proven 4-seg RSRB + 2 ground-lit, existing, proven RS-68. If the liquid engines don't start on the pad, countdown is halted and we try again a few days later after the problem is fixed.

Yep, one of these sounds risky to me and one doesn't. No amount of engineering removes the liquid engines from either vehicle.

The J2-S engine has been extensively developed since Apollo. Yeah, sure, the J2-X has not flown, but neither has a man-rated RS-68. Which of the two will require more development?

The question I was referring to was in-flight loss of an engine during the first stage - this is an abort for J-120, it is far less likely to occur on Ares I.

However, I will have to conceed, per Ross' earlier post, that the J-120 appears to have a better chance to ATO in a single engine-out case during the second stage. Ares I will be relying on the reliability of the J2-X which, I assume, will be a relatively simple engine.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/19/2008 04:36 pm
I have to agree with Ross--remember SpaceX last launch?  Problems with fuel about main engine starting--SpaceX just stopped the launch--cannot do that with Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/19/2008 05:15 pm
The next generation space shuttle, like its predecessor, will serve many masters, as a cargo ship, a scientific laboratory, a docking platform, and a crew habitat. But according to Mark Fisher, Marshall Space Flight Center's manager of Exploration Systems, the next shuttle will be designed to "separate cargo from crew." It looks like NASA made/thought about the requirement in the design phase.

That change is one lesson learned from flying the current shuttle for the last quarter century: human spaceflight has made cargo more expensive, and cargo can "potentially" make human spaceflight less safe.--2004.

Gehman replied emphatically, "Separate the cargo from the people as soon as possible." -congressional hearing Sept. 04 2003 AFTER CAIB released report.

CAIBs' Conclusions

The following synopsis focuses on what appear to be the major questions being asked about the CAIB's findings about the tragedy and recommendations on the future of the shuttle program. All quotations are from the CAIB report unless otherwise noted.

What Caused the Columbia Accident? The Board "recognized early on that the accident was probably not an anomalous, random event, but rather likely rooted to some degree in NASA's history and the human space flight program's culture." (p. 9) Therefore, it also looked at "political and budgetary considerations, compromises, and changing priorities over the life" of the shuttle program, and "places as much weight on these causal factors as on the ... physical cause...." (p. 9)

The physical cause was damage to Columbia's left wing by a 1.7 pound piece of insulating foam that detached from the left "bipod ramp" that connects the External Tank1 to the orbiter, and struck the orbiter's left wing 81.9 seconds after launch. The foam strike created a hole in a Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) panel on the leading edge of the wing, allowing superheated air (perhaps exceeding 5,000oF) to enter the wing during reentry. The extreme heat caused the wing to fail structurally, creating aerodynamic forces that led to the disintegration of the orbiter. (Described in detail in Chapters 2 and 3.)


Regarding organizational causes, the Board concluded the accident was -

... rooted in the Space Shuttle Program's history and culture, including the original compromises that were required to gain approval for the Shuttle, subsequent years of resource constraints, fluctuating priorities, schedule pressures, mischaracterization of the Shuttle as operational rather than developmental, and lack of an agreed national vision for human space flight. Cultural traits and organizational practices detrimental to safety were allowed to develop, including: reliance on past success as a substitute for sound engineering practices..., organizational barriers that prevented effective communication of critical safety information and stifled professional differences of opinion; lack of integrated management across program elements; and the evolution of an informal chain of command and decision-making processes that operated outside the organization's rules. (p. 9)


The Board found that there is a "broken safety culture" at NASA (pp. 184-189). Schedule pressure (pp. 131-139) related to construction of the International Space Station, budget constraints (pp. 102-105), and workforce reductions (pp. 106-110) also were factors. The Board concluded that the shuttle program "has operated in a challenging and often turbulent environment...." (p. 118) "It is to the credit of Space Shuttle managers and the Shuttle workforce that the vehicle was able to achieve its program objectives for as long as it did." (p. 119)

Should the Shuttle Continue to Fly? The Board concluded that "the present Shuttle is not inherently unsafe" but the "observations and recommendations in this report are needed to make the vehicle safe enough to operate in the coming years." (p. 208) CAIB "supports return to flight for the Space Shuttle at the earliest date consistent with an overriding consideration: safety." (p. 208) NASA has a target of March/April 2004 for return to flight, and Adm. Gehman stated in an interview on PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on August 26 that he saw no reason why NASA could not meet that schedule.

The CAIB report contains 29 recommendations (listed below)-23 technical and six organizational-of which 15 must be implemented before the shuttle returns to flight status. The others are "continuing to fly" recommendations assuming the shuttle will be used for years to come. The Board recommended that, if the shuttle is to be used beyond 2010, that it be recertified (p. 209). But the Board said it reached an "inescapable conclusion"-


Because of the risks inherent in the original design of the Space Shuttle, because the design was based in many aspects on now-obsolete technologies, and because the Shuttle is now an aging system but still developmental in character, it is in the nation's interest to replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and from Earth orbit. (p. 210-211. Emphasis in original.)

Why Did NASA Decide Not to Obtain Imagery from DOD Satellites to Assess the Damage? A central question during the investigation was why NASA did not ask the Department of Defense (DOD) to image the shuttle with its high resolution ground- or space-based systems to help assess whether the orbiter had been damaged by the foam. The Board found (pp. 140-172) that three requests for imagery were made by NASA engineers but through incorrect channels, plus there were several "missed opportunities"when managers could have pursued the issue. One request did reach the appropriate DOD personnel, but NASA canceled the request 90 minutes later. The Board concluded that the likely sequence of events was that the chair of STS-107's Mission Management Team (MMT), after informally learning that there had been a "request" for imagery, called three other MMT members and determined that none knew of a "requirement" for imagery. CAIB cited a flawed analysis of the extent to which the orbiter might have been damaged by the foam that was too readily accepted by program managers, a low level of concern by program managers, a lack of clear communication, a lack of effective leadership, and a failure of the role of safety personnel as reasons why the imagery was not obtained. Whether such images would, in fact, have shown the damage remains unclear, but the Board recommended that such images now be taken on all shuttle missions.

Could the Crew Have Been Saved? The Board concluded that the crew died from "blunt trauma and hypoxia" (lack of oxygen) after the crew cabin separated from the rest of the disintegrating shuttle and, itself, disintegrated; there was no explosion. (p. 77) The Board asked NASA to evaluate two options for returning the crew safely if the degree of damage had been understood early in the mission: repairing the damage on-orbit, or rescuing the crew with another shuttle mission. The repair option "while logistically viable....relied on so many uncertainties that NASA rated this option 'high risk.'" (p. 173) The rescue option "was considered challenging but feasible." (p. 174)

What Are the "Echoes" of Challenger? Former shuttle astronaut Sally Ride served on the Rogers Commission that investigated the January 1986 Challenger accident, which claimed the lives of seven astronauts, and on CAIB. During the Columbia investigation, she said she heard "echoes" of Challenger as it became clear that the accident resulted from NASA failing to recognize that a technical failure (bipod ramp foam shedding) that had occurred on previous shuttle flights could have safety-of-flight implications even if the earlier missions were completed successfully. In the case of Challenger, it was erosion of seals (O-rings) between segments of the Solid Rocket Booster, which had been noted on previous missions. Some engineers warned NASA not to launch Challenger that day because unusually cold weather could have weakened the resiliency of the O-rings. They were overruled. CAIB concluded that "both accidents were 'failures of foresight'" and the parallels between them demonstrate that: "the causes of the institutional failure responsible for Challenger have not been fixed"; "if these persistent, systemic flaws are not resolved, the scene is set for another accident"; and that while individuals must be accountable for their actions, "NASA's problems cannot be solved simply by retirements, resignations, or transferring personnel." (p. 195)

CAIB's Recommendations and Observations

CAIB's 29 recommendations are compiled in Chapter 11 of its report. Adm. Gehman stated at the Board's August 26 press conference that there is no hierarchy in the recommendations-all have equal weight. The Board also made 27 "observations" in Chapter 10. Following are abbreviated versions of the recommendations-separated into those that must be implemented prior to Return to Flight, and those that are "continuing to fly" recommendations-and observations. Some have been combined for brevity.

Return to Flight (RTF) Recommendations. CAIB recommends that NASA:


initiate an aggressive program to eliminate all External Tank foam shedding;
initiate a program to increase the orbiter's ability to sustain minor debris damage;
develop and implement a comprehensive inspection plan to assess the structural integrity of the RCC panels, supporting structure, and attaching hardware;
develop a practical capability to inspect and effect emergency repairs to the orbiter's thermal protection system (TPS) both when near the International Space Station and when operating away from it, and accomplish an on-orbit TPS inspection;
upgrade the ability to image the shuttle during its ascent to orbit;
obtain and downlink high resolution images of the External Tank after it separates from the orbiter, and of certain orbiter thermal protection systems;
ensure that on-orbit imaging of each shuttle flight by Department of Defense satellites is a standard requirement;
test and qualify "bolt catchers" used on the shuttle;
require that at least two employees attend final closeouts and intertank area handspraying procedures when applying foam to the External Tank;
require NASA and its contractors to use the industry-standard definition of "foreign object debris";
adopt and maintain a shuttle flight schedule that is consistent with available resources;
implement an expanded training program for the Mission Management Team;
prepare a detailed plan for creating an independent Technical Engineering Authority, independent safety program, and reorganized space shuttle integration office; and
develop an interim program of closeout photographs for all critical sub-systems that differ from engineering drawings.

Continuing to Fly Recommendations. The Board recommends that NASA:


increase the orbiter's ability to reenter the atmosphere with minor leading edge damage to the extent possible;
develop a better database to understand the characteristics of Reinforced Carbon- Carbon (RCC) by destructive testing and evaluation;
improve the maintenance of launch pad structures to minimize leaching of zinc primer onto RCC;
obtain sufficient RCC panel spares so maintenance decisions are not subject to external pressures relating to schedules, costs, or other considerations;
develop, validate, and maintain physics-based computer models to evaluate Thermal Protection System damage from debris impacts;
maintain and update the Modular Auxiliary Data System (MADS) on each orbiter to include current sensor and data acquisition technologies, and redesign the MADS so they can be reconfigured during flight;
develop a state-of-the-art means to inspect orbiter wiring;
operate the shuttle with the same degree of safety for micrometeoroid and orbital debris as is used in the space station program, and change guidelines to requirements;
establish an independent Technical Engineering Authority that is responsible for technical requirements and all waivers to them, which should be funded directly from NASA Headquarters and have no connection to or responsibility for schedule or program cost;
give direct line authority over the entire shuttle safety organization to the Headquarters Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, which should be independently resourced;
reorganize the Space Shuttle Integration Office to make it capable of integrating all elements of the Space Shuttle Program, including the Orbiter;
develop and conduct a vehicle recertification prior to operating the shuttle beyond 2010 and include recertification requirements in the Shuttle Life Extension Program; and
provide adequate resources for a long-term program to upgrade shuttle engineering drawings.

Observations. Chapter 10 lists 27 observations-"significant issues that are potentially serious matters that should be addressed ... because they fall into the category of 'weak signals' that could be indications of future problems." Therefore, NASA should:


develop and implement a public risk acceptability policy for launch and reentry of space vehicles and unmanned aircraft;
develop and implement a plan to mitigate the risk that shuttle flights pose to the general public;
study the Columbia debris to facilitate realistic estimates of the risk to the public during orbiter reentry;
incorporate knowledge gained from Columbia in requirements for future crewed vehicles in assessing the feasibility of vehicles that could ensure crew survival even if the vehicle is destroyed;
perform an independent review of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Quality Planning Requirements Document to address the quality assurance program and its administration, consolidate KSC's Quality Assurance programs under one Mission Assurance Office that reports to the Center Director, require quality assurance managers to work with NASA and perhaps DOD to develop training programs, and examine which areas of ISO 9000/9001 truly apply to a 20-year old research and development system like the space shuttle;
use statistical sampling for Quality and Engineering review of work documents for the next shuttle flight (STS-114);
implement United Space Alliance's (USA's) suggestions for process improvement;
create an oversight process to statistically sample the work performed by USA technicians to ensure process control, compliance, and consistency;
make every effort to achieve greater stability, consistency, and predictability in Orbiter Major Modification planning, scheduling, and work standards;
better understand workforce and infrastructure requirements, match them against capabilities, and take actions to avoid exceeding thresholds;
continue to work with the Air Force on aging systems, service life extension, planning and scheduling, workforce management, training, and quality assurance;
determine how the shuttle program office will meet the challenges of inspecting and maintaining an aging shuttle fleet;
include non-destructive analysis of the potential impacts on structural integrity when evaluating corrosion damage, make long-term corrosion detection a funding priority, develop non-destructive inspections to find hidden corrosion, and establish orbiterspecific corrosion rates for orbiter-specific environments;
do not use Teflon and Molybdenum Disulfide in the carrier panel bolt assembly;
mitigate galvanic coupling between aluminum and steel alloys;
review the use of Room Temperature Vulcanizing 560 and Koropon;
assure the continued presence of compressive stresses in A-286 bolts in their acceptance and qualification procedures;
consider a redesign of the "hold-down" bolt system;
reinstate a safety factor of 1.4 for the solid rocket booster attachment rings;
assess whether upgrading to digital test equipment will provide the reliability and accuracy needed to maintain the shuttle through 2020; and
implement an agency-wide strategy for leadership and management training that provides a more consistent and integrated approach to career development.

General Deal's Supplemental Views

Air Force Brig. Gen. Duane Deal, a CAIB member, wrote a "supplement" that is scheduled to be published in Volume II as Appendix D. Some of the views in the supplement were reported by the media on August 27. CAIB supplied a copy of the document to CRS, emphasizing that it represents supplemental, not dissenting, views.

Gen. Deal expressed concern that NASA may not fully implement the CAIB's recommendations, and particularly its observations. "History shows that NASA often ignores strong recommendations; without a culture change, it is overly optimistic to believe NASA will tackle something relegated to an 'observation' when it has a record of ignoring recommendations." He said the supplement is written from the perspective of someone "who fears the [CAIB] report has bypassed some items that could prevent 'the next accident' from occurring-the 'next' O-ring or the 'next' bipod ramp." He believes the observations should have been characterized as "'strong signals' that are indications of present and future problems" rather than "weak signals" that could indicate future problems. Among the areas he listed as needing further attention are: Quality Assurance (unresponsive management, staffing levels, grade levels, inspector qualifications, employee training, providing necessary tools, government inspections, and quality program surveillance); Orbiter Corrosion; Solid Rocket Booster External Tank Attach Ring; Crew Survivability; Shiftwork and Overtime; security of Redesigned Solid Rocket Motors when they are shipped from the manufacturer; and security at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility where the External Tanks are assembled.






Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/19/2008 05:29 pm
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 19/4/2008  1:15 PM

That change is one lesson learned from flying the current shuttle for the last quarter century: human spaceflight has made cargo more expensive


That is the biggest reason
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/19/2008 05:40 pm
Jim--

1.  The report DID not say to seperate cargo and crew--That was one persons openion.
2.   Cargo with crew "can"  make human spaceflight less safe.  This does not mean that it allways does.  Remember he is talking about the Space Shuttle.  Separate cargo and crew does not necessary imply that you have two vicheals one for cargo and one for people as NASA is planning.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 04/19/2008 06:54 pm
Quote
kraisee - 18/4/2008  11:39 PM

Quote
By the way, the J-2X Engine thrust level in lbs (273,500 lbs) showed in the J-232 baseball card does not match the metric values displayed (116,120 kgf/1,139,134 N)

Oops.   I copied the wrong number from my spreadsheet!   The correct values are 124,057.51kg, 273,500.00, lb. 1,217,004.21N

Thanks for spotting that before this is actually published.   Its a problem I've had before with these, because the baseball card has to be written completely manually every time in CorelDRAW.   With all the numbers I have here, it can be very easy to copy the wrong cells from my tables - and that was a perfect example!

I'm trying to double and triple check the numbers myself, but this is why I released a draft first :)


Ross.

Hese's a few more errors in the basesball cards:

-The RS-68 sea level thrust numbers are different for the J-120 (663,000 lbs) and J-232 (656,000 lbs) data.

-For the J-232 data, the RS-68 Vac Thrust value in N should be 3,340,614 N to match the J-120 data.

-The J-120 LEO Cargo orbit perigee numbers (68 nm, 36.72 km) do not match.

PaulL

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 04/19/2008 07:11 pm
I was able to relocate the image I was referring to that depicted the Ares-I and V liquid stages without the usual orange insulation color.  It was from the Space Show PPT slides (attached).

This image helps to make a clear illustration that, despite similar appearances, the Ares-I and Ares-V liquid stages are quite different from the STS ET.  It really helps drive home (for me) that there are more dissimilarities than meets the eye here.

Maybe pretty minor, but for the non-technical audience controlling the purse-strings, every little bit might help.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/20/2008 03:19 am

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 20/4/2008  4:40 AM  Cargo with crew "can"  make human spaceflight less safe.  This does not mean that it allways does.  

But it does mean that it can. So why do it? And to the same quantitative extent as the Shuttle (mT), not just astronaut's underpants -When you've been directed to hold crew safety as the no. 1 priority.

I think it unlikely, in a cursory sense, that the 25mT over Ares I is for free in all relevant respects (safety, $$$, etc.). Even if it I am wrong today, the relevant climate may change (i.e. Space Shuttle), and it may cost NASA later.

It is clear to me that the Direct team are arguing NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB.

IMO, arguing (on the engineering front) that the J-120 is more suitable than Ares I to satisfy NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB, will be very difficult.
 

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/20/2008 03:34 am

Quote
BogoMIPS - 20/4/2008  6:11 AM  I was able to relocate the image I was referring to that depicted the Ares-I and V liquid stages without the usual orange insulation color.  It was from the Space Show PPT slides (attached).  This image helps to make a clear illustration that, despite similar appearances, the Ares-I and Ares-V liquid stages are quite different from the STS ET.  It really helps drive home (for me) that there are more dissimilarities than meets the eye here.  Maybe pretty minor, but for the non-technical audience controlling the purse-strings, every little bit might help.

Why have you shown the ET-derived component painted white on Ares? 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 04/20/2008 06:54 am
Quote
MB123 - 20/4/2008  1:19 PM

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 20/4/2008  4:40 AM  Cargo with crew "can"  make human spaceflight less safe.  This does not mean that it allways does.  

But it does mean that it can. So why do it? And to the same quantitative extent as the Shuttle (mT), not just astronaut's underpants -When you've been directed to hold crew safety as the no. 1 priority.

I think it unlikely, in a cursory sense, that the 25mT over Ares I is for free in all relevant respects (safety, $$$, etc.). Even if it I am wrong today, the relevant climate may change (i.e. Space Shuttle), and it may cost NASA later.

It is clear to me that the Direct team are arguing NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB.

IMO, arguing (on the engineering front) that the J-120 is more suitable than Ares I to satisfy NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB, will be very difficult.
 


I think it is fair to say that Direct meets all of the VSE/CAIB recommendations. Direct does seperate crew and cargo, provides crew escape options and provides addtional abort options while still on the pad (since all engines are lit on the pad not some mid-flight). The crew/cargo thing is not an issue. The issue is that NASA is not planning for a flat budget.
If NASA doesn't switch soon it will lose it's chance to go anywhere. J-120 has most of the hardware for the lunar booster. Ares-1 doesn't.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/20/2008 01:13 pm
Quote
MB123 - 19/4/2008  11:34 PM

Why have you shown the ET-derived component painted white on Ares?
Because NASA consistently shows them in the same orange color as the STS systems, leaving the unsuspecting observer believing the blatantly false impression that they are the same as the STS items. If it "looks" the same, it must "be" the same. Even though they "say" it's derived, the simple fact of the matter is that it is NOT the same at all. It is a totally and completely NEW design that only "resembles" STS hardware. Everything about what NASA is doing is completely new. What NASA is doing is playing a smoke and mirrors game, designed, in my opinion, to dupe the Congress into thinking that they are doing what the Congress instructed them to do while they are, in fact, doing something entirely different with the money Congress allocated. There is literally nothing left from the original STS hardware that is part of the completely new design - nothing except the color. But they are extremely keen to leave the impression that it's the same, and that is a falsehood. It is not the same, not by a long shot and not by many billions of dollars.

Congress instructed NASA to build a heavy lift launch vehicle and a crew launch vehicle that were directly derived from existing and flying STS hardware.  If NASA had done that, their design would look exactly like the ones on the right - the Jupiter. But instead they are building what you see on the left - something completely new that only looks like STS hardware. The final "trick" (because that's what it is imho) to sealing the falsehood is to keep the same orange color as STS hardware. Well we won't allow it. It is not the same as STS so we refuse to let it look like the STS. We call it for what it is - a completely new, clean sheet design. Congress did not want NASA to do that and the Administrator knows that, so to cover the trail, they make it "look" like STS. So we are calling it what it is - a smoke and mirror - end run around the Congress to get the Congress to pay for what the Administrator wanted to build instead of what the Congress told him to build. If you don't believe me, go take a look at what the Administrator designed as the Mars launch system when he was part of the Planetary Society - long before he became Administrator. Interestingly, it "looks" exactly like the Ares launch system. IMHO, he came into this job with the new design already fixed, long before the ESAS whitewash job was ever commissioned.

Disclaimer: All this is in my humble opinion of course. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Past statements of intent of people before coming into power may or may not be indicative of current efforts after coming into power, regardless of how closely they resemble each other.

FWIW
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 04/20/2008 02:04 pm
Quote
MB123 - 19/4/2008  10:34 PM
Why have you shown the ET-derived component painted white on Ares?

Exactly. :)  This should be the reaction of anyone who looks at the picture.  It forces the question!!!

A stage that's wider, longer, and different SRB attach points than an ET is not "ET-derived" (IMO).
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 04/20/2008 03:53 pm
Quote
clongton - 20/4/2008  8:13 AM

Because NASA consistently shows them in the same orange color as the STS systems, leaving the unsuspecting observer believing the blatantly false impression that they are the same as the STS items.

Using your own mind-screwing to fight NASA`s mind-screwing is lame. It puts you on the same level with them, and you are supposed to be better, aren`t you?

What you should do is CLEARY emphasize the fact that your proposal is a direct derivation, while NASA`s is not. Write it in large letters on every poster of yours.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/20/2008 05:02 pm
Quote
Eerie - 20/4/2008  4:53 PM

What you should do is CLEARY emphasize the fact that your proposal is a direct derivation, while NASA`s is not. Write it in large letters on every poster of yours.

Be careful when using knocking copy, it can backfire very badly.

 
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 04/20/2008 05:41 pm
Quote
Eerie - 20/4/2008  10:53 AM
Using your own mind-screwing to fight NASA`s mind-screwing is lame. It puts you on the same level with them, and you are supposed to be better, aren`t you?

We're talking about convincing politicians here.  What you call "mind-screwing" I call "lobbying".

Like it or not, it's a part of the system.

As such, I see nothing wrong with portraying your concept more positively (in this case, more STS-derived) than the alternative.

I would agree that "going negative" in the underdog role, much like a presidential campaign, should be avoided due to its capacity to backfire.  

But highlighting a positives of your concept compared to the alternative has to be fair game, and that means showing your concept in every possible better light.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/20/2008 06:27 pm
Quote
MB123 - 19/4/2008  11:19 PM

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 20/4/2008  4:40 AM  Cargo with crew "can"  make human spaceflight less safe.  This does not mean that it allways does.  

But it does mean that it can. So why do it? And to the same quantitative extent as the Shuttle (mT), not just astronaut's underpants -When you've been directed to hold crew safety as the no. 1 priority.

I think it unlikely, in a cursory sense, that the 25mT over Ares I is for free in all relevant respects (safety, $$$, etc.). Even if it I am wrong today, the relevant climate may change (i.e. Space Shuttle), and it may cost NASA later.

It is clear to me that the Direct team are arguing NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB.

IMO, arguing (on the engineering front) that the J-120 is more suitable than Ares I to satisfy NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB, will be very difficult.
 


The whole issue is moot anyway.   Ares-I's November IS-TIM risk analysis is lower than Jupiter-120's:-

Ares-I LOC: 1 in 1256
Jupiter-120 LOC: 1 in 1413

NOTE: Both numbers derived using NASA's own CxP risk assessment methodology - assessment performed by staff at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL


Irrelevant of whether you fly it with an extra cargo module or not, if crew safety is truly the overriding goal, then Ares-I is no longer the safest choice according to NASA's own calculations.

The whole issue that Jupiter-120 can allow cargo to go with the crew if required, is relegated to being just a useful extra bonus feature available with Jupiter-120, but unavailable with Ares-1.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/20/2008 06:47 pm
Quote
BogoMIPS - 20/4/2008  10:04 AM

Quote
MB123 - 19/4/2008  10:34 PM
Why have you shown the ET-derived component painted white on Ares?

Exactly. :)  This should be the reaction of anyone who looks at the picture.  It forces the question!!!

Bingo!

Asking more questions about NASA's current path is what this is all about.   Ask enough, and anyone will come to the same conclusions many folk here have already.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/20/2008 07:22 pm
Nathan ,
Quote
- 20/4/2008  9:54 AM
I think it is fair to say that Direct meets all of the VSE/CAIB recommendations.
Agreed.

Quote
Direct ...provides addtional abort options while still on the pad (since all engines are lit on the pad not some mid-flight).
Not true with the manned lunar missions (Orion with J-232).

Even worse, "Direct" wants to fly Orion with two widely different launcher configs :

1/ J-120 for ISS; no air-lit stage, but RS-68s burn to orbital insertion (currently not possible)

2/ J-232 for manned lunar missions; air-lit 2xJ-2X upper stage; RS-68s burn suborbital (as currently experienced)

This (one CEV two CLV) is not a good architectural choice if safety is paramount.

Comparatively , the ESAS' unique Ares-I / Orion config is an epitome of engineering rationale.

Quote
J-120 has most of the hardware for the lunar booster. Ares-1 doesn't.
Not true. If we even mention "the lunar booster" then we think trans lunar injection, "EDS" -  the J-2X engine that J-120 intentionally delays.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/20/2008 10:29 pm
renclod,
If you think CxP isn't planning to fly Orion on Ares-V you haven't been watching the plans closely enough.   Ares-V has always been planned, right from ESAS CaLV, to be human-rated.   They aren't doing that just for the fun of it.

I would suggest you re-consider your points in that context too.   And don't forget to include the fact that Ares-V's LOC is still below 1 in 900 currently - not achieving ESAS' minimum safety level - *and* that this is with the Ares-V configuration which is still short of 13mT performance to the moon right now.   The configuration they do have which 'closes' correctly has a pair of additional liquid boosters on it, in addition to the pair of SRB's!   It's LOC is laughable.

Except for the EDS, which will be new whatever vehicle we choose, the Jupiter 4-segment RSRB's will have been in safe operational use for 21 years by the time we use them for the first Lunar return mission (2017).   The RS-68 main engines will have been in operation for 15 years by then, and the Core Stage will have five years of operational use under its belt in that configuration, and a further heritage of 31 years in External Tank form behind it also.   While we are 'delaying' J-2X delivery, we are still going to fly about the same number in testing as Ares plans to prior to the Lunar missions - we are planning a lot more (4 + 1 unmanned landing precursor) test flights than CxP (1) before attempting a Lunar landing - and we use twice as many J-2X's each time - by the time of our first landing we will have flown 12 J-2X's - CxP is only planning to fly 11 J-2X's by their first human landing attempt!   And our Lunar launchers will share most of the current manufacturing, launch processing and launch ops, not just with Jupiter-120, but also with *Shuttle*.   That adds what will be nearly thirty years more experience to the DIRECT Jupiter-232 Lunar launcher knowledge base right there.


What track record will Ares have in 2019 when attempting their first landing?   3 years with operational RSRBV (that only assuming they don't actually switch to composite cases for Ares-V) and 3 years with an operational J-2X.   No direct heritage to ET on Ares-V or Ares-I U/S.   And don't make the mistake of thinking there will be any relationship between Ares-I Al-Li U/S and Ares-V's composite EDS.   No heritage at all with pads, manufacturing launch ops, ground ops etc.

More significant than all of that though, is we retain all of the experienced staff from Shuttle, ready and able to deal with the issues which may arise.   People with 20+ years experience with these same fundamental systems.   Who haven't been forced out of the agency in 2010.   We offer a smooth transition for all these people, so they can retain the experience and keep it going through into the new program.   Experienced staff from day-1.   What's *that* going to be worth to your operational safety, eh?

And as an aside, Shuttle also runs out its program a lot safer too.   Workers aren't spending all their efforts trying to find new jobs and homes because they know they will be keeping their jobs - instead they are spending the efforts on the job at hand - flying Shuttle safely - because they know their futures are pretty secure.

As a total aside; we have actually run an analysis of Jupiter-232 with the original J-2 engines and J-2S engine performance.   Our architecture *still* closes correctly even with those lower powered engines.   We have *that* much margin in our back pockets!   We could theoretically abandon J-2X development altogether and just put the old Apollo engines - which are already human-rated - straight into production.   We can only imagine the cost savings and schedule savings that might offer.   Its an option, although there are existing contracts in place for J-2X, so we are still baselining to use them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/21/2008 12:03 am
Quote
kraisee - 21/4/2008 5:27 AM
Quote
MB123 - 19/4/2008 11:19 PM

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 20/4/2008 4:40 AM Cargo with crew "can" make human spaceflight less safe. This does not mean that it allways does.

But it does mean that it can. So why do it? And to the same quantitative extent as the Shuttle (mT), not just astronaut's underpants -When you've been directed to hold crew safety as the no. 1 priority.

I think it unlikely, in a cursory sense, that the 25mT over Ares I is for free in all relevant respects (safety, $$$, etc.). Even if it I am wrong today, the relevant climate may change (i.e. Space Shuttle), and it may cost NASA later.

It is clear to me that the Direct team are arguing NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB.

IMO, arguing (on the engineering front) that the J-120 is more suitable than Ares I to satisfy NASA's interpretation of the VSE/CAIB, will be very difficult.

The whole issue is moot anyway. Ares-I's November IS-TIM risk analysis is lower than Jupiter-120's:- Ares-I LOC: 1 in 1256 Jupiter-120 LOC: 1 in 1413 NOTE: Both numbers derived using NASA's own CxP risk assessment methodology - assessment performed by staff at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL Irrelevant of whether you fly it with an extra cargo module or not, if crew safety is truly the overriding goal, then Ares-I is no longer the safest choice according to NASA's own calculations. The whole issue that Jupiter-120 can allow cargo to go with the crew if required, is relegated to being just a useful extra bonus feature available with Jupiter-120, but unavailable with Ares-1. Ross.

Ross, if your LOC numbers remain constant I can only hope the Direct implementation of the VSE is adopted. Withstanding heavy cargo that I have not looked at closely enough. Too far off IMO to do any reliable analysis.

Do you really need to resort to colour tricks though? haha. Doesn't rub me the right way, but engineers are far too analytical to respond well to this sort of thing. Hopefully it works as you intend it.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 12:13 am
Quote
MB123 - 20/4/2008  8:03 PM
Do you really need to resort to colour tricks though? haha. Doesn't rub me the right way, but engineers are far too analytical to respond well to this sort of thing. Hopefully it works as you intend it.

Philip is our artistic expert in this.   He suggested that we needed some way to visually emphasize that the Ares-V's 10m diameter Core is totally different hardware from the current 8.4m diameter Shuttle ET - to demonstrate clearly that Jupiter's Core is far more closely related.   Colour seemed like a very reasonable and simple way to show this visually for those folk unaware of the details behind the actual hardware (as I assume most NSF folk are by now).   The Ares-V Core actually has more in common with the white Saturn-V Core in dimensions - although none of that manufacturing/processing hardware exists today either.

NASA has been doing a fairly excellent job of making it appear that the Ares-V hardware shares a lot of commonality.   We're merely pointing out that this currently held "perception" is actually inaccurate.

Its a little "cheesy" yes, but if it gets the correct message across, I can live with some cheese for once - and those who know me, know I *really* don't like cheese :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/21/2008 01:16 am
I agree what is wrong with using color to make a point?  Nothing.  People BOLD, put things in RED to make a point that this is differant than the rest, so pay attention.  If the audiance catches that the ET is white and not orange, and asks questions why?  Who cares!!  The only people who care are people who do not want certain facts to stand out.  

I for one, liked the orginal ESAS.  There were some grumbles here and there, but I thought it was OK.  Then someone points to a vicheal than may be cheaper, and safer--I looked at it a bit more and then I really liked it.  

If NASA thinks its budget will go up in the near future---think again.  It might have a small increase, but will probably will be flat.  Counting in inflation, that is a budget decrease.  As Mr. Griffin said, no increase---push schedule to the right--"Pay as you Go".  Push schedule to far to the right, and no-one will care about it, and the program will be cancelled and there will be no Ares V.  Ares I without Ares V, does not buy the US anything.  I would rather see the Ares money invested somewhere, anywhere else.  If at the start of a 20+ year program you see signs of problems, red flags should be going off in everyone's head.  ESAS is becoming like the Space Shuttle and ISS development programs all over again.  When was Space Station Freedom promised?  When will the actual construction finish?  Will it be what it started out to be?  NOPE!  The same with the Space Shuttle.   Before we get too heavly invested in ESAS, let us take some time and really think if ESAS is the best way to spend our tax dollars.  I work for a public agency, and I hate seeing our money going to waste.  If we continue under NASA's present course---10 years from now people will scracthing their heads at what we did wrong!  As Harod Gehman wrote to Sen.   Milkulski in March 04, "Indeed..the bottom line of the future part of our Report  is to replace the shuttle asap, and the keep this risk equation in mind when developing the replacement system.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/21/2008 07:01 am
Ross, while I understand your desire to show the difference in tank diameters between Ares V and Direct, I think doing it by colouring the Ares-V white is the wrong approach. If Ares V gets built, it will have the same insulation as the ET and will be orange in colour. To show it as white is a misrepresentation of what the Ares V vehicle will look like.

If you want to show the diameter difference, give a cross section of the tanks overlapping and centered within each other. There will be three diameters, 10 m Ares V, 8.4 m ET/Direct and 5.5 m for Ares-I. These two different diameters for Ares are a large part of what causes Ares I/V to be so expensive compared to Direct.

An alternative approach is to perhaps use red, yellow and green to show differences between the vehicles. Red for new, yellow for modified and green for unchanged.

Ares-I SRB yellow, US red
Ares-V SRB yellow, core stage red, EDS red
Jupiter 120 SRB green, core stage yellow
Jupiter 232 SRB green, core stage yellow, EDS red

If the Ares-V SRB are to use composite casing and HTPB, then its SRB would go red. This will result in an all red Ares-V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 04/21/2008 09:03 am
Quote
renclod - 21/4/2008  5:22 AM

1/ J-120 for ISS; no air-lit stage, but RS-68s burn to orbital insertion (currently not possible)

No air lit stage is an advantage for J-120 over Ares-1. Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?


Quote
This (one CEV two CLV) is not a good architectural choice if safety is paramount.
Where is safety compromised specifically?

Quote
J-120 has most of the hardware for the lunar booster. Ares-1 doesn't. Not true. If we even mention "the lunar booster" then we think trans lunar injection, "EDS" -  the J-2X engine that J-120 intentionally delays.


Splitting hairs. By Most I am obviously refering to everything except EDS.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/21/2008 10:54 am

Quote
Nathan - 21/4/2008  8:03 PM  
Quote
renclod - 21/4/2008  5:22 AM  1/ J-120 for ISS; no air-lit stage, but RS-68s burn to orbital insertion (currently not possible)
 No air lit stage is an advantage for J-120 over Ares-1.

It's possible, but Ross' overall LOC numbers are the overiding factor.

I recently read the original safety assessment for Ares (from 2006) - it determined the booster, which at that stage was about as common with the STS as the J-120 is now, had LOC probability -much- better than the current J-120, and it still used an air-started second stage.
 

Quote
Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?  

The RS-68 isn't rated to this burn time yet.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: pierre on 04/21/2008 11:51 am
I think that this discussion about launchers LOC numbers is focusing a bit too much on a single tree and forgetting the rest of the forest. It's true that all deadly space accidents until now occurred inside Earth's atmosphere (during launch or re-entry), but this isn't the most dangerous part of a mission beyond LEO: we are talking here about launchers that have all less than 1/1000 LOC probability (well, except Ares V), but an entire lunar mission may have a LOC above 1/100 (IIRC I have seen an 1/66 estimate somewhere).

So the safer launcher is the one that can put more mass in TLI, because the extra mass can be used for putting more redundancy for the parts of the mission where the bigger dangers are. I'm not an astronaut, but if I were I would probably feel safer in a lunar mission with two Jupiter-232 launches than a can-barely-make-it Ares I+Ares V combo (assuming that Ares V will ever get built); because it's not the launch the part I'm more concerned about.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/21/2008 11:56 am
renclod;
The Jupiter does not use the J-2X. It used the “D” variant, which is lower thrust, and is significantly less stressed. Unlike the J-2X, the 'D' variant is real heritage to the J-2 while the J-2X has far too many new things in it with exceedingly high operating limits. I would also take a wait and see attitude with this engine, but not with the J-2D. It more closely resembles the J-2, which has a history of successful airstarts on actual missions.

As for it not being possible for the RS-68 to burn thru to orbital insertion, you are drawing a conclusion on insufficient data and only a single data point.

The current certification of the burn time for RS-68 on the Delta-IV is at the point it is because that is the burn time the customer requested certification for. Engine burn time certification is exceptionally expensive and usually involves running the engine thru to self destruction, so one doesn’t pay for certifications one is not going to need. In the case of the Delta, that’s all that was needed. In the case of the Jupiter, we will need to pay for the certification. It just so happens however, that the PWR certification teams have already burned this engine for the time required for the Jupiter to achieve orbital insertion. You will find that data on PWR internal documentation, but not on any publicly releasable documents unless you have several tens of millions of dollars to pay for the paper. But the PWR engineers have informed us what the engine is actually capable of. We need it to burn for the length of time it takes to achieve orbital insertion, and we have been told that the engine will easily do that. We have charts and graphs which show the burn times achieved, but these charts and graphs do not bear the authority of a certification because they have not been paid for. But it will not be actually flown that way until the cash has crossed hands, the certification process actually done, officially this time, and the certification issued. We have included an extremely large sum of money in our budget to accomplish this. Don't forget that NASA has also chosen this engine, and they also need it to burn for a similar length of time.

The RS-68 is an exceptionally good engine, and is capable of far more than it is "certified" for; easily good enough to push the Jupiter-120 to orbital insertion, and easily good enough to lift the Jupiter-232 high enough for the EDS to take the lunar stack thru TLI.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 04/21/2008 12:07 pm
Quote
MB123 - 21/4/2008  5:54 AM
Quote
Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?  
The RS-68 isn't rated to this burn time yet.

"not rated for" does not mean "impossible".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 04/21/2008 05:02 pm
Quote
kraisee - 20/4/2008  1:27 PM

The whole issue is moot anyway.   Ares-I's November IS-TIM risk analysis is lower than Jupiter-120's:-

Ares-I LOC: 1 in 1256
Jupiter-120 LOC: 1 in 1413

NOTE: Both numbers derived using NASA's own CxP risk assessment methodology - assessment performed by staff at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL


They really shouldn't give numbers like this. It implies the numbers are accurate, when they're not. Any model can only take into account know factors. What kills astronauts are unexpected, unknown factors.

The figures for the Jupiter might be approximate, because its using known components, and a known design.

The assessment for the EELVs (1 in 900 IIRC) may also bear some semblance to reality.

The figures for Ares I might as well have been made by a random number generator. A new vehicle is much more likely (I don't say probable) to fail in an unexpected manner not in the computer model. That applies to Falcon 1 and Ares I. (I believe Donald Rumsfield had a quote about it).


 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 04/21/2008 05:50 pm
Quote
kraisee - 21/4/2008  12:29 AM
Except for the EDS, which will be new whatever vehicle we choose, the Jupiter 4-segment RSRB's will have been in safe operational use for 21 years by the time we use them for the first Lunar return mission (2017).
I guess you meant 31 years  ;)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 04/21/2008 06:19 pm
Steven,

The artist here :)

I can certainly appreciate as an engineer or a space enthusiast how one might feel that the recoloring of the Ares V core stage is a cheap trick but I assure you it was not, it is purely communicative. Direct is in the throws of a massive publicity push right now and it became very clear during a survey pass of the "general public" (that rely more on the imagery they see; than the pdf, and engineer reports we see) that they couldn't understand why Direct was "more" shuttle derived than the Ares program. "THE" first comment out of their mouth was in regards to how they look the same???

In making this simple change to the imagery we have effectively removed this misconception and it has meant all the difference in the public perception. It is not our intent to deceive anyone (and for the record we are not, unless we are altering the performance numbers by adding the white paint :P) , but to allow those who don't know any better (particularly those who are not on NSF) to ask more questions about what NASA is doing and if Direct might be offering a better solution. It has had a profound effect in public perception and communication of our cause.

I am certain that the reason it may be so off putting to some on this thread it is because we have essentially changed the only remaining element that makes the Ares program an SDLV solution


Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Alpha Control on 04/21/2008 06:52 pm
I agree with the point being made here to change the color of the Ares V core stage.  

At the scale that most of the charts are, it's not obvious at a glance that a 10m orange core is larger than the 8.4m core.  The color change helps to emphasize the difference.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/21/2008 06:59 pm
Quote
Alpha Control - 21/4/2008  2:52 PM

I agree with the point being made here to change the color of the Ares V core stage.  

At the scale that most of the charts are, it's not obvious at a glance that a 10m orange core is larger than the 8.4m core.  The color change helps to emphasize the difference.
Especially because by leaving it the same color as STS, NASA was masking the fact that the 10m Ares core was completely different. That difference accounts for many billions of dollars, and without the color change, that difference is not obvious. The color change catches the eye in a manner that nothing else really could.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 04/21/2008 07:06 pm
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 21/4/2008  2:01 AM

An alternative approach is to perhaps use red, yellow and green to show differences between the vehicles. Red for new, yellow for modified and green for unchanged.

Ares-I SRB yellow, US red
Ares-V SRB yellow, core stage red, EDS red
Jupiter 120 SRB green, core stage yellow
Jupiter 232 SRB green, core stage yellow, EDS red

If the Ares-V SRB are to use composite casing and HTPB, then its SRB would go red. This will result in an all red Ares-V.

I'm just a cheap-seat-sitter in this forum, but this approach seems like good idea.  Instead of an image that mixes reality (shuttle colors) with 'dramatic' highlights, clearly color-code the vehicles to *show* what changes, and what stays the same.  
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 04/21/2008 07:44 pm
Quote
mrbliss - 21/4/2008  3:06 PM

Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 21/4/2008  2:01 AM

An alternative approach is to perhaps use red, yellow and green to show differences between the vehicles. Red for new, yellow for modified and green for unchanged.

Ares-I SRB yellow, US red
Ares-V SRB yellow, core stage red, EDS red
Jupiter 120 SRB green, core stage yellow
Jupiter 232 SRB green, core stage yellow, EDS red

If the Ares-V SRB are to use composite casing and HTPB, then its SRB would go red. This will result in an all red Ares-V.

I'm just a cheap-seat-sitter in this forum, but this approach seems like good idea.  Instead of an image that mixes reality (shuttle colors) with 'dramatic' highlights, clearly color-code the vehicles to *show* what changes, and what stays the same.  

I agree  completely

red- Yellow - Green
Red- yellow - Gray

These schemes  are used all the time in the Auto Industry for  graphics showing model  year to year changes. Very effective.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/21/2008 07:56 pm
Quote
Nathan - 21/4/2008  12:03 PM
Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?
That's not what I said ... "RS-68s burn to orbital insertion ... currently not possible"
Read the Direct v2 original thread pages 224 to 226.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 08:04 pm
We did a few other comparisons to see what looked best.   While we settled on the colour change, the below chart was very seriously contemplated too.   It was deemed to be too complicated for a very brief presentation slide though - it needs a little too much explanation to be "instantly understood".

It just wasn't deemed "intuitive".



Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/21/2008 08:22 pm
Quote
renclod - 21/4/2008  3:56 PM

Quote
Nathan - 21/4/2008  12:03 PM
Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?
That's not what I said ... "RS-68s burn to orbital insertion ... currently not possible"
Read the Direct v2 original thread pages 224 to 226.
There have been lots of discussions with the PWR guys regarding the ablative nozzle issues and burn time thru to a J-120, engine-out abort to orbit. The RS-68 is more than adequate for the abort to orbit burn time, which is considerably longer than a nominal orbital insertion burn. A couple of test engines exceeded that ATO time by almost 30%. This is simply a non-problem. But it still has to go thru the “official” certification process, which will cost a considerable amount, for which we have adequately budgeted.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 09:08 pm
The list of "not currently possible" things includes:-

5-segment SRB for Ares-I (2016)
Composite 5-segment SRB for Ares-V (2019)
J-2X for Ares-I & V (2016)
J-2XD for Jupiter-232 (2017)
RS-68 human-rated - N/A
RS-68A 106% (2012 for USAF)   <<< This is the basis for the Jupiter-120's engine
RS-68B 108% (2019 for NASA)


ALL of those require development work before we will ever use them.

While some are more expensive than others and some take a lot longer than others, in all cases it means at least hundreds of millions of dollars and a number of years to get them ready.

At least, some of the hardware must be changed on each of those to get them working.   That's a fact of life:   None of these engine systems can be used entirely as they are today.

In the specific case of Jupiter's 102% RS-68's, the current expectation is that the hardware being developed by USAF for its non-human-rated 106% RS-68A will form the basis for a NASA variant.   The NASA variant of RS-68A would however include a different ablative nozzle designed specifically for its implementation.   It needs to be optimized for thin atmospheric/vacuum use, to the point where flow separation does not occur at Sea Level (somewhere around 32-34 Area Ratio) and will possibly be made of a thicker ablative material able to sustain the additional burn time.

It should be noted that our performance analysis however, is *not* yet assuming any performance improvements above the existing RS-68 nozzle performance - that remains our baseline for performance assumptions, albeit the engine we are using has had a little over 600kg "growth" added to it already.

DIRECT has *always* assumed a maximum of $1bn worth of budget for such work, while current estimates place the actual value more in the $200-400m range, so we feel we have lots of margin there.   Most of the NASA-specific work can be performed at the same time as the USAF's ongoing work to create RS-68A for Delta-IV, and would not affect USAF's schedules at all.   Test Stands are already built and are in-use.   A good number of RS-68's are already built and sitting on the shelf.   Some of those could easily be purchased for additional testing purposes.   This has all been dealt with a while ago by our PWR contacts though.    There is nothing revelationary about this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 04/21/2008 09:42 pm
Quote
kraisee - 21/4/2008  3:04 PM

We did a few other comparisons to see what looked best.   While we settled on the colour change, the below chart was very seriously contemplated too.   It was deemed to be too complicated for a very brief presentation slide though - it needs a little too much explanation to be "instantly understood".

It just wasn't deemed "intuitive".



Ross.

Nevermind intuitive it's superb, it shows the detailed breakdown very well in the simplest way possible and I actually learnt new information from it today ;) It should go *somewhere* and not be lost to the public.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 09:44 pm
Quote
Stephan - 21/4/2008  1:50 PM

Quote
kraisee - 21/4/2008  12:29 AM
Except for the EDS, which will be new whatever vehicle we choose, the Jupiter 4-segment RSRB's will have been in safe operational use for 21 years by the time we use them for the first Lunar return mission (2017).
I guess you meant 31 years  ;)

Yep.   Doh!

:)

R.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 09:46 pm
Quote
marsavian - 21/4/2008  5:42 PM

Nevermind intuitive it's superb, it shows the detailed breakdown very well in the simplest way possible and I actually learnt new information from it today ;) It should go *somewhere*.

Its actually from a draft of another presentation which we have not yet released to the general public - even here on NSF.   We are planning to do so, but not just yet.

We actually went with an even simpler, clearer approach than this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 10:03 pm
The current RS-68 was determined to have a maximum burn duration of 1,200 seconds - clearly enough, even for Jupiter.

Each RS-68 is actually certified to operate up to 1,800 seconds - approximately 4 times the expected burn duration of a Jupiter-120.   Even in a worst-case Engine-out scenario occurring at ~T+45 sec, the actual burn duration of a single RS-68 in-flight, would still be less than half of the certification limit.


Of the 12 engines used to certify RS-68, five were operated to 2,500 seconds and three of those were operated to 4,000 seconds - limited only by the cooling water pond at the test stand getting close to empty!   PWR have indicated to us that they believe RS-68 could go a fair bit beyond that if there was a larger water pond.


No major failures occurred during RS-68 certification, even to these limits.


It would not surprise me if, as part of human rating, we would probably want to see a dozen engines run up to that same 4,000 second point.   But existing data showing all three engines which have ever attempted this have done so successfully so far, would seem to strongly indicate this shouldn't be too much of a problem once given a suitable budget.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 04/21/2008 10:21 pm
Quote
kraisee - 22/4/2008  1:03 AM

The current RS-68 was determined to have a maximum burn duration of 1,200 seconds - clearly enough, even for Jupiter.

Each RS-68 is actually certified to operate up to 1,800 seconds - approximately 4 times the expected burn duration of a Jupiter-120.  

Of the 12 engines used to certify RS-68, five were operated to 2,500 seconds and three of those were operated to 4,000 seconds - Ross.

With the current ablative nozzle attached ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/21/2008 10:30 pm
Frankly Ross, you could probably draw a Saturn V and the Ares V and draw arrows from the Saturn V 1st stage fuel tank to the Ares 1st Stage fule tank and from the S-4B J-2 to the EDS J-2 to show that "heritage" as well as the shuttle "derived" components, which seem to have as much in common with Ares V as does the Saturn V.  And, for that matter, draw the Delta IV to show the FS-68 going to both...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/21/2008 11:17 pm
Quote
renclod - 21/4/2008  6:21 PM

With the current ablative nozzle attached ?

That is my current understanding, yes.

Although we still assume that we will need a different nozzle for Jupiter - if not for extra ablator material, then at least to get best performance by re-optimizing its area ratio for post-SRB operation in near-vacuum conditions (> 26nm).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nullset on 04/22/2008 02:00 am
On the color coding of the cores, I'd recommend you use false color and not play the game the way NASA is. In your graphic use a legend stating something like "5m parts are blue, 8m parts are green, 10m parts are yellow, 4 segment SRBs are orange, 5 segment SRBs are red". Then use your pictures of the Ares I & V, the Shuttle, and Jupiter-120 to color the tanks accordingly.

As for the RS-68, I asked some questions about it awhile back. At that time it was said that "off-the-shelf" the engine with its 2 power settings and nozzle shape _could_ carry a Jupiter-120 to orbit, but the ablative nozzle likely needed beefing up. Would the DIRECT team restate what the present mix of current and to-be-developed-or proven engine technology being baselined for the Jupiter-120?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/22/2008 02:19 am
Regarding RS-68, what we plan to use is whatever hardware USAF is producing at the time - to ensure we are sharing production costs as much as possible.   There is no point in using the 'old' hardware if it means doubling the costs because USAF is now building all-different hardware.

USAF will likely be producing the upgraded RS-68A 106% hardware, and it is expected that this will probably be the heart of the engine we will also use.   But one never knows if such plans might be shelved before being completed, so we aren't banking on that extra performance yet.

We are continuing to use the existing performance levels (102% sea-level optimized) for all our analysis work - although we are assuming a ~600kg heavier variant of the engine.   We close all the performance targets using these baseline settings.   If we do get a performance boost down the road, that's certainly nice to have.   But we don't *have* to have them.   We work perfectly okay even without them.   The expectation is that we will actually end up with slightly improved performance over the current baseline engine, but we just aren't assuming any improvements over what's flying right now.   Its a counting chickens vs. eggs thing...

We do wish to develop a new vacuum optimized area ratio nozzle to be included to get the best performance out of this system and we are also assuming a full human-rating testing program, with appropriate development work for human-specific use is included in both our schedules and costs analysis.   And then we're putting large margins on top of both of those to make sure we aren't low-balling anything.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/22/2008 04:24 am

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 04/22/2008 11:06 am
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008  12:24 AM

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?


There is no speculation, NASA said the Ares V will be manrated from the beginning.

manrating applies to all components, including the RS-68
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/22/2008 11:26 am
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008  12:24 AM

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?

Certification will include man-rating.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/22/2008 12:23 pm
Quote
clongton - 22/4/2008 10:26 PM
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008 12:24 AM

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?

Certification will include man-rating.

Jim and Chuck, 

Yeah, I meant, in the same token that Chuck is confident the extended burn time certification is simply a matter of producing a document, is this also the case for the man-rating? i.e. not requiring major works to achieve the certification, only the exercise of the actual certification process itself.

Michael.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/22/2008 12:32 pm
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008  8:23 AM

Quote
clongton - 22/4/2008 10:26 PM
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008 12:24 AM

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?

Certification will include man-rating.

Jim and Chuck, 

Yeah, I meant, in the same token that Chuck is confident the extended burn time certification is simply a matter of producing a document, is this also the case for the man-rating? i.e. not requiring major works to achieve the certification, only the exercise of the actual certification process itself.

Michael.

No to both cases. Both man rating the engine and certification of burn time are going to require more than just paperwork. In the case of man rating, health monitoring systems will need to be added and tested. In the case of certification, the engine is currently tuned for optimal performance at sea level. We are going to want to retune the engine for vacuum operations, which will probably require a slightly different nozzle area ratio. None of this is difficult, nor does it require any new technology development at all, but it is expensive and time consuming.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 04/23/2008 05:48 am
Quote
Nullset - 21/4/2008  10:00 PM

On the color coding of the cores, I'd recommend you use false color...
Without wanting to be pedantic, the posted image with the white Ares tanks does exactly what it's supposed to do; show you that Direct is more shuttle derived than Ares. It does it in a heartbeat. It is intuitive and impactful. The descriptions and explanations can come later and can be very persuasive to the technical people looking at the data. However it is the image that will get people to pay attention to that data. It will get them to look further than Ares' orange tanks and think that it's all the same and that it's all shuttle derived. It will get the target audience to actually ask the leading questions that the Direct team has the solid answers for and that's the way to be most persuasive. Once someone sees the image and asks "Why are the Ares tanks white when they're supposed to be the same as the shuttle, aren't they?" you have them! Answer the questions, inform them, let them make up their own minds. That's the key.

And don't think that this doesn't work with people who supposedly are well educated, knowledgeable about the technological or budgetary or even the political details. People's minds work in consistent ways and we, as humans are very, very visual. Use the image to get the audience to ask the questions you want them to ask. Subsequent images can be more technically correct or pass on more information. The leading image has to get the audience to open their minds to what you're saying. If they go into the meeting with the impression that both Ares & Direct are equally shuttle derived, they'll never listen to you. You need to shake that belief, fostered by NASA, and then you can get them to, possibly, see you point. The white versus orange image does that in spades and is a great piece of persuasive graphics.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Firestarter on 04/23/2008 06:37 am
Status update Direct guys? Anything happening behind the scenes?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/23/2008 07:11 am
There's *always* stuff going on behind the scenes :)

I know that's tantalizing, but there are many fingers in many pies right now.   Some will work out, others won't.   We're hoping that on-balance we're going to be very happy.

Right now, I'm fixing up the v2.0.1 document for release with help from everyone here on NSF - Thank-you to all who have suggested improvements so far.

We also have a Powerpoint presentation which has been 'doing the rounds' for over a month now - actually the one where that STS > Jupiter-120 animation came from - which I am tweaking for release to you guys here on NSF over the next few weeks (we're getting a voice-over done for it including our vocal "spiel" that goes with it!).   Look forward to that as soon as we can get it done out there.

There are a *LOT* of other things all going on at the same time in private though.   Some are technical, others are economic.   Some are political, others workforce-related.   We do plan to release it all sooner or later, but it has to stay behind closed doors for a while first to do its magic.

I'm sorry I can't be more specific right now, but some of this is a little sensitive.   I'm sure you understand.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/23/2008 07:26 am
Tantalising, indeed. Fingers crossed for you guys.

With regards to the graphic, if for some reason you needed some other visual way of differentiating the tanks other than orange/white, you could always go with a green shading showing direct (pun intended) components and red shading showing what has to be built from scratch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/23/2008 07:39 am
Thanks for the well wishes.

I don't know what we're going to do about the graphics.   There are a lot of different opinions which have been expressed, but I don't see that there is any "clear winner" yet...

I think for now we will just stick with what we've got.   Not because it's necessarily best, but mostly because its less work not to have to re-do it again at this point :)

We have been very busy recently - I'd venture to say snowed under in fact.   Our efforts somewhat reminds me of the stereotypical "Swan" - graceful and serene on the surface, but madly paddling away just out of sight!

We may very well re-visit this issue because it does seem to garner some strong opinions from many quarters, but it will have to be when things quieten down a little - but I can't even guess when that might be!

I do want to thank everyone for contributing to the color debate though.   It has been very informative and will be useful down the line as we continue to evolve the DIRECT architecture and publicity material.   But don't let that be a signal to close the discussion - please continue - this is all valuable feedback.

Hmmm.   3:45am.   I should prolly go get some sleep...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 04/24/2008 11:58 am
Quote
renclod - 22/4/2008  5:56 AM

Quote
Nathan - 21/4/2008  12:03 PM
Why isn't burning the RS-68 to orbit possible?
That's not what I said ... "RS-68s burn to orbital insertion ... currently not possible"
Read the Direct v2 original thread pages 224 to 226.

yes you did. The Direct folk have already acknowledged that this will have to be part of the qualification testing and is included in their budget estimates. It is also not expected to be a problem.

Time the NASA folks started building the thing I think.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 04/25/2008 09:04 pm
I don’t know if it is too late for this suggestion or not but FWIW.

During the recent House hearing on ISS utilization there were some pithy questions asked of Girst.

http://actionforspace.blogspot.com/2008/04/congressional-hearing-on-iss-status-and.html

If the Direct folks can address the questions asked by the Representatives to NASA in Direct’s new presentations it may help with the case for Direct.

One of the major concerns remains the question of consumables, not spares, consumables. The GAO has repeatedly emphasized that, even with a successful ATV, HTV, Progress, and some form of COTS, there remains a substantial shortfall in consumables. The House and Senate have not gotten anything like a satisfactory answer to this issue in the last year so far as I can tell.

With regard to spares, with the rumored reorganization of the shuttle manifest to move the 2 contingency flights to the end of the manifest and the possibility that those flights may not happen, NASA has already stated that ATV, HTV, and Progress are unable to make that up. Nor are they able to carry any of the major spares that might be required from 2010-2016. Direct should address both the currently manifested spares on the contingency flights and any others that may be needed.

There remains substantial congressional interest in AMS, CAM, and other unfinished hardware as well as the numerous experimental racks that have not been completed or have not flown. Utilization of the remaining three MPLM for transport of racks might be desirable and this could include bringing up the PLM, which ESA has offered to construct at a cost of 22m Euros, to the ISS. The addition of this module would strengthen the ISS and enhance the relationship with the International Partners. Direct should address these issues in as substantive a way as possible.

There is concern about down mass; can Direct offer any solution to improve down mass capabilities from the ISS? Down mass is vital for many of the experiments and production facilities planned for the ISS National Lab and ATM the only down mass capability is 132lb on the Soyuz. In addition the Kibo External Platform was specifically designed to exchange external unpressurized cargo from the shuttle to the platform and back for return to Earth. Can Direct offer JAXA this kind of capability?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/25/2008 09:14 pm
Norm,
Very true.   We should try to send something to the panel there answering every one of their queries and showing that NASA's presented options aren't the only ones which are actually available.

I know everyone in the DIRECT Team is a little snowed under right now, so perhaps some of the readers here would like a chance to contribute by offering up a summary of their own for us to base such a message upon?


Regarding downmass options, the *only* thing which I would imagine possible would be either a modified Orion cargo spacecraft variant (expensive) or perhaps something COTS-derived like a Dragon (much cheaper) could be flown.   It would need to include a large docking hatch (MPLM equivalent) so that it would offer a downmass capability for even the largest cargo items on ISS.   Such a cargo carrier could fly inside the PLF of either uncrewed or crewed flights.   If located under the crewed Orion it could either be guided to station by the crew, or make its own automated way to station.

The Jupiter is certainly powerful enough to do the lifting work to bring such a module up.   And such a Cargo Return Vehicle could also be afforded if we are no longer spending all those billions developing Ares-V as well.   So theoretically, it is a system which looks plausible - as long as there is sufficient downmass requirement to make the development worthwhile.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bigfootindy on 04/25/2008 09:49 pm
I've been a long time lurker here and have two things.  Ross - can you change the link from the directlauncher.com page to this thread instead of the frozen one?

Also, I set up a story at Digg.com which links to the directlauncher.com site:

http://digg.com/space/A_safer_faster_and_less_expensive_alternative_to_Ares

Digg it and let's try to get the word out!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/25/2008 10:58 pm
Changed the link, applied for a Digg account, and will try to get our web guys to add a "Digg It" button on the site soon.

:)

I recall somebody else suggested that once previously, but I think it just didn't happen because we were heavily pressed for time on something else...


Is there any way to include a picture embedded into that Digg page?   I've got some suggestions...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 04/25/2008 11:13 pm
Dugg.

Oh dear, I've been avoiding joining for ages....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacediver on 04/26/2008 12:07 am
The basis for an automatic system to return significant mass back to earth surface could be an ARD-capsule derived reentry module as it was tested on the Ariane 503 flight.

This capsule could be launched on top of an ATV propulsion module, replacing the pressurized ATV-module. It can be launched on an Ariane 5 or, as an alternative, on a J-120 manned flight.
For docking to the ISS a separate small pressurized module with the docking mechanism on top of the reentry capsule is necessary.

After automatic docking the capsule can be loaded with the return payload. After undocking from the ISS the propulsion module performs the reentry maneuver. The propulsion and the docking adapter modules are then jettisoned prior to reentry.

This system should be possible at much lower cost than a cargo version of  an Orion capsule because it is not based on a manrated system and can be more “designed to cost”.

AFAIK such a system was foreseen as a further development of the ATV from the beginning.

Spacediver

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/26/2008 12:17 am
Quote
Jim - 22/4/2008 10:06 PM
Quote
MB123 - 22/4/2008 12:24 AM

Ross, do you speculate that NASA will want to man-rate the Ares V?

Chuck, the expensive certification documents that you described earlier, is that the case for a man-rating of the RS-68 also?

There is no speculation, NASA said the Ares V will be manrated from the beginning. manrating applies to all components, including the RS-68

Why does NASA want to man rate the Ares V? Was it not the plan to make the crew launcher safer, cheaper, and more flexible by removing the requirement for a huge payload? I thought the Ares V RS-68 already exists? It will have to be man rated for Ares V?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bigfootindy on 04/26/2008 12:44 am
I think I have to put the picture on it since I posted it - feel free to PM me with a pic or a link and I'll see if I can add it.  Thanks Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bigfootindy on 04/26/2008 12:46 am
Oh, one thing.  Beware of the Digg effect if it hits the front page of Digg - the site may take a bit of a hit :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 04/26/2008 01:36 am
Quote
bigfootindy - 24/4/2008  8:46 PM

Oh, one thing.  Beware of the Digg effect if it hits the front page of Digg - the site may take a bit of a hit :)

Not anymore. It used to be a bit of a craze, but not anymore, unless it's something like pictures to a celebrity naked, or some geek programming hacks. Small site now, won't generate much.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 04/26/2008 02:20 am
Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008  1:00 PM

The point of my analogy is that flying crew and cargo is not and has never been a bad thing.  The criteria for crew and cargo could be launched together would be the following:

1.  Obviously, you will not be launching something that has nothing to do with the reason the crew is going into space
2.  The next government manned launch vehicle is going to be in use for some time.  It makes sense to design it so that some useful cargo (this is not meant to include the basic support equipment - clothes, food, etc - that will be carried on Orion as "cargo") could be brought along with the crew so that in the future as new mission possiblities appear it may not require multiple launches.  
3.  The crew needs a have an abort system that can give them a reasonable chance of survival during all phases of launch, which again depends on design of the vehicle.  

This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another.  It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil.  I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.

Seems to me this entire argument is largely based on misconstrued intentions.   All the arguments about motor oil and cinder blocks is irrelevant.  

The basic idea, which is quite correct  IMHO, is that crew and cargo cannot be in the same vehicle element.   That's why the original plans for carrying Centaur liquid stages in the shuttle cargo bay were scrapped.  Carrying volatile liquid fuel INSIDE the SAME vehicle used to carry the crew is an invitation to disaster.  Can you imagine the prospects of a Shuttle carrying Centaur in an abort trying to land with a crew in a damaged orbiter loaded down with a fuelled liquid rocket stage INSIDE THE SPACECRAFT??  Not a good idea.  

Now, if you're sitting in a SEPERATE SPACECRAFT ELEMENT, say a capsule with an escape rocket that can readily seperate itself from the LV and ANY payload and do an abort, the reasons for such a prohibition go away.  Even if the LV has a bad day, and the cargo goes down with the ship, the capsule is designed to make a safe abort from the stack.  No problem...

It's sorta like hauling 6 filled gas cans in the front seat of your car.... not a great idea.  Any spills and the fumes will run you out of town.  But hauling them in the back of the pickup, seperate from the 'crew compartment' and any spills can evaporate to the atmosphere.   That's a FAR better analogy AFAIC... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/26/2008 02:53 am
Quote
spacediver - 25/4/2008  8:07 PM

The basis for an automatic system to return significant mass back to earth surface could be an ARD-capsule derived reentry module as it was tested on the Ariane 503 flight.

If it has sufficient downmass capability, that would be a good option IMHO.   It would also be a nice unique capability which ESA could introduce into the mix which nobody else is so-far addressing - and that's likely to present a good business opportunity.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/26/2008 02:57 am
Quote
bigfootindy - 25/4/2008  8:46 PM

Oh, one thing.  Beware of the Digg effect if it hits the front page of Digg - the site may take a bit of a hit :)

I've got 15,000Gb of transfer per month.   Didn't even even 1% of that when we had multiple copies of our AIAA paper going all over the place.   Hit about 5% when we got Slashdotted about a year ago...

Shouldn't be too much of an issue.

In fact I'd welcome so much traffic that our host can't cope with it!    Bring it on!!! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/28/2008 08:14 am

Quote
luke strawwalker - 26/4/2008 1:20 PM
Quote
OV-106 - 18/4/2008 1:00 PM The point of my analogy is that flying crew and cargo is not and has never been a bad thing. The criteria for crew and cargo could be launched together would be the following: 1. Obviously, you will not be launching something that has nothing to do with the reason the crew is going into space 2. The next government manned launch vehicle is going to be in use for some time. It makes sense to design it so that some useful cargo (this is not meant to include the basic support equipment - clothes, food, etc - that will be carried on Orion as "cargo") could be brought along with the crew so that in the future as new mission possiblities appear it may not require multiple launches. 3. The crew needs a have an abort system that can give them a reasonable chance of survival during all phases of launch, which again depends on design of the vehicle. This was the point I was making above about the silliness of having a pure crew launch vehicle where just the crew and the underwear are carried on one rocket and everything else on another. It is unfortunate that some have tried to twist the meaning of that simple statement by droning on about buses and motor oil. I do wish Ares 1 had better performance where this possiblity could be offered because I believe it's a distinct possibility that a mission could be derived in the future that would require something in orbit other than Orion but less than what would be required for an Ares 5 and you could avoid multiple launches all together.
Seems to me this entire argument is largely based on misconstrued intentions. All the arguments about motor oil and cinder blocks is irrelevant. The basic idea, which is quite correct IMHO, is that crew and cargo cannot be in the same vehicle element. That's why the original plans for carrying Centaur liquid stages in the shuttle cargo bay were scrapped. Carrying volatile liquid fuel INSIDE the SAME vehicle used to carry the crew is an invitation to disaster. Can you imagine the prospects of a Shuttle carrying Centaur in an abort trying to land with a crew in a damaged orbiter loaded down with a fuelled liquid rocket stage INSIDE THE SPACECRAFT?? Not a good idea. Now, if you're sitting in a SEPERATE SPACECRAFT ELEMENT, say a capsule with an escape rocket that can readily seperate itself from the LV and ANY payload and do an abort, the reasons for such a prohibition go away. Even if the LV has a bad day, and the cargo goes down with the ship, the capsule is designed to make a safe abort from the stack. No problem... It's sorta like hauling 6 filled gas cans in the front seat of your car.... not a great idea. Any spills and the fumes will run you out of town. But hauling them in the back of the pickup, seperate from the 'crew compartment' and any spills can evaporate to the atmosphere. That's a FAR better analogy AFAIC... OL JR :)

I think this is the most interesting topic i've posted on in this forum...

IMO, and in a 'clean sheet' sense, overall vehicle mass is (perhaps not linearly) inversely proportionate to crew safety - with the exception of redundant systems designed to increase crew safety.

If your goal is to create an LV that is the most safest crew vehicle ever (i.e. Ares), you would not give it a payload (i.e. an mplm).

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 04/28/2008 03:46 pm
Quote
MB123 - 28/4/2008  3:14 AM
IMO, and in a 'clean sheet' sense, overall vehicle mass is (perhaps not linearly) inversely proportionate to crew safety - with the exception of redundant systems designed to increase crew safety.

If your goal is to create an LV that is the most safest crew vehicle ever (i.e. Ares), you would not give it a payload (i.e. an mplm).

I do see your point, but I don't think I agree.  You should look at what the payload itself is, and if it contains anything that would pose additional risk to the crew (radiation sources, fuels, etc.).

If you are carrying some cargo with a couple RTGs and some hypergols, then I could see that cargo posing some additional risk to the crew.  But, as long as the launcher you are working with can handle the additional mass-to-orbit, I don't think (IMO) that makes it inherently less safe.

Now, cargo mass that is non-separable from your crew module (such as a Shuttle cargo bay) could make abort more dangerous.  If your crew can abort away from the launcher without having to bring the cargo with it, I don't think it poses any additional risk.

In fact, in the event of a series launcher, the cargo may actually have a positive effect on crew safety, by placing a blast-wave absorber in between the crew and the LV, givng the automatic abort perhaps another few milliseconds to react.

IMO, "separate crew from cargo" doesn't have to mean separate launchers... Just separate components in the mission vehicle allowing the crew to abort without the cargo if need be.

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 04/28/2008 03:57 pm
Quote
MB123 - 28/4/2008  3:14 AM

If your goal is to create an LV that is the most safest crew vehicle ever (i.e. Ares), you would not give it a payload (i.e. an mplm).


That's a common misperception and people also assume incorrectly that it is now a law.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with carrying a payload with the crew if the mission, the reason you are sending people there in the first place, can benefit from it.  

If the crew has a reasonable chance at escape, dependent on the design of the vehicle, then it does not matter if there is anything behind them or not.  In fact, it can be argued, again dependent on the design of the vehicle, it may be cheaper and more operationally effective to launch in one vehicle versus two.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 04/29/2008 12:14 am

Quote
OV-106 - 29/4/2008 2:57 AM
Quote
MB123 - 28/4/2008 3:14 AM If your goal is to create an LV that is the most safest crew vehicle ever (i.e. Ares), you would not give it a payload (i.e. an mplm).

 

That's a common misperception and people also assume incorrectly that it is now a law. There is absolutely nothing wrong with carrying a payload with the crew if the mission, the reason you are sending people there in the first place, can benefit from it. If the crew has a reasonable chance at escape, dependent on the design of the vehicle, then it does not matter if there is anything behind them or not. In fact, it can be argued, again dependent on the design of the vehicle, it may be cheaper and more operationally effective to launch in one vehicle versus two.

Fair enough. I can see how it would be misinterpreted as a law. It is not a law.

I used to think that it's authority came from the fact that it is NASA's interpretation of the needs of US space flight, but now that I've heard they want to man-rate ares V I am confused.

Ah, your argument is growing support in my mind. If they are man-rating Ares V, they have no needs basis to provide Ares I.

If my interpretation is correct then NASA could not man-rate Ares V while remaining in line with their interpretation of the needs of the program. It appears my interpretation is not correct. Unless they are drawing a line between Ares I and Ares V such that the former has much higher flight rates than a crewed version of the latter.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 04/29/2008 02:20 pm
Florida politics (Orlando Sentinel):

Senator Bill Nelson (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasafuture2908apr29,0,2177790.story):

Quote
VIERA - Florida voters could hold the key to the future of NASA's plans for human spaceflight and, with it, the fate of the Kennedy Space Center, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson told Brevard County commissioners and nervous space-industry officials and workers Monday.

"The next president is going to decide a lot [about the space program]," Nelson said during a presentation to a daylong county space workshop. "And East-Central Florida has an opportunity to influence the next president because, at the end of the day, Florida is going to be important this November."

The article also offers commentary consistent with Rand Simberg's Popular Science essay:

Quote
Nelson said that Floridians need to press their case on the presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Clinton was the first candidate to outline support for "robust human spaceflight" and is seen as NASA's biggest booster of the three. But there are questions on how committed she is to the Bush administration's plans for exploration to the moon and then Mars.

McCain recently worried space supporters by backing a plan to freeze all federal discretionary spending -- including NASA's budget -- except on defense and homeland-security programs.

Obama supports human spaceflight but wants to use money from NASA to fund education reforms.

Is this an unstated reference to DIRECT?

Quote
Former congressman Bob Walker, now a lobbyist working for Brevard County, told the workshop that all the candidates were starting to question whether NASA's choice of vehicles to go back to the moon -- especially the Ares rocket that has been dogged by political and technical difficulties -- was a mistake.

Nelson said he thinks "basic politics" could change the way the candidates view the space program.

and then there is this:

Quote
Nelson will hold a hearing on the KSC job losses in Brevard in June. He said NASA did not want him to hold the hearing because it would "stir people up." NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage would not confirm nor deny Nelson's claim but said: "If any congressional committee schedules a hearing involving NASA, we will be there to support it and answer any questions."

Very interesting . . .
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tedcraft on 05/03/2008 04:33 pm
Ross,

Any idea when the Direct 2.0.1 will be "officially" released?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/03/2008 09:28 pm
Another thing that might want to be "casually" mentioned is how the Jupiter series would be a good complement to the EELV program for DoD and and intelligence work.  I think the Air Force/NRO/others would be very interested in a rocket that could lift an 8m diameter lens on a reconnaissance satellite, while other payloads would stay on EELV.  Ares V will not be in any economic area for either agency to use, while maybe once a year Jupiter-120 flight should be much more affordable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/04/2008 01:33 am
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 3/5/2008  5:28 PM

Another thing that might want to be "casually" mentioned is how the Jupiter series would be a good complement to the EELV program for DoD and and intelligence work.  I think the Air Force/NRO/others would be very interested in a rocket that could lift an 8m diameter lens on a reconnaissance satellite, while other payloads would stay on EELV.  Ares V will not be in any economic area for either agency to use, while maybe once a year Jupiter-120 flight should be much more affordable.

No, they shouldn't.  The DOD and NRO don't have requirements for anything other than EELV's.   This has been stated over and over at conferences.   Also Direct is not on the west coast.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/04/2008 01:53 am
Quote
Jim - 3/5/2008  9:33 PM

No, they shouldn't.  The DOD and NRO don't have requirements for anything other than EELV's.   This has been stated over and over at conferences.   Also Direct is not on the west coast.

I realize that there is no requirement, jsut saying that there exists the possibility for it to happen if such a design is warranted.  EELVs are definitely the sole booster for the government for now, however I just threw out the large telescope as a future capability if ever desired.  Also for polar flights Jupiter can do the dog leg approach from Kennedy (i know it will never fly out of vandenburg)  Of course that gives a large performance hit, but a 8 meter diameter telescope would be more concerned with volume rather than mass one would suppose.  However it is again a nice to have rather than a requirement, but the capability to do so would score a few brownie points.

however this is far as I am going, I know better than to argue with Jim.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/04/2008 03:53 am
Quote
tedcraft - 3/5/2008  12:33 PM

Any idea when the Direct 2.0.1 will be "officially" released?

We've been working on some other things recently which are a little more time critical.   That and a few days in my sickbed have meant I just haven't had the time to write the changes up fully yet.   I'll get to it soon though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/04/2008 04:08 am
Pentagon *is* interested.   I will say no more.

My own interest is to make an 8m dia. replacement in LEO for Hubble.   JWST has its purpose all the way out at EML-2, but an LEO-based scope also has proven its worth already.   Having a straight replacement for Hubble, which we can continue to maintain, would be a nice opportunity.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/04/2008 01:58 pm
Quote
tedcraft - 3/5/2008  12:33 PM

Any idea when the Direct 2.0.1 will be "officially" released?

Release Candidate is now here

Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/04/2008 02:36 pm
Great job Ross and team! Good balance of graphics and presenting sufficient "meat" behind the ideas in a clear and condensed presentation that won't overwhelm the average reader(congress critter?).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/04/2008 02:56 pm
That's essentially the aim of this doc, so thanks! :)

If the eagle-eyed viewers here think the bugs have been fixed (and hopefully I haven't introduced many new ones!), then this document will go up on the site some time Monday/Tuesday.

I'm also getting a mildly re-edited version of a PowerPoint Presentation ready for release right now too which has been out there for about 6 weeks or so 'doing the rounds'.   That should be ready in the next day or two too - although I'm not including the voice-over which we were going to add.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/04/2008 02:59 pm
No mention of earlier support for the ISS on the title page makes it sound like a moon rocket, and only a moon rocket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/04/2008 03:06 pm
Interesting point that.   I'll tweak it.

Although, having worked all night on a few of these docs now, I'm off to the beach where I can catch some zzz's...

I'll do the tweaking later :)

Thanks to all who offer feedback though.

Beach "Sunday School" beckons...   And I ain't talkin' about anything involvin' a bible... ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 05/04/2008 04:05 pm
Figures 14 and 15 have font sizes which are not easily read at 100% magnification or when printed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/04/2008 05:29 pm
Quote
This single vehicle, called “Jupiter”, would be capable of supporting either Crew or Cargo missions for both Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and the far larger Exploration missions going on to the Moon, Mars and Beyond.

I would say instead "This single vehicle or “Jupiter”, would be capable of supporting either Crew or Cargo missions for both International Space Station logistics flights and the far larger Exploration missions going on to the Moon, Mars and Beyond.

Quote
The configuration of the vehicles also has additional
benefits not accounted for so easily.
 

I think this line is unnecessary, just axe it as it just does not sound right.

Quote
Additionally, with multiple engines on the Core Stage, (and also later the Upper Stage) this provides a level of redundancy.

Instead how about:

Additionally, multiple engines on the core and later Upper stage provides an increased level of redundancy not available on Ares-I.

I haven't read the rest, but I need to eat.  Maybe someone else can proof read it some more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/04/2008 05:50 pm

Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 4/5/2008  12:29 PM
I haven't read the rest, but I need to eat.  Maybe someone else can proof read it some more.

I proof-read the whole thing and provided comments off-line.  However, I suspect we'll get a lot of redundancy unless we post the comments where all can see them.  Here's what I found.  

The text from the presentation is indented for reference.

   
·        Pg. 2 - This is an incomplete sentence…

   

“By replacing the two expensive Ares Launch Vehicles with a single Launcher more closely related to the existing Shuttle systems.”


·        Pg. 2 – These are very long (~63 words vs. recommended 25 word max) one-sentence paragraphs which contain awkward phrasing

   

“By removing all of the key long-lead-time, highly expensive and technically challenging components from the critical development path to fielding Shuttle’s replacement in the short-term and by choosing to only rely upon existing flight hardware as the basis for all major systems, DIRECT can become operational many years sooner – thus “closing the gap” after Shuttle from 5 years, to just 2 years.

   

This, coupled with the lower development costs, will make it an affordable proposition to realistically retain the Shuttle’s workforce in order to prevent a repeat of the disastrous “brain-drain” which occurred in the 6 year hiatus between the Apollo Program and Shuttle during the period 1975-1981.”

 

                                                                                                     

 

Consider the following single-paragraph alternative:

   

“By removing key long-lead-time components from the critical development path and basing all major systems on existing flight hardware, DIRECT closes the post-shuttle ‘gap’ from at least 5 years to 2 years.  As a consequence of a faster development time, this approach reduces the costs associated with developing the STS replacement system and prevents a repeat of the disastrous ‘brain drain’ that occurred between the Apollo and Shuttle programs.”  

 


 

“[N]ew J-2X engines, new Upper Stages” are listed in Pg. 2, Para 3 as being a “bad” thing, yet they’re included in figure 1 as being pieces of the 232.  This is confusing to anyone not familiar with the whole Jupiter system and the rationale for the choices made ad infinitum.  You should make clearer that their inclusion on the 232 removes them from the critical path of the 120.  That’s done later in the article, but by that point it’s too late unless the reader already knows it.  I don’t have any suggestions on how you can do this, but it would be good if you can figure a way to address it.

 

 


 

·        Pg. 3, Para 1 – I’d recommend “exceed” instead of “achieve”.  “Achieve” allows the reader to assume that the system just barely passes muster.  We both know that this isn’t the case.

 

 

Both of the proposed Launch Vehicles in this proposal, Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232, achieve NASA’s minimum requirements

 
 

 

·        Pg. 3, last Para – “exceeds Shuttle” doesn’t make grammatical sense.  It can exceed the Shuttle’s performance, or the Shuttle’s charisma, or whatever.  We’re missing a noun?  Perhaps “…its performance exceeds that of the Shuttle…”

 

   

“An important feature of the Jupiter launch system is how its performance exceeds Shuttle
from day one…”

 


·        Pg. 8, Para 1 – Remove “also” and “too”.

 

 

As with Ares-I and Ares-V also, new plumbing is required too.

 


 

·        Pg 8 - “Figure 10 demonstrates both the 8.4m and 10m Fairings.  No it doesn’t.  Both references to Figure 10 on this page should refer to Figure 9.

 

Cheers! 

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kenny008 on 05/05/2008 12:19 am
Ross,

Looks like most the Figure numbers are off by one, starting around page 7.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kaa on 05/05/2008 02:24 am
Ross and team, you are doing a fantastic job, however your writing can I think be a bit more, well, direct. I had a go at the introduction and reworked it as follows...


We propose to replace the current two Launch Vehicle (Ares) implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) with a single Launcher (Jupiter) directly derived from the existing Shuttle system.

This “DIRECT” Shuttle-derived launcher exceeds all VSE payload and safety requirements for Crew and Cargo missions to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. Compared to Ares, it reduces development costs, schedule and risks, cuts the human spaceflight gap after the Shuttle retires in 2010 from 5 to 2 years, and retains the NASA and contractor workforce.

DIRECT achieves this by minimizing new technology. Jupiter uses unchanged the human-rated Shuttle 4-segment Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB), the USAF Delta-IV RS-68 main engines, and converts the current Shuttle External Tank (ET) into a Core Stage atop which flies the new Orion spacecraft. In contrast, Ares has to develop new 5-segment SRB’s, new J-2X engines, new Upper Stages and all-new manufacturing and launch facilities.

The DIRECT Shuttle replacement bases all major systems on existing flight hardware and has no key long lead-time, highly expensive and technically challenging components on the critical development path. This enables DIRECT to start operating three years earlier than Ares and significantly “close the gap” in US human spaceflight.

This faster schedule, coupled with the lower development costs, will make retaining the Shuttle workforce an affordable proposition and prevents a repeat of the disastrous “brain-drain” which occurred in the 6 year hiatus between the Apollo Program and Shuttle during the period 1975-1981.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/05/2008 02:35 am
(Page 2)  Change:

“This proposal defines a high-level alternative to NASA’s current Launch Vehicle plans designed to support the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). By replacing the two expensive Ares Launch Vehicles with a single Launcher more closely related to the existing Shuttle systems.

Such a “DIRECT” Shuttle Derivative would reduce development costs and significantly “close the gap” after the Space Shuttle retires in 2010 – thereby protecting the Shuttle’s workforce. This single vehicle, called “Jupiter”, would be capable of supporting either Crew or Cargo missions for both Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and the far larger Exploration missions going on to the Moon, Mars and Beyond.”

To
“This proposal defines a single launcher alternative to NASA’s expensive current plans for two new Ares launchers that reduces development costs, protects the existing workforce and significantly “closes the gap” from five years to only two.  This vehicle – called “Jupiter” can supporting Crew or Cargo missions in support of the International Space Station (ISS), other Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and the futre missions to the Moon, Mars and Beyond.”

Rationale:  Provides a stronger, short paragraph introducing your work.

Page 6

Change:

Main Engines:
The 3 familiar Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) are designed to be reused approximately 20 times before requiring replacement. Because these are reusable engines, they are very expensive to manufacture and maintain. To be utilized on a disposable stage like this they would be too expensive to be realistic. DIRECT proposes to use the considerably less expensive Pratt &
Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68 engine borrowed from the US Air Force’s Delta-IV program – an engine one and a half times as powerful as SSME, but designed to be inexpensive enough to be disposable – and already planned to be utilized on NASA’s future Ares-V.

The ESAS Report identified the RS-68 as a good option for NASA’s new program, and clarified that human-rating the engine should be a fairly routine process given that it is already a flight-certified unit. For DIRECT, we have deliberately retained the performance of the existing engines rather than upgrading them in any way. This removes the significant development costs incurred by requalifying the RS-68 to 106% maximum power needed for Ares-V and erases all schedule impacts from our development path. Only the process of human-rating, such as adding health monitoring systems and backup actuators is required – a task NASA has already undertaken.

To:  

Main Engines:
Like the planned Ares V, DIRECT proposes to use the considerably less expensive Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68 engine borrowed from the US Air Force’s Delta-IV program.  Unlike the Ares V, Jupiter uses the unmodified RS-68s instead of upgraded engines to 106% maximum power.  Using the current RS-68, reduces development costs, makes the engine easier to man-rate, and significantly reduces the development schedule for the engine.  Indeed, Only the process of human-rating, such as adding health monitoring systems and backup actuators is required – a task NASA has already undertaken.

Rationale:  Selling the non-use of the SSME is not needed, as it is already of the development path.  A shorter section makes the point more quickly with less confusion for the reader.

Page 9

Delete the following

“DIRECT is not dependent – in any way – on these technologies, but utilizing a stage design with an eye towards these systems in the future would greatly enhance the potential for an orbital Propellant Depot system in the future – which can be very valuable indeed. See Figure 16.

With a Propellant Depot in orbit the high cost of lifting the large quantities of propellant could easily be shared with foreign partners. A series of unmanned launches could re-fill the tanks without depending upon NASA’s resources. In return for such valuable supplies, partner nations would earn seats or payload space on Lunar & Mars missions. This would allow NASA to offset some of the high costs for Exploration while never giving up any of the key technologies required to explore our solar system to any foreign power. It would allow foreign nations to provide substantial and direct support to the program, and would in the process, also create a new commercial market for launch providers to compete for business from countries who do not have a space launch program of their own but who still wish to purchase seats on nationally prestigious Lunar missions.”

Rationale:  Keep this to your booster.  Talking about propellant depots dilutes the message and can give the impression of a complicated assembly sequence like the ISS, which can cause loss of support among the public and congress.  

Change:

Using a pair of the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne’s new J-2X engines (actually the lower thrust “D” variant is all that is required for Jupiter), currently due to be qualified around 2015 for NASA, this stage will more than double the performance of the Jupiter-120. And the same stage will also act as a highly efficient Earth Departure Stage (EDS). DIRECT has so far engaged Lockheed Martin’s Atlas/Centaur team, with 40 years experience, who have confirmed the viability of such a stage.

To:

Direct uses simpler, lower thrust Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne’s J-2D instead of the more complicated and expensive J-2X, that will take until 2015 to qualify.  This contributes to a smaller development budget and the closure of the 5 year US manned spaceflight gap to only 2 years.  And, even the J-2D will double the performance of the Jupiter-120 from __________ to ___________.

Rationale:  Shows your alternative first instead of talking about NASA’s plan.  Shorter paragraph enhances understanding.  Reference to LMCO is not needed, make it a footnote.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/05/2008 03:06 am
Or just add the sentence "Compatible with the proposed orbiting Propellant Depot".  This shows that the DIRECT team has planned ahead and will alleviate fears that the Depot will produce major operational problems.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/05/2008 06:04 am
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 4/5/2008  11:06 PM

Or just add the sentence "Compatible with the proposed orbiting Propellant Depot".  This shows that the DIRECT team has planned ahead and will alleviate fears that the Depot will produce major operational problems.

There isn't a"proposed" one in NASA's plans.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 05/05/2008 10:42 am
Quote
kaa - 4/5/2008  9:24 PM
reworked it as follows...
...for Crew and Cargo missions to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. ...

Just not to trip on that pesky prohibition to work on anything Mars-related, do not mention it explicitly:

to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the Moon, planets, and beyond.

:cool:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 05/05/2008 10:46 am
Quote
kraisee - 4/5/2008  4:58 PM

Release Candidate is now here

Enjoy,

Ross.

You propose to operate all 3 (or 4) configurations , contemporaneously (multiple flights of different configs in one year, and year after year). Example, 2018 in the release candidate:

3 x J-120/Orion + 2 x J-232/Orion + 2 x J-232/unmanned.

Can it be done with only 2 launch pads ? How are the fixed structures going to look ? Crew access at different heights (single pad for manned configs) ? Or two roller coasters, one for each pad ?

Is there a rational division of 3/4 configs between 2 pads ?

(just asking !)

edit: what I consider to be the 4th configuration (most unlikely) is J-120/unmanned

Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/05/2008 02:55 pm

From www.SpacePolitics.com:  

"On Wednesday morning, May 7, the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing titled 'Reauthorizing the Vision for Space Exploration'”.
 

 

 

1) Does anyone know if DIRECT is up for discussion?

2) Does anyone know how DIRECT stands in the eyes of "George Whitesides, executive director of the National Space Society"?  He's apparently on the list of witnesses who will be speaking at the hearing.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 05/05/2008 04:01 pm
Quote
kraisee - 4/5/2008  4:58 PM
Release Candidate is now here

Enjoy,

Ross.

In the AIAA 2007 paper, J-232/Orion ejects the LAS at T+322 seconds, post u/s ignition (T+292 sec.)

In the ReleaseCandidate pdf, LAS jettison shows at T+274 sec., prior to the u/s ignition (same T+292 sec.)

Is it mandatory, or not, to keep the LAS until after u/s ignition ?

(just asking !)


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: copernicus on 05/05/2008 06:05 pm

As for a Fuel Depot, I will refer to Mike Griffin's comments of November 15, 2005 to the
conference of the American Astronautical Society.  You can find this speech by "googling"
the phrase " 'Mike Griffin' 2005 AIAA"  -  note that this is erroneously labled as remarks to
the AIAA instead of the AAS.  

Late in his speech, starting on page 7, Griffin was very enthusiastic about the use of orbital fuel depots.  He felt
that they should not be on the critical path for the return to the Moon, but that they should
come into play for manned Mars missions and later exploration of the Moon.  He also mentions inflatable
habitats, such as Bigelow's modules, could be used for manned support of the Fuel Depot.  
All in all, it looks like Griffin is a supporter of your concept to eventual use orbital re-fueling.  

Also, I feel that the DIRECT Team is in a great position to influence the space policy of the next
President.  You may recall that when Bill Clinton came to office in 1993, he ordered the
re-design of the Space Station.  The ISS is a result of Clinton's efforts to re-organize the project,
and to make it manageable, both technically and financially.  
I feel that the next President, whoever he or she is, will make a similar effort with the VSE.  
The DIRECT Team has done the leg work to make their proposal the logical one to adopt.  

As for NASA's recent reports on plans to mitigate the vibration issues with Ares-1, I feel that
they also lay the groundwork for the next administration to terminate Ares-1 and move to DIRECT.
With these reports, NASA has now officially documented the shortcomings of Ares-1.  
The next administration can see for themselves, with these reports, that a new way is needed.  



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/05/2008 07:48 pm
Quote
Jim - 5/5/2008  7:04 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 4/5/2008  11:06 PM

Or just add the sentence "Compatible with the proposed orbiting Propellant Depot".  This shows that the DIRECT team has planned ahead and will alleviate fears that the Depot will produce major operational problems.

There isn't a"proposed" one in NASA's plans.

Boeing or Lockheed Martin would be the natural proposer of a commercial Propellant Depot rather than NASA.  Similar to this one from Boeing, which assumes NASA is a customer for the fuel:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/constellation/references/presentations/Potential_Impact_of_LEO_Propellant_on_NASA_ESAS_Architecture.pdf
,
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/05/2008 08:07 pm
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 5/5/2008  3:48 PM

Quote
Jim - 5/5/2008  7:04 AM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 4/5/2008  11:06 PM

Or just add the sentence "Compatible with the proposed orbiting Propellant Depot".  This shows that the DIRECT team has planned ahead and will alleviate fears that the Depot will produce major operational problems.

There isn't a"proposed" one in NASA's plans.

Boeing or Lockheed Martin would be the natural proposer of a commercial Propellant Depot rather than NASA.  Similar to this one from Boeing, which assumes NASA is a customer for the fuel:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/constellation/references/presentations/Potential_Impact_of_LEO_Propellant_on_NASA_ESAS_Architecture.pdf
,

That doesn't change the fact that is it just plain stupid to say it is compatible with a non existent depot where nothing is defined.  It is just like saying a car you are looking at to buy has to fit in a undefined garage of an unknown house you might or might not buy in the future

Don't want to give detractors reasons to  to find issues with.  
Direct wants help, not more work, so give them something useful or say nothing at all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/05/2008 09:32 pm
Okay, I've incorporated some of the suggestions.   I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback on this, in particular here on this thread Lee Jay, marsavian, Ronsmytheiii, kttopdad, kenny008, mike robel, AM Swallow and gospacex have all offered very welcome suggestions - to list but a few!

Not all of the suggestions were adopted, sorry, but I think that between the various options we have a pretty good document now.   Here is one final review if you wish!

I'll try to deal with some of the questions here now...

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/05/2008 09:35 pm
Quote
kttopdad - 5/5/2008  10:55 AM

From www.SpacePolitics.com:  
"On Wednesday morning, May 7, the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing titled 'Reauthorizing the Vision for Space Exploration'”.

1) Does anyone know if DIRECT is up for discussion?

We hope so.


Quote
2) Does anyone know how DIRECT stands in the eyes of "George Whitesides, executive director of the National Space Society"?  He's apparently on the list of witnesses who will be speaking at the hearing.

I have contacted him personally.   We were going to approach all of the advocacy groups soon, but this hearing has prompted a fast-track contact.   That's okay though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/05/2008 09:39 pm
Quote
gospacex - 5/5/2008  6:42 AM

Quote
kaa - 4/5/2008  9:24 PM
reworked it as follows...
...for Crew and Cargo missions to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. ...

Just not to trip on that pesky prohibition to work on anything Mars-related, do not mention it explicitly:

to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the Moon, planets, and beyond.

:cool:

Mars is a bit of a two-edged sword.   Some prominent people don't want to go to Mars, but many others do.   Leaving a reference to it out would expose DIRECT to claims of "can't do Mars, eh?" which is clearly wrong.

So, we're limiting mention of it to the context which NASA and the government has already mentioned - specifically in the common phrase "Moon, Mars and Beyond".   This way we can show the system will support Mars with no problems, but keep the argument of Mars-only technology out of the conversation.

It's a workable compromise.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/05/2008 09:41 pm
Quote
renclod - 5/5/2008  12:01 PM

Quote
kraisee - 4/5/2008  4:58 PM
Release Candidate is now here

Enjoy,

Ross.

In the AIAA 2007 paper, J-232/Orion ejects the LAS at T+322 seconds, post u/s ignition (T+292 sec.)

In the ReleaseCandidate pdf, LAS jettison shows at T+274 sec., prior to the u/s ignition (same T+292 sec.)

Is it mandatory, or not, to keep the LAS until after u/s ignition ?

(just asking !)

Oops.   My mistake!   I have multiple versions of the performance analyses here.   That was a version designed for maximum possible performance, not maximum safety.   While its not "mandatory", I don't actually imagine anyone would wish to use such a flight profile. A bad mistake on my part to show those numbers, so thanks for spotting that.

I have updated the reference pages in the document with the very latest analysis results from today - with the LAS jettison occurring after U/S separation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tedcraft on 05/05/2008 09:46 pm
Ross,

The release version looks good.  Congratulations to the team.

The only other comment I can offer is regards to costs.  I see that there are occasional references to costs, but I don't see any comparisons.  Is this intentional for this document?  I guess if I were a congressman, I'd probably ask for the bottom line - How much will it cost or how much does this save?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/05/2008 10:43 pm
Ross,

I think the document is much tighter now, but it probably deserves another go over.  I would add an executive summar and then go through the main text and relentlassly delete redunencies and any way to further condense the text.  I would aim at a document only 10 pages long, 11 with an executive summary.

But, I if you think this is a good stopping point, I can support this too.

Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/05/2008 10:43 pm
Good point.

Hmmm. Will see if I can easily integrate this...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/06/2008 01:31 am
Okay, Revision 10 now includes a Cost section.



Responses welcome please.

I'm thinking this still needs a specific workforce section.   Yes / No?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: AndrewSTS on 05/06/2008 02:08 am
Quote
kraisee - 5/5/2008  8:31 PM

Okay, Revision 10 now includes a Cost section.

Responses welcome please.

Ross.
Looking good.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/06/2008 02:17 am
WRT to workforce, I think it is enough to say Direct preserves the work force due to the extensive reuse of components and shortened gap.  Again, main focus should be the booster
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rocketguy101 on 05/06/2008 02:18 am
Could you enlarge the font on Figure 6?  The cost graph is a little hard to read, even at 118%
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/06/2008 02:22 am
Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  2:31 AM

I'm thinking this still needs a specific workforce section.   Yes / No?


The main document needs a single line on workforce and contract amendment.  The details are internal to the space community so they should go into an annex with a separate cover.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kaa on 05/06/2008 02:39 am
It would help to get the bottom line cost numbers into the introduction - just the $33B vs $13B from figure 5.

Also, figure 1 shows the J-232 with new J-2X and Upper Stage but this isn't mentioned in the text of the introduction. Perhaps a sentence on the end of paragraph 4 something like "For missions beyond LEO the Jupiter launch vehicle requires a new Upper Stage with J-2X engines, however, in contrast to Ares, these are not necessary for ISS missions so their development can be deferred to later in the decade."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/06/2008 02:48 am
Ross, if you do more significant editing, you may wish to consider these suggestions.  Sorry they didn;t hit me the first time.

Page 3:  Change

The Jupiter-120 has no Upper Stage, and all engines are lit on the ground prior to liftoff. As has already occurred 6 times during the Space Shuttle Program, when a fault is detected during the engine start-sequence, the main engines can be safely shut-down and the launch aborted before committing the crew to a potentially dangerous flight.

Additionally, multiple engines on the Core Stage and later Upper Stage of Jupiter-232 provides an increased level of redundancy not available on Ares-I. If one engine should need to be shut down before the flight is complete, there are many instances where a multiengine system can still continue safely to orbit. Without multiple engines, any engine problems will always necessitate a crew abort – a process which typically places the crew at considerable risk itself.

To:

Like the Space Shuttle, the multiple engine, single stage Jupiter-120 first stage, lights all engines are lit on the ground prior to liftoff enabling fault detection software to shut down the main engines prior to SRB ignition, as has happened 6 times in the STS program.  Ares I, with its single solid fuel 1st stage does not have this capability.

The Jupiter 232 provides the same capability, and with its two-engine EDS allows abort to orbit scenarios, which has occurred once in the STS program, which again, Ares I cannot provide since its second stage also has only one engine.

Rationale:  Simpler structure, emphasized commonality of approach with shuttle system

Page 3:  Change

ISS and Cargo-only Missions:

The US today possesses two Launch Vehicle systems in the 20-25mT lift class, the Atlas-V and the Delta-IV. NASA currently proposes to build a third vehicle, Ares-I, in this same class at a cost of some $14.4 billion over a 9 year period. Yet to reach for the Moon NASA then still requires a second much larger launcher to also be built at a similar cost.

With between 38-48mT of lift capability every flight the entry-level Jupiter-120 will have no equal in the world. Combined with the significantly larger 8.4m, 10m or even 12m diameter Payload Fairing the Jupiter-120 will be able to support much larger physical payload size than the current 5m limits of all current systems. This opens the door to a far wider range of crewed and un-crewed missions than America has been able to consider at any time during the last 30 years.

To:

The US currently operates two vehicles in the 20-25mt lift class, the Atlas V and Delta IV.  NASA’s Ares I duplicates the capability of these already existing and successful boosters at a cost of $14.4 billion.  And, after completing the Ares I, NASA will still have to build Ares V at an estimated cost of ****** to reach the Moon.

Jupiter 120 provides an immediate lift capability of 38-49mT which is larger than any other booster in the world, and can loft additional capability with larger fairings than any booster America has operated in the last 30 years.  The reduced development costs of the Jupiter-120/232 program translatea to the supporting more missions at a higher flight rate then the currently planned 4 missions per year to the ISS using Ares I.

Rationale:  Simpler structure

Page 6
Change

Internal cost assumptions for NASA’s current Ares-I vary wildly between $4 billion and $7,5 billion.

To  

Internal cost assumptions for NASA’s current Ares-I vary wildly between $4 billion and $7.5 billion.

Decimal Point

Page 6:  Change

DIRECT has used the methodology employed by GAO, not NASA, to estimate its costs. The costs for existing elements such as the SRB’s, External Tank, the RS-68 engines are well documented already, as are the budgets for the existing manufacturing and launch processing facilities. It is therefore possible to extrapolate many of the costs for much of the Jupiter launch vehicle’s production and operations budgets from these existing cost structures.

To:

DIRECT uses accepted GAO methodology for cost estimates.  The budgetary costs for elements such as the SRB’s, External Tank, the RS-68 engines, general manufacturing and launch processing facilities and costs are well documented already, and enable us to extrapolate cost estimates for the Jupiter launch vehicle’s production and operations budgets from these existing well known and documented cost structures.

Rationale:  simpler structure, doesn’t paint NASA in a bad light.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/06/2008 03:44 am
Great suggestions.   I have included those, and updated the Costs section, adding a few more graphs on an extra page at the same time (had space to fill once I had to increase the size of Fig 6).

Other than typo's in the new bits, I think I'm going to go with this - Rev 11.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 05/06/2008 09:14 am
Rev 11 looks great, especially diagrams!

I failed to find any serious things to change, only minor nitpicking:

"This faster schedule... will make retaining the Shuttle workforce an affordable proposition and prevents a repeat of the disastrous brain-drain"

"will make" and "prevents" are mismatched. Change to "makes" and "prevents", or to "will make" and "will prevent".


"This  DIRECT  Shuttle-derived launcher exceeds all VSE payload and safety requirements for Crew and Cargo missions to the International Space Station (ISS). It would also be capable of supporting all of the far larger VSE missions to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. Compared to Ares, it significantly reduces development costs, schedule and risks, cuts the human spaceflight gap after the Shuttle retires in 2010 from 5 to 2 years, and retains the NASA and contractor workforce."

Replace "would also be capable" by "is capable", since all other verbs are already in "simple present" form.


"Like the planned Ares-V, DIRECT proposes to use the considerably less expensive Pratt & Whitney, Rocketdyne RS-68 engine borrowed from the US Air Force s Delta-IV program."

Less expensive compared to what?


"By choosing to "use what you' have" rather than starting from a blank slate,"

stray apostrophe at the end of "you"


"can launch payloads massing twice as much any other launcher in the world today"

Missing "as". Should be "as much AS any"



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 05/06/2008 12:17 pm
Page 7, paragraph 2, "operation" should be "operating"

Page 8, Main Engines: "considerably less expensive" - less expensive than what? This is a hangover from when you mentioned SSME here.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: CJM on 05/06/2008 12:37 pm

On page 3 the last sentence in this paragraph:

The Jupiter-232's Upper Stage provides the same
capability with its two-engine EDS allowing Abort To
Orbit (ATO) scenarios, which have also occurred in the
Shuttle Program. Again, Ares-I cannot provide this
safety capability since its Upper Stage only a single
engine.

 Should be:

Again, Ares-I cannot provide this
 safety capability since its Upper Stage has only a single
 engine.

 

Just a small typo, looks great overall, good work...  

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/06/2008 02:14 pm
Hey Ross,

Revision 11 is really good.  The introduction is strong, clear and concise.  The figures are great.  Figures 4 through 9 are especially telling.  Everyone else has given great ideas and I have none other than some nitpicky cleanup.  

In the “Mars & Beyond” section on page 4, It seems to hang a little.  Perhaps a simple single sentence might help such as “As shown in Figure 3, Direct is fully capable of supporting missions to Mars.”

The positions of Figure 7 and Figure 8 need swapping.

Figure 20 should have “Anytime Return” checked as it is on Figure 21.  It gives the impression that anytime return is not possible for the early lunar missions.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:19 pm
Quote
Removing all these key long-lead-time components from the critical development path to fielding Shuttle’s replacement in the short-term and by choosing to re-use existing flight hardware as the basis for all major systems, DIRECT will become operational many years sooner – thus “closing the gap” after Shuttle from 5 years, to just 2.

These should be equivalent - either add a "By" to "Removing" or remove the "by" before "choosing".
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:26 pm
Quote
In addition, the extra payload capacity of Jupiter can allow for additional safety equipment to be flown to provide further safety to crews.

This is a really important point given that one of the cost-drivers in the Orion program is the constant re-engineering necessitated by the constantly-reducing performance of the Aries-I.  The safety systems are a large part of what is being jettisoned to make the Orion lighter.  Yes, this is mentioned later in the presentation, but I think it's a key selling point and should be repeated.  It would be nice to reflect that at this point in the presentation.  Perhaps something like this:

"In addition, the extra payload capacity of the Jupiter 120 will allow for safety equipment that has been removed from the Orion design due to payload limitations of the Aries-I to be reincorporated into the craft.  The spare lift capacity of the Jupiter 120 would even allow additional safety features to be added in the future to provide further safety to crews, equipment and missions."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/06/2008 02:28 pm
Ross,

Figure 4 should show Ares 1-Y flight in 2013.  (It slipped from 2012).

Does Figure 9 include Ares 1-X & Y workforce adjustments?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:29 pm
Quote
An important feature of the Jupiter launch system is how its performance exceeds Shuttle
from day one...

"An important feature of the Jupiter launch system is how its performance exceeds that of the Shuttle from day one..."
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:35 pm
Quote
DIRECT contends that only one new vehicle, flown in both a small and large configuration can perform all the missions.

I think a little emphasis of this key point would not be unreasonable.  Plus, "a small and large configuration" should either be "a small and a large configuration" or "small and large configurations."

"DIRECT contends that only one new vehicle, flown in both small and large configurations can perform all the missions with greater efficiency than a two-vehicle architecture can acheive."
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:36 pm
Quote
While at the same time this single vehicle will require only one, significantly smaller development program, a single operation support system, and one common launch and manufacturing infrastructure based closely upon the STS systems in use today.

Commas run amok...

"While at the same time this single vehicle will require only one significantly smaller development program, a single operation support system and one common launch and manufacturing infrastructure based closely upon the STS systems in use today."
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 02:44 pm
Quote
Operational Costs are drastically cut compared to Ares, by the simple expedient of operation one vehicle system instead of two, lowering Fixed costs and raising flight-rates in order to amortize these costs across a larger number of units makes each unit significantly more cost effective.

This is a run-on sentence and should be split in two.

"Operational Costs are drastically cut compared to Ares, by the simple expedient of operation one vehicle system instead of two.  Lowering Fixed costs and raising flight-rates in order to amortize these costs across a larger number of units makes each unit significantly more cost effective."
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 03:05 pm

To reduce spamming everyone with thread update notifications, I'll put the rest of my comments in this post.  Sorry for the multiple posts thus far.  I didn't figure there were that many findings to report.   :)

Quote
Indeed, Only the process of human-rating, such...

Should be...

"Indeed, only the process of human-rating, such ..."

 



Quote
Like both Ares vehicles, new avionics systems will be required – and it is likely that the avionics system will be the most time-consuming development element of this entire program, yet even that is assisted by sharing such close commonality with existing STS and EELV programs.

This is a run-on sentence.


I question the wisdom of including the idea of on-orbit refueling depots in this presentation.  The idea is not core to the DIRECT idea, and its inclusion gives detractors ammunition.  The idea of a fuel depot, and all that it implies, applies equally to the Aries architecture as it does to the DIRECT architecture.  It isn't a unique selling feature of DIRECT, so it doesn't really belong here.  My $.02.

 

Good work, all.

 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/06/2008 08:37 pm
I have integrated most of the suggestions. Another big thank-you to everyone who has taken the time to contribute.

Here is Rev12 with all those tweaks included.


A couple of quick replies as well:-

csj - My understanding is that there have been two fairly recent delays to the Ares-I-Y schedule.   One set it back by about 6 months, the other a further 10-12 months (also pushing Orion 4 to 2016 now).   The latest information I've received says mid-2014, which is why I have tweaked the manifest to show that.   If there is more recent info that I missed (been ill, so quite possible), I'm more than willing to change it again, but I just haven't *seen* it yet.   If you have a link to a post or something, I would like to see it before 'going to press' with this.

kttopdad - Actually Propellant Depots are a major part of the "DIRECT Architecture" - which is the umbrella plan we have encompassing the whole program.   They just aren't a major part of the "Jupiter Element" and aren't a complication we wish to include while we are getting the operation underway.    We want the info 'out there' and showing it in the logical upgrade path beyond 2020 does no harm IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/06/2008 09:36 pm
Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:37 PM

csj - My understanding is that there have been two fairly recent delays to the Ares-I-Y schedule.   One set it back by about 6 months, the other a further 10-12 months (also pushing Orion 4 to 2016 now).   The latest information I've received says mid-2014, which is why I have tweaked the manifest to show that.   If there is more recent info that I missed (been ill, so quite possible), I'm more than willing to change it again, but I just haven't *seen* it yet.   If you have a link to a post or something, I would like to see it before 'going to press' with this.


Ross,

I have an old article dated 9/5/2007 about the Ares I-Y launch slip but I may have read it wrong:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5221

Quote
'Ares I-Y launch date slipped from 9/2012 to 8/2013,' noted impacts within the schedule, based on the pros and cons of the manifest options NASA has to consider, with 'Orion 4 - the first manned Orion flight - slipping from 9/2014 to 8/2015,' being threatened on one of the schedule impact notes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/06/2008 09:47 pm

Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:37 PM
kttopdad - Actually Propellant Depots are a major part of the "DIRECT Architecture" - which is the umbrella plan we have encompassing the whole program.   They just aren't a major part of the "Jupiter Element" and aren't a complication we wish to include while we are getting the operation underway.    We want the info 'out there' and showing it in the logical upgrade path beyond 2020 does no harm IMHO.

Ross.

Gotcha.  Thanks.

Other findings.  (I bet you regret the day you ever put this out for general review!   :)  )



Quote
...1989-2993 “National Launch System” (NLS) effort...

I'm guessing this should be 1989-1993?  I've heard of long-range planning, but this seems a little extreme.  :)


Quote
The comparable results are shown in Figure 6, with approximately a $1 billion difference between Ares and Jupiter approaches.

 

This doesn't state that the difference in cost favors the Jupiter.  Perhaps "...$1 billion savings of the Jupiter approach over that of Ares."

 


Quote
By reducing the impact of development costs, and by bringing forward the schedule so many years provides the necessary cost leverage to allow the workforce to be retained.

 

This is grammatically questionable.  Perhaps "By reducing the impact of development costs, and by bringing forward the schedule so many years, DIRECT provides the necessary cost leverage to allow the workforce to be retained.

 

 


Figures 7 and 8 are numbered right-to-left.  Is this on purpose?

 


Quote
Like the planned Ares-V, DIRECT proposes to use the considerably low-cost Pratt &
Whitney, Rocketdyne RS-68 engine borrowed from the US Air Force’s Delta-IV program.

This should be either "considerably lower-cost" or "low-cost".  I presume you're comparing it to the costly development of the J-2X, so I would use the first option.

 


Quote
As with Ares-I and Ares-V also, new plumbing is required too.

 

I still don't like this phrasing.  Awkward.  "As with the Ares-I and Ares-V, the Jupiter will also require new plumbing."  Or how 'bout this:  "The Jupiter-related ET plumbing changes will be on par with those of the Ares-I and Ares-V."  Anything but the original.

 


Quote
This less costly approach of adding an Upper Stage, is all that is required to enable lunar missions with 20% more performance than NASA plans.

 

Extraneous comma.

 


 

Can you tell I work on documentation for a living?  I just want to say that I really appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this project.  I think y'all are on the right track from an engineering prospective.

Regards,

Karat-Top Dad (I have three red-headed little girls.)

 

 

 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 05/06/2008 09:53 pm
Quote
kraisee - 15/4/2008  1:13 AM

Quote
renclod - 14/4/2008  5:03 AM

.. what is the "Direct" current architectural baseline ? ... in simple terms... NASA current:
...
3/ Cargo to Luna: Ares V / Altair / xx tonnes cargo; single launch
...
3/ Cargo to Luna: ... Jupiter-232/EDS + Jupiter-232/Altair ...- dual launch ...
Ross.

One quick question, Ross: how do you propose sequencing this dual launch (pure cargo) in time: same 90 minutes to 4 days (like for manned missions) ?

Thank you.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/06/2008 09:55 pm
How about, Like Ares I/V, Jupiter requires new plumbing for the fuel system, but this is mimimized by being able to reuse portions of the existing tankage, since we retain the ET diameter and tooling.

Instead of ""As with the Ares-I and Ares-V, the Jupiter will also require new plumbing." Or how 'bout this: "The Jupiter-related ET plumbing changes will be on par with those of the Ares-I and Ares-V." Anything but the original.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/06/2008 10:02 pm
Ross,

First of all get better!  We don't allow sickness around here:)

I like the updates.  However, this sentence reads funny to me:

Quote
"Operational Costs are drastically cut compared to Ares, by the simple expedient of operation one vehicle
system instead of two."

My grammer isn't that great but should the above sentence have have the "of" moved?  or perhaps there is a better way of wording it?

"...expedient operation of one vehicle..."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 05/06/2008 10:06 pm
Ross, your current document only covers LOR moon missions.  If I remember well, your AIAA document had a EML1-EML1 moon mission. Are missions through L1 still being considered or are you now concentrating on LOR missions?

PaulL
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/06/2008 10:15 pm
Ross I feel a bit silly.  I have jumped around on the forum searching for something and read  about you being sick somewhere along the way.  But that was about a month ago when you wrote that.  I got confused.  I hope that you aren't sick.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/06/2008 10:23 pm
Quote
renclod - 6/5/2008  5:53 PM

One quick question, Ross: how do you propose sequencing this dual launch (pure cargo) in time: same 90 minutes to 4 days (like for manned missions) ?

Essentially it will be the same as for crew missions.   And that in turn will be exactly the same as  Ares - with both vehicles being processed in rapid-succession and using both Pads in parallel.

A cargo mission about 80% the size of an Ares-V mission could be done on a single flight, but for the cost of the extra launcher you can get a lot more cargo and only have the costs of building a single type of descent stage and flying it more often - amortizing costs far more effectively.

The ideal scenario is to launch the CaLV flight first and check it out in orbit, and then have the expensive Spacecraft and Crew join it after we know that launch was successful - 90 minutes later.

Ares is aiming to launch the Crew first, which we could also do, but if the EDS flight never gets off the ground in time, you would lose an awfully valuable Spacecraft.   There are pro's and con's either way.   Myself, I'd prefer to launch the EDS first and keep the crew out of harms way until you must.


Either way, the second launch has two attempts per day, for four days.   This gives you 8 separate attempts to rendezvous successfully.

With Jupiter's extra payload capability we aren't actually limited to the Ares "4 day window" - I see no show-stoppers for why we couldn't support at least a 12 day "window" with Jupiter.


Anyway, in terms of processing, each Jupiter-232 Lunar flight will spend about 6-7 weeks in one of the VAB High Bays where they will be completely prepared for flight.   Assembly & checkout of both vehicle and final checkout of the payload will be performed prior to roll-out.   All of the Vehicle-to-MLP umbilical connections will be made and tested inside the VAB, leaving relatively little work to do at the Pad.

The vehicle will be rolled out approximately 10-14 days prior to liftoff, and a final checkout will be performed there once the MLP is fully connected to the Pad.   The equivalent of a Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test (TCDT) will be performed at the Pad to validate all systems, and then the countdown will go ahead.

At that point a final few jobs need doing like fitting the SRB igniters, and everything should be ready to fly.


The bottle-neck for DIRECT is not actually the Pads in this architecture.   Its the VAB High Bays.   There are only two High Bay's (#1 & #3 - both facing the Ocean) currently fitted with Work Platforms prepared to process Shuttle's which we would (mostly) re-use.

With < 8-week turn-around and three MLP's, the facility would have a through-put of about 12-13 Jupiter-232 launches per year.

FYI: Jupiter-120 would spend only about 4-5 weeks in the VAB, so you could get a lot more of those through the doors if you wished.


If a 3rd VAB High Bay were refitted for Jupiter operations, the limiting factor then transfers over to the 3 MLP's.    You can sustain a flight rate as high as 16-18 Jupiter-232's per year with no real problems with just 3 MLP's.

To go much above that would require a 4th MLP to be built and the 4th High Bay to be refitted too.   While a flight rate as high as 24 per year is theoretically possible, I don't ever see Jupiter flight rates going above the 12-16 per year level, so this should be unnecessary - unless we simply wish to take logistics pressure off of the VAB - or perhaps if we wished to keep a "rescue vehicle' on permanent standby.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/07/2008 01:17 am
Quote
csj - 6/5/2008  5:02 PM

Ross,

First of all get better!  We don't allow sickness around here:)

I like the updates.  However, this sentence reads funny to me:

Quote
"Operational Costs are drastically cut compared to Ares, by the simple expedient of operation one vehicle system instead of two."

My grammer isn't that great but should the above sentence have have the "of" moved?  or perhaps there is a better way of wording it?

"...expedient operation of one vehicle..."

I think it should read "Operational Costs are drastically cut compared to Ares by the simple expedient of operating one vehicle system instead of two."  This gets rid of the extraneous comma after "Ares" and changes "operation" to "operating".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/07/2008 02:14 am
Quote
PaulL - 6/5/2008  6:06 PM

Ross, your current document only covers LOR moon missions.  If I remember well, your AIAA document had a EML1-EML1 moon mission. Are missions through L1 still being considered or are you now concentrating on LOR missions?

PaulL

We still have the EML mission profiles, but it has been made plainly clear to us that NASA won't currently entertain any approach which doesn't use EOR & LOR staging exclusively.   The same is true for Propellant Transfer technologies also - they are essentially veto'd at this time.

Essentially the agency as a whole wants to limit the activities to simply reproducing the Apollo approach first and foremost.   The key being that they wish to rebuild that long-lost capability, and once they have that back, then they will progress onwards from that firm foundation.   We can understand that position even though we would probably prefer to jump in a little deeper at the start.


So we are playing within the current rules.   Specifically, we are closing all of the performance targets *without* any of those enhancements - all while Ares still can not.   And that actually puts us in an incredibly strong position.

But we still have the EML staging options and Propellant Depot plans already planned out as the logical upgrade options - they offer such improvements that they are going to be extraordinarily difficult to ignore for long.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/07/2008 02:17 am
Totally off-topic, but no I haven't been well for a while.   I just don't usually like to talk about it much.   I'll be fine.   Don't worry about it. :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/07/2008 03:44 am
Quote
csj - 6/5/2008  5:36 PM

I have an old article dated 9/5/2007 about the Ares I-Y launch slip but I may have read it wrong:
(snip)

I think the only place I have seen this stuff publicly is in L2 on this thread - although I must admit there is no specific mention of the Ares-I-Y flight itself - just a generic "slip" to all the Ares schedules.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12738&posts=26&start=1

I have seen other unreleased documentation which seems to confirm this, and the mid-2014 might have been there.   Sorry I can't provide a link - I only saw those in hardcopy.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/07/2008 04:03 am
Quote
kttopdad - 6/5/2008  5:47 PM

I bet you regret the day you ever put this out for general review!   :)

Actually no, not at all.   Quite the reverse actually.   This is *exactly* the sort of feedback I was hoping to get.

Just today alone, I've had my head buried in PowerPoint presentations (about to be released here), incredibly detailed budget spreadsheets (never to be released), reviews of technical documentation about ESAS LV-24/25 and NLS and a host of other pretty heavy stuff.   So actually, editing this has a bit of "fresh air" in terms of my day's efforts of DIRECT :)

And then I have my real job too...


But I'm the one who should really be thanking you - and all the others here - who have helped hone this document.   I really appreciate the effort you've all gone to and I think this is looking far better now than when I put it in for review first - and in that it closely resembles the entire DIRECT effort as a whole.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/07/2008 04:25 am
Okay, that's enough editing.   Time to press on with it...



The DIRECT Summary v2.0.1

The updated baseline since AIAA "Space 2007" last September.

Ross
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 05/07/2008 10:41 am
Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  9:14 PM

Quote
PaulL - 6/5/2008  6:06 PM

Ross, your current document only covers LOR moon missions.  If I remember well, your AIAA document had a EML1-EML1 moon mission. Are missions through L1 still being considered or are you now concentrating on LOR missions?

PaulL

We still have the EML mission profiles, but it has been made plainly clear to us that NASA won't currently entertain any approach which doesn't use EOR & LOR staging exclusively.   The same is true for Propellant Transfer technologies also - they are essentially veto'd at this time.

Essentially the agency as a whole wants to limit the activities to simply reproducing the Apollo approach first and foremost.   The key being that they wish to rebuild that long-lost capability, and once they have that back, then they will progress onwards from that firm foundation.   We can understand that position even though we would probably prefer to jump in a little deeper at the start.


So we are playing within the current rules.   Specifically, we are closing all of the performance targets *without* any of those enhancements - all while Ares still can not.   And that actually puts us in an incredibly strong position.

But we still have the EML staging options and Propellant Depot plans already planned out as the logical upgrade options - they offer such improvements that they are going to be extraordinarily difficult to ignore for long.

Ross.

It is too bad that NASA does not want to consider EML1 missions as this would resolve their Ares I/Orion payload/mass problem (although it would then require more delta V from the LSAM to go to the moon) as returning to earth from L1 takes less propellant than from LLO.

For Jupiter, do you know if the J-120 with a Delta IV US can send to L1 an Orion with enough propellant in the SM to do L1OI and TEI burn?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 05/07/2008 04:48 pm
I was thinking the same thing recently, Paul.  I've been poking around in your CEPE spreadsheet to try and puzzle out the answer myself.

[My Usual Disclaimer: I admittedly have no clue what I'm doing.  My rockets are made out of Legos.]

J-120 can put ~47mT in LEO.  Lunar Orion control mass is supposed to be ~22mT I think, and that's supposed to include fuel for Orion to do TEI, right?  

L1OI is just greater than 1:1 fuel:mass with a J-2-derivtive if memory serves, so in theory, you could probably grow a Lunar Block SM for Orion to perform L1OI and TEI.

Alternatively, you could look at a J-221d (5m delta u/s) where the u/s provides dV to launch and L1OI and have Orion to TEI.  The Delta u/s looks like it could put ~18mT at L1... So that doesn't look like enough "oomph" for an EML1 Jupiter-u/s without some growth.

However, a J-221 using an u/s similar to the DIRECT proposal with a J2-S (not J-2XD or J-2X even) seems to be able to put ~36mT at L1.  Now *that* I'd like to see.  I can imagine quite a useful architecture starting out of EML1 with 36mT launches.  

Heck, for that mass, you could pretty easily build up a reusable LSAM and/or an EML1 station to replace ISS or serve as a propellant depot.

J-232 looks better for LEO-to-LLO operations, but J-221 looks viable to my untrained eye, if you start looking at staging missions at EML1.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 05/07/2008 05:31 pm
Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:23 PM

Quote
renclod - 6/5/2008  5:53 PM

One quick question, Ross: how do you propose sequencing this dual launch (pure cargo) in time: same 90 minutes to 4 days (like for manned missions) ?

Essentially it will be the same as for crew missions.   And that in turn will be exactly the same as  Ares - with both vehicles being processed in rapid-succession and using both Pads in parallel.

...

The ideal scenario is to launch the CaLV flight first and check it out in orbit, and then have the expensive Spacecraft and Crew join it after we know that launch was successful - 90 minutes later.

...

Ross.


It seems to me that in order to launch the crew 90 minutes after the CaLV was launched ... the crew would have to be sitting in the capsule, rocket fueled and almost ready to go while the CaLV was blasted off a few miles away.  Is that in the plans?  It seems like that might violate some sort of safety protocol ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/07/2008 07:23 pm
Quote
imcub - 7/5/2008  1:31 PM

It seems to me that in order to launch the crew 90 minutes after the CaLV was launched ... the crew would have to be sitting in the capsule, rocket fueled and almost ready to go while the CaLV was blasted off a few miles away.  Is that in the plans?  It seems like that might violate some sort of safety protocol ...

See Gemini Titan and Atlas Agenda GTV launch scenarios
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/07/2008 09:54 pm
In Figure 9 of the DIRECT Summary, the RED bar legend is "Compulsory Redundancies".  Should this be "Compulsory Reductions"? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/07/2008 10:08 pm
"Redundancies" is a euphemism in the US (and perhaps elsewhere) for people you are going to lay off as unneeded.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 05/07/2008 10:10 pm
Quote
Jim - 7/5/2008  12:23 PM

Quote
imcub - 7/5/2008  1:31 PM

It seems to me that in order to launch the crew 90 minutes after the CaLV was launched ... the crew would have to be sitting in the capsule, rocket fueled and almost ready to go while the CaLV was blasted off a few miles away.  Is that in the plans?  It seems like that might violate some sort of safety protocol ...

See Gemini Titan and Atlas Agenda GTV launch scenarios

OK ... I did ... thanks!   And Ross ... never mind ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 05/07/2008 10:14 pm
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=9d3e2a7b-cb72-4569-9c9c-b66b645a1de9

rtsp://video.webcastcenter.com/srs_g2/commerce050708.rm (starts at about 15mins in)

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/KranzMarch6.pdf (Kranz starts from 38mins in the audio, 47mins on architecture, 58mins for Jupiter-120 question, 1hour 38min for EELV question )
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/JohnsonFreeseWrittenStatement.pdf
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/TarantinoUSRAWrittenTestimony.pdf
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/BobDIckmantestimonyFinal.pdf
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/WhitesidesStatementReauthorizingtheVisionforSpaceExploration.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 05/08/2008 01:48 am
Quote
BogoMIPS - 7/5/2008  11:48 AM

I was thinking the same thing recently, Paul.  I've been poking around in your CEPE spreadsheet to try and puzzle out the answer myself.

[My Usual Disclaimer: I admittedly have no clue what I'm doing.  My rockets are made out of Legos.]

J-120 can put ~47mT in LEO.  Lunar Orion control mass is supposed to be ~22mT I think, and that's supposed to include fuel for Orion to do TEI, right?  

L1OI is just greater than 1:1 fuel:mass with a J-2-derivtive if memory serves, so in theory, you could probably grow a Lunar Block SM for Orion to perform L1OI and TEI.

Alternatively, you could look at a J-221d (5m delta u/s) where the u/s provides dV to launch and L1OI and have Orion to TEI.  The Delta u/s looks like it could put ~18mT at L1... So that doesn't look like enough "oomph" for an EML1 Jupiter-u/s without some growth.

However, a J-221 using an u/s similar to the DIRECT proposal with a J2-S (not J-2XD or J-2X even) seems to be able to put ~36mT at L1.  Now *that* I'd like to see.  I can imagine quite a useful architecture starting out of EML1 with 36mT launches.  

Heck, for that mass, you could pretty easily build up a reusable LSAM and/or an EML1 station to replace ISS or serve as a propellant depot.

J-232 looks better for LEO-to-LLO operations, but J-221 looks viable to my untrained eye, if you start looking at staging missions at EML1.

Using my CEPE spreadsheet version 1.3 (which I plan to put on my web site this weekend), I found that the J-120 + Delta IV US (with RL-10B engine) can send a manned net payload of 18,630 kg toward L1.  Assuming a CEV burnout mass of 12 mT and an ISP of 320, an initial mass of 18.63 mT would provide an overall delta V of 1380 m/s.  That would be enough to do both the L1OI and TEI burns which are about 650 m/s each.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/08/2008 07:49 am
Hot on the heels of the v2.0.1 documentation, I have also uploaded a new 59Mb PowerPoint Slide Show Presentation.



PowerPoint Presentation
+
Movie File

Save both of these files in the same folder on your computer if you wish the animation on Slide 3 to work correctly.


If you don't have PowerPoint installed, there is a free viewer application available called PowerPoint Viewer 2007.


I say 'new', but actually this is actually a 7-week-old document.

This a slightly redacted version of a presentation which Chuck, Stephen and myself gave to members of Congress and their staff during a trip to Washington D.C. about 7 weeks ago.

Those particularly observant amongst you may recall "things going on" around then, which we couldn't talk about.   Well, we have not released details of this until now, but with Congressional hearings occurring this week, we figured that now would be a good time to release a public version of this - and yes, the public version has had a few elements removed - sorry, but we have been requested to leave a few bits un-published.

The in-person presentation went with a vocal accompaniment.   I have not included a voice-over in this file because it is already fairly large (that, and we haven't had time to do any recordings!) but here is a transcript for you to read if you are interested.

This presentation formed a 15-20 minute piece, with the rest of the meetings essentially being devoted to a Q&A section.

I will not discuss *any* details of these meetings - I consider them confidential.   All I will say is that the response was generally excellent from both Houses of Congress and also from both sides of the aisle too.

I'm very glad to *finally* be able to show this to you all, so please enjoy this very small glimpse into just a little bit of our recent (and on-going) activities.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 05/08/2008 08:50 am
Can someone out there make sure Gene gets a copy of this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 05/08/2008 10:34 am
Ross & Co,
Well done. The slideshow hits the mark. Simple and effective. Very well done.
Nathan
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 05/08/2008 12:06 pm
You Tube the video, especially after narration is added?

That is a proven route for achieving widespread cross platform distribution of video.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: on 05/08/2008 12:06 pm
Excellent presentation ! - Slide-by-Slide, body blow by body blow - I wanted to throw the ESAS towel in - it was getting brutal :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 05/08/2008 12:59 pm
Quote
Bill White - 8/5/2008  1:06 PM

You Tube the video, especially after narration is added?

That is a proven route for achieving widespread cross platform distribution of video.

Absolutely.

EDIT: Actually, this video is already online

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuPtOKLCmzo

That's an excellent presentation - especailly the leaked NASA stuff. It must have been hard for the audience to object to any of your arguments. Very good job. Very slick and pretty too - these things really matter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 05/08/2008 01:15 pm
Fantastic presentation. Well done, and were there any questions?

Here's a concern for you, possibly mentioned before, but the shuttle sometimes seems to struggle (not just now, but a few times it seems to me) with external tank delivery. In the proposed phase for Moon landings which has a higher launch rate than current shuttle program, would the equivalent fuel tank for Jupiter constitute a bottleneck?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 05/08/2008 01:39 pm
Quote
Joffan - 8/5/2008  8:15 AM

Fantastic presentation. Well done, and were there any questions?

Here's a concern for you, possibly mentioned before, but the shuttle sometimes seems to struggle (not just now, but a few times it seems to me) with external tank delivery. In the proposed phase for Moon landings which has a higher launch rate than current shuttle program, would the equivalent fuel tank for Jupiter constitute a bottleneck?

No. The shuttle tanks have been delayed due to post-Columbia safety upgrades that were necessary because the orbiter TPS is vulnerable to ET foam shedding. That would not be the case for any vehicle that puts the spacecraft atop the tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/08/2008 01:41 pm
That was a good presentation, Ross.  I'm usually critical of you for making things too complex for general consumption (explaining stuff to space-flight enthusiasts and engineers is orders of magnitude different from explaining it to the lay-public and Congress), but that one was pretty much right down the middle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/08/2008 01:44 pm
Quote
Joffan - 8/5/2008  9:15 AM

Fantastic presentation. Well done, and were there any questions?
Yes. Lots and lots of questions from *everyone* we saw; without exception. One of the agencies had scheduled 30 minutes after the presentation for Q&A, but they kept us there busily answering questions for 2 ½ hours.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/08/2008 02:20 pm
Quote
Jorge - 8/5/2008  7:39 AM

Quote
Joffan - 8/5/2008  8:15 AM

Fantastic presentation. Well done, and were there any questions?

Here's a concern for you, possibly mentioned before, but the shuttle sometimes seems to struggle (not just now, but a few times it seems to me) with external tank delivery. In the proposed phase for Moon landings which has a higher launch rate than current shuttle program, would the equivalent fuel tank for Jupiter constitute a bottleneck?

No. The shuttle tanks have been delayed due to post-Columbia safety upgrades that were necessary because the orbiter TPS is vulnerable to ET foam shedding. That would not be the case for any vehicle that puts the spacecraft atop the tank.

Katrina didn't help matters either.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/08/2008 04:44 pm
That is a very powerful effective presentation.  It is simple, straightforward and to the point.  I am surprised about the internal memo ... though I should not be.  I am very thankful for the fact that you guys took the time and effort to travel and make the presentation to both congresses.

Keep up the good work.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 05/08/2008 05:10 pm
Quote
Lee Jay - 8/5/2008  9:20 AM

Quote
Jorge - 8/5/2008  7:39 AM

Quote
Joffan - 8/5/2008  8:15 AM

Fantastic presentation. Well done, and were there any questions?

Here's a concern for you, possibly mentioned before, but the shuttle sometimes seems to struggle (not just now, but a few times it seems to me) with external tank delivery. In the proposed phase for Moon landings which has a higher launch rate than current shuttle program, would the equivalent fuel tank for Jupiter constitute a bottleneck?

No. The shuttle tanks have been delayed due to post-Columbia safety upgrades that were necessary because the orbiter TPS is vulnerable to ET foam shedding. That would not be the case for any vehicle that puts the spacecraft atop the tank.

Katrina didn't help matters either.

Hmm, true, and MAF will still be hurricane-prone after 2010.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 05/08/2008 07:18 pm
Fantastic job on this gentlemen.  Very concise and you do a very adroit job of hoisting Dr. Griffin on his own petard.  If his sole objection to DIRECT is that it's "over-qualified" for ISS missions, that should be easy to overcome.

Good luck on getting Congress & NASA convinced.  A lot of people are rooting for you!

Cheers,

Cale
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 05/08/2008 07:56 pm
...you do realize that the JWST will be at SEL2, not EML2 - right?

Otherwise, looks good!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/08/2008 08:28 pm
Quote
93143 - 8/5/2008  1:56 PM

...you do realize that the JWST will be at SEL2, not EML2 - right?

Otherwise, looks good!

What a clever place to put a telescope....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 05/08/2008 08:28 pm
93143,

I was in charge of that graphic, not that I doubt you but could you point me to documentation.

thank you
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/08/2008 08:29 pm
Quote
Pheogh - 8/5/2008  2:28 PM

93143,

I was in charge of that graphic, not that I doubt you but could you point me to documentation.

thank you

"Location    1.5×106 km from Earth  (Sun-Earth L2)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWST
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 05/08/2008 08:31 pm
Thank you, Lee Jay
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/08/2008 08:35 pm
Quote
Pheogh - 8/5/2008  4:28 PM

93143,

I was in charge of that graphic, not that I doubt you but could you point me to documentation.

The imagery is fine.   It was the voice-over which was in error - and that was me!!

Fixed now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 05/08/2008 08:38 pm
Thanks Ross! I have been sitting here trying to figure out what was wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 05/08/2008 09:38 pm
Will the new PowerPoint presentation be added to the website?

Any objection to my posting links to the presentation at various locations on the Internet?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/08/2008 09:56 pm
Philip is working right now to integrate new links in a stylish manner onto the website.   They'll go live as soon as we can get them done!

I'm pushing to get the animation on the front page too :)

And Bill and everyone else - Please DO link those as much as possible - but make sure to say that the animation must be downloaded separately and must be in the same folder as the PowerPoint Presentation for it to work (bl**dy PowerPoint...)

The Permanent Links are (use Right-click > Copy Link):-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.pps - PowerPoint File
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.wmv - Movie File

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.txt - Voiceover


And

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.1.pdf - Summary Updates


And

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-HighRes.pdf - AIAA Paper HiRes
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf - AIAA Paper LoRes


Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/08/2008 10:48 pm
The Powerpoint 2007 viewer is having problems downloading from the CNET site.  Here's a link to the Microsoft download server:

PowerPoint 2007 Viewer
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rocketguy101 on 05/08/2008 11:03 pm

Quote
kraisee - 8/5/2008 4:56 PM  everyone else - Please DO link those as much as possible -

Okey dokey, I put them in my build thread on the Rocketry Forum.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/09/2008 12:56 am
Ross, all I get when I attempt to open or save your new files is a "txt" file and the screen fills with asci characters if I attempt to open it directly.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/09/2008 01:08 am
Does anyone else feel like they're participating in a little piece of History?  I LOVE the internet!  :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/09/2008 01:52 am
I just watched the DIRECT_Launcher_01B.wmv video showing a Jupiter 120 launch at http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/video.htm.  I noticed an error that y'all may want to address (given that the title of the video link is "Work In Progress").  At the launch, all 4 engines (2xR68 and 2xSRB) appear to light off at the same time.  One of the advertised advantages of the DIRECT system is the post-ignition hold-down while the liquid engines are run through their diagnostic routine before the SRBs are lit.  This is an important thing, and is missing from the video.  My $.02.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 05/09/2008 02:19 am
Quote
kraisee - 8/5/2008  4:56 PM

Philip is working right now to integrate new links in a stylish manner onto the website.   They'll go live as soon as we can get them done!

I'm pushing to get the animation on the front page too :)

And Bill and everyone else - Please DO link those as much as possible - but make sure to say that the animation must be downloaded separately and must be in the same folder as the PowerPoint Presentation for it to work (bl**dy PowerPoint...)

The Permanent Links are (use Right-click > Copy Link):-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.pps - PowerPoint File
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.wmv - Movie File

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT%20Presentation.txt - Voiceover


And

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.1.pdf - Summary Updates


And

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-HighRes.pdf - AIAA Paper HiRes
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf - AIAA Paper LoRes


Ross.

Thanks!

I see you beat me to the Space Politics thread where I've been wanting to post all day:

"Look at This! -- Look at This! -- Look at This!"

Add: Maybe you should steal Gene Kranz' line since the Jupiter 120 is the best fit for a DC-3 / carrier rocket analogy I've ever seen.

Combine DIRECT with an EML architecture, ISRU LOX, and a fully reusable LSAM and the cost per pound ON THE LUNAR SURFACE falls through the floor.  But maybe that gets ahead of the message control needed for Congress right now. I dunno, maybe not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DLK on 05/09/2008 02:26 am
Thanks for posting this, Ross. I think it did a perfect job of getting your point across. I thought the 'stomach punch' presentation was most effective.
-Dan
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/09/2008 03:21 am
Quote
Bill White - 8/5/2008  10:19 PM
Maybe you should steal Gene Kranz' line since the Jupiter 120 is the best fit for a DC-3 / carrier rocket analogy I've ever seen.

Gene Kranz is a national hero, so we don't really want to get into any sort of dispute with him, even though we strongly disagree.

What I will say though is a point Stephen mentioned to me after the Hearing - paraphrasing:-

Quote
Krantz said we need to "stay the course" - a phrase we've heard from Griffin's lips before.   But Ares is not what we have *TODAY*.

Shuttle is what we have today.

And Jupiter is the logical evolution of *that* system.   Ares is not.   If we truly want to stay the course, *Ares* is actually the "different" option - the one we must change trains to catch.

Jupiter-120 is actually the "stay the course" option.

Its a damn good point IMHO and cuts right to the heart of the issue.

We threw Saturn away and replaced it with something overly expensive and without the same capabilities.

Today we are throwing Shuttle away and replacing it with Ares-I which won't be cheaper, and has less capability again.

Its exactly the same mistake we made before -  simply varnished over by claiming its Shuttle-Derived when 95% of it is actually all-new.

In Kranz's analogy Jupiter would be the equivalent of the B-52"H" variant - the latest and most modern evolution of a basically good system with a lot of heritage.

Ares-I is the B-1 - too damned expensive and too little capability - replicated by other cheaper systems - to make it worthwhile using - and Ares-V is going to be so expensive it will be a Spruce Goose and will be lucky to fly even once.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 05/09/2008 08:28 am
You should include the movie and the powerpoint in a single zip file for distribution.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simcosmos on 05/09/2008 10:38 am
Hi kttopdad

Launch Sequence

Not sure if understood your comment:

Quote
kttopdad - 9/5/2008  2:52 AM

I just watched the DIRECT_Launcher_01B.wmv video showing a Jupiter 120 launch at http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/video.htm.  I noticed an error that y'all may want to address (given that the title of the video link is "Work In Progress").  At the launch, all 4 engines (2xR68 and 2xSRB) appear to light off at the same time.  One of the advertised advantages of the DIRECT system is the post-ignition hold-down while the liquid engines are run through their diagnostic routine before the SRBs are lit.  This is an important thing, and is missing from the video.  My $.02.

The video does show the RS-68 being started a few seconds *before* lift off! Then, at T-0, both SRB are ignited and the launcher clears the pad. Do not understand where is the "error" or how can you say that are seeing the RS-68 + SRB starting at the same time (?) :)




About the 'work in progress' label

The video in question has been released in October 2006 but would like to remember that the 3D models and performance implementation seen there are older than that... In fact, those components have been released to the public (NASA Direct SDLV v0.1 addon for Orbiter Space Flight Simulator) before the reformulation of the DIRECT Effort, as we know it today.

The above only to say that, since then, have been updating the visuals + related performance implementation and mission simulations to current specs. Some of these updates and respective evolution, like in the case of visual representations, are clearly visible when browsing several of the DIRECT related materials (AIAA-Houston Horizons Newsletter from Aug.2007, the AIAA-2007-6231 paper, PowerPoint presentations, performance 'baseball cards' prepared by Ross, etc).

Despite the currently online addon version is outdated, people can still use the available 3D models as 'dummy' visual placeholders for new performance data / Jupiter configurations, as long as knowing what to do and how to properly edit the respective files. Related with this, please see the comments available on the following flickr entry:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/2384027158/




Images about my always-ongoing work in progress are also shared in any of the following locations (beyond the mentioned related pdf, ppt, etc, together with Ross + Philip's drawings / renderings):

a) my site's Instant Shots / News / WIP area (right side, in the front page: older previews also available if clicking here)

b) my site's LivePics page
(thumbnail of currently uploaded image + link available in this forum's signature)

c) simcosmos' flickr, where most of the pictures seen in the LivePics usually end up (sometimes in higher resolutions), gaining also a description: main link available in forum's signature, link for specific DIRECT photo set here). Might one day also open an account at youtube and share there development / Orbiter simulator videos about Exploration missions supported by DIRECT Architecture.

d) last but not least, have also made a project entry in a page dedicated to simcosmos' Orbiter simulator Projects or past collaborations (this page can also be visited - from the site's front page - if clicking in 'Orbiter' (left menu) and then in 'My Addons + WIP'); the interested can also click here for DIRECT's entry.

António
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/09/2008 01:13 pm
Question to Chris B...  Does this milestone deserve some front page coverage here, or is this not considered "real" space news?  

Sorry to put you on the spot Chris, personally I think this deserves one of your great summary write ups!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 05/09/2008 01:59 pm
I think NSF already walks a fine line of wanting to maintain some media objectvity here, as the majority of public discussion around the topic happens here.  And I think they've done it pretty well for the most part, to this point.

For the sake of both the site, and for the proposal, I would understand if Chris didn't do so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/09/2008 02:13 pm
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 9/5/2008  9:13 AM

Question to Chris B...  Does this milestone deserve some front page coverage here, or is this not considered "real" space news?  

Sorry to put you on the spot Chris, personally I think this deserves one of your great summary write ups!
Chris’ impeccable journalistic standards, including even handed reporting of facts without bias and resistance to jumping on anybody’s bandwagon is one of the reasons the DIRECT team is pleased to hold these discussions on NSF. We know without a doubt that we will get a fair shake from the owner of the forum. I would expect that Chris’ involvement will remain as it is; simply providing a place where the proposal can be presented, with all its assets and flaws, in an unbiased manner, so that everyone can participate in the discussion and know that they are not getting spin from the journalist that owns the forum. Thank you Chris.

Now the day that DIRECT is selected to replace the Ares launch architecture, then it becomes genuine news and I expect that Chris would do one of his excellent pieces at that point. At this point however, DIRECT is a proposal, on a par with other proposals, having both supporters and detractors. As such there is a great deal of discussion about it and a lot of participation in conversations concerning it. But if you look, I think that you will find only the rarest of comments from Chris, and when he does, they are usually more related to the proper use of the forum rather than about the proposal itself. I would expect that Chris will only comment on DIRECT to the extent that it, like any other proposal, becomes newsworthy. Recent events not withstanding, we are not there yet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/09/2008 02:29 pm
Recent events:  

"DIRECT goes to Washington".. sounds like a catchy movie title and a good story doesn't it?  

Hopefully this story has a happy ending and gets told some day!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 05/09/2008 02:34 pm
Quote
kraisee - 8/5/2008  11:21 PM

Quote
Bill White - 8/5/2008  10:19 PM
Maybe you should steal Gene Kranz' line since the Jupiter 120 is the best fit for a DC-3 / carrier rocket analogy I've ever seen.

Gene Kranz is a national hero, so we don't really want to get into any sort of dispute with him, even though we strongly disagree.

What I will say though is a point Stephen mentioned to me after the Hearing - paraphrasing:-

Quote
Krantz said we need to "stay the course" - a phrase we've heard from Griffin's lips before.   But Ares is not what we have *TODAY*.

Shuttle is what we have today.

And Jupiter is the logical evolution of *that* system.   Ares is not.   If we truly want to stay the course, *Ares* is actually the "different" option - the one we must change trains to catch.

Jupiter-120 is actually the "stay the course" option.

Its a damn good point IMHO and cuts right to the heart of the issue.

We threw Saturn away and replaced it with something overly expensive and without the same capabilities.

Today we are throwing Shuttle away and replacing it with Ares-I which won't be cheaper, and has less capability again.

Its exactly the same mistake we made before -  simply varnished over by claiming its Shuttle-Derived when 95% of it is actually all-new.

In Kranz's analogy Jupiter would be the equivalent of the B-52"H" variant - the latest and most modern evolution of a basically good system with a lot of heritage.

Ares-I is the B-1 - too damned expensive and too little capability - replicated by other cheaper systems - to make it worthwhile using - and Ares-V is going to be so expensive it will be a Spruce Goose and will be lucky to fly even once.

Ross.

Be careful with your analogies.   Just read recently the much maligned B-1 is now the bomber of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan. B-52's are too big and based too far away.. They have for the most part been stood down, as have the B-2's which are overkill and incredibly expensive for the current mission.  Seems the B-1 has finally found purpose in life.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ninja on 05/09/2008 02:51 pm
Ross,

    Would it be possible to eventually post a pdf version of the new powerpoint presentation similar to the "Space Show" document at the DIRECT Launcher site? It would be a big help to those of us cursed with slow connections.  Many thanks in advance.

                                                                                                 EdH
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Skinny on 05/09/2008 03:03 pm
Attached is an 1-1 conversion to a PDF file.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: shostetler on 05/09/2008 03:10 pm
So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 05/09/2008 03:10 pm
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 9/5/2008  9:34 AM

*  *  *

Be careful with your analogies.   Just read recently the much maligned B-1 is now the bomber of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan. B-52's are too big and based too far away.. They have for the most part been stood down, as have the B-2's which are overkill and incredibly expensive for the current mission.  Seems the B-1 has finally found purpose in life.

The DC-3 / C-47 Dakota is the ideal analogy for the Jupiter 120 (IMHO).

Wikipedia:

Quote
The Douglas DC-3 is an American fixed-wing, propeller-driven aircraft whose speed and range revolutionized air transport in the 1930s and 1940s. Because of its lasting impact on the airline industry and World War II, it is generally regarded as one of the most significant transport aircraft ever made.

Jupiter 232? Extend the analogy with the DC-4 / C-54 Skymaster.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ninja on 05/09/2008 03:34 pm
Skinny

          Much appreciated!

                                    EdH
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 05/09/2008 04:36 pm
Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  10:10 AM
So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Assuming you designed your module from the outset that way, yes.  However, an external shell to deal with aero-loads is not useful once you are in orbit.  Being able to shed that mass at some point on the way up (once out of the majority of the atmosphere) may result in a net heavier module making it to your end location.

However, the existing, grounded ISS modules were all built with the intention of being snug within a Shuttle payload bay.  They aren't designed to deal with aero-loads.

If you decide to design a new ISS module, and a Jupiter (or Ares V for that matter) is available vehicle for getting it there, you would likely design that module with an 8.4m or 10m diameter.  You would still likely sit inside a fairing/shroud though, as you don't want to carry a heavy 8.4 or 10m aeroshell all the way to ISS, just to the trailing edges of the atmosphere.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 05/09/2008 04:49 pm
Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  11:10 AM

So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Existing ISS modules were designed to be launched inside the payload bay.  Sticking them in a payload shround, on a strongback to mimic the shuttle payload bay attach points, seems to be the easiest way to launch these payloads.

Designing a module which would be its own payload shround is possible.  However, designing a station module to have both micrometeorite protection and be able to handle the aerodynamic loads of a launch has challenges of its own.  Note the problems that Skylab had during luanch.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/09/2008 05:00 pm
Quote
simcosmos - 9/5/2008  5:38 AM

Hi kttopdad

Launch Sequence

Not sure if understood your comment:

...

The video does show the RS-68 being started a few seconds *before* lift off! Then, at T-0, both SRB are ignited and the launcher clears the pad. Do not understand where is the "error" or how can you say that are seeing the RS-68 + SRB starting at the same time (?) :)

Sorry.  My eyes were a bit blurry by the time I watched the video.  I just watched it again and saw the error of my ways.

Quote
About the 'work in progress' label

I didn't mean anything by the comment.  I thought the phrase "work in progress" meant that you were still tweaking it.  Hence my comment about the (perceived) ignition sequence error.

Quote
Images about my always-ongoing work in progress are also shared in any of the following locations (beyond the mentioned related pdf, ppt, etc, together with Ross + Philip's drawings / renderings):

a) my site's Instant Shots / News / WIP area (right side, in the front page: older previews also available if clicking here)

b) my site's LivePics page
(thumbnail of currently uploaded image + link available in this forum's signature)

c) simcosmos' flickr, where most of the pictures seen in the LivePics usually end up (sometimes in higher resolutions), gaining also a description: main link available in forum's signature, link for specific DIRECT photo set here). Might one day also open an account at youtube and share there development / Orbiter simulator videos about Exploration missions supported by DIRECT Architecture.

d) last but not least, have also made a project entry in a page dedicated to simcosmos' Orbiter simulator Projects or past collaborations (this page can also be visited - from the site's front page - if clicking in 'Orbiter' (left menu) and then in 'My Addons + WIP'); the interested can also click here for DIRECT's entry.

António

It's great to have so many pictures of the system.  It helps.  Sorry for the confusion.  Too many hobbies, not enough sleep.  :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/09/2008 05:01 pm
Perhaps this should go to a different thread because we are straying away from the Jupiters, but I will offer this as a thought about the aeroshell:

The old Atlas ICBM, which launched the first American into orbit, John Glenn, was made with what is known as “balloon construction”. The skin was so thin and so light that it would literally collapse under its own weight. No way would it stand up to the rigors of being launched into space. Then they pressurized it. It became tough as nails. I personally had the opportunity back in the day to actually hit one with a hammer (it was sort of a right of passage at the ICBM base where I was stationed). That hammer sprang back at me so fast that it almost clocked me in the face. Everybody laughed at me and I was now a member of the "group".

The application would be this. There is no reason an aeroshell can’t be made the same way. It would be EXTREMELY light and very, very tough. That would allow a larger payload module to be mounted and then the shell wrapped around it and pressurized. It doesn’t take much pressure and off it goes. At the top of the atmosphere the clamps are released and under its own pressure it splits into its petals and is jettisoned.

That’s one way to reduce the mass penalty of the aeroshell and reassign that mass in a useful way to the payload. Just a thought.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 05/09/2008 05:38 pm
I really like that idea, Chuck.  It's practical and very creative.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/09/2008 05:40 pm
Quote
clongton - 9/5/2008  1:01 PM
. At the top of the atmosphere the clamps are released and under its own pressure it splits into its petals and is jettisoned.

.

There are several issues:

 the split lines, trying to keep them air tight and yet allowing them to be field joints.

The Altas needed mechanical support while unpressurized

The actual "hoops", tank segments had to be held in frames while being welded together.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/09/2008 05:47 pm
Quote
Jim - 9/5/2008  1:40 PM

Quote
clongton - 9/5/2008  1:01 PM
. At the top of the atmosphere the clamps are released and under its own pressure it splits into its petals and is jettisoned.

.

There are several issues:

 the split lines, trying to keep them air tight and yet allowing them to be field joints.

The Altas needed mechanical support while unpressurized

The actual "hoops", tank segments had to be held in frames while being welded together.
There are even more issues than that; for example the problem of mounting and hanging the petals  after payload integration. How do you support and manipulate them? I don't know. This would not be an easy thing to do by any means. But if some smart people put their heads together, I bet they could come up with a practical way to test it.

Anyway, just a little thinking outside the box.
BTW, the next guy to hit the Atlas didn't duck fast enough. The hammer almost knocked him off the platform and did raise a knot on his forehead. Evrybody laughed later, and we took him out and got him drunk.  :) A good time was had by all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/09/2008 06:39 pm
It may be better to compare the Jupiter 120 to the C-130 and the Jupiter 232 to the C-17, as these aircraft are probably more well known to the general public than the DC-3/C-47 DC-4/C-54 are now.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 05/11/2008 01:00 am
Quote
Jim - 9/5/2008  12:40 PM

Quote
clongton - 9/5/2008  1:01 PM
. At the top of the atmosphere the clamps are released and under its own pressure it splits into its petals and is jettisoned.

.

There are several issues:

 the split lines, trying to keep them air tight and yet allowing them to be field joints.

The Altas needed mechanical support while unpressurized

The actual "hoops", tank segments had to be held in frames while being welded together.

Weld it up to encapsulate the payload and make it airtight... use very small linear shaped charges to cut the weld seams at fairing jettison.  It would have to be jigged up while unpressurized to weld together though.  

The bigger problem I see is the pressure differential between the interior of the payload and the pressure inside the payload fairing.  You'd have to be very careful in your pressure control to prevent 'imploding' your station module or other payload.  Sorta like blowing compressed air into the fuel bowl of a carbuerator will collapse the fuel float (don't ask me how I know this)  

Sure you can up the pressure inside your station module/payload to equalize the force inside/outside of the payload, but when the fairing blows... POOF!  You'd have to do some very careful engineering and either have some way to RAPIDLY reduce the pressure inside the module or use some other method or combination thereof to assure the payload remains safe.  

Doable but requires some very good engineering!  OL JR :)
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/11/2008 03:34 am
Back somewhat on topic, does DIRECT have anyway to replace the Shuttle's GAS program?  It seemed like a great way to get commercial/education involvement, and it would be ashame if such cooperation vanished after the shuttle.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2008 07:47 am
Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  11:10 AM

So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Absolutely correct.

Skylab was launched in precisely that manner.

It all depends on the exact nature of the payload itself, as to whether this is a good way to utilize it.

There are many factors involved, such as dynamic loads, aero-heating, weight, cost and schedule which go into determining how a payload needs to be designed & flown.   Often there is a performance (mass) penalty for payloads which has to include the additional weight of a PLF structure within it, so you would prefer to dispose of the PLF and make the skin of the spacecraft much lighter.

But *theoretically*, yes, a payload (such maybe as a Space Telescope) with an 8.4m diameter outer mould-line could be designed so that its outer skin also acts as part of the PLF.

Its possible, though not always desirable.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2008 08:07 am
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 10/5/2008  11:34 PM

Back somewhat on topic, does DIRECT have anyway to replace the Shuttle's GAS program?  It seemed like a great way to get commercial/education involvement, and it would be ashame if such cooperation vanished after the shuttle.

I guess you are referring to the Get Away Special Program?

I see no reason why DIRECT couldn't continue it in a healthy manner pretty-much as-is.

It isn't particularly costly, we have very healthy levels of performance on all ISS-bound missions and it is an excellent NASA outreach program allowing some real contact between students and the US Space Program - which is an excellent source of motivation for them.

The only issue is that of returning payloads to Earth.   I don't expect any provision is being made for Orion to be able to do it easily, but this would be a wonderful opportunity for a COTS system to demonstrate its mettle.


The SSPDM (see below) is being designed to be a simple tubular aluminum space-frame truss structure.   It would not be difficult to attach such containers to either the inside or even the outside of the SSPDM structure.

As the image below shows, we are even considering an additional truss structure on either side of the Payload Bay "edges" allowing easy access to specific additional hardware during spacewalks.   They may or may not be included in the final designs, but the GAS modules could be mounted there too.



Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 01:12 pm
Quote
luke strawwalker - 10/5/2008  9:00 PM

Weld it up to encapsulate the payload and make it airtight... use very small linear shaped charges to cut the weld seams at fairing jettison.  It would have to be jigged up while unpressurized to weld together though.  

Doable but requires some very good engineering!  OL JR :)

Still not viable.  Welding exposes the payload to EMI, contamination, etc.  Inspecting the welds would be an issue too.  Also the time from pre- encapsulation to launch is excessively long.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 01:13 pm
Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  3:47 AM

Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  11:10 AM

So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Absolutely correct.

Skylab was launched in precisely that manner.


Ross.

Because it already was a former upperstage.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 01:18 pm
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 10/5/2008  11:34 PM

Back somewhat on topic, does DIRECT have anyway to replace the Shuttle's GAS program?  It seemed like a great way to get commercial/education involvement, and it would be ashame if such cooperation vanished after the shuttle.

GAS program was canceled years ago, Columbia timeframe.  It stopped taking application long before that.  

NASA trying to start the PPOD/cubesat program for this
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2008 02:27 pm
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  9:18 AM

NASA trying to start the PPOD/cubesat program for this

That's interesting.   Any idea what the current hopes are for launching those?   COTS?   ISS partners?

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/11/2008 02:39 pm
Quote
Skinny - 9/5/2008  11:03 AM

Attached is an 1-1 conversion to a PDF file.

Thanks for doing that.

One thing though - the PDF version doesn't have quite the same "impact".   The points on the different pages pop-up one after another boom, boom, boom - and that presentation style has quite a powerful overall "punch" to it, which isn't quite the same when presented as a static page.

I'd recommend the pdf to get a quick look, but then when you leave the computer, let it spend a bit of extra time downloading the full Presentation and video - I think you'll appreciate it - but I could be accused of being biased ;)

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 03:11 pm
Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  10:27 AM

Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  9:18 AM

NASA trying to start the PPOD/cubesat program for this

That's interesting.   Any idea what the current hopes are for launching those?   COTS?   ISS partners?

Ross.

Neither, the "other" NASA missions that have higher launch rates:  ELV's with unmanned spacecraft
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 05/11/2008 06:09 pm
Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  3:39 PM
One thing though - the PDF version doesn't have quite the same "impact".   The points on the different pages pop-up one after another boom, boom, boom - and that presentation style has quite a powerful overall "punch" to it...

Be careful with having too many transitions though, I sometimes end up trying to guess just what the next effect is going to be rather than watching the presentation ;)

Still reading the transcript at the same time as the presentation gives a really good impression of DIRECT.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: shostetler on 05/12/2008 07:01 am
Quote
BogoMIPS - 9/5/2008  11:36 AM

Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  10:10 AM
So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Assuming you designed your module from the outset that way, yes.  However, an external shell to deal with aero-loads is not useful once you are in orbit.  Being able to shed that mass at some point on the way up (once out of the majority of the atmosphere) may result in a net heavier module making it to your end location.

However, the existing, grounded ISS modules were all built with the intention of being snug within a Shuttle payload bay.  They aren't designed to deal with aero-loads.

If you decide to design a new ISS module, and a Jupiter (or Ares V for that matter) is available vehicle for getting it there, you would likely design that module with an 8.4m or 10m diameter.  You would still likely sit inside a fairing/shroud though, as you don't want to carry a heavy 8.4 or 10m aeroshell all the way to ISS, just to the trailing edges of the atmosphere.

So, in theory a module could be designed that would be 10m in diameter, but what would be the absolute largest length? 30ft in diameter is nothing to sneeze at. Seems almost fitting to create a super module that could be part of a selling point for the DIRECT concept in lieu of the modules that weren't launched on the STS. Especially if that interior 28 ft or so of space would be built on a vertical platform with 8 ft ceilings, with a large meeting room at the bottom or something. Even on a horizontal scale, having a work area nearly 28 ft wide and however long would be awesome... just.. well, awesome.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 05/12/2008 09:11 am
In theory, couldn`t you make a module with radius larger than the rocket?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 05/12/2008 10:57 am
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  9:13 AM

Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  3:47 AM

Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  11:10 AM

So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Absolutely correct.

Skylab was launched in precisely that manner.


Ross.

Because it already was a former upperstage.

Wasn't part of the problem during the Skylab launch that the outer surface of the SIVB was no longer outermost? My vague recollection was, there was a deployable meteoroid shield that tore off during ascent.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 05/12/2008 11:46 am
It might interest people to know that the centrifuge in the Discovery in 2001 is 35ft in diameter...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/12/2008 11:54 am
Quote
Crispy - 12/5/2008  7:46 AM

It might interest people to know that the centrifuge in the Discovery in 2001 is 35ft in diameter...
10.7 meters
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/12/2008 01:10 pm
Quote
nacnud - 11/5/2008  2:09 PM

Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  3:39 PM
One thing though - the PDF version doesn't have quite the same "impact".   The points on the different pages pop-up one after another boom, boom, boom - and that presentation style has quite a powerful overall "punch" to it...

Be careful with having too many transitions though, I sometimes end up trying to guess just what the next effect is going to be rather than watching the presentation ;)

Still reading the transcript at the same time as the presentation gives a really good impression of DIRECT.

We only have a single type of transition in the Presentation - "Appear".   We didn't want it about the effects, we just wanted the information to build-up in a specific way.   Once one point is made, the next just follows hot on its heels, and the next, and the next.   It just produces a 1-2-3-4 punch effect.

Oh, one exception - we do have a nice dissolve between the Jupiter-120 to Jupiter-232 image on pages 12/13.

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/12/2008 01:15 pm
Quote
shostetler - 12/5/2008  3:01 AM

So, in theory a module could be designed that would be 10m in diameter, but what would be the absolute largest length? 30ft in diameter is nothing to sneeze at. Seems almost fitting to create a super module that could be part of a selling point for the DIRECT concept in lieu of the modules that weren't launched on the STS. Especially if that interior 28 ft or so of space would be built on a vertical platform with 8 ft ceilings, with a large meeting room at the bottom or something. Even on a horizontal scale, having a work area nearly 28 ft wide and however long would be awesome... just.. well, awesome.

We have 8.4m, 10m and 12m diameter PLF's already planned.   The barrel sections are currently baselined at 10m length for each of them (and some of the cone above that can also be utilized), but that can change dependent upon further trades.

We figure it wouldn't be very difficult to use a 20m long barrel section on any of these launchers - although that would reduce maximum payload mass slightly due to the added weight of the larger PLF.

Longer is probably also possible, but 20m long x 10m or 12m dia makes for a vast volume already.   I can only imagine what Bigelow could do with that...

Ross.
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 05/12/2008 02:38 pm
Quote
William Barton - 12/5/2008  6:57 AM

Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  9:13 AM

Quote
kraisee - 11/5/2008  3:47 AM

Quote
shostetler - 9/5/2008  11:10 AM

So, just a question about possible future ISS modules the direct could deliver. Why does the payload fairing or shroud have to exist for modules? There's this big launch of a module and once outside the atmosphere the shroud splits away to reveal a smaller module. I mean, couldn't the entire upper portion just BE the module? With all hardware and stuff inside to be attached during a spacewalk? Seems the inside diameter of the module would be increased dramatically if that were possible.

Absolutely correct.

Skylab was launched in precisely that manner.


Ross.

Because it already was a former upperstage.

Wasn't part of the problem during the Skylab launch that the outer surface of the SIVB was no longer outermost? My vague recollection was, there was a deployable meteoroid shield that tore off during ascent.

One main solar array ripped completely off (it was also attached to the outside of (what was) the SIVB shell.  The micrometerorite/thermal shield deployed, and was ripped off.  Debris from the micrometeorite/thermal shield jammed the remaining main solar array so it wouldn't properly deploy.

Luckily the first crew was able to deploy a thermal shield from the experiment airlock and was able to free the jammed solar array during a spacewalk.

This approach isn't without risks.  It's likely easier just to make your space station fit inside a payload fairing.  Then your station can be designed in much the same way that the ISS pressurized modules were designed (i.e. the thermal and MMOD shielding).

Jeff
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/12/2008 08:34 pm

Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:37 PM
kttopdad - Actually Propellant Depots are a major part of the "DIRECT Architecture" - which is the umbrella plan we have encompassing the whole program.   They just aren't a major part of the "Jupiter Element" and aren't a complication we wish to include while we are getting the operation underway.    We want the info 'out there' and showing it in the logical upgrade path beyond 2020 does no harm IMHO.

Ross.

I found a fun presentation from Boeing last fall on this subject.  It's title is "LEO Propellant Depot:  A Commercial Opportunity?".  I think the most interesting point is that Boeing, a provider of launch services, bases the case around using the SpaceX Falcon-9 as the vehicle of choice for fueling the station.  Here's the link to it for your viewing pleasure.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2007/presentations/20071003.bienhoff.pdf

Dean

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Maxim_NZ on 05/12/2008 10:24 pm
Ross,

Just wanted to pass on a big thanks for making the presentation available to all nasaspaceflight members. It's looks to me the hard technical yards have been done, (this was the easy part) As with any initiative in governments big and small the hard yards are 'the sell' - so pleased to see members of congress have been briefed. No doubt this campaign will continue and we hope you would be able to share progress with us on this front as is appropriate.

I hope that history will show how good men spoke up and saved the shuttle launch infrustructure with a system known initially as direct/jupiter (hey call it Ares and pick any model number, most here reading this wouldn't care) This built a dependable and flexible launch system at a fair price, and saved many hard working men & womans livelyhoods after the shuttle retired.

History has shown STS was built on a cheaper than hoped for cost which dictated cheaper Solid Boosters SRB's over Liquid flyback boosters and an Orbiter spec'd by a committee - however flawed & fragile the design, you have give credit for the amazing system that is today. I hope the Apollo derived shuttle infrastructure which is key to launch today is not totally ripped down before the Powers that be wakeup and see what the trenches have been advocating.

Not sure I agree with the DC-3 analogy, more like an R-7 with tons of room in the trunk and heaps more potential! The soviets have not thrown away the basic Korolev design, yet America has been thru how many complete redesigns of manned launch systems? (let's not elaborate here on how safe the last few Soyuz returns have been)

Other than the driving purists - who wants to take a  2 door Mazda Miata/MZ-5/Roadster on long trip when you can't stop for supplies? - or would you rather go in something with backseats and huge boot + ability to tow/hitch up a trailer?

I admit back when read of the 'stick' idea was published on spaceref + others long before nasaspaceflight was born, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but with the amount of changes to SRB, and actual payoad delivered to orbit, throwing away the STS launch system/infrastructure and it's ability to put significantly greater magnitudes of payload to orbit is going to be a huge step back. I don't want to see the great (Moon/Mars/Asteroid) landing in my 50's or 60's.

Thanks for updates Direct Team. :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 05/13/2008 02:41 pm
Quote
kttopdad - 13/5/2008  7:34 AM

Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:37 PM
kttopdad - Actually Propellant Depots are a major part of the "DIRECT Architecture" - which is the umbrella plan we have encompassing the whole program.   They just aren't a major part of the "Jupiter Element" and aren't a complication we wish to include while we are getting the operation underway.    We want the info 'out there' and showing it in the logical upgrade path beyond 2020 does no harm IMHO.

Ross.

I found a fun presentation from Boeing last fall on this subject.  It's title is "LEO Propellant Depot:  A Commercial Opportunity?".  I think the most interesting point is that Boeing, a provider of launch services, bases the case around using the SpaceX Falcon-9 as the vehicle of choice for fueling the station.  Here's the link to it for your viewing pleasure.

...

Space-X Falcon 9 may be code for "what we could build Delta IV's for, if we were launching one a week, and lower cost actually meant more profit, although we'd have to call it the Delta IV Lite (or something) to avoid awkward questions"   :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/13/2008 03:58 pm
Quote
kkattula - 13/5/2008  10:41 AM
... we'd have to call it the Delta IV Lite (or something) to avoid awkward questions"   :)

Or use a low energy upper stage (like used on the DeltaII)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 05/13/2008 04:04 pm
Well maybe....

Another point of interest is that the upper stage of the F9 is already muted as being reusable. I wonder how much it would take to enlarge the upper stage tanks so that the residual fuel after second stage cut off would be the payload. I suppose you'd need to add some RCS and docking capability but it seems like a cheap option.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/13/2008 04:41 pm
Quote
nacnud - 13/5/2008  12:04 PM

Well maybe....

Another point of interest is that the upper stage of the F9 is already muted as being reusable. I wonder how much it would take to enlarge the upper stage takes so that the residual fuel after second stage cut off would be the payload. I suppose you'd need to add some RCS and docking capability but it seems like a cheap option.

Are we talking LOX/LH depo's or LOX/Kero depo's... Besides we are getting way off topic  :cool:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 05/13/2008 04:41 pm
DOH, although RP-1 has less boil off issues...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 05/13/2008 06:20 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 13/5/2008  11:41 AM

Quote
nacnud - 13/5/2008  12:04 PM

Well maybe....

Another point of interest is that the upper stage of the F9 is already muted as being reusable. I wonder how much it would take to enlarge the upper stage takes so that the residual fuel after second stage cut off would be the payload. I suppose you'd need to add some RCS and docking capability but it seems like a cheap option.

Are we talking LOX/LH depo's or LOX/Kero depo's... Besides we are getting way off topic  :cool:

Is this off topic?  A stated part of the DIRECT v2.0 plan is LEO refueling infrastructure.  Contrast/Compare the DIRECT plan with other plans seems a valid use of this thread.  
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/13/2008 07:05 pm
Quote
kttopdad - 13/5/2008  2:20 PM

Quote
kevin-rf - 13/5/2008  11:41 AM

Quote
nacnud - 13/5/2008  12:04 PM

Well maybe....

Another point of interest is that the upper stage of the F9 is already muted as being reusable. I wonder how much it would take to enlarge the upper stage takes so that the residual fuel after second stage cut off would be the payload. I suppose you'd need to add some RCS and docking capability but it seems like a cheap option.

Are we talking LOX/LH depo's or LOX/Kero depo's... Besides we are getting way off topic  :cool:

Is this off topic?  A stated part of the DIRECT v2.0 plan is LEO refueling infrastructure.  Contrast/Compare the DIRECT plan with other plans seems a valid use of this thread.  
It's not off topic so long as it relates to DIRECT. Remember, DIRECT isn't the launch vehicle - it's the architecture. Jupiter is the launch vehicle. In the DIRECT architecture, Orbital Propellant Depots can play a prominent part and are well spoken of in the AIAA paper we presented last year. Just be careful to keep the discussion DIRECT-centric. That will ensure that it remains on-topic. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 05/13/2008 07:36 pm
KKatulla,
Quote
Space-X Falcon 9 may be code for "what we could build Delta IV's for, if we were launching one a week, and lower cost actually meant more profit, although we'd have to call it the Delta IV Lite (or something) to avoid awkward questions"   :)

At least when I asked him, Dallas Bienhoff said that they felt using SpaceX for the propellant launches would be much more affordable than if they did the launches themselves.  From what I understand, they'd rather build, launch, and operate the depot, and buy propellants from whoever else is cheapest--that's the way they maximize their profits, not by trying to keep all the propellant launches in-house.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/13/2008 07:40 pm
Quote
jongoff - 13/5/2008  3:36 PM

KKatulla,
Quote
Space-X Falcon 9 may be code for "what we could build Delta IV's for, if we were launching one a week, and lower cost actually meant more profit, although we'd have to call it the Delta IV Lite (or something) to avoid awkward questions"   :)

At least when I asked him, Dallas Bienhoff said that they felt using SpaceX for the propellant launches would be much more affordable than if they did the launches themselves.  From what I understand, they'd rather build, launch, and operate the depot, and buy propellants from whoever else is cheapest--that's the way they maximize their profits, not by trying to keep all the propellant launches in-house.

~Jon
Jon, that is *exactly* the model DIRECT is aiming for; a commercial entity like Boeing that owns and operates the depot, with the propellant launches being supplied from the market. Such a model opens enormous oportunities.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 05/13/2008 09:15 pm
How much sense does it make to create a depot for just LOX? Easier to control boil-off, denser, quite compact. Sure, having the fuel & oxidiser in one place would be great, but would a LOX-only depot be a good way to "stepping stone" the technology? Would it produce noticable gains for missions beyond LEO?

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/13/2008 09:30 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 13/5/2008  5:15 PM

How much sense does it make to create a depot for just LOX? Easier to control boil-off, denser, quite compact. Sure, having the fuel & oxidiser in one place would be great, but would a LOX-only depot be a good way to "stepping stone" the technology? Would it produce noticable gains for missions beyond LEO?

Paul
That is an excellant first step and is, in fact, the way DIRECT sees the technology demonstrator beginning. Over 80% of the propellant lifted to orbit on a mission is LOX. The ability to lift mission cargo instead and get the LOX on orbit opens the the solar system to chemically powered vehicles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/13/2008 11:04 pm
Quote
kttopdad - 12/5/2008  9:34 PM
I found a fun presentation from Boeing last fall on this subject.  It's title is "LEO Propellant Depot:  A Commercial Opportunity?".  I think the most interesting point is that Boeing, a provider of launch services, bases the case around using the SpaceX Falcon-9 as the vehicle of choice for fueling the station.  Here's the link to it for your viewing pleasure.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2007/presentations/20071003.bienhoff.pdf

Dean



A space propellant depot does not have to be operated by an aerospace company, a chemical company for instance could see the opening bid price of $10000/kg for LOX and get very interested.  Liquid gas firms have lots of experience in moving flammable cryogenics over long distances.  They may contract the depot construction out to say Boeing.  Multinational oil companies can afford to pay for a depot and would not hesitate in buying launch services from a third company.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 05/13/2008 11:33 pm
The 'one' problem I see with that idea (commercialization of a fuel depot) would be no different than the problems faced here on terra-firma with high gas prices. You have all this hardware built for on-orbit re-fuelling and they go and start jacking up the rates. Then you have little choice but to pay the higher prices, unless you want to scrap your 'gas-guzzler' and go for a a different fuel alternative. Sound familiar?

Just presenting scenarios. I like the whole concept of orbital refuelling though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/14/2008 12:30 am
Quote
robertross - 14/5/2008  12:33 AM
The 'one' problem I see with that idea (commercialization of a fuel depot) would be no different than the problems faced here on terra-firma with high gas prices. You have all this hardware built for on-orbit re-fuelling and they go and start jacking up the rates. Then you have little choice but to pay the higher prices, unless you want to scrap your 'gas-guzzler' and go for a a different fuel alternative. Sound familiar?

Use competition.   Two depots run by different companies.  Ensure that they do not set up a cartel.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 05/14/2008 01:06 am
Why have two depots when the reoccurring cost of launching the propellant is likely to be the cost driver? Let NASA contract the depot directly with a cost + deal and then use COTS principles to get the propellant up there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/14/2008 01:17 am
Ross and Team.

After a lot of trouble - none of your fault - I was able to successfully download the presentation off of my work computer intact.  All my computers at home somehow managed to corrupt the file.

Anyway, a most commendable effort.  I can only hope it carries the day as I think the Jupiter is the best LV we can get in the short term to support the VSE.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/14/2008 04:58 am
Quote
clongton - 13/5/2008  3:40 PM
Jon, that is *exactly* the model DIRECT is aiming for; a commercial entity like Boeing that owns and operates the depot, with the propellant launches being supplied from the market. Such a model opens enormous oportunities.

And purely as an aside: We're currently planning that the Boeing contract for the Ares-I Upper Stage will be modified into the Upper Stage contract for Jupiter-232.   That Upper Stage, with a potential capacity of some 245mT LOX/LH2, would make an ideal Point of Departure to go make a Propellant Depot from.

And nacnud - I think NASA would build the first systems in order to guarantee the infrastructure is created, probably as you describe.   After that though, I do see opportunities for commercial alternatives replacing it if commercial companies decide they can make some money from it.

I would welcome a couple of competitors, but I don't necessarily see the interest level there yet for us to rely upon when making the architectural choices we need to make now.   Therefore I think NASA will need to initially secure the infrastructure independent of commercial forces.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/14/2008 10:00 am
Quote
nacnud - 14/5/2008  2:06 AM

Why have two depots when the reoccurring cost of launching the propellant is likely to be the cost driver? Let NASA contract the depot directly with a cost + deal and then use COTS principles to get the propellant up there.

On a cost plus deal there is a built-in incentive to use the most expensive launcher.

Two depots give a built in redundancy against anything going wrong with one of the depots.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 05/14/2008 10:49 am
Quote
kttopdad - 12/5/2008  4:34 PM

Quote
kraisee - 6/5/2008  3:37 PM
kttopdad - Actually Propellant Depots are a major part of the "DIRECT Architecture" - which is the umbrella plan we have encompassing the whole program.   They just aren't a major part of the "Jupiter Element" and aren't a complication we wish to include while we are getting the operation underway.    We want the info 'out there' and showing it in the logical upgrade path beyond 2020 does no harm IMHO.

Ross.

I found a fun presentation from Boeing last fall on this subject.  It's title is "LEO Propellant Depot:  A Commercial Opportunity?".  I think the most interesting point is that Boeing, a provider of launch services, bases the case around using the SpaceX Falcon-9 as the vehicle of choice for fueling the station.  Here's the link to it for your viewing pleasure.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2007/presentations/20071003.bienhoff.pdf

Dean




How cost effective is the reusable tanker they show here?
Title: RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 05/14/2008 02:32 pm
I apologize for being a little late in the "thank yous" but I was rather busy with finals last week. But thanks anyway for making that presentation available. It was something I hoped you guys would provide for a long time, a down to the point, idiot proof, presentation of DIRECT. Great job, and I think this is really going to pay off for the DIRECT Team big time!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 05/14/2008 04:49 pm
Quote
William Barton - 14/5/2008  6:49 AM
How cost effective is the reusable tanker they show here?
Who knows? I don't think there's enough detail to tell.

It would probably be a LOT more cost effective if it was brought up to the depot by a tug as opposed to carrying all the electronics & engines for rendezvous up each time.

A tug based rendezvous plan may be effective enough to allow you to dispose of the resupply ships each time. Make them really dumb and cheap, like jerrycans, and then use the tug to carry the expensive stuff and be the expensive element.

I like the modularity of their design although I dare say it's not as thermally efficient as a monolithic tank concept. The modularity would allow you to actually start serving customers earlier with a smaller installed cost at start. It would also allow you redundency in the tankage as well as the possibility of storage unit replacement if one is damaged as opposed to replacing a monolithic tank. You could also eject a tank to save the depot if something really bad occurred.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 05/14/2008 07:01 pm
Quote
tankmodeler - 14/5/2008  11:49 AM

It would probably be a LOT more cost effective if it was brought up to the depot by a tug as opposed to carrying all the electronics & engines for rendezvous up each time.

Why not make depot itself be a tug? It already has lots of fuel. Just add navigation system and let it catch the "canisters".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/14/2008 07:12 pm
Quote
Eerie - 14/5/2008  3:01 PM

Quote
tankmodeler - 14/5/2008  11:49 AM

It would probably be a LOT more cost effective if it was brought up to the depot by a tug as opposed to carrying all the electronics & engines for rendezvous up each time.

Why not make depot itself be a tug? It already has lots of fuel. Just add navigation system and let it catch the "canisters".
Too inefficient. The depot will be much larger than a propellant canister and have a lot of external appendages that could be damaged in the effort to snare a propellant canister, especially if it's tumbling. We're much better off to either use a specialized tug or let the propellant canister itself have navigation & propulsion. But I vote for the tug.

In the beginning however, the propellant canister will most likely have navigation & propulsion, and we'll switch to the tug as the technology matures.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 05/14/2008 07:19 pm
Quote
clongton - 14/5/2008  3:12 PM

Quote
Eerie - 14/5/2008  3:01 PM

Quote
tankmodeler - 14/5/2008  11:49 AM

It would probably be a LOT more cost effective if it was brought up to the depot by a tug as opposed to carrying all the electronics & engines for rendezvous up each time.

Why not make depot itself be a tug? It already has lots of fuel. Just add navigation system and let it catch the "canisters".
Too inefficient. The depot will be much larger than a propellant canister and have a lot of external appendages that could be damaged in the effort to snare a propellant canister, especially if it's tumbling. We're much better off to either use a specialized tug or let the propellant canister itself have navigation & propulsion. But I vote for the tug.

In the beginning however, the propellant canister will most likely have navigation & propulsion, and we'll switch to the tug as the technology matures.

If you had the resuable tanker shown in the Boeing presentation, it could probably be adapted for other uses. If itself modularized, you could swap out the tank for a cargo bay.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/16/2008 02:02 am
All this off topic discussion on depo's has me wondering,

How many thermo cycles, fill/drain, fill/drain could the tanks take before they have to be replaced? Cycling from LH temps is probally pretty harsh on a tank. Once filled would you be limited to how much residuals you needed to leave behind to keep the tanks at cryo temps to prevent thermal cycling?

One more reason not to go with a monlithic set of tanks?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/16/2008 02:19 am
My understanding is that cryo propellants in zero-g will usually cling to the walls due to surface tension.   They typically create a void in the center of the tank.

With appropriate construction and active cooling (a very sensible thing for a depot to have) the tank walls exposed to the cryo propellant should not experience much in the way of thermal cycling.   They will usually be sheltered behind a shade, will be double-walled structures so the pressure vessel itself won't be exposed to sunlight even in situations where the shade isn't working (perhaps during a docking event).   And the tanking of a reusable Depot shouldn't be drained to completely empty, because keeping some cryo liquid in the tanks will actually help avoid many thermal issues.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/16/2008 04:42 am
This is simply a thought to share.  The Jupiter Common Core non-aft thrust structure sections ought to be faster and more cost effective to manufacture than the current external tank.  The reason is two-fold.  

1.   90-10 theory.  90% of the ET manufacturing is mostly automated and requires relatively little hands-on effort.  For instance, the acreage TPS application is automated.  The last 10% is a different story.  It is very labor and QA intensive.  The Ice Frost Ramps installation is a good example.  The acreage foam is cut out to the metal, the pressline brackets are installed, the pre-molded lower section is installed, then the presslines, then the upper pre-molded sections and finally sanded down.  This whole process is very slow due to the heavy QA activities designed to insure that this TPS does not easily come off and impact the orbiter.  Obviously, the vast majority of this QA is not necessary for the CCB.
2.   Much of this hand applied TPS is not even necessary anymore due to the use of titanium alloys.  Therefore, even the labor cost is reduced.  Currently, this TPS is left on because any change to the ET protuberances must be qualified and it is simply not worth the time and cost.  However, the CCB must qualify to begin with thus any unnecessary TPS can be removed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/16/2008 11:00 am
csj,
I totally agree.   A lot (note I didn't say 'all') of the touch-labor surrounding TPS application to the ET can go-away with the in-line configuration.   It just isn't necessary.   That wouldn't hurt the costings at all ;)

Other "commonality" advantages include the re-use of the tank dome gores for the LOX Fwd Dome (different center sections for each obviously), the re-use of the Intertank jigs (correct word? I forget...) for manufacturing the Fwd Skirt and the Aft Skirt and re-use of the LH2 tank barrel manufacturing equipment to make the new LOX tank barrels as well.

New anti-vortex baffles are needed for the LH2 tank, with the LOX being modified to suit a wider diameter LOX feedline (22" as opposed to today's 17").

The Thrust Structure is going to be new, but they are a well-understood and quantified engineering solution, so isn't too big of a hurdle.   And the one for Jupiter is still a lot smaller and less complex than the one they're already planning for Ares-V.

The TPS for the Aft is something NASA would still need to do a lot of research into.   Whether to just use a hot metal structure (Saturn-V) or cover it with some sort of dedicated TPS material (ET) is going to be an interesting engineering project for someone.   I would make a guess that regular ET foam won't be sufficient for the backwash from the MPS though.

But the avionics are going to be the biggest job on Jupiter IMHO and I can't even guess what'll be involved there.   I'd hope there's EELV hardware which would apply though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: csj on 05/16/2008 05:01 pm
Kraisee,

I agree that the biggest challenge for the CCB will clearly be the avionics.  The cable trays may need to be larger if more cables are needed.  As far as plume recirculation is concerned, there is a fair amount of that going on now with the shuttle.  However, I do not know that much about TPS technology and how it could be best used on the CCB.

csj
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 05/16/2008 05:16 pm
Quote
kevin-rf - 15/5/2008  10:02 PM
How many thermo cycles, fill/drain, fill/drain could the tanks take before they have to be replaced?
As many as you design it to take.

Like many engineering issues in many disciplines this sort of question doesn't have a set answer. If you qualify some of the conditions, then an answer can be given but a bald question like "how many cycles can it take" for something that doesn't exist is answered with "You design it  from the start to take as many as you find you need". :)

If, for some reason you thought that you needed, I mean really needed, 50,000 full thermal cycles, then you pick materials & designs to get you to 50,000 cycles with the agreed-upon level of reliability.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/17/2008 11:32 am
I believe that the current requirement for Shuttle ET's is 13 cryo cycles (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).    A cryo cycle being defined as either a cryo-fill or a tank pressurization event.

IIRC, I saw someone say that the most any flown Shuttle tank has ever experienced was about 7 cycles, so there appears to be a fairly comfortable margin there according to existing flight history.

It would seem logical for Jupiter Core's to have a similar requirement.

I'm not sure what part of the tank is the long pole on this though - whether its brittleness of the Al-Li structure, or bonding adhesive of the foam, or seals or whatever.   It could very well be a number of different but inter-related factors together.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 05/18/2008 02:07 pm
Quote
kraisee - 16/5/2008  6:00 AM

But the avionics are going to be the biggest job on Jupiter IMHO and I can't even guess what'll be involved there.   I'd hope there's EELV hardware which would apply though.

Ross.

Ross, it would be very advantageous for the J-120+Delta IV US rocket if the Jupiter rockets could use Delta IV derived avionics. I am not an expert, but at first glance this seems to be a logical choice anyway as it is already designed to control 3 RS-68 engines.  It would be nice if you could "recruit" in your Direct supporting team ULA/Boeing professionals familiar with that avionics system.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/18/2008 02:40 pm
Bad advice.  
1.  Delta avionics system is archaic.  It doesn't know what time is and therefore can't do planetary windows greater than one second.  Also it can't do yaw steering
2.  It is the same system as the Delta II, circa 1995
3.  Controlling multiple engines is not a big deal, just as the Atlas V avionics is also designed for a 3 core heavy but it can also handle a two engined centaur.
4. There was a reason NASA choose Atlas avionics for Ares I-X
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 05/18/2008 04:52 pm
Quote
Jim - 18/5/2008  9:40 AM

Bad advice.  
1.  Delta avionics system is archaic.  It doesn't know what time is and therefore can't do planetary windows greater than one second.  Also it can't do yaw steering
2.  It is the same system as the Delta II, circa 1995
3.  Controlling multiple engines is not a big deal, just as the Atlas V avionics is also designed for a 3 core heavy but it can also handle a two engined centaur.
4. There was a reason NASA choose Atlas avionics for Ares I-X

Well, that makes it surprising that Boeing won the Ares I avionics contract.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/18/2008 05:04 pm
Quote
PaulL - 18/5/2008  12:52 PM

Quote
Jim - 18/5/2008  9:40 AM

Bad advice.  
1.  Delta avionics system is archaic.  It doesn't know what time is and therefore can't do planetary windows greater than one second.  Also it can't do yaw steering
2.  It is the same system as the Delta II, circa 1995
3.  Controlling multiple engines is not a big deal, just as the Atlas V avionics is also designed for a 3 core heavy but it can also handle a two engined centaur.
4. There was a reason NASA choose Atlas avionics for Ares I-X

Well, that makes it surprising that Boeing won the Ares I avionics contract.

PaulL

It is an avionics production contract and not a design contract.  NASA (MSFC) designed the architecture.  Ares avionics will not have Delta heritage (nor Atlas).

The Delta Avionics group is in Denver and not Huntsville, where this contract will be run out of
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ted on 05/18/2008 06:16 pm
Is the NASA(MFSC) designed ARES 1 Avionics System a sound design?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/18/2008 08:58 pm
Quote
PaulL - 18/5/2008  10:07 AM

Quote
kraisee - 16/5/2008  6:00 AM

But the avionics are going to be the biggest job on Jupiter IMHO and I can't even guess what'll be involved there.   I'd hope there's EELV hardware which would apply though.

Ross.

Ross, it would be very advantageous for the J-120+Delta IV US rocket if the Jupiter rockets could use Delta IV derived avionics. I am not an expert, but at first glance this seems to be a logical choice anyway as it is already designed to control 3 RS-68 engines.  It would be nice if you could "recruit" in your Direct supporting team ULA/Boeing professionals familiar with that avionics system.

PaulL

We actually have some already (from there and other projects too) but the whole subject is just a touch over my head still :)

What I do know is that the control systems for the RS-68 are a different set of systems from the avionics systems - at least in this context.   Ultimately they present their data to the avionics systems for interpretation, and in return the avionics systems themselves don't directly control the engines, they essentially just issue instructions to the boxes which do.

It is my understanding that the Ares (though not the Ares-I-X) avionics systems are mostly being designed afresh.   I would be happy with this approach for DIRECT, or an Atlas derivative, or even a Boeing derivative.

Jim's objections aside, the fact remains that the Boeing avionics systems have an excellent flight history on Delta-II and Delta-IV so far.

A human-rated evolution of those same systems will likely identify any weaknesses which they might still have, and will likely solve them and provide new backup systems as well.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tedcraft on 05/19/2008 06:46 pm
Ross,

Is there going to be an update to Direct 2.0.1?  I've looked at the directlauncher website and haven't noticed any reference to the latest version.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 05/19/2008 08:17 pm
Quote
kraisee - 7/5/2008  1:23 AM

The bottle-neck for DIRECT is not actually the Pads in this architecture.   Its the VAB High Bays.   There are only two High Bay's (#1 & #3 - both facing the Ocean) currently fitted with Work Platforms prepared to process Shuttle's which we would (mostly) re-use.

With < 8-week turn-around and three MLP's, the facility would have a through-put of about 12-13 Jupiter-232 launches per year.

...
If a 3rd VAB High Bay were refitted for Jupiter operations, ...
Ross.

Interesting bit from ESAS.REPORT.07.PDF :
Quote
The current Quantity Distance (QD) restriction of 16 SRB segments in the VAB applies, although ESAS has initiated a NASA reassessment of this requirement. The current 16-segment restriction is not believed to be a major restriction with the ESAS 1.5-launch solution for the two lunar mission per year rate.

What's the word lately, the QD restriction still applies ?

[this is just a simple request for info  :) ]

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/19/2008 09:55 pm
tedcraft,
Our web guru's are taking a look at it today.   Hopefully it will go up.   If not, I'll just implement some quick'n'dirty fix tonight myself until they get around to it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/19/2008 10:01 pm
Quote
renclod - 19/5/2008  4:17 PM

Interesting bit from ESAS.REPORT.07.PDF :
Quote
The current Quantity Distance (QD) restriction of 16 SRB segments in the VAB applies, although ESAS has initiated a NASA reassessment of this requirement. The current 16-segment restriction is not believed to be a major restriction with the ESAS 1.5-launch solution for the two lunar mission per year rate.

What's the word lately, the QD restriction still applies ?

I honestly don't know for sure.   I will make inquiries and get you a solid answer as soon as I can.

My initial reaction though, is that you could still stack two Jupiter's at the same time even if limited by this requirement.   Segments for the next vehicle(s) would be held over at the separate SRB processing area (I forget the technically accurate name) until one or other vehicle rolls out.

If we wanted to expand beyond 12-13 flights per year (unlikely, but not impossible) by bringing on-line a third VAB High Bay, then we would probably have to get this requirement amended.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 05/19/2008 10:14 pm
Quote
kraisee - 19/5/2008  6:01 PM

Quote
renclod - 19/5/2008  4:17 PM

Interesting bit from ESAS.REPORT.07.PDF :
Quote
The current Quantity Distance (QD) restriction of 16 SRB segments in the VAB applies, although ESAS has initiated a NASA reassessment of this requirement. The current 16-segment restriction is not believed to be a major restriction with the ESAS 1.5-launch solution for the two lunar mission per year rate.

What's the word lately, the QD restriction still applies ?

I honestly don't know for sure.   I will make inquiries and get you a solid answer as soon as I can.

My initial reaction though, is that you could still stack two Jupiter's at the same time even if limited by this requirement.   Segments for the next vehicle(s) would be held over at the separate SRB processing area (I forget the technically accurate name) until one or other vehicle rolls out.

If we wanted to expand beyond 12-13 flights per year (unlikely, but not impossible) by bringing on-line a third VAB High Bay, then we would probably have to get this requirement amended.

Ross.

If you want to go past 12 a year, wouldn't there need to be a revamp of the ET/Jupiter production line at Michoud?  I seem to recall that the max production there was 12 a year.  Also, how much time does the absence of the orbiter preparation give you for processing vs Orion?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/19/2008 11:53 pm
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 19/5/2008  6:14 PM

If you want to go past 12 a year, wouldn't there need to be a revamp of the ET/Jupiter production line at Michoud?  I seem to recall that the max production there was 12 a year.  Also, how much time does the absence of the orbiter preparation give you for processing vs Orion?

Actually the limit at Michoud is a lot higher than that.   The *facilities* can handle more than 20 units per year (my understanding is that the current estimate for a Jupiter-class ET-derived Core Stage would be 23 per year).   The limiting factor right now is that they just don't have sufficient *staff* to go much beyond about 6-8 ET's per year at present.

I'm a little sketchy on the details, but many moons ago the staffing was cut by about 1/3rd (sounds like one whole shift to me) in one of the many pre-Columbia cost saving measures.   I understand the cuts predated O'Keefe.

And the hurricane Katrina displaced other workers from there too.   I don't believe Michoud is actually running today with quite the same size workforce as it had pre-Katrina.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/22/2008 05:02 am
We are in the process of getting the corrected links to the documents sorted out on the website currently!

We should also be getting the extended version of the Shuttle > Jupiter-120 animation some time soon too, courtesy of Philip Metschan.   Correcting a few details and extending the process all the way out to Jupiter-232 this time! :)   We will post it as soon as it is ready.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 05/22/2008 03:59 pm
Just saw the following article about Obama:
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080522/NEWS01/805220340/1086

It sounds like he is not a lost cause when it comes to spaceflight, and may be one candidate who would be willing to make change to the VSE instead of charging forward with the current plan. And since he wants to cut down on wasteful spending, something like DIRECT, which delivers more for less, would be right up his ally.
Has there been any effort to contact some of Obama's people? and with his new pledged support for the VSE, now might be a good time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 05/22/2008 05:17 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 22/5/2008  10:59 AM

 and with his new pledged support for the VSE, now might be a good time.

Where do you get that?  I have never heard Obama say he supported the VSE.  He said he supported Orion.  There's a big difference.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JSC Phil on 05/22/2008 05:50 pm
Quote
gladiator1332 - 22/5/2008  10:59 AM

Just saw the following article about Obama:
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080522/NEWS01/805220340/1086

It sounds like he is not a lost cause when it comes to spaceflight, and may be one candidate who would be willing to make change to the VSE instead of charging forward with the current plan. And since he wants to cut down on wasteful spending, something like DIRECT, which delivers more for less, would be right up his ally.
Has there been any effort to contact some of Obama's people? and with his new pledged support for the VSE, now might be a good time.

This is becoming annoying. You can't throw that link on to several threads and claim it is either a change of policy, because it isn't, or in anyway hands encouragment for a concept that NASA is not working on. These sorts of posts undermine what is an interesting subject, but nothing more. Sure, it's not as hilarious as Shuttle-C, but you can be sure Obama has never heard of Direct, and I doubt he could name Ares/Orion without prompting.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/22/2008 06:48 pm
Quote
JSC Phil - 22/5/2008  12:50 PM
... you can be sure Obama has never heard of Direct, and I doubt he could name Ares/Orion without prompting.

It is hard to know what he knows.  His background is law (Harvard 1991).  

I work with attorneys frequently (I'm an electrical engineer), and am both stupefied and amazed at what they know.  Some of them seem to only know law in its core form.  It is possible to actually watch their eyes glaze over at the mention of basic electrical terminology like "volts" and "amps".  (They, of course, could quickly get the same response from me when citing detailed legal terminology.)  Others are veritable geniuses who immerse themselves in the intricate technical details of their cases to such an extent that they can challenge my level of knowledge with their questions.  These are the types who are also often aficionados of many things (history, geography, food, music, etc.).

Given his work history in the legal profession (he worked for a Chicago law firm), Obama has probably never been involved in legal cases that involved aerospace issues.  On the other hand, he did travel to Russia with Sen. Lugar to examine WMD nonproliferation issues, so he certainly has had opportunity to learn about some aspects of the field.  

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 05/22/2008 08:42 pm
Quote
JSC Phil - 22/5/2008  1:50 PM

Quote
gladiator1332 - 22/5/2008  10:59 AM

Just saw the following article about Obama:
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080522/NEWS01/805220340/1086

It sounds like he is not a lost cause when it comes to spaceflight, and may be one candidate who would be willing to make change to the VSE instead of charging forward with the current plan. And since he wants to cut down on wasteful spending, something like DIRECT, which delivers more for less, would be right up his ally.
Has there been any effort to contact some of Obama's people? and with his new pledged support for the VSE, now might be a good time.

This is becoming annoying. You can't throw that link on to several threads and claim it is either a change of policy, because it isn't, or in anyway hands encouragment for a concept that NASA is not working on. These sorts of posts undermine what is an interesting subject, but nothing more. Sure, it's not as hilarious as Shuttle-C, but you can be sure Obama has never heard of Direct, and I doubt he could name Ares/Orion without prompting.

I never claimed that he stated he wanted change in the VSE. For all I know he could stick with Ares. However, since Ares I and V are quickly becoming the more expensive route, I can see Obama looking for a less expensive option...EELV or SDLV. Since EELV is not acceptable that leaves DIRECT.
Also note in the post above I suggested that one of Obama's people be contacted, not the man himself. I do not expect Obama to be knowledgeable on every facet of NASA, but this is why Candidates and Presidents have advisers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/23/2008 01:22 am
A question to the DIRECT guys,

That motion running throught the political plumbing, about 3 extra shuttle flights... plus money for accelerating Ares I, do you think it will materialise? I think the AMS flying is a nice point, frankly I'd love to see the CAM fly as well (too bad it's rusting in a parking lot).

I like the bit about ISS continuing to fly, as well. In order for human spaceflight to really continue, there has to be a destination. Developing ISS access is one way to encourage human access to space.

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/tariqmalik/

Still, this is a LOT of money. This indicates that there is support for NASA, but isn't this going in the wrong direction? Is there any way this bill could be altered, say to give a couple of extra billion to something else, say DIRECT? Or is it indicative of support for NASA to continue down the money spiral of Ares I? Seems like there are two camps in Congress over Ares I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/23/2008 07:41 am
Quote
Lampyridae - 22/5/2008  9:22 PM

A question to the DIRECT guys,

That motion running throught the political plumbing, about 3 extra shuttle flights... plus money for accelerating Ares I, do you think it will materialise?

My personal opinion is that, in order: Yes and no.

I think Congress is going to push very hard for one or two more Shuttle flights - even if it means extending Shuttle into 2011.

I don't think there is going to be any new money for Ares-I though.   I think there's a fair chance that the agency will get some more money to re-fund Science and Aeronautics back to their appropriate levels again (a good thing IMHO), but I don't see CxP getting any extra.   At this point I think Congress would actually change to a cheaper system rather than pay more for Ares-I.



Quote
I think the AMS flying is a nice point, frankly I'd love to see the CAM fly as well (too bad it's rusting in a parking lot).

I like the bit about ISS continuing to fly, as well. In order for human spaceflight to really continue, there has to be a destination. Developing ISS access is one way to encourage human access to space.

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/tariqmalik/

Still, this is a LOT of money. This indicates that there is support for NASA, but isn't this going in the wrong direction?

There is a lot of political and public support for NASA as an agency, and for the idea of going back to the moon in an affordable manner.

There is no support, however, for an overly expensive solution and there is no support for radically increasing NASA's current budget.   Ares is gaining a lot of skepticism in the halls of power currently, but they haven't yet decided what might be better.   More than anything I don't believe that most people in Congress even know what the alternatives *are* - and are thus tied to the only solution they have so far been presented - that of Griffin's Ares-I/V plan.

Getting the word out about a viable option is a very time consuming process, but we are having some success.


Quote
Is there any way this bill could be altered, say to give a couple of extra billion to something else, say DIRECT?

The bill is most definitely going to be altered.   The Senate still has to write its amendments before it ever goes for a signature at the White House - that's the totally normal process for such a bill.   What those amendments might be, I don't know.   I don't think they will simply instruct NASA to build DIRECT though.   They might however start a process to double-check whether NASA's current plan is a good one or not and if it is found wanting, they may decide to assess other options in an independent way.   It ultimately depends on whether they still believe NASA or not.


Quote
Or is it indicative of support for NASA to continue down the money spiral of Ares I?

Right now, that's exactly what is happening.   Congress is currently trusting that the the "fox" is securely guarding the "hen-house".   Congress just has no other source of information on this subject other than Mike Griffin on the whole subject.   But his congressional popularity right now is below that of Nixon during Watergate or Michael Brown (FEMA Director) immediately after hurricane Katrina.   So Congress is finally beginning to ask tough questions of him - and rightly so IMHO.   Further, the GAO seem to be on his case and are providing a separate review - an independent one which isn't controlled by NASA upper management in any way - and their independent reviews of Ares-I and Orion are painting a rather ugly picture so far.   And Congress listens to GAO because its made up of their own people.

What that means for DIRECT...   I don't yet know.   From where I'm sitting, its not bad news.


Quote
Seems like there are two camps in Congress over Ares I.

There are those who are not yet questioning the fox, and those who are.   But when GAO steps in and points out serious problems, neither group will ignore it.

The big division is going to be between the LEO-only vs. VSE camps - which will be the big debate after Ares collapses.   I predict the next 6-12 months are going to be very interesting.   I hope that Ares-I sinking down the drain doesn't suck the whole VSE along with it.   That is a *very* real danger.

All IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 05/24/2008 06:41 pm
I have to say Ross, that that is an honest-to-goodness account of how I see that whole thing from up here in Canada. I wonder when the GAO is supposed to report its findings? That may be when the stopwatch starts...counting down (imo).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/26/2008 08:10 pm
GAO have already released review documentation for both Ares-I and Orion - neither of which has been particularly complementary so far.

I understand they are working on many more.

I would like to see GAO tackle a review of Ares-I-X (why spend $800m on a model rocket flying no final-spec hardware at all), a review of Ares-V performance in the context of achieving the Lunar objectives (13mT below targets) and I'm awaiting a review of NASA's 2008 budget (overspent in Q1, Q2 so there isn't sufficient funding for Q4).   GAO would find lots of dirt if they get stuck in to any (better still all) of those subjects IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 05/28/2008 02:36 am
I thought today's article about Direct was very good.  I would give it a "b+/A-".

Couple of points:

The removal of lunar-class mission reliability and crew safety systems from Orion late last year in order to pass the upcoming non-independent PDR is disingenuous to anyone who understands spacecraft and lunar architecture design.  With DIRECT there is no need to engage in this expensive and time-consuming bait-and-switch behavior ahead of PDR...Fourth, unlike the duplicative Ares 1,...


Was there not a nicer way to say this?  Your points are much more effective when you are being contructive .

"We strongly agree with Dr. Griffin that the VSE needs a heavy-lift launch system. Fortunately, we already operate a Saturn 5 class heavy-lift launch system. Every time the STS launches it place more mass into orbit than the Saturn 5. "---

Did not Griffin say something like this in speech...maybe you could have used some of his words?

The power of freedom paragragh--very effective.

The Law of Physics sentence--GREAT!

The ending paragraph---GREAT A+
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 05/29/2008 02:37 am
Before I get caught up in other things, I want to wish your team all the best this weekend for your presentation in Washington at ISDC2008.
"Most" here pray you can turn some heads and show a better way forward.
Good luck, and give 'em hell!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/29/2008 10:13 am
Thanks for the well-wishes.

I'm sure Stephen has already seen them here.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/31/2008 01:48 pm
Just letting you all know that we have a new 'animation' coming very soon with the evolution now progressing from STS to J-120 and on to J-232 as well - and showing some data too.

It was shown at ISDC (which went very well indeed according to Steve, BTW) as part of the presentation there.

I'm going to try to get it up here in time for the Shuttle launch (Go Discovery!).

Watch this space :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/02/2008 05:05 pm
Question for Ross and the DIRECT team:  Why bother with the J-232? 

It looks like a J-221 could put 37-38mT through TLI.

J-232 looks like around 41-41.5mT through TLI.

The second engine on the upper stage actually costs you payload to LLO (though probably gains you in LOC/LOM numbers).  But the third core engine is really only getting you.

It seems like if you are looking at the two launch architecture, two J-221s can do the job (LOR or L1R), without having to design a thrust structure for the core stage that can accept 2 or 3 engines, and get to the ~75mT target for lunar ops.

A 2-engine core seems to save you a little up-front cost (2 and 3 engine certification), and a little recurring cost for lunar ops (1 less RS-68 and J2-?).

While I'll be the first to agree the variable engine core gives you a heckuva lot more versatility, it looks (potentially) unneccessary.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/02/2008 10:09 pm
BogoMIPS,
As you have noticed, there is a huge amount of flexibility on the concept.   The reason we have baselined what we have, is because we have looked at NASA's current ground rules and provided one solution which addresses those very specifically.

Paraphrasing, NASA wants:-

* 2 launches max for Lunar missions
* EOR - LOR mission profile
* No Propellant Transfer Initially
* A 45mT LSAM
* A 20.1mT CEV


With those specifically as our target, we have selected the Jupiter-232 of all the many possible configurations, as being the one which launches the correct mass for Lunar mission requirements like this and it does so with just a little bit of useful spare capacity. Further, it is a safe enough configuration to meet NASA's LOC targets too, so crew can fly upon it.   Jupiter-232 just 'strikes the right balance' for the missions which NASA has shown it wants to do.

The Jupiter-221 solution can not meet these specific requirements.   Ultimately it couldn't quite fly the correct size lander.

Now, if the requirements are allowed to change, there are a variety of other solutions possible.   For example, with the Propellant Transfer option, I believe a 2 x Jupiter-221 or 231 configuration could probably still close the requirements correctly.

But convincing NASA to even consider such changes has been tantamount to blasphemy in the current management environment.   So we have simply chosen to pursue 'as close an approach as possible' to NASA's own baseline.

You are absolutely correct to identify that this baseline is NOT the only reasonable path which we can follow.   It is simply the one which fits NASA's *current* requirements most accurately.   If the requirements were to change, I believe we have a lot of flexibility available to meet whatever new targets we must.


Just for the record, I believe that a mission profile using 2 Jupiter-232's and Propellant Transfer, is capable of sending a 53mT LSAM moonward with the Orion (73mT cargo-only LSAM).   That's a real nice improvement over the baseline which is possible without changing the LV's at all.   All it really requires is a Depot in orbit - and everyone knows that's coming sooner or later.   But by not spending $15bn developing Ares-V and not spending $1bn per year operating Ares-V as well, I think the Depot is affordable much sooner with DIRECT than it ever could be with Ares.

Oh, and I should possibly mention also that re-qualification of the Core will have to be done anyway as soon as you add the Upper Stage to the configuration.   Loads and aero all change anyway, so adding the third engine for that phase is virtually just "noise" when you look at the budgetary level.   Having the flexibility right from the start to use either two or three main engines on the Core allows for an even wider range of potential variants without the really expensive development costs of really changing things down the line if we find ourselves needing more performance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2008 08:47 am
New High-Def Animation is in from Philip.   This was shown at ISDC.

HD STS to Jupiter-232 Animation (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-232.mov) (15.7Mb).

Enjoy!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2008 09:46 am
Also uploaded to YouTube now too...

http://www.youtube.com/v/C6WCHefUJgc

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 06/03/2008 12:20 pm
Excellent video, very clear and informative.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/03/2008 02:25 pm
Amazing video! You took information and images that would take up 40 pages in a report and put it all into one 2 minute video. It really gets the point to the viewer in a way that I think is more effective than any report could ever be.

Great start with the STS launch as well, it is something that we have all seen countless times and it really drives home the point at how similar Jupiter is.

If NASA ever switches to Jupiter, they really have most of the visual work done for them. This video is better than anything that has come out of the Ares visual side of things, atleast from an information standpoint.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/03/2008 04:12 pm
 You should create a similar video for ARES, including the VAB and launch pad changes.  The shuttle parts could be droped into a waste basket. That would drive home the point in a big way.   

 Not sure how difficult this would be but it would be cool to put in a running time line and a money graph that would build as the videos progress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 06/03/2008 05:45 pm
Jim Mills at the Hill.com wrote this column dated June 2nd, 2008 (http://thehill.com/jim-mills/space-exploration-on-the-cheap-america-misses-its-moment-2008-06-02.html) and one quote is as follows:
Quote
I don’t think most Americans, space buffers or not, are yet quite aware that for all intents and purposes our manned space program will go dark between 2010 and 2015, the period of time between the shuttle’s final flight and the day we get our next generation of rockets built.

During that time we will need to rely on the Russians so we can hitch rides into space and minimally keep up with our partnering obligations to the Space Station. Unbelievable.

Thankfully, some members of Congress are agitating for more NASA dollars to try to cut down that five-year non-flight window to two, maybe three years. But shame on us all for being in this position in the first place.

Here is the text of an e-mail I have just sent to him:

Quote
Mr. Mills -
 
I have just now read your 6/2/08 column on space exploration and was struck by this passage:
 
>> I don’t think most Americans, space buffers or not, are yet quite aware that for all intents and purposes our manned space program will go dark between 2010 and 2015, the period of time between the shuttle’s final flight and the day we get our next generation of rockets built. During that time we will need to rely on the Russians so we can hitch rides into space and minimally keep up with our partnering obligations to the Space Station. Unbelievable.Thankfully, some members of Congress are agitating for more NASA dollars to try to cut down that five-year non-flight window to two, maybe three years. But shame on us all for being in this position in the first place. <<

More dollars from Congress probably won't close "the gap" between Orbiter retirement and first flight for Ares 1 due to scheduling issues with the technology development. Neither the 5 segment solid rocket booster nor the J-2X upper stage engine currently exist and simply throwing money at the problem will not materially advance the timetable.

But there is another option (called DIRECT 2.0) which has been created by anonymous NASA engineers unhappy with the ESAS spaceflight architecture chosen by Dr. Michael Griffin.

Here is a movie that explains the DIRECT concept:
 
http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-232.mov
 
YouTube version:
 
. . .
 
Here is the DIRECT website:
 
http://www.directlauncher.com/
 
The discussion forum at nasaspaceflight - dot - com offers considerable background information.
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.525
 
I have absolutely NO connection with the work being done by the DIRECT team and I am merely a fan of their approach. I am also NOT an engineer and cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of their data and projections however as a taxpayer and a voter I strongly believe Congress should take a close look at DIRECT 2.0 and also require NASA to make public the engineering details for their ESAS approach, DIRECT, Shuttle C concepts and EELV options.
 
In light of your column dated 6/2/08 I believe you will find it worth your while to investigate DIRECT and the intersection of politics and the NASA launch architectures.
 
Sincerely,
 
Bill White

I figure it can't hurt . . .

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/03/2008 05:53 pm
Thanks for taking the time to do that Bill.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 06/05/2008 03:47 am
Thanks for taking the time to do that Bill.

Ross.

Ross, there are requests  for a soundtrack (http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/6/4/21528/93375/?pid=0#c13) for the video.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/05/2008 05:32 pm
While this is well known in manufacturing, I thought this description from the Encyclopedia Astronautica entry on the Saturn I might be useful in trying to describe one advantage (same diameter as shuttle ET) of DIRECT over Ares V to congress members:

"The major costs of tooling for the fabrication of missile tanks and main structure is related to the diameter. Changes in length cost little or nothing in tooling. How the tanks are divided internally, or the structure reinforced inside, or the kind of structural detail that is used at the end in order to attach the structure to a big booster below, or to a different size stage above, have very little effect on tooling problems. However, a change in diameter sets up a major question of tools, costs, and time."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/05/2008 05:36 pm
Same applies to comparison of DIRECT to Ares I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/05/2008 07:19 pm
CxP is introducing new tooling for Al-Li tank fabrication at MSFC and Michoud. More FSW.

It is called PROGRESS.

"Changes in length cost little or nothing in tooling." It costs a lot in facility mods.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2008 07:30 pm
CxP is introducing new tooling for Al-Li tank fabrication at MSFC and Michoud. More FSW.

It is called PROGRESS.

"Changes in length cost little or nothing in tooling." It costs a lot in facility mods.
I want to say something, but the stupidity of it keeps me dumbfounded.
But what the hell, we've got gobs and gobs of money to spend, right?
It's coming out of our ears we have so much.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/05/2008 08:18 pm
Chuck,

Somewhere in the NASA Charter, right in the beginning I think, there is this drive for USA tech supremacy.

To be honest, you must admit that the first and foremost goal for NASA is not to fly twice as many lunar missions for the budget, as it is to advance the technology at the bleeding edge in the country that funds those flights.

Hence the difficult challenges are welcomed.

Solving once and for all the big solid booster's T.O.; new, performant friction stir welding tools; new J-2X engine with berillium-free alloys; larger SRB; large composite dry structures; best new avionics; new SRB flex liners; new, largest ever parachutes; new designed mobile launchers and pad structures; darwin-istically designed Orion; manifolded solid rocket motors; and the list goes on and on.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/05/2008 08:20 pm

It is called PROGRESS.


That's debatable.


"Changes in length cost little or nothing in tooling." It costs a lot in facility mods.

The point of the quote was that it costs a lot in tooling to change the diameter.  Facility modifications only need to be made if the tank is made longer.

The Jupiter LV wouldn't change the diameter.  Ares I does, and Ares V would.  No tooling exists for the Ares V core, so that will still cost a lot, too.

The Jupiter LV doesn't significantly change the length.  Ares V does by making it longer.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 06/05/2008 08:31 pm
Chuck,

Somewhere in the NASA Charter, right in the beginning I think, there is this drive for USA tech supremacy.

To be honest, you must admit that the first and foremost goal for NASA is not to fly twice as many lunar missions for the budget, as it is to advance the technology at the bleeding edge in the country that funds those flights.

Hence the difficult challenges are welcomed.

Solving once and for all the big solid booster's T.O.; new, performant friction stir welding tools; new J-2X engine with berillium-free alloys; larger SRB; composite dry structures; best new avionics; new SRB flex liners; new, largest ever parachutes; new designed mobile launchers and pad structures; darwin-istically designed Orion; manifolded solid rocket motors; and the list goes on and on.



I think this is an important part of the NASA mission, but given the coming budget constraints, is this realistic?

I've recently re-read the AIAA 2007 paper and several things you mention above are discussed. 

1) The increased lift capacity of the J120 over Ares I (~50mT vs. 22mT) gives flexibility in Orion development (such as making it truly lunar-capable).  Isn't it true that many of the recent re-designs of Orion are due to performance constraints of Ares I?

2)  I'll be the first to say that I'm no engineer, but how does going Direct affect the choice of top-flight avionics packages?  Doesn't the built-in lead time the J120 has over the Ares help in this development?  Again, as a history major having little knowledge in engineering, I'm honestly wondering how Direct affects this.

3)  With lunar missions well in the future (after 2015), doesn't this provide enough time for development of the J-2X?

Just checked out the video and powerpoint presentations, Chuck.  Still hard for me to fathom why Griffin et al are stonewalling the release of that appendix to the public and Congress.  Great job!  A lot of us "dreamer, liberal-arts types" are hoping you folks prevail :)

Cheers,

Cale

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/05/2008 08:32 pm
Somewhere in the NASA Charter, right in the beginning I think, there is this drive for USA tech supremacy.

To be honest, you must admit that the first and foremost goal for NASA is not to fly twice as many lunar missions for the budget, as it is to advance the technology at the bleeding edge in the country that funds those flights.

Hence the difficult challenges are welcomed.

Solving once and for all the big solid booster's T.O.; new, performant friction stir welding tools; new J-2X engine with berillium-free alloys; larger SRB; composite dry structures; best new avionics; new SRB flex liners; new, largest ever parachutes; new designed mobile launchers and pad structures; darwin-istically designed Orion; manifolded solid rocket motors; and the list goes on and on.


I agree with you about NASA's mission to advance technology.  But NASA also exists to maintain national prestige, and that's hard to do when the Chinese and Indians have beaten you back to the moon.

DIRECT's premise isn't to avoid the challenge of creating these technologies.  It's premise is to avoid putting these advanced technologies in the critical path of maintaining national prestige.  NASA can add those technologies (like the J-2X and bigger solids) to improve performance when they come out of development a few years later.  Regarding the parachutes and the like, the US will most likely be developing Orion either way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/05/2008 08:58 pm
Chuck,

Somewhere in the NASA Charter, right in the beginning I think, there is this drive for USA tech supremacy.

To be honest, you must admit that the first and foremost goal for NASA is not to fly twice as many lunar missions for the budget, as it is to advance the technology at the bleeding edge in the country that funds those flights.

Hence the difficult challenges are welcomed.

Solving once and for all the big solid booster's T.O.; new, performant friction stir welding tools; new J-2X engine with berillium-free alloys; larger SRB; composite dry structures; best new avionics; new SRB flex liners; new, largest ever parachutes; new designed mobile launchers and pad structures; darwin-istically designed Orion; manifolded solid rocket motors; and the list goes on and on.
Those are all good goals and I would expect NASA to be at the leading edge of addressing them. But that's not the point. If this were being done in conjunction with a program that was going to be viable and sustainable, then I would agree. The whole reason this thread and this subject even exists is because we believe that the Ares program is unsustainable and by the time the current NASA administration finally realizes that they have been chasing an extremely expensive dead end we will have destroyed our only heavy lift capability and will have taken a giant step backward. We will no longer be the leader in space, not because someone else beat us, but because we threw it away. That's the stupidity I'm speaking of.

The Congress did not direct NASA to do those specific things. It *did* direct NASA to build a heavy lift capability *using, to the maximum extent possible* the existing STS hardware, facilities, infrastructure and workforce. That’s what Dr Griffin was told to do and that is exactly what he is *NOT* doing. He is deliberately destroying as much of the STS infrastructure as he can, as fast as he can, in the mistaken belief that when the Congress finally figures out it has been duped, it will be too late and will grudgingly agree to continue down the path of building the biggest, badest heavy lift rocket to ever strain the ground on which it was sitting, because there is no longer any other choice. That’s what Dr Griffin is doing. He believes that the dismantling of the Saturn capability was a mortal sin, and that the STS and ISS efforts are decadal wastes of time and effort. He wants to get rid of them and get them out of the way so that he can replace the Saturn class heavy lift capability that he believes with all his heart should never have been abandoned. He is on a crusade – nothing else. And he is using the Congress to do it.

If it weren’t for the total unsustainable nature of the Ares architecture he is trying to build to do this with I would be 100% behind him. But it’s not sustainable, and, in my opinion (and many others) it will never be built. But by the time the Congress realizes that we will no longer have the facilities, infrastructure and hardware to use; they will have been destroyed, exactly as Dr Griffin planned. The workforce will have been disbanded and scattered across the face of the nation. He wants to make it impossible for us to ever go back to an STS-based architecture because he believes that will leave us stuck in LEO. The irony is that his Ares approach is going to end up doing just that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2008 09:24 pm
The real advances in technology will be for the spacecraft, not the launch vehicles.   The bleeding edge hasn't been in LV's for twenty-plus years.

Pressure Tanking Vessels are just not where there's any "technology lead" to be had.   Avionics, yes.   High performance engines - yes.   But in those areas DIRECT and Ares are equal.


Let us not forget that the LV's are just a tool for enabling those high-tech spacecraft to get going.

But if we suck the budget dry with hugely expensive LV's we will never have enough money left over to spend on the important stuff - like more Orion's and Altair's.   Shuttle showed us the error of that, and Ares is supposed to triple its costs...

The LV portion entirely boils down to maximizing the amount of payload for a given $ amount.   NASA's current baseline of approximately 750mT launched per year  is expected to cost $7.5-9bn using the two Ares vehicles.

DIRECT could do the same job for under $4bn.   And we can back that claim up because the *existing equipment* costs are all totally documented for Shuttle/Delta-IV and we are simply not changing very much of it.


If we had $7.5bn - the *low ball* Ares LV estimate not including spacecraft - we could launch 40 Jupiter-232's for that.   Mind you, the infrastructure couldn't support that flight rate.   We actually hit the buffer-stops around 32 vehicles per year at a cost of approximately $6.5bn, but I think we could live with 3,200mT of annual lift capacity.

Using the upper-bounding figure, for $9bn per year, instead of paying for just Ares-I and Ares-V and still needing to pay for the CEV and LSAM, DIRECT could pay for 10 *ten* full Lunar missions INCLUDING the spacecraft.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/05/2008 09:29 pm
Chuck,

If CxP is currently destroying something, it is also replacing that with new, advanced capabilities.

I think your post here (and many, many other in the same vein) places too much emphasis on Dr.Griffin.

Remember Dick Truly and SEI ?

Do you really think that NASA as an institution with a formidable inertial culture can be derailed like that ?

I don't think so. The little I've learned about NASA and space exploration do not support a "Direct" type of method, id est: use what you got, cut any challenging development for the "sustainability"s sake, throw launch muscles at the mass problem, keep the launch pad you have and hope the bricks will hold, defer development for only after we start operating... no.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/05/2008 09:45 pm
renclod,
CxP is destroying usable *advanced* and*modern* capabilities like SLWT ET manufacturing in order to make two new systems which just are not meeting any of its targets. We have demonstrated an option which can meet its targets and just doesn't need that sort of heavy investment in the LV's. So I ask you: What is the specific *benefit* to replacing it all at great cost if it isn't actually *necessary*?

There's a major difference between needing to invest to guarantee a result and spending extra on "yet another NASA boondoggle".   I suggest that NASA's current approach is more the latter than the former.


The key issues here are efficiency and sustainability.   Ares has neither.   It is front-loaded with high costs to get Ares-I operational.   It is mid-loaded with high costs to get Ares-V operational.   And it is also rear-loaded with high costs to keep two disparate launch vehicles operating at the same time at costs which shock even me!

Ares is ultimately creating a situation where the best-case scenario is that we can only ever afford to go to the moon once or twice a year.   At that flight rate each mission will cost well over $5bn.

How long do you realistically think Congress and the American tax-payer will accept that sort of cost?   Do you really think they'll keep paying that amount for such limited results? Wouldn't it give ammunition to all those who argue that NASA isn't worth it? Wouldn't it then not be cheaper to just cancel the program exactly as we have seen before with Apollo?

This direction - Ares-I followed by Ares-V - only leads in two directions:   One is to another boondoggle like ISS, the other is straight to an early program grave.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/05/2008 10:20 pm
Ross,
Quote
There's a major difference between needing to invest to guarantee a result and spending extra on "yet another NASA boondoggle".   I suggest that NASA's current approach is more the latter than the former.

I disagree to characterize "NASA's approaches" as "boondoggles".

Totally and absolutely.

What are you talking about ?!  Mercury, Gemini, Saturn/Apollo, Shuttle, ISS ?!

None was done to guarantee techological advance but all did it. Because the aim was high, always.

I hate this "NASA boondoggle" thing. Show me who when where did the better ones.

Or show me funds better spent.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/05/2008 10:49 pm
I agree with you about NASA's mission to advance technology.  But NASA also exists to maintain national prestige, and that's hard to do when the Chinese and Indians have beaten you back to the moon.

Let us be clear, noone is going to beat NASA at the "back to the moon" game. NASA did this 5 times already.

Quote
DIRECT's premise isn't to avoid the challenge of creating these technologies.  It's premise is to avoid putting these advanced technologies in the critical path of maintaining national prestige.

USA "national prestige" and the "Jumpiter-120" have nothing in common IMO, more, they are mutually exclusive.

The "Direct"s premise is exactly that, "to avoid the challenge of creating these technologies".

Quote
NASA can add those technologies (like the J-2X and bigger solids) to improve performance when they come out of development a few years later.
No they don't need such performance as they throw the holly grail of manned space exploration - that is existing technology , like J-2S ( ?!) or orbital inserting RS-68 ( ?! ); also current welding tools at Michoud and existing I beams and angles and bricks and reebars and platforms and barges - to the problem.

Quote
Regarding the parachutes and the like, the US will most likely be developing Orion either way.

What way ? with or without parachutes ?! lol I was talking about SRB recovery. Parachutes.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Michael Bloxham on 06/06/2008 10:26 am
The real advances in technology will be for the spacecraft, not the launch vehicles.   The bleeding edge hasn't been in LV's for twenty-plus years.

Pressure Tanking Vessels are just not where there's any "technology lead" to be had.   Avionics, yes.   High performance engines - yes.   But in those areas DIRECT and Ares are equal.

Although the NASA folk may not be tasked with pushing technological innovations for their new rocket, perhaps it is in their hearts and minds to do so. If that is the case, you need to make sure these points get across!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2008 11:23 am
Although the NASA folk may not be tasked with pushing technological innovations for their new rocket, perhaps it is in their hearts and minds to do so. If that is the case, you need to make sure these points get across!

I understand what you're saying - but the issue boils down to whether we will actually be able to afford it or not.

There is very little radical new technology in the 5-segment SRB. There is no new materials research or technology in the J-2X or the RS-68 upgrade - they're both new, but they are both evolutionary upgrades which aren't pushing the boundaries of what we already know. There is certainly no drastic "technological innovation" in increasing the diameter of the tanking to 10m from 8.4m.

But there is a LOT of cost involved in doing these things and it is all paid for with tax-payer's hard earned money. NASA has been tasked with doing a job - essentially returning humans to the moon and going on to Mars. This task will be more than hard enough and costly enough that we do not need to be adding any extra costs just because some folk would like a bit more of a challenge. That's crazy talk :)

There are going to be challenges aplenty in this program and if that's what some people are after, there are going to be lots of opportunities to join teams doing challenging things without making every single element over-challenging and over-costly.

Now, don't get me wrong. There is certainly room for some modernization.   We need to replace the 25 year old technology in the Avionics packages and in the computers which control everything (no more 486's! :) ), but that's all common whether you looking at Jupiter or Ares. Modernizing those systems between programs is 'par for the course' for both.

But changing all of that is going to cost $30bn to develop for an agency which is cash-strapped enough and it is. Worse still, it is going to produce a launch system which bleeds the agency for 43 to 53% (best and worst case scenarios) of its entire annual budget every single year - without even paying for the spacecraft yet, those will be additional on top.

To put that into perspective, Shuttle today - including the crew carrying spacecraft - costs 19% of the annual budget and is considered to be *the* most expensive rocket system anywhere in the world.

My question is this: Is this *really* economically viable?


I don't think so and nor do a group of at least 57 NASA engineers & managers who don't believe this so strongly that they are sticking their personal necks out to assist us.

We have come up with an alternative which removes vast swathes of the LV costs (both development and operations) and allows the agency to concentrate most of its development efforts (funding), not on the LV's, but on the far more complicated and crucial spacecraft - the bits which *are* going to need the bleeding edge innovative technology and research which you mention. If folk within the program are really looking for a challenge, those are the programs where they should be seeking a position. Those are the programs which really going to provide that sort of challenge.

We are just minimizing the LV development by reusing what the US tax-payer has already paid for as much possible in order to make a new man-rated heavy lift system which is affordable enough to develop and is affordable enough operate a LOT every year - to get the best possible value from the investment.

Existing 4-segment SRB manufacturing is just as modern as the 5-seg production line will be. We will also be re-using almost all of the modern friction-stir Al-Li 2195 welding SLWT production facilities already in place at MAF - which is exactly what Ares expects to do, but has to replace everything just to cope with the different diameter structures.


Essentially we're keeping Shuttle costs, but deleting the hugely expensive Orbiter element and replacing that with Orion.

What that ultimately does is cut about a billion dollars out of the current Shuttle operations costs every year. Therefore a similar 7 missions per year schedule as we fly at present would cost only ~$2bn a year.

Add in the cost of the EDS and you get back up around $3bn per year again at that flight-rate - but now you're launching 700mT per year, not 110mT as on Shuttle.   So the same Shuttle money is now buying about 6 times the capability.


But the latest details are emerging from NASA regarding how expensive all this new equipment is going to be to operate both Ares vehicles.   To do that same amount of lifting as I just described is going to cost NASA more than $4bn *more* every single year. That's equivalent to an extra quarter of the entire yearly budget for the whole agency which you deprive the organization of which could instead be utilized to pay for more Exploration missions, more Aeronautics research or more Science every year.

Where is the sense in doing that?

More importantly, where is the benefit in doing that?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2008 12:22 pm
It is appropriate to restate occasionally, mostly because there are new forum members continually joining who haven’t been with us for this whole journey that DIRECT is not designed to be the best, most efficient way of transitioning from the Shuttle era into a space-faring civilization. It is designed to do one thing only, and to do it very well: Given the limitations and very *specific* directions imposed by the Congress in the Space Authorization Act of 2005, it is designed to provide what the Congress directed be provided, in the most efficient and capable manner possible. It is not a clean sheet approach and does not try to push the envelope on technology development. Those are two specific things that the Congress did NOT want done.

Every one of the 5 “public face” members of the DIRECT  team would have preferred a different approach to leaving the Shuttle era behind and moving on to the moon, Mars and beyond. But DIRECT was not designed to express those. It was design to provide what the Congress directed be built, and to provide the most capability possible under that direction. Unlike Dr Griffin, we left our personal preferences behind and teamed together to create what the Congress said it was willing to pay for.

All the talk about pushing the envelope and bleeding edge technology is completely irrelevant in regards to DIRECT because the Congressional direction was to avoid those things completely, and that is very specifically why DIRECT avoids them as well. The Congress directed NASA to create a crew and heavy lift capability, using to the maximum extent possible, the STS hardware, infrastructure, facilities and workforce as the foundation for the VSE earth launch capability. The new congressionally authorized launch vehicle was to be evolutionary, not revolutionary and was to reuse, not replace the STS investment. Congress very deliberately wanted to leverage the investments made over the last 40 years and use what we have, and replace/upgrade only what was necessary.

That is why you will not find any bleeding edge technology on any of the Jupiter launch vehicles. That is why we were able to create a launch vehicle family that could get us back into space so quickly, and with so much additional capability. It was our desire to replace the launch capability of Shuttle with as little fanfare as possible, making sure we could reach the moon, and let the nation invest its treasure, as the Congress wanted, mainly in the new spacecraft, Orion and Altair, that would carry us out into the solar system.

That is what the Congress wanted, and, completely unlike Ares, that is what DIRECT delivers.

The Ares architecture is in total opposition to everything the Congress wanted. It was sold in such a manner to make it look like what the Congress wanted, and once authorized, immediately began its transformation into what the Congress did NOT want – a clean sheet design based *entirely* on a launch system that Dr Griffin, and others, had designed years before he became administrator. He entered office with the design already settled and the ESAS 60-day study was a complete cover designed to make it look like all the other possibilities had been properly vetted and eliminated based on technical merit. The reason it was able to be accomplished in *only* 60 days is because the conclusion was predetermined before the committee even met on day 1. And that is a quote from a person who was asked to be on the committee but withdrew when he learned of this. The majority of the 60 day effort was spent editing, not evaluating, to make sure that the “study” would reach the “correct” conclusion. And that conclusion was the Ares architecture, which looked sufficiently like what the Congress wanted to get it past their examination. But like I said, once the ink was dry, it immediately began its metamorphosis by switching the MPS from the SSME to the RS-68. Everything else followed on after that initial change. There may still be a couple more things to come to make it complete. Dr Griffin described it as “Apollo on steroids”, a shrewd selection of words. What he really meant was “Saturn on steroids”. His aim all along has been to resurrect and increase the Saturn-V capability. He is, and always has been, a “big rocket” guy.

So in brief, Ares is designed to produce  what Dr Griffin designed  (http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/aim_for_mars/study-report.pdf) years before coming to NASA, while DIRECT is designed instead to produce what the Congress directed be built. Dr Griffin is leading a crusade to resurrect the pre-STS era monster launch vehicle capability, while, DIRECT is designed to produce what the Congress said it wanted, and could afford to pay for. That’s the difference. These are two fundamentally different goals. That also explains why Dr Griffin wants to destroy as much of the STS infrastructure as he can, as fast as he can. He wants to make sure that there is no way back, leaving the Congress with no choice but to proceed with *his* personal vision, instead of *the” Vision.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 06/06/2008 03:18 pm
What are you talking about ?!  Mercury, Gemini, Saturn/Apollo, Shuttle, ISS ?!

None was done to guarantee techological advance but all did it. Because the aim was high, always.
Let's take a look at those programs for just a moment. I'll leave out Shuttle as it was a completely new launcher and the ISS because there's no launcher at all, but let's look at the first three US manned systems.

Did NASA engineers and program managers, when faced with the challenge of putting men in space or on the moon, start out to build challenges and new technology into the LVs? No. They picked existing LVs where possible specifically to reduce challenges, risks & costs. The Redstone was a minimally modified land based IRBM. The Atlas was a minimally modified ICBM. The Titan was a modified ICBM. The Saturn 1 was a cluster of tanks from two IRBMs with as little new structure as possible. Only the Saturn V was new from the ground up and that was in response to the significantly more challenging lunar mission payload requirements. Nothing else could do the job.

As an engineer working in the aerospace industry for over 20 years, if I went into a program manager's office and said, "hey, let's not use something less risky, but lets just push the envelope for the hell of it, cause it'd be cool." I'd get my head handed back to me on a platter and my butt shown out the door of the plant. There are more than enough risks involved in any spacecraft design to suit even the most masochistic engineer without purposely planning to to do new things just for the hell of it.

I can tell you that it never, never, never happens. You just do not plan to do things in a new way if you can possibly avoid it. You end up having to do new things because the mission is new or the ultimate performance requirements are new or the environment is new, but not because you simply want to do something new.

Scientists do stuff simply because it's new and God love 'em for it. But they are not put in charge of space programs and neither should they be. They do not understand risk or schedule or cost. They understand the search for new and the thrill of learning new things from failure and the wide open possibilities of investigation. But not cost or schedule or risk. That's an engineer's task. Our job is to rein in the desire to do new stuff simply for the sake of doing it and get the job done as safely and for as little money as possible.

New technology comes as a result of having picked challenging missions to try to accomplish. Every time you try to accomplish these missions, though, you try to do it in the least risky way possible. And that means you use as much old tech as you possibly can, because it reduces the risk to the challengine mission.

Starting out to design brand new technology when modified existing technology would do the trick, is just plain bad engineering. It just is.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2008 07:20 pm
Quote
New technology comes as a result of having picked challenging missions to try to accomplish.

Exactly.

ESAS picked the challenging missions. Minimal launcher for crew transport to ISS. Single launch for cargo to the Moon. Those two combined for manned lunar exploration.

"Direct" picked the no challenge path. Minimal mods to the Shuttle stack. And then let's see what can we do with that.

We can maybe replace the Shuttle's capabilities. That's not what the VSE is about. If the VSE wanted to replace and improve the STS, then it would have stated so. Replacing STS is a vision in itself and if pursued it should prod NASA to come up with an optimised design; J-120 is a joke, not a design born out of a vision.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 06/06/2008 07:48 pm
Quote
New technology comes as a result of having picked challenging missions to try to accomplish.

Exactly.

ESAS picked the challenging missions. Minimal launcher for crew transport to ISS. Single launch for cargo to the Moon. Those two combined for manned lunar exploration.

"Direct" picked the no challenge path. Minimal mods to the Shuttle stack. And then let's see what can we do with that.

We can maybe replace the Shuttle's capabilities. That's not what the VSE is about. If the VSE wanted to replace and improve the STS, then it would have stated so. Replacing STS is a vision in itself and if pursued it should prod NASA to come up with an optimised design; J-120 is a joke, not a design born out of a vision.

You miss the point. The mission is to get people to the ISS & the moon. The mission is not to use a particular launcher to accomplish that mission, that is the solution to the mission. The engineering part of that solution is to do it cheaply, on schedule and with low risk. The launcher isn't the mission, the endpoint is. Get people to the moon on a small budget. That's challenging enough. Why make it more difficult by saying, oh, yeah, do it with a gutless, small, expensive launcher for the people and a completely different, bloated, hyper-expensive launcher for the cargo? The VSE is the mission. The ESAS is an engineering solution to that mission which, as it turns out, is not good engineering.

"ESAS picked the challenging missions."
ESAS is an overly risky solution to the VSE mission.

Direct is a much more elegant solution to that mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2008 08:43 pm
Quote
New technology comes as a result of having picked challenging missions to try to accomplish.

Exactly.

ESAS picked the challenging missions. Minimal launcher for crew transport to ISS. Single launch for cargo to the Moon. Those two combined for manned lunar exploration.

"Direct" picked the no challenge path. Minimal mods to the Shuttle stack. And then let's see what can we do with that.

We can maybe replace the Shuttle's capabilities. That's not what the VSE is about. If the VSE wanted to replace and improve the STS, then it would have stated so. Replacing STS is a vision in itself and if pursued it should prod NASA to come up with an optimized design; J-120 is a joke, not a design born out of a vision.
What you fail to mention is the fact that by using the DIRECT approach, we are actually able to accomplish the ESAS requirement of lunar global access, anytime return. For all its massive, mind boggling size and extremely high budgets, Ares can't do it. It just can't do it.

But the Jupiter-232 launch architecture absolutely can do it, with margin to spare. It can even put a larger LSAM on the lunar surface than the ESAS asked for. And it does it *without* needing to go back to Congress and ask for more money. It does it with the current level of funding. That's graphic proof that bigger and newer is not always better.

Congress was wise to draft an appropriations bill that required evolutionary rather than revolutionary development.
But Griffin has chosen to circumvent the clear Congressional direction and build his own *new* rocket instead.
And his "minimal" rocket, Ares-I, can't even put a lunar capable Orion into LEO. It is totally incapable of any LEO servicing at all, while the smaller version of DIRECT, the Jupiter-120, is perfectly sized for that.

The Ares architecture "might" actually get us to the moon with a minimal ESAS mission, limited to where it can go and how long it can stay, while the Jupiter architecture will give us the entire lunar surface with bigger LSAMs, and with stays unlimited by return windows. You tell me which is better.

It remains to be seen whether or not Dr Griffin will be held accountable for circumventing the Congress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2008 08:46 pm
Extremely well said Paul!

You have caught the nexus of the issue very succinctly and accurately there.   Thank-you.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/06/2008 08:53 pm
tankmodeler:

ESAS produced an architecture before the engineering solution. AKA 1,5 launch. That is the response to the VSE where "get people to the ISS" means just that, not "replace the Shuttle". And where "get people to the moon" rationally includes pure cargo transport to give those people a place to live and things to work on once they live there.

"Direct" is an engineering solution - cheap, on schedule, low risk - in search for an architecture.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/06/2008 09:08 pm
"Direct" is an engineering solution - cheap, on schedule, low risk - in search for an architecture.
Engineering solutions are good things:
1. It is not cheap, it's just, unlike Ares, fiscally responsible.
2. Actually it runs ahead of schedule, like being able to actually do an Apollo 8 style lunar mission THREE years before the first real Ares-I would even fly!
3. Not low risk - just less risk. Taking unnecessary risks just for the glory of "risking it" is stupid.
4. Isn't searching for anything. It fully does the complete ESAS missions, which the Ares can't actually do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2008 09:11 pm
DIRECT, as you say, is an engineering solution - cheap, on schedule, low risk (compared to Ares-I anyway!).

Its architecture was fairly well defined in our AIAA 2007 paper (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-HighRes.pdf). There are extensive options presented there - not least of which includes a baseline which was recently updated (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.1.pdf) to match Constellation's mission requirements for the moon as presented in numerous documents on L2 currently.

The architecture is right there, already defined by CxP. Our baseline configuration is tailored to specifically meet those targets. The vehicle family could be tailored to any number of different architectures though, but maximum flexibility seems to be around the J-120/232 pairing. It is merely the choice to use this solution which is the only part of the jigsaw puzzle not yet in place.


And the rational option is the one which you have the money to actually build.

If we continue down the Ares diversion, we might get Ares-I and replicate EELV capability at a ridiculous cost but Ares-V is never going to be built and operated - there just isn't sufficient money to do it.

So an architecture which only gets *half* of its solution put into production is a fundamentally broken one architecture, wouldn't you agree? And without Ares-V, Ares-I is not going to get us anywhere except ISS.

DIRECT's first launcher though (Jupiter-120) *is* capable of performing 3-launch Lunar missions even if the J-232's Upper Stage never actually materializes. That's a backup solution we have even if NASA's budget got cut radically. And if NASA's budget is not cut, DIRECT enables a lot more missions than Ares for the same $$$ invested - creating a much more robust program. There are no down sides.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: quark on 06/06/2008 09:21 pm
Chart 13 of the ISDC presentation refers to an 8 week internal NASA Study.  Are the details of that study available?  Is there a reference?I'd like to understand the quantitative data behind the colors.  Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/06/2008 10:55 pm
Quark,
We have been unable to obtain a copy of the final report.

What we understand is that a team was formed by someone at HQ to study the issue as a backup in case Ares-I's TO problems killed that plan outright.

This was all late last year, about a month or so after our AIAA paper came out. That paper got noticed so DIRECT was included - just to see the results. Nobody expected it to do well. The study was essentially completed within 4 of the 8 weeks allocated and all that remained was to write the report up all neat & tidy, but DIRECT really surprised the team assessing it.

We were contacted by the evaluators because the performance evaluations for the DIRECT option came out *higher* that our claims said they would. They were concerned that there might have been some sort of technical discrepancy somewhere which they had not accounted for and wanted to check their numbers against ours. When we explained we had 10% additional arbitrary performance margins over and above the regular GR&A allocations, that brought all their performance numbers all into line correctly. They were quite happy we had extra margins!

They then told us that of all the options which had been analyzed, ours was the only one to get all our criteria "in-the-green". The next closest was the Advanced Atlas Phase-2/3 option, but it failed the workforce retention requirements. Ares essentially scored the worst of all the options. We got a summary from them of all the results and what you see in our presentation is the exact information as it was given to us, just put into a pretty table by Philip.

We were told that now they had the performance discrepancy question resolved, the results of the study were going to be transmitted to HQ later that day or the following one, and the report would follow when it was typed up correctly.

We never heard from them again and attempts to contact the team members after that met with dead phone lines.

A few weeks ago we finally heard from one of the team who did this study and found out that two days after transmitting the result to HQ, the team was disbanded and the team all became persona-non-grata. Thus the paper was never completed. We don't have to try very hard to figure out why the group was so conveniently disbanded when they didn't say what management wanted them to say. But the results were still transmitted to HQ so they are in the records somewhere. We have spoken briefly with some of the people involved in the analysis since, but they do not want to risk their jobs again having already had a bad experience with management. We are still working to get hold of the original transmission which went to HQ and there are Congressional staffers also chasing it too. If we ever get it - and can release it - we will.


A rumor along a similar thread which we heard recently was that there was a similar analysis done by a different group at MSFC too, somewhere in "4487 & 4600, EV & ES". Word is that the results turned out the same. Who exactly did those, and for whom, we still aren't sure though and we've never heard from those people directly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/07/2008 12:18 am
Wow great post Ross...it is one thing to stick to your guns, its another thing to stick to your guns when the people "in the know" are telling you that you have armed yourself with the poorest performing model of firearm.

What has history taught us when the political higher-ups have not listened to the people on the front lines? Does Challenger, Columbia, hell even Vietnam ring any bells?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/07/2008 12:52 am

DIRECT's first launcher though (Jupiter-120) *is* capable of performing 3-launch Lunar missions even if the J-232's Upper Stage never actually materializes. That's a backup solution we have even if NASA's budget got cut radically. And if NASA's budget is not cut, DIRECT enables a lot more missions than Ares for the same $$$ invested - creating a much more robust program. There are no down sides.

Ross.

Ross, do you intend to publish your 3 J-120 moon mission?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2008 03:32 am
PaulL,
Nothing specific about it, no. Its an emergency backup solution if all else fails. We don't really want to make that big of a deal about it because 'certain' political positions may decide to use it as the baseline - and that would not be a good thing IMHO.

Just for you, the Delta-IV Upper Stage would be needed on each flight   As part of the human rating process we would suggest a slight stretch to the tanking too. A Wide Body Centaur could be used instead - if it's ever built. Such stages could be made to work pretty well with the Jupiter as the foundation if we were ever backed into such a corner.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: yoda on 06/07/2008 11:54 am
Knowing that the cost per kg drives future technology decisions, below are a few questions.

For a cargo only flight, a one-way trip to the moon, how much mass is delivered with a dedicated J-232 flight and what is the estimate range of cost per kg (e.g. no ascent module)?

If the mission was simply to return mass from the lunar surface, what is the mass and cost per kg?

Any estimates on how low these costs per kilogram could be reduced with other configurations or compare with other launchers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 06/07/2008 01:58 pm
Quark,
We have been unable to obtain a copy of the final report.

What we understand is that a team was formed by someone at HQ to study the issue as a backup in case Ares-I's TO problems killed that plan outright.

This was all late last year, about a month or so after our AIAA paper came out. That paper got noticed so DIRECT was included - just to see the results. Nobody expected it to do well. The study was essentially completed within 4 of the 8 weeks allocated and all that remained was to write the report up all neat & tidy, but DIRECT really surprised the team assessing it.

We were contacted by the evaluators because the performance evaluations for the DIRECT option came out *higher* that our claims said they would. They were concerned that there might have been some sort of technical discrepancy somewhere which they had not accounted for and wanted to check their numbers against ours. When we explained we had 10% additional arbitrary performance margins over and above the regular GR&A allocations, that brought all their performance numbers all into line correctly. They were quite happy we had extra margins!

They then told us that of all the options which had been analyzed, ours was the only one to get all our criteria "in-the-green". The next closest was the Advanced Atlas Phase-2/3 option, but it failed the workforce retention requirements. Ares essentially scored the worst of all the options. We got a summary from them of all the results and what you see in our presentation is the exact information as it was given to us, just put into a pretty table by Philip.

We were told that now they had the performance discrepancy question resolved, the results of the study were going to be transmitted to HQ later that day or the following one, and the report would follow when it was typed up correctly.

We never heard from them again and attempts to contact the team members after that met with dead phone lines.

A few weeks ago we finally heard from one of the team who did this study and found out that two days after transmitting the result to HQ, the team was disbanded and the team all became persona-non-grata. Thus the paper was never completed. We don't have to try very hard to figure out why the group was so conveniently disbanded when they didn't say what management wanted them to say. But the results were still transmitted to HQ so they are in the records somewhere. We have spoken briefly with some of the people involved in the analysis since, but they do not want to risk their jobs again having already had a bad experience with management. We are still working to get hold of the original transmission which went to HQ and there are Congressional staffers also chasing it too. If we ever get it - and can release it - we will.


A rumor along a similar thread which we heard recently was that there was a similar analysis done by a different group at MSFC too, somewhere in "4487 & 4600, EV & ES". Word is that the results turned out the same. Who exactly did those, and for whom, we still aren't sure though and we've never heard from those people directly.

Ross.

Ross-

So they offered up Direct as the best alternative and got beat up for it?  Oh, I hope those Congressional Staffers work for some of the members of the Committee on Science and Technology.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/07/2008 08:22 pm
I work for local govt.  there is politics involved like anywhere else.  If you make a case for something that your manager does not want or makes him/her boss  look bad...guess who may end up paying the price?  You.  There are govt. rules about that sort of thing, but who will write your performance evaluation? 

You have to be carefully what you say...you might not lose your job but your career may be over if say the wrong thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2008 09:11 pm
Knowing that the cost per kg drives future technology decisions, below are a few questions.

For a cargo only flight, a one-way trip to the moon, how much mass is delivered with a dedicated J-232 flight and what is the estimate range of cost per kg (e.g. no ascent module)?

Let me start by saying that we are actually baselining 2-launch cargo-only missions, not just crew flights. The performance to the moon doubles (74mT lander), but the cost increase is just the individual unit cost for the Jupiter-232 which would be ~$160m at expected flight rates. It also completely removes any need for a different LSAM design between crew and cargo use - which creates a very significant cost saving itself.

This 2-launch profile would land a lander massing around 39.2mT on the Lunar surface, of which about 15mT would be the empty DS allowing about 24mT payloads to be delivered for a cost of about $1,050m. Call that ~$43,750 per kg to the Lunar surface.

A 1-launch CaLV Jupiter-232 could land approximately 80% of the mass of an Ares-V - somewhere around 23mT landed on the Lunar surface, of which an optimized DS would be about 11mT allowing about 12mT payloads to be delivered for a cost of $900m or so or ~$75,000 per kg.

For comparison, at the expected baseline CxP flight rate, an Ares-V 1-launch cargo flight will cost in the region of $1.4bn plus the LSAM adding another $993m or so. Meaning that the 12mT LSAM and 14.6mT of payload it can deliver will cost $2,393m or $163,904 per kg. Add $850m for Ares-I and $230m for Orion (again, at the expected flight rates) and you can work out crew mission costs too.


Quote
If the mission was simply to return mass from the lunar surface, what is the mass and cost per kg?

This answer depends on a lot of different factors. Is the return mass cargo or crew is a big one? 1-launch or 2-launch profiles?

Lets assume a crew in the 'regular' fashion, and assume DIRECT's expected mission flight rate of 6 per year (4 cargo, 2 crew until the Outpost is complete). We would expect a regular crew Lunar mission (2x J-232 CLV & CaLV, 1x Orion CEV, 1x Altair LSAM) to together cost about $1,230m each and a cargo mission to cost $1,050m. This adds up to a total program costing just under $7bn per year. This would deliver approximately 160mT to the Lunar surface annually, of which 97mT would be cargo, beginning in 2017. The only cost that doesn't include are the costs of the actual science packages and payload modules which would be delivered to the Outpost - but at a total cost of $7bn (Ares is $7.5bn best-case scenario *without* the CEV or LSAM!), I think you'll agree that we have spare funding to pay for whatever science payloads and hardware we might wish to use.


Quote
Any estimates on how low these costs per kilogram could be reduced with other configurations or compare with other launchers?

We're less than half the total cost of Ares. And we're a good portion below the cost of any architecture using a 9-launch EELV-class human & cargo-capable campaign. A clean-sheet HLLV system *might* be able to match or even slightly improve upon our costs, but it would kill the entire workforce in the process so will never get political approval. Even then a clean-sheet system would not have 25 years of cost-reduction efforts under its belts already - the heritage of Shuttle - so I doubt it could improve much on those figures.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/07/2008 11:19 pm
Just a quick question - would anyone be interested in a DIRECT T-Shirt?   It would probably be about $19.99.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steve G on 06/07/2008 11:56 pm
I've been quiet for a while but keeping a daily update.  All I can say is that NASA seems to be as secretive as the CIA.  The present culture needs to be dismantled before NASA's shuttle architecture is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 12:17 am
SteveG,
You're absolutely correct. A civillian agency doesn't need to be this clammed-up unless it has something to hide IMHO.

I think it is important though, not to tar the whole agency for the actions of the few in the most influential positions. The present culture is an artifact which has been led from the top down - but it is not actually pervasive.

The culture will change of its own accord when new ideas are actually considered and are *rewarded* instead of being squashed like a bug and punished because they just don't fit with managements preconceptions.

It is understandable that staff just keep their heads down in the current environment. They have mortgages and kids college funds to pay - they just can't afford to speak up and I feel desperately sorry for them currently.

It reminds me of the episode "Spider" in Tom Hanks' "From the Earth to The Moon" HBO series, where the problem with the lander's legs is discovered by one of the engineers and his manager says (paraphrasing): 'you didn't try to cover it up, you told me as soon as you knew about it and if we don't discover these sorts of problems early enough we aren't ever going to get to the moon'.

*That* culture has been suppressed within the agency these days. If you speak up about a problem you're just as likely to have your head torn off these days and lose your career as anything else.

The opposite must happen - and it must be implemented by leadership from the very top down.

I honestly believe that most of the management even want this environment to change these days, but they are just as scared to step out of line with the current leadership because they've worked for a long time to build their careers to their current levels - they *really* can't afford to stick their necks out.

I think most everyone is welcoming the day Griffin goes and are praying for a change in *character* at the very top. I think & hope that that day is coming sooner than most people think.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2008 12:53 am
What is alarming is that this kind of culture exists only 5 years after Columbia. It is the very culture that the CAIB condemned.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steve G on 06/08/2008 01:01 am
What is horrifying is the extent how malicious and conniving the upper echelons have become.  It's no longer a public department but a despotism.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steve G on 06/08/2008 01:16 am
Ross, I just want to express, not as an expert, but as a space enthusiast since I was a kid, of how impressed with your efforts and the professionalism you exhibit.  My ears are burning whenever I read your posts, trying to hear the unspoken whispers between the lines. I'm certain the the powers in Washington know of the cancer in NASA and I sincerely hope for the sake of all of you guys in the space industry that the change from the top is sooner than later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 01:38 am
When we were planning our trip to D.C. back in March we had a few of the NASA folk volunteer to come with us to actually talk about their personal experiences.

But we found out that the law prevents them from lobbying the government and all such communications have to go through their agency leadership - in other word Griffin.

The only recourse is to use the whistleblower protection system - and none of them are willing to consider that.

I hear on a daily basis from people within the program, and what I hear doesn't make me at all comfortable. Amongst the engineers Ares-I is a joke, but its a joke nobody is laughing at and nobody is willing to speak out against because they've witnessed precisely what happened to colleagues who have. Nobody really thinks Ares-V will ever be paid for. And many are convinced the current plans will never get back to the moon. But comments in opposition to the leadership go unheard or punished and alternatives (of which DIRECT is just one of many) are merely ridiculed without ever being investigated properly - simply because they aren't the ideas which the leadership wants.

That the most famous US agency in the world - NASA - has lost sight of the fundamental tenets of the Freedoms underpinning the entire United States Constitution is a complete and utter disgrace in my option and is no way to showcase what the US really stands for.

These loyal workers who have given their all for this agency deserve much better than this. Instead, 2/3rds of them will be receiving a pink slip in about 2 years time.

Sorry. I don't usually let my emotions into my comments, but I have a lot of friends in the program and I hate to think of what's coming soon - especially so because we (DIRECT) seem to have found a reasonable way to avoid it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/08/2008 02:09 am
PaulL,
Nothing specific about it, no. Its an emergency backup solution if all else fails. We don't really want to make that big of a deal about it because 'certain' political positions may decide to use it as the baseline - and that would not be a good thing IMHO.

Just for you, the Delta-IV Upper Stage would be needed on each flight   As part of the human rating process we would suggest a slight stretch to the tanking too. A Wide Body Centaur could be used instead - if it's ever built. Such stages could be made to work pretty well with the Jupiter as the foundation if we were ever backed into such a corner.

Ross.

I assume that the streching of the Delta IV US is to acheive the required delta V for your Apollo-8 mission.  Do you intend to publish the details of that mission or is it also a backup solution?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 02:16 am
That one is more likely to go into print when we get some time to write it up.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/08/2008 02:22 am
When we were planning our trip to D.C. back in March we had a few of the NASA folk volunteer to come with us to actually talk about their personal experiences.

But we found out that the law prevents them from lobbying the government and all such communications have to go through their agency leadership - in other word Griffin.

The only recourse is to use the whistleblower protection system - and none of them are willing to consider that.

I hear on a daily basis from people within the program, and what I hear doesn't make me at all comfortable. Amongst the engineers Ares-I is a joke, but its a joke nobody is laughing at and nobody is willing to speak out against because they've witnessed precisely what happened to colleagues who have. Nobody really thinks Ares-V will ever be paid for. And many are convinced the current plans will never get back to the moon. But comments in opposition to the leadership go unheard or punished and alternatives (of which DIRECT is just one of many) are merely ridiculed without ever being investigated properly - simply because they aren't the ideas which the leadership wants.

That the most famous US agency in the world - NASA - has lost sight of the fundamental tenets of the Freedoms underpinning the entire United States Constitution is a complete and utter disgrace in my option and is no way to showcase what the US really stands for.

These loyal workers who have given their all for this agency deserve much better than this. Instead, 2/3rds of them will be receiving a pink slip in about 2 years time.

Sorry. I don't usually let my emotions into my comments, but I have a lot of friends in the program and I hate to think of what's coming soon - especially so because we (DIRECT) seem to have found a reasonable way to avoid it.

Ross.

Quote
A philosopher once said "Faced with unattainable alternatives, you should consider the imperatives." Look around you, our imperative is right here.  In our bulkheads, and our planes, and our guns, and in ourselves. War is our imerative
  - Admiral Helena Cain
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/08/2008 02:54 am

Let me start by saying that we are actually baselining 2-launch cargo-only missions, not just crew flights. The performance to the moon doubles (74mT lander), but the cost increase is just the individual unit cost for the Jupiter-232 which would be ~$160m at expected flight rates. It also completely removes any need for a different LSAM design between crew and cargo use - which creates a very significant cost saving itself.

This 2-launch profile would land a lander massing around 39.2mT on the Lunar surface, of which about 15mT would be the empty DS allowing about 24mT payloads to be delivered for a cost of about $1,050m. Call that ~$43,750 per kg to the Lunar surface.

A 1-launch CaLV Jupiter-232 could land approximately 80% of the mass of an Ares-V - somewhere around 23mT landed on the Lunar surface, of which an optimized DS would be about 11mT allowing about 12mT payloads to be delivered for a cost of $900m or so or ~$75,000 per kg.


It seems that the "desired" LSAM mass for Ares and Direct manned missions is about 45-47 mT. A same mass/size LSAM for unmanned cargo missions could be put in LEO with a J-120 rocket. Therefore, wouldn't it be more logical and economical for Direct to baseline their cargo missions on J-120+J-232 rockets instead of 2 x J-232 rockets?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/08/2008 02:58 am
That one is more likely to go into print when we get some time to write it up.

Ross.

Not to get too far ahead, but if NASA were to be forced to drop J2 development, is there a current upperstage that could provide similar performance? Could a widebody centaur get the job done? I'm assuming the LOC / LOM numbers might take a hit, but it should be better than Ares I still.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 05:51 am

It seems that the "desired" LSAM mass for Ares and Direct manned missions is about 45-47 mT. A same mass/size LSAM for unmanned cargo missions could be put in LEO with a J-120 rocket. Therefore, wouldn't it be more logical and economical for Direct to baseline their cargo missions on J-120+J-232 rockets instead of 2 x J-232 rockets?

PaulL

PaulL,
It's not quite as simple as that. You must also lift the 3mT of Airborne Support Equipment (the Adapter which contains the Pad>LSAM fueling lines) under the LSAM, and you must also lift the Level 2 & 3 Management Margins too which are 4mT and 5mT respectively for a total of 12mT of additional lift capability on top of the bare LSAM itself.   All of it must be pushed through TLI.

57mT to circular LEO is asking a bit too much of a Jupiter-120.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 06:04 am

Not to get too far ahead, but if NASA were to be forced to drop J2 development, is there a current upperstage that could provide similar performance? Could a widebody centaur get the job done? I'm assuming the LOC / LOM numbers might take a hit, but it should be better than Ares I still.

WBC doesn't exist yet either though.

But yes, there are options. As I said a 3-launch architecture is possible using Delta-IV Upper Stages.

The current Atlas-V Centaurs don't have quite the same total throw capability dV wise, but they could also be utilized with a waiver for their 1.25 FS.

If ULA developed the WBC for Atlas-V it could also be used and would improve performance considerably. I'm kinda hoping this will be built anyway, because one of these 5.4m diameter units would make for an excellent Crasher Stage for the normal Lunar mission profile to use, enabling the LSAM DS to be made a LOT shorter - though that's another mission profile I need to write up.

LOC/LOM for all of these single RL-10 based Upper Stages would be affected by "about" 100/25 respectively or so, so would still be quite acceptable (1.25 FS assumed 'waived' or fixed).

Any of the RL-10's could be human rated fairly easily. RL-10B-2 as used on the Delta-IV US offers the highest Isp currently in production at ~465s, so that would be my preference.

There are a variety of other options too, like finishing the development the RL-60 (or whatever its called these days). All of which would enhance the package.


I'm hoping that this discussion is opening people's eyes to the vast array of options which DIRECT is compatible with. And that with the cost savings these things become *reachable* too. Its an important point to keep in mind - that our baseline is most certainly *NOT* the only way we are limited in going.


At the end of the day, J-2X development itself isn't much of a problem. The key issue with it is requiring it in order to "Close the Gap". If J-2X didn't impact the gap at all and we can close the gap without it, that's the most important issue. J-2X doesn't actually cost all *that* much - at least not as rocket engines go - and it isn't going to make or break NASA's budget on its own. But if it can simply come online whenever its ready, rather than trying to rush it into production, that has to be a much better solution for everyone - NASA, PWR, the Workforce and the Astronauts too. J-2X won't "go" unless NASA's budget is *severely* torn up first - and if that happens we may have much more serious problems with the program than just this one engine. The critical problem in such a scenario will be the LSAM - how to DDT&E that on a shoestring would be the biggest challenge in such a situation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/08/2008 12:03 pm

PaulL,
It's not quite as simple as that. You must also lift the 3mT of Airborne Support Equipment (the Adapter which contains the Pad>LSAM fueling lines) under the LSAM, and you must also lift the Level 2 & 3 Management Margins too which are 4mT and 5mT respectively for a total of 12mT of additional lift capability on top of the bare LSAM itself.   All of it must be pushed through TLI.

57mT to circular LEO is asking a bit too much of a Jupiter-120.

Ross.
Try a 4 launch solution, fuel the LSAM from a fuel depot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 06/08/2008 12:54 pm
When we were planning our trip to D.C. back in March we had a few of the NASA folk volunteer to come with us to actually talk about their personal experiences.

But we found out that the law prevents them from lobbying the government and all such communications have to go through their agency leadership - in other word Griffin.

The only recourse is to use the whistleblower protection system - and none of them are willing to consider that.

I hear on a daily basis from people within the program, and what I hear doesn't make me at all comfortable. Amongst the engineers Ares-I is a joke, but its a joke nobody is laughing at and nobody is willing to speak out against because they've witnessed precisely what happened to colleagues who have. Nobody really thinks Ares-V will ever be paid for. And many are convinced the current plans will never get back to the moon. But comments in opposition to the leadership go unheard or punished and alternatives (of which DIRECT is just one of many) are merely ridiculed without ever being investigated properly - simply because they aren't the ideas which the leadership wants.

That the most famous US agency in the world - NASA - has lost sight of the fundamental tenets of the Freedoms underpinning the entire United States Constitution is a complete and utter disgrace in my option and is no way to showcase what the US really stands for.

These loyal workers who have given their all for this agency deserve much better than this. Instead, 2/3rds of them will be receiving a pink slip in about 2 years time.

Sorry. I don't usually let my emotions into my comments, but I have a lot of friends in the program and I hate to think of what's coming soon - especially so because we (DIRECT) seem to have found a reasonable way to avoid it.

Ross.

I was wondering if the DIRECT Team has considered when you might go public with this?  Some who view these posts are authors or journalists.  This information would make great material for a news article in a major periodical, especially since the flaws mentioned are indicative of the organizational failures that brought about the Challenger and Columbia disasters.

I recall many years ago, an article in Parade magazine resulted in the establishment of the "hot line" between Washington and Moscow at the height of the Cold War, a development that probably helped prevent war between the two superpowers.

Perhaps a similar article about how the American taxpayer is being fleeced by developing a system that will not effectively meet the VSE goals set out by our government will get a public debate going, or a congressional investigation.  With this being an election year, the time may be right for such a move.

Since we have some members who are authors or journalists, perhaps they could weigh in on such an idea.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/08/2008 01:34 pm
I was wondering if the DIRECT Team has considered when you might go public with this?

Since we have some members who are authors or journalists, perhaps they could weigh in on such an idea.

Here's your problem... Prove it. 

While I may take Ross at his word if he says these things, a reputable journalist has to be able to verify the information he is writing about.

As Ross has pointed out, the unnamed individuals who have provided his with this information are not willing to make more public comments, and any documentation to back up this information is also unattainable as of this point.

So all you have right now is an OpEd piece, and that isn't enough to carry much weight to get a major, reputable media source to turn this into a story.

DIRECT has pretty much run its course as a technical discussion, at least as far as launch vehicles go.  It's a political issue now.

Assuming you believe everything the DIRECT team says, someone within NASA has independently verified their assertions about performance and architecture at this point.  So, in theory, the decision-makers "know" they can't win the fight by poking holes in the concept technically now.

But, they can continue to fight by poking holes in the concept in other ways.  They can dismiss it out-of-hand (if it were the right answer, we'd have gone that way).  They can dismiss the source (a bunch of online "amazing peoples", as it was once put).  They can say we're too far down the road with the chosen architecture to consider changing course now.

Unfortunately, at this point, NASA's Goliath is easier to hear than DIRECT's David.

What DIRECT needs now, in my opinion, is someone to deliver their message who cannot simply be dismissed out-of-hand by NASA management.  Someone who has enough clout to not simply dismissable by NASA as some group of online guys who don't know what they are talking about.

I don't know who that person is.  Maybe a Congress-member, a former Astronaut, or someone else who could appear on the mainstream media and say "there's a problem", and not just be dismissed as a naysayer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 02:37 pm
brihath,
I don't think we ever would. While we have some very serious problems with Griffin's implementation plans, we are all still very passionate about NASA as an agency and the VSE as its mission.

If we tried to push this aspect as some kind of corruption scandal leading to a full-blown Congressional Investigation we would only serve to bring in the anti-space lobby and the modern Walter Mondales who are just waiting for such an opportunity. They could do an awful lot more damage than even Griffin has done. Pursuing that path just isn't beneficial to anyone.

I think that we've probably had enough hard material for about a year to do that if we did want to. But we are *never* going to do it because it would hurt NASA as a whole and that's just not what we're about.

Griffin will be gone sooner or later anyway. Even if we just have to wait around for another half year, I believe we're going to get our independent review one way or the other and this never has to be a "big press thing". A relatively quiet changeover is what we'd prefer.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 02:41 pm
BogoMIPS,
You are dead on the mark there.

But we do have a few rather cool individuals who can be brought to bear when the time *is* right. That time is not quite yet though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DLK on 06/08/2008 06:36 pm
Quark,
We have been unable to obtain a copy of the final report.
<snip>
Ross.
Thank you so much for posting the particulars on this, Ross. As a US taxpayer, I resent the hell out of HQ's posturing, despite being a Huntsville area resident.  -Dan
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 06/08/2008 08:14 pm
brihath,
I don't think we ever would. While we have some very serious problems with Griffin's implementation plans, we are all still very passionate about NASA as an agency and the VSE as its mission.

If we tried to push this aspect as some kind of corruption scandal leading to a full-blown Congressional Investigation we would only serve to bring in the anti-space lobby and the modern Walter Mondales who are just waiting for such an opportunity. They could do an awful lot more damage than even Griffin has done. Pursuing that path just isn't beneficial to anyone.

I think that we've probably had enough hard material for about a year to do that if we did want to. But we are *never* going to do it because it would hurt NASA as a whole and that's just not what we're about.

Griffin will be gone sooner or later anyway. Even if we just have to wait around for another half year, I believe we're going to get our independent review one way or the other and this never has to be a "big press thing". A relatively quiet changeover is what we'd prefer.

Ross.

Ross-

I understand your point of view.  I am concerned that the idea of people being afraid for their jobs by not towing the "party line' sounds like more of the same viz. Challenger and Columbia.  I think it is admirable to look for a change after January, but I wonder if Mike Griffin is the whole problem, or just part of a larger culture that will continue after he is gone.  He just seems to be the latest in a line of leaders who stifled any open discussion about a number of issues.  Remember the way George Abbey ran the Astronaut Office or more recently, the investigation of the NASA Inspector General?  I am sure their are many honorable people in NASA who are doing the right thing, but fear retailation in their jobs.  I simply wonder how long it has to go on that good ideas and creativity get stifled by elements of what was once the government's "can do" agency.

I hope a quieter path is one that can happen, as I think DIRECT is the right idea for the time and situation that NASA currently faces, and I wish you all well in that endeavor.  I just hope that the changes you anticipate come about.

Another point to consider..when the anticipated layoffs come about and those who are now NASA employees become former NASA employees, the story may come out anyhow.  At that point in time however, it may be too late for DIRECT to benefit from the publicity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 08:43 pm
Thankfully Griffin will be out years before those staff are let go. Congress really doesn't like him so even if he stands for the job again next year I don't think they'd approve him this time.

The question is who will replace him and whether they will "stay the course" (which a bullsh*t phrase IMHO because Shuttle is the course we're actually on right now and DIRECT fits that far better than Ares-I does) or allow discussion of alternatives.

I foresee four possibilities:-

1) Obama gets his wish and strips $5bn out of NASA's budget for Education programs and the VSE effort goes away for at least a complete election cycle. We will end up with Ares-I being canceled because Orion to just ISS can be done  cheaper on an EELV.

2) We get a Griffin photocopy. We know Scott "Doc" Horowitz wants the job (so much for wanting to spend more time with his family...). Ares-I is built, Ares-V never gets built VSE ultimately ends up unaffordable.

3) We get a hardline EELV proponent who still won't listen to any alternatives - closed as Griffin, but in a different direction. We get a system which can go to the ISS first, but end up with a system which can't scale up beyond 1 or 2 Lunar missions per year and for which Mars is just a joke. We end up realizing in 10 years time that we just threw away the States' second HLLV system and now we regret it.

4) We get someone new, appointed to do the job who hasn't got any preconceived notions. Who demands a study (or follows the orders of Congress to) into the options in terms of cost, schedule, performance, workforce, safety and political requirements. I'll happily put DIRECT up against any of the other options in a fair fight like that and I'll abide by the results however they come out.

I don't think Congress will allow #2. I don't think Congress will actually allow a President to strip NASA's budget - they'll find him his money, but they'll choose where it comes from.

The rest is up in the air.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/08/2008 08:45 pm
But remember...when you are an ex employee, people might use these agruments:

 1.  Why are you an ex employee? 
 2. you are an ex employee with an axe to grind against your former boss.
 3, since you are a former employee--you don't know what you are talking about since "things have changed"....

these will be some of the agruments that could be used.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 09:24 pm
The change will come from the very top and will percolate down from there.

When new ideas are praised and people get bonuses and promotions for thinking deeply about new ways to do things - whether they are actually chosen or not - that is when the next layer will see how things have changed - and they will follow suit.

Griffin has surrounded himself with people who will tow his line. But when he's gone, if his replacement has a different fundamental attitude the hardliners will be encouraged out, just like Griffin put his own people in all the influential positions. Those who remain will see the new style and will adopt it or be displaced. It will percolate down from the top, tier after tier until the new approach saturates the whole agency.

But it can *only* happen with the right hands at the tiller. And that will be up to the President to propose and the Congress to approve. They are the people who provide the checks and balances and whether they like it or not, it is going to be their duty to fix NASA within the next year.

I think everyone in power knows this path has not gone the way it was supposed to. Armed with the new knowledge they have today, I hope they are particularly careful in their selection of NASA's new boss this time around.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/08/2008 09:42 pm
What parts of Direct are on the critical path?
What parts of Direct, have low, medium, high tech. and schedule risk? And what could be done to migrate/eliminate these risk?  Remember how Ares I and V started out and where they are now.
How would you classify the risk for the RS68'S in terms of schedule and technology?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 06/08/2008 10:33 pm
brihath,

{Snip}
Griffin will be gone sooner or later anyway. Even if we just have to wait around for another half year, I believe we're going to get our independent review one way or the other and this never has to be a "big press thing". A relatively quiet changeover is what we'd prefer.

Ross.

I have to wonder though, with the tooling ans facilities being dismantled, what would be the cost to bring the required items back in time? The cost wouldn't be the problem, more so the time.

Doubtful if it could be purchased due to commercial restrictions (ITAR worries perhaps). You almost wish you had a billionaire in your back pocket to buy the hardware and keep it in protective storage until needed...maybe even under Congressional lock and keep so it doesn't get torn apart or sold for scrap.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/08/2008 11:02 pm
The four most primary items on the critical path are Avionics, RS-68 Human Rating, Aft Thrust Structure and the Orion spacecraft - with the latter being the long-pole dependent mostly on how much money we can make available to accelerate it. Our budget allows at least $500m extra above CxP's levels for the Orion program each year thru 2012.

The rest is down to pretty straight-forward (rocket) engineering and management.

The configuration is fairly simple just as long as NASA sticks to the basic principle of "change as little as possible" and refrains from doing upgrades here and there just because they can. All those do is push out the Gap more. They can be done as evolutionary upgrades, one at a time as the program is operated. That's how you avoid the cost and schedule "creep" which Ares has suffered from.

For the first Jupiter-120 the SRB's are a totally known quantity.

The ET base is also mostly known too and *DOES NOT* need to be totally optimized for the early flights - a Block-I 'heavyweight' super-strong structure can be flown initially and refined down later, once we have closed the damn gap already.


The RS-68 does have some interesting points to it though. The RS-68 is a flight-certified unit already and really only needs a health monitoring system and certification - and J-2X has to have those anyway *after* it has been developed. The RS-68 doesn't have to be developed first - it can essentially go straight into certification. The longer burn duration may require a new nozzle (we don't believe so, but we are assuming it does, just to be safe) to handle the additional heat soak of the longer burn. The health monitoring system has to be developed afresh, but PWR may be able to borrow some recent work from J-2X here though, neatly avoiding waste there.

And there is the question regarding whether we go use the existing 102% RS-68 as an initial base engine for the early Jupiter-120 flights (there are engines in stock right now which NASA could procure for immediate testing) or whether we could ride a human-rating program along-side the RS-68A 108% upgrade program which is going ahead for USAF. Such a thing would have to be done without disturbing their schedule obviously, so this is an open question still. Either works for us - we have been assuming we only have the performance of the base engine - but the trade study still has to be fully performed before we will know a final answer.

It's a rocket development program and no mistake, but it's not a radical leap too far into the unknown like Ares-I.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/09/2008 03:49 am
For what it is worth Bill Gerstenmaier has a lot of Representatives and Senators saying nice things about him.

Anyone got a clue what he thinks of Constellation/Direct?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 06/09/2008 08:01 am
Thankfully Griffin will be out years before those staff are let go.

I foresee four possibilities:-

1) Obama gets his wish and strips $5bn out of NASA's budget for Education programs and the VSE effort goes away for at least a complete election cycle. We will end up with Ares-I being canceled because Orion to just ISS can be done  cheaper on an EELV.

2) We get a Griffin photocopy. We know Scott "Doc" Horowitz wants the job (so much for wanting to spend more time with his family...). Ares-I is built, Ares-V never gets built VSE ultimately ends up unaffordable.

3) We get a hardline EELV proponent who still won't listen to any alternatives - closed as Griffin, but in a different direction. We get a system which can go to the ISS first, but end up with a system which can't scale up beyond 1 or 2 Lunar missions per year and for which Mars is just a joke. We end up realizing in 10 years time that we just threw away the States' second HLLV system and now we regret it.

4) We get someone new, appointed to do the job who hasn't got any preconceived notions. Who demands a study (or follows the orders of Congress to) into the options in terms of cost, schedule, performance, workforce, safety and political requirements. I'll happily put DIRECT up against any of the other options in a fair fight like that and I'll abide by the results however they come out.

I don't think Congress will allow #2. I don't think Congress will actually allow a President to strip NASA's budget - they'll find him his money, but they'll choose where it comes from.

The rest is up in the air.

Ross.
Looking from across the pond, it seems Obama is the favourite, and it seems he's not a fan of space exploration. Which may be good, because it'll rule out Option (2), which is broadly the current direction.

I do hope he doesn't go Option (1). I think in effect, abandoning progress in manned space flight would not please voters.

I hope he's a pragmatist and comes and asks "how can you deliver more, for less"?

Sadly I won't be replacing Griffin, but if I were, I'd happily spend 2 months on a trade-off study between possibilities (3) and (4). Without such a study, I don't know which is better, but I think you're overstating the case against (3). If you can put 25 tons in orbit that's enough. If you can do it frequently enough it'll be cheap(er).

I think Option (4) though has the advantage that it doesn't throw away all the work done to date. Whether the work done to date should be thrown away, is not an attractive question to ask.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2008 11:03 am
There are other threads for discussing the political stance of the two Presidential candidates regarding space so I'd prefer not to turn this into another political thread PLEASE!

But I will comment on that subject by stating that our information says Obama is looking for a better way than NASA is currently on. In fact I think McCain would also welcome an even more robust agency with a mandate to return more for its investment than is currently planned.

I believe DIRECT could be the key to such an option and here's a fairly simplified outline of why...

DIRECT will be able to launch six full 180mT class Lunar missions per year for less than $8bn per year (CLV, CaLV, CEV and LSAM costs all inclusive, same costing method for CEV & LSAM used for all three options). Ares is going to cost between $11-13.5bn per year to do just four missions. For the same money as DIRECT the 9-launch EELV campaigns can launch only three.

That represents 47% of a fixed $17.1bn annual NASA budget spent on the Lunar & ISS programs by DIRECT. Ares represents a best-case scenario of 64% of NASA's budget (79% worst case). Percentages that high will squeeze *everything* else out even worse than today. Without a budget increase Aeronautics and Science will be choked off. Or - just like happened to Apollo - Ares will simply be deemed too expensive and will simply be closed down.


The key here is that DIRECT not only achieves an affordable level of expenditure, but it does so while accomplishing the Lunar objectives at 150% of the pace than Ares is supposed to even at its higher expenditure level, and does so at 200% the pace of the EELV option. That allows us to establish the outpost that much sooner. We can then obtain the scientific returns from there that much sooner too. And we can then proceed on to the next phase of the VSE sooner as a result - Mars.

Further, with an outlay below 50% of NASA's budget it is quite realistic that some development monies will still be available throughout this process to begin the work needed for Mars missions sooner.

With the Exploration efforts not sucking the budget dry too, the robotic science probes will not be squeezed out. In fact the Science and Aeronautics Directorates can be fully funded back at their ~2002 levels - which were about double todays levels.

This essentially means we could realistically "have it all" and we can do so without needing a budget increase for NASA:-

* We can continue to fully utilize and upgrade ISS thru 2020 and beyond.

* We can have a really strong Aeronautics research division once again.

* We can have a Science Directorate which is concurrently pursuing:-
 - A healthy satellite development program for Earth Science/Climate Change
 - A healthy robotic probe development program for Solar System/Universe investigations
 - A full and regular science utilization of the ISS (Orion & 20mT payload supported by COTS, ATV, HTV, Progress & Soyuz)
 - A Lunar outpost science mandate
...All at the same time!

* We can have a really robust Lunar program of 6 missions per year which is both sustainable (read: affordable) and open to expansion to 12 Lunar missions per year via the International Partnership options which we have suggested previously thru the use of a Propellant Depot and opens the commercial door for foreign investment in US commercial systems too - a two-for IMHO.

* And we would have money and development teams available after the Lunar architecture is developed to go straight into developing the Mars architecture next.


But most importantly - we just don't need a budget increase.

That sort of program, with ever-increasing capabilities and a lot of science return from multiple sources all at the same time, is the sort of thing which I believe all of the candidates could rally behind quite strongly. I just don't believe Obama would wish to cut a program which is doing all of this. This would be a program to *really* be proud of and to sing its praises regularly. And it is a program which he (or McCain) could change in half a year's time if they so choose. They would be remembered as having 'fixed' the mess created before them. That sort of thing appeals as a purely Presidential legacy thing too, not just sound fiscal and governmental policy.

The key is it just isn't *wasteful*.

It would generate a far larger return for the investment, and that is what I believe all of the candidates are really looking to see from NASA - rather than simply a repeat of Apollo.

They want to *see the value* and the numbers we've got demonstrate this system is able to do that like no other we can find.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/09/2008 11:38 am
Norm,
No idea about Gerst, I don't think we have ever attempted to contact him.

Of the people we have attempted to canvas for their opinions, the routine answer has come back in every single case all saying the same basic thing: 'as long as Mike Griffin is in charge I will support him fully'.

No real surprises there, but it is rather interesting how that qualifier is *always* included.

I just wish we could offer up some names to Congress. They have asked for our preferred options and we were unable to provide any because nobody will talk even off-the-record. They're just too concerned that their name might leak out while Griffin is still in charge. I can't blame them, even though it is very frustrating.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 06/09/2008 01:57 pm
tankmodeler:

ESAS produced an architecture before the engineering solution. AKA 1,5 launch. That is the response to the VSE where "get people to the ISS" means just that, not "replace the Shuttle". And where "get people to the moon" rationally includes pure cargo transport to give those people a place to live and things to work on once they live there.

"Direct" is an engineering solution - cheap, on schedule, low risk - in search for an architecture.
Renclod

You're still missing the point. Anything that describes how to do something is not a mission, it is a solution. VSE says "go to the Moon". Congress said "Go to the moon and keep as much of the Shuttle as you possibly can". Those are missions.

ESAS is a solution saysing how they want to go to the Moon. Achitectures are frameworks for solutions and are part of the solution. If you are changing the solution, then the architecture can change as well without changing the mission.

Quote
"Direct" is an engineering solution - cheap, on schedule, low risk
My God, sweeter words are never spoken to engineers and program managers. Complete the mission and be cheaper, on schedule and low risk? Holy Crap, where do I sign up? Does it matter what the actual framework of the solution is if it actually completes the mission in a cheap, on-schedule and low risk manner?

Ross & the team have a way to use (i.e. an architecture) those cheaper, on-schedule and lower risk rockets to get the prescribed vehicles to the Moon quicker than the current "solution". You just said so yourself. Why would anyone want to do so differently just to pay more, run late or incur higher risk?

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 06/09/2008 07:43 pm

The configuration is fairly simple just as long as NASA sticks to the basic principle of "change as little as possible" and refrains from doing upgrades here and there just because they can. All those do is push out the Gap more. They can be done as evolutionary upgrades, one at a time as the program is operated. That's how you avoid the cost and schedule "creep" which Ares has suffered from.


While I agree fully with this, you have to have a strong manager to push this philosophy through to all of the workers.  Too strong a manager, and changes which are truly necessary will end up being rejected.  In other words, you don't want someone as hard headed as Griffin in charge with a "shoot the messenger" type of management style.

Working on a new launch vehicle is something new and exciting.  Making small changes to "improve" the design is always very tempting.  Your requirements have to be crystal clear, but drawing a clear distinction between a "must" and "want" is often very difficult, especially when you're under pressure to get version 1.0 out the door as quicky as possible.

Jeff
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/10/2008 12:18 am
Well, there _are_ also the non-zero probabilities that either Ares V gets built, or that Obama cancels Ares V, but Ares I is built anyway as a concession. But I digress...

1) I'm sure you guys have looked at a two-EDS/two-launch LOR approach. I'd prefer that, as it's one less required docking event. Could someone point me to where this is discussed?

2) One of Ares V's current advantages is its ridiculous wide faring, allowing less contorted Altair shapes. What is the practical limit to faring diameter on a Direct-class launcher?

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 03:49 am
While I agree fully with this, you have to have a strong manager to push this philosophy through to all of the workers.  Too strong a manager, and changes which are truly necessary will end up being rejected.  In other words, you don't want someone as hard headed as Griffin in charge with a "shoot the messenger" type of management style.

Working on a new launch vehicle is something new and exciting.  Making small changes to "improve" the design is always very tempting.  Your requirements have to be crystal clear, but drawing a clear distinction between a "must" and "want" is often very difficult, especially when you're under pressure to get version 1.0 out the door as quicky as possible.

Jeff

Absolutely right, Jeff. This is going to have to come from the top down. And everyone is going to have to be given some sort of policy guideline that they should *consider* all new opportunities, but that they should all be weighed against a schedule impact requirement. If they don't need to be done for the "Block-I", but offer a good path for improvement (in performance or cost terms) then they should simply be deferred to the "Block-II" effort which will follow hot-on-the heels of the initial deployment.

Anything which will hold up the closing of the gap should be refrained from in the first iteration of the design. Those things should be implemented later as part of an evolutionary upgrade effort.

I also want to see a return to the days of Saturn where the vehicle can continually be improved upon. During Apollo the vehicles were upgraded in some fashion or other on a regular basis, with noticeable changes like the number of ullage motors on the S-IC/S-II Interstage being altered roughly every 3 launches! There were quite a few such improvements implemented to the Saturn-V over the course of its 18 flight history, and many more were waiting in the wings which should have come online a few flights after the program was prematurely cancelled (J-2S, F-1A being particularly notable examples). I don't want us to get stuck in the STS paradigm that we can't dare alter anything for 25 years until we are forced to by an accident.

But yes, management will have to be carefully briefed to make sure everyone is on the right page in this process.

Another similar thing I will point out is that the design isn't based around the Jupiter-120 configuration. The vehicle which we should design is the Jupiter-232 configuration, and then utilize the Core of that to make a smaller brother launcher which can be implemented sooner. We must be sure to start with the design for the Lunar-class vehicle (3 RS-68 engines and tough enough for a 250mT Upper Stage + 100mt payload) because designing the base Jupiter-120 and then upgrading it to Jupiter-232 spec later will be a *much* more costly proposition than starting with Jupiter-232's design and just flying it 'as is' in Jupiter-120 configration.

Its a key requirement in the DIRECT approach to getting the cost savings compared to Ares. Fail to do it the right way and the solution won't be any cheaper.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 04:03 am
Well, there _are_ also the non-zero probabilities that either Ares V gets built, or that Obama cancels Ares V, but Ares I is built anyway as a concession. But I digress...

Congress is already expressing serious reservations about the costs for developing Ares-VI on top of Ares-I. And the latest annual operations costs are (quote) "a joke" to them according to my contacts.

I personally believe that Ares-VI now has an extremely minimal chance (<5%) of ever being built.


Quote
1) I'm sure you guys have looked at a two-EDS/two-launch LOR approach. I'd prefer that, as it's one less required docking event. Could someone point me to where this is discussed?

We used to prefer that too, but without an opportunity to fill up the LSAM's EDS on-orbit with a Propellant Depot, you end up with a noticeably smaller LSAM in the end, so it isn't a great way to proceed as your baseline initial mission profile to get the program started with. It's an 'upgrade' option for when you do have PD.

We did discuss this for a while back around the start of the original DIRECT v2.0 thread IIRC, but be aware that it isn't our recommended approach any longer. The onyl way to make it work now, without Propellant Transfer, is with an extra stage on top performing the TLI separately and also performing the LOI too. It can be done on the non-crew flight, but you need to develop another stage, which ain't cheap.

IMHO, the current 'equivalent' of this approach is that with the Propellant Depot you could essentially launch a CEV, LSAM (fueled or un-fueled) and near-empty EDS on a single Jupiter-232. You fill the tanks and just go. If International Partners are entirely paying for the fuel that one flight becomes all NASA has to pay for for each mission.


Quote
2) One of Ares V's current advantages is its ridiculous wide faring, allowing less contorted Altair shapes. What is the practical limit to faring diameter on a Direct-class launcher?

Simon ;)

The 10m PLF (same as Ares-VI) is our baseline for Lunar missions.   12m is quite possible on this vehicle too. ~15m is probably the maximum theoretical limit for a Jupiter-232 to safely handle, but looks a bit 'weird' :)

Here are the three most likely sizes which might be built. From left to right 8.4m (says 8.77, I know - its a typo!) diameter, 10.0m and 12.0m. The right-most is a 12m diameter PLF with two 10m long barrel sections making a truly vast container:-

(http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/tnJupiter-232_Payload_Options_External.jpg)
Click the image for a big version. (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/Jupiter-232_Payload_Options_External.jpg)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 06/10/2008 04:15 am
We must be sure to start with the design for the Lunar-class vehicle because designing the base Jupiter-120 and then upgrading it to Jupiter-232 spec later will be a *much* more costly proposition than starting with Jupiter-232's design and just flying it 'as is' in Jupiter-120 configration.
This is going to be the hardest thing for the aerospace industry to "get". They must not build a optimised J-120. Someone will have to absolutely sit on those who would want to squeeze even more performance out of the J-120 by taking out J-232 capability. It will take a manager who has both an iron fist and is a "true believer" in this approach to make it happen.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 04:27 am
I don't think it'll be that tough as long as the engineers are given the information right from the start.

*That* is going to take a major effort though, because the current program has been carefully divided up and separated. Information is not allowed to freely pass around between departments. This has largely been due to such information often leaking and being revealed when management don't want it to be. And the real reason why they don't want that information leaking has been because so much of Ares-I's information has been *embarrassing* to upper management! The management have been embarrassed every time the stupidity underlying the Ares-I concept has been revealed publicly so they have done what they can to prevent it happening - and also prevented information transfer within the program at the same time. That needs to be changed ASAP or we aren't getting out of the parking lot, let alone getting to ISS or the Moon, Mars and Beyond.


The engineers must be briefed *fully* that Jupiter-232 is the primary vehicle and that the Lunar missions are the primary concern which it should be optimized for as the #1 goal. It should be made clear from day 1 that Jupiter-120 is really just the 'poor cousin' which is just the same hardware as Jupiter-232, but is flown without one main engine and without the Upper Stage to make a simpler, cheaper and lower performance variant - one which can be flown while we are still waiting for the J-2X to be produced.

I think with that as long as they are given that fairly simple and clear information, the engineers will all understand exactly what their task really is.

Back it up by showing them precisely how Jupiter-120 already has plenty of spare performance for the ISS/LEO missions it will be performing anyway and I think they'll readily accept it. If they simply understand that Jupiter-120 doesn't need every ounce of performance enhancement in and of itself, I think they are smart enough to realize for themselves that Jupiter-232 is the vehicle they will need to put their real concentration upon in terms of optimization.

The only thing holding Jupiter-232 back from being deployed at the same time is the J-2X development long-pole. So we are just trying to get the vehicle - sans J-2X/Upper Stage - flying as soon as possible in order to "close the gap". Make sure everyone knows that Jupiter-120 is all about "closing the gap" as priority, not optimization. Jupiter-232 later will be about optimization.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/10/2008 05:08 am
Ross, with so much extra tonneage lying around I wouldn't be surprised to see the science community suddenly start baying for dollars so they can launch the biggest, baddest X-ray vision polar ice satellite or whatever. Which is great for getting them onboard but a bit of an annoyance when it comes to the dirty business colonising the solar system.

I was considering a LH tankage payload, although I don't think it would need a 12m fairing; 100mT would probably fit easily into a 10m or maybe 8.3m fairing. 12m would net you about 200mT of propellant in a 25m tank. Other than a big lander, hab or telescope there's no pressing need I can see in the DIRECT architecture for a 12m fairing...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 06:40 am
The current LSAM (~9.4m dia) still has a center of gravity up around the second story level at landing. That's *very* high still and will make it naturally susceptible to instability. A 12m PLF would allow it to pancake out some more, which would help.

Mind you, a Crasher Stage would increase performance and solve this issue too.

While 10m is probably good enough for most uses, DoD like the idea of really large PLF's for optical telescopes - the larger the better. Mars Entry can also be made easier with larger diameter payloads too. There are potential uses for 12m or even 15m in all these fields. Thankfully, Jupiter will be capable of handling that if ever needed.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/10/2008 07:17 am

We did discuss this for a while back around the start of the original DIRECT v2.0 thread IIRC, but be aware that it isn't our recommended approach any longer. The onyl way to make it work now, without Propellant Transfer, is with an extra stage on top performing the TLI separately and also performing the LOI too. It can be done on the non-crew flight, but you need to develop another stage, which ain't cheap.

Or, you could increase the prop in Orion to allow it to LOI, and remove the according prop in Altair. So, Orion grows to ~30 tonnes, and Altair shrinks to ~40 tonnes. Scale the EDS to launch 40 tonnes to Earth-Moon L2, send the Altair first to L2 on a fully fueled EDS, and follow with the crew in the same model EDS, just underfilled. This way you get to use the full dV advantage of L2, while keeping the commonality between the two launchers, and minimizing risky dockings (docking with a depot is just as dangerous as docking with an EDS).

The 12 meter faring actually looks pretty good; it doesn't look nearly as goofy as the Atlas 401 faring...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 07:32 am
It's an interesting idea Simon. You would have to strengthen the structure of the LSAM and docking hatch to support the additional mass of the CEV 'up there' which it would be carrying. And the CEV's low-Isp N2O4/MMH engine would require more propellant to perform the LOI burn than the hi-Isp LOX/LH2 engines on the Lander so your total IMLEO would have to be slightly higher, but it would make the LSAM lighter and that would improve its performance during descent. There's a very interesting trade study needed there to see whether it would produce a net increase in Lunar Landed Payload Mass performance or not, but there's possibly some mileage in there.


Going back to the original thought of the 2-launch LOR-only profile though, I don't think this would work because the CEV and LSAM fly separately by definition - unless you want to try dual-TLI firings with a rendezvous of the spacecraft somewhere en-route to the moon ... which sounds really tricky to me, although you do have three whole days of transit time there... Hmmm.

One option with an LOR-only approach might be for the CEV to bring a 'gas can' of LOX with it to LLO and top off the LSAM's LOX tanks when they dock there. Running the numbers will be "fun" trying to work that out :)

The real problem with 2-launch LOR-only option is that you end up pushing the extra mass of a second EDS (19.2mT) through TLI yet you don't have any more rocket power available. That becomes a 'mass penalty' compared to putting everything on/in a single EDS before TLI.


One LOR approach which might be an 'interesting' option would be sending the CEV to the moon on a Jupiter-120/Delta-IV-US vehicle on one flight, and then using a Propellant Depot to fill an EDS and the tanks of a truly *M A S S I V E* LSAM separately. A quick calculation and I think the limit would be somewhere in the region of a 250mT LSAM!!!

*That* could land some really big pieces of hardware if we ever needed to. And the refueling portion would be entirely an uncrewed process with a "0:0" LOC- i.e. 'crew-safe'.

I'd say that qualifies Jupiter as being pretty "flexible" and "upgradeable" :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/10/2008 04:12 pm
One thing I haven’t seen in the Direct discussions is the possibility that, for the first time, NASA may actually have sufficient margin to begin serious efforts to R&D a replacement for Direct while Direct is fulfilling the current “Mission”.

With Apollo there was no secondary mission to develop a replacement for the Apollo architecture and we ended up with The Gap. During Shuttle operations there was no secondary mission to develop a Shuttle II and we are facing another gap. With the ISS there has been no secondary mission to develop a follow-on station or a method of increasing the lifetime of the ISS through replacements and disposal of past certification modules.

With the budgetary efficiencies that Direct provides them NASA could increase the pace of fulfilling the VSE mission, could expand the unmanned science portion of the exploration mission, and/or could expand/extend the ISS. However, I believe an even better, long-term solution to the recurring gap problem would be a better choice. A congressionally mandated secondary mission of developing the technology needed for low cost LEO access with especially earmarked funds should be wedded to the VSE. While this would slow the pace of the primary Moon, Mars, and Beyond Mission it would enable NASA to avoid yet another gap and give NASA the ability to evolve the VSE beyond the current unsustainable plans.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/10/2008 04:23 pm
The potential is there down the road for that, but the VSE is an expensive 30-40 year program any way you cut it.   It will use whatever funding is available to fulfill that mission first rather than developing a backup system. The priorities will be going to the moon, Mars, NEO's, building outposts on both and also building upgraded/replacement ISS.

I therefore suspect that NASA will probably invest all its development monies in those things once they have a stable and good value launch system to rely upon and won't build a backup. I therefore suspect that any replacement will, 30-40 years from now, probably come purely from the commercial sector and NASA just won't be involved and will by then improve upon and bypass NASA capabilities we can develop now.

I will stick my neck out and place a bet that whatever LV's NASA builds for the current efforts will end up being the last LV's NASA ever builds.

But I *do* think that with DIRECT, NASA would then have the funds available to do the important R&D work which will help enable those future developments. I don't see that ever being affordable with Ares without a significant (50%+) budget increase first.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/10/2008 07:45 pm
This is more what I was thinking (based on vanilla's musings here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1337.msg19934#msg19934 ):

1) A Jupiter+EDS launches an Altair directly to L2. A six-day transfer requires the same TLI dV as the current baseline (~3 km/s), but only around ~200 m/s to capture into an L2 halo orbit (as opposed to ~900 m/s for a low lunar orbit). So, the Altair has less dry mass (no Orion), but a bigger ascent stage, so I'd guess the mass goes down from the current ~50 tonnes to ~40 tonnes for similar cargo (though the cargo could be scaled by what the launch vehicle can provide). At any rate, this leaves a ready-to-go Altair at L2.

2) A Jupiter+Delta IV upper stage launches an Orion directly to L2. Again, because L2 is so much higher in the Moon's gravity well, the ~900 m/s dV the Lunar Orion already has is enough for both LOI and TEI. The Orion rendezvouses and docks with the Altair in the L2 halo orbit. Note that neither is ever docked when under thrust, relieving that structural load.

3) The Altair descends to the lunar surface while the Orion waits at L2. The crew does their actual mission, and then returns to L2 in the ascent stage (which is larger than the current baseline).

4) The crew transfers to Orion, which burns for TEI, and goes home.

Once some operational confidence has been gained on the two-stage Altair, it can be replaced by a single-stage, reusable version that docks to a propellant depot permanently at L2. The Orion would come to and leave from L2 just the same as before, except it would dock with the L2 depot/station.

And there you have it: A lunar architecture that uses Direct to solve the performance/schedule problems of Ares, while at the same time laying the groundwork for a proper space transportation infrastructure...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dunderwood on 06/10/2008 11:31 pm
This may be ignorance on my part, but would a spacecraft idling at L2 be in a blackout area?  I doubt we would be comfortable sending astronauts to dock with a spacecraft that we haven't had communications with in several days, which means you might need a communications relay network to maintain telemetry.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 06/11/2008 12:44 am
Good question!

No, it wouldn't be in a blackout zone. You don't actually go to L2 but to an orbit about it that is larger than the diameter of the moon, you therefore have constant coms with earth and any vehicle there can act as a coms sat to the entire far side of the moon.

Search 'L2 halo orbit' for more info.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/11/2008 02:43 am
I don't want us to get stuck in the STS paradigm that we can't dare alter anything for 25 years until we are forced to by an accident.

I don't think that is a fair statement. The Space Shuttle has had quite a few improvements made that wern't related to the accidents.

1) Lightweight Tank (no paint and removal of some of the internal stringers in the hydrogen tank)
2) Computers Upgraded
3) SSME Phase I (lots of small improvements)
4) SSME Phase II (lots of small improvements)
5) SSME Block I (Redesigned Liquid Oxygen Turbopump and Powerhead)
6) SSME Block IA (Main injector modifications)
4) SSME Block IIA (Large Throat Main Combustion Chamber, Block II low pressure oxygen and hydrogen fuel pumps)
4) SSME Block II (Redesigned Liquid Hydrogen Turbopump)
4) Super Lightweight Tank (use of aluminum-lithium alloy)
5) Glass Cockpit

I'm sure there have been many other minor upgrades and improvements in the Shuttle over the years.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/11/2008 03:13 am
Plus, it's also a given that the science community will want flights to the farside, so a lunar communications network will probably be established anyway. Indeed, a lunar TDRS could be a mini-sat with a set of redundant JPL Electra UHF systems (as is on MRO) plus a redundant X-band system for DTE. The whole thing shouldn't mass more than 200 kg, so send a few on an Atlas...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/11/2008 08:20 am
{snip}
One LOR approach which might be an 'interesting' option would be sending the CEV to the moon on a Jupiter-120/Delta-IV-US vehicle on one flight, and then using a Propellant Depot to fill an EDS and the tanks of a truly *M A S S I V E* LSAM separately. A quick calculation and I think the limit would be somewhere in the region of a 250mT LSAM!!!

*That* could land some really big pieces of hardware if we ever needed to. And the refueling portion would be entirely an uncrewed process with a "0:0" LOC- i.e. 'crew-safe'.

Assembling a moon base on Earth is probably easier than assembling one on the Moon.  One lunar landing is likely to be simpler than 5 in close proximity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 06/11/2008 01:50 pm
The current LSAM (~9.4m dia) still has a center of gravity up around the second story level at landing. That's *very* high still and will make it naturally susceptible to instability.
NASA may plan on landing on the flats, but that's not where the most interesting and useful acreage always is. That's why I've liked this design:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/11/2008 01:56 pm
 Is there an ORBITER module for Jupiter?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 06/11/2008 05:34 pm
i posted this over in the thread about the new HR bill......
am interested in whether this is a good sign for DIRECT? maybe a sign that you guys are getting through to some congressional leaders?



Quote from: renclod on Today at 08:29 AM

      ...For example, the direction in the bill to limit NASA’s ability to dispose of Space Shuttle-related hardware is likely to severely disrupt ongoing Shuttle retirement and transition activities. Similarly, the specific wording of other provisions in H.R. 6063, including requiring all space observatories to be serviceable regardless of practicality....

endquote...



is it just me, or does that particular part seem good for DIRECT?  keeping space shuttle related hardware seems good (as DIRECT is obviously built on it) .... and making things serviceable is good, as that is something that could be done with DIRECT (as opposed to ares I).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/11/2008 05:52 pm
I posted this over in the thread about the new HR bill......
Am interested in whether this is a good sign for DIRECT? Maybe a sign that you guys are getting through to some congressional leaders?



Quote from: renclod on Today at 08:29 AM

      ...For example, the direction in the bill to limit NASA’s ability to dispose of Space Shuttle-related hardware is likely to severely disrupt ongoing Shuttle retirement and transition activities. Similarly, the specific wording of other provisions in H.R. 6063, including requiring all space observatories to be serviceable regardless of practicality....

endquote...



is it just me, or does that particular part seem good for DIRECT?  Keeping space shuttle related hardware seems good (as DIRECT is obviously built on it) .... and making things serviceable is good, as that is something that could be done with DIRECT (as opposed to Ares I).

Preventing the premature destruction of STS hardware and infrastructure was one of the key items on our agenda when we were in Washington last March.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 06/12/2008 01:17 am
Is there an ORBITER module for Jupiter?

See this link:

http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=2720

The visual representation of the CCB is a bit dated, but it still flies and looks great.  You need to have Franz Berner's CEV-E installed if you want to jettison the CEV after MECO:

http://home.arcor.de/francisdrakex/

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Cale
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/12/2008 04:37 am
Regarding ORBITER,
Antonio (simcosmos) is working on a new implementation of DIRECT to showcase the current configurations. His work has unfortunately been hampered recently by some fairly serious computer programs so its taking longer than hoped.   But rest assured it is coming.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simcosmos on 06/12/2008 09:58 am
Regarding ORBITER,
Antonio (simcosmos) is working on a new implementation of DIRECT to showcase the current configurations. His work has unfortunately been hampered recently by some fairly serious computer programs so its taking longer than hoped.   But rest assured it is coming.

Ross.

Still about Orbiter Simulation of DIRECT Architecture:

As Ross mentioned, some hardware issues in the main development computer (which, among other things, did not have time yet to solve or even... fully replace) vs other things going on here (busy June + might have some Astronomy / Science Divulgation Activities in July) are preventing me from releasing updates to the really outdated 'zero-dot-one' addon version (which contains older components visuals as well very outdated performance implementation... I remember the reader to please note that such addon is pre-DIRECT v2 effort, as everybody knows it today, although the addon components might still be used as visual placeholders for updated performance and additional launcher / mission configurations - and even integration with additional addon components - if the final user knows how to properly do it by playing with the provided configuration files).


Would like to also write a quick note about using Earth-Moon Lagrange 2: this is something that have been trying to simulate in Orbiter but it is a little hard to navigate with the current tools (the lack of time does not allow me to properly prepare the 'flight plan' too, might need additional help for this, when the time comes).

In any case, hope that one of the eventual future releases of DIRECT Orbiter Simulator addon includes at least the J120 updates, possible integration with newer CEV (by fellow Franz 'francisdrake' Berner addon maker, or else some kind of mix between my own CEV SM files and Franz CM) plus some kind of integration / adaptation of DeltaIV Upper Stage so that people can play with several mission profiles (both crewed and robotic) for J120 launched missions.

Other thing that is delaying next release is the wish to update the launch pad and perhaps even implement some animated parts (else... hummmm... might decide to just repack the older 'dummy' pad and only include some updates to the MLP).

Regarding the bigger EDS, J232, LSAM, other mission components or any additional update: might delay the release for yet another addon version because would like to first tweak some aspects of the 3D models and components integrations.

Work in (slow) progress, but always going on, as possible

António
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/12/2008 06:48 pm
I would like a bit of help from the local community here please.

We are preparing for an event soon in the KSC area in support of NASA.   We want to utilize the event to try to try to bring DIRECT to a larger audience. One of the things we're planning to do is to hand out post-cards about DIRECT. Because it's KSC, the primary focus of the event is likely to be the impending job losses coming with Ares. We want to try to show how DIRECT can solve that problem facing this region. The same message will also apply at any other center too, but this is the one which I can actually turn up at!

We're thinking the standard DIRECT Jupiter-120 front cover image for the front of the postcard so people can put the pictures up on their refrigerators at home and in their cubilces at work (hint, hint we want people to do that!!!).

On the reverse we want a really powerful message in a very small amount of text. Philip is planning a subtle background image behind the text. So far we are thinking about something along the lines of:-


Quote
Over 2 out of every 3 jobs at KSC are going to be lost by 2011. According to NASA documentation submitted to Congress the current plan is to reduce the 9,000 strong workforce in place today down as low as 2,600 - just 29% of current numbers.

The DIRECT alternative is a simpler rocket to design and develop.   It would save approximately $5 billion of development cash compared to current plans that KSC contracts can be continued beyond 2010, keeping all staff employed and within the program through the transition years to the new Constellation Program.

The DIRECT alternative plan can also become operational 3-4 years ahead of the current Ares-I - now internally planned for launch in March 2016 - which closes the gap after Shuttle from 6 years down to just 2.5 years.

We urge you to support the DIRECT alternative by writing to both your Local and Congressional representatives and asking them to Be DIRECT!

I'd appreciate your suggestions for improvement.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 06/12/2008 08:41 pm
Ok, here's my first draft suggestion.... i basically just took your main points and boiled them to down to what i thought the essentials are....



Under the Ares Program:
   *Over 2 out of every 3 jobs at KSC will be lost by 2011
   *Ares won't be flying until 2016
   *Ares is much more expensive to develop & launch, so there will be far fewer launches for KSC workers to man.

DIRECT is an alternative solution that uses the existing shuttle stack rocket system (wording?)
Under DIRECT:
   *Since we keep the shuttle rocket system, we keep the shuttle workforce
   *DIRECT would be flying in 2012
   *Since DIRECT uses existing systems, it is cheaper to develop & cheaper to launch,
      which means more launches for KSC workers.

DIRECT is the best plan for the KSC and the best plan for NASA.
We urge you to support the DIRECT alternative by writing to both your Local and Congressional representatives and asking them to Be DIRECT!
www.directlauncher.com
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/12/2008 08:54 pm
Quote
1) Over 2 out of every 3 jobs at KSC are going to be lost by 2011. According to NASA documentation submitted to Congress the current plan is to reduce the 9,000 strong workforce in place today down as low as 2,600 - just 29% of current numbers.

2) The DIRECT alternative is a simpler rocket to design and develop.   It would save approximately $5 billion of development cash compared to current plans that KSC contracts can be continued beyond 2010, keeping all staff employed and within the program through the transition years to the new Constellation Program.

3) The DIRECT alternative plan can also become operational 3-4 years ahead of the current Ares-I - now internally planned for launch in March 2016 - which closes the gap after Shuttle from 6 years down to just 2.5 years.

4) We urge you to support the DIRECT alternative by writing to both your Local and Congressional representatives and asking them to Be DIRECT!

Those 4 paragraphs send the following messages:

1)   Job Loss.  It doesn't explicitly mention cause of job loss, i.e. Ares architecture.  I'm sure the KSC employees know the numbers very well.  What this postcard is trying to do is to educate them that their ills are a direct result of the Ares architecture and that there is a better alternative.  Don't bother telling them numbers they already know; educate them about the alternative right up front.

2)   DIRECT saves $ which saves jobs.  "The DIRECT alternative…"  Alternative to what?  Ares!  Don't be shy about making the contrast explicit.

3)   DIRECT closes the "gap".  Who cares?  Really.  At KSC they care about their jobs and the infrastructure that supports them.  Way down on the list after their mortgage and tuition for their kids is the fact that the "gap" exists.  If they had to choose between shortening the gap or keeping their jobs, their jobs would win every time.  If the Ares architecture could keep them their jobs at the cost of a gap, so be it.  We need to make a clear connection between Ares and their job loss.  The gap is a level of abstraction away from that fact.  I would say the gap doesn't belong on this post card because it's not directly related to the message we're trying to send –
Ares == job loss, DIRECT == job salvation.  The rest is gravy to the KSC population.

4)   Make noise in support of DIRECT.

I would argue that the core message of a post-card-sized delivery vector should be the following:

1)   Ares == severe job loss and crippling loss of infrastructure that supports those jobs.
2)   DIRECT == maximum STS heritage and therefore near zero impact to jobs and protection of infrastructure that supports those jobs.
3)   Time to make the change from Ares to DIRECT is right now, before infrastructure and jobs are permanently lost.
4)   Make noise in support of DIRECT.


Here's a stab at that message.  I'm not clear enough on the connection between congressional action and the Ares, so that will have to be massaged.


Quote
Ares will cost KSC 2 out of 3 jobs in the next two years.  That is a failed architecture that flies directly against the congressional mandate that authorized the VSE.  Congress wisely directed that the implementation of the VSE protect the national assets of the STS infrastructure and workforce, and Ares has failed to meet this mandate.

DIRECT is an alternative LV architecture that maximizes the STS heritage and therefore protects the existing infrastructure and reduces the workforce impacts to near-zero.

Critical no-return dates for the preservation of the STS infrastructure and workforce are rapidly approaching.  The decision to redirect the VSE implementation from a failed architecture to a better engineering solution must happen now, before the STS infrastructure is dismantled and the experienced workforce base is decimated.

Do the math and support DIRECT.  Write to both your Local and Congressional representatives today and tell them to Be DIRECT!

That's a lot of words, which makes for a poor communication tool.  I would suggest strategic use of bold, colors, etc. to provide the key message in a 3-second glance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/12/2008 10:20 pm
 I don't know if there would be room on this card or not, but a good graphic would be to show a picture of ARES with only the shuttle derived parts.

 Also I think pictures are better than words.   You could show a time line with graphics showing workers so you could see it visually.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/12/2008 10:43 pm
3)   DIRECT closes the "gap".  Who cares?  Really.  At KSC they care about their jobs and the infrastructure that supports them.  Way down on the list after their mortgage and tuition for their kids is the fact that the "gap" exists.  If they had to choose between shortening the gap or keeping their jobs, their jobs would win every time.  If the Ares architecture could keep them their jobs at the cost of a gap, so be it.  We need to make a clear connection between Ares and their job loss.  The gap is a level of abstraction away from that fact.  I would say the gap doesn't belong on this post card because it's not directly related to the message we're trying to send –
Ares == job loss, DIRECT == job salvation.  The rest is gravy to the KSC population.


None KSC people care.  Neither Ares nor DIRECT are giving them jobs but they will be paying extra taxes to develop the rockets.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/12/2008 11:13 pm

None KSC people care.  Neither Ares nor DIRECT are giving them jobs but they will be paying extra taxes to develop the rockets.

nonsense as usual.   What extra taxes?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/12/2008 11:17 pm

None KSC people care.  Neither Ares nor DIRECT are giving them jobs but they will be paying extra taxes to develop the rockets.

nonsense as usual.   What extra taxes?
The taxes the US population are paying at the moment to support NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 06/13/2008 12:29 am
Ares or Direct, jobs will be lost at KSC.
The only difference is how many jobs will be lost and when the jobs will be lost.
Even if Direct is selected, many Shuttle workers will find their jobs phased out.
Examples:
1) Orbiter TPS workers
2) Orbiter hydraulics systems workers
3) Orbiter fuel cell system workers
4) Orbiter airframe workers
5) Shuttle payload workers
6) OPF workers
Large numbers, likely 90 % in each of those groups will be with out jobs even if Direct is selected.
On the other hand, Direct will continue to need most of the existing:
1) SRB work force
2) ET processing work force
3) VAB work force
4) Launch pad work force
5) MLP work force
The difference is about 1 in 3 jobs gone with Direct, vs 2 in 3 jobs gone with Ares.
Additionally, there will be a lot fewer blue collar, technical workers jobs lost, between the Shuttle retirement and the start up of Direct flight operations.
With Ares, about 4 in 5 blue collar jobs will be lost at KSC for 2 to 4 years between the Shuttle retirement and the starting of Ares flight operations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/13/2008 01:04 am
Ares or Direct, jobs will be lost at KSC.
The only difference is how many jobs will be lost and when the jobs will be lost.
Even if Direct is selected, many Shuttle workers will find their jobs phased out.
Examples:

That's a good breakdown.  Thanks.

Why would the Payload folks be gone.  Won't the DIRECT approach still need payload specialists?  Same with the Fuel Cell workers - Orion will need them, no?  Is it just a matter of timing, where those skills won't be needed for an extended period?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 06/13/2008 01:33 am
Ares or Direct, jobs will be lost at KSC.
The only difference is how many jobs will be lost and when the jobs will be lost.
Even if Direct is selected, many Shuttle workers will find their jobs phased out.
Examples:

That's a good breakdown.  Thanks.

Why would the Payload folks be gone.  Won't the DIRECT approach still need payload specialists?

Only if the shuttle payload adapter is also built - and I would not consider that a done deal by any means. There is little justification for it if the shuttle flies out its remaining manifest.

Quote
  Same with the Fuel Cell workers - Orion will need them, no?

No. Orion has solar panels, not fuel cells.

Quote
  Is it just a matter of timing, where those skills won't be needed for an extended period?

Not really. They won't be needed, period, with that architecture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/13/2008 03:19 am
1)   Ares == severe job loss and crippling loss of infrastructure that supports those jobs.
2)   DIRECT == maximum STS heritage and therefore near zero impact to jobs and protection of infrastructure that supports those jobs.
3)   Time to make the change from Ares to DIRECT is right now, before infrastructure and jobs are permanently lost.
4)   Make noise in support of DIRECT.

My very minimalist stab at it (following kttopdad's lead):

Rough stats, modify accordingly:

Under the Ares program, 2 out of every 3 jobs will be lost at KSC.
With DIRECT, those jobs can be saved.
Ares is a brand new rocket costing 3x what shuttle currently does.
DIRECT uses shuttle hardware, as per Congress.
The numbers speak for themselves. DIRECT works.
Time is of the essence. Write your Congressman.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/13/2008 03:51 am

None KSC people care.  Neither Ares nor DIRECT are giving them jobs but they will be paying extra taxes to develop the rockets.

nonsense as usual.   What extra taxes?
The taxes the US population are paying at the moment to support NASA.

That is not "extra"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MB123 on 06/13/2008 03:57 am
This is where it gets lost for me.

DIRECT people shouldn't be saying: write to your congressman because DIRECT is the best - you can't make that claim.

You should be saying: I want an investigation, an inquiry, a qualified panel that -can- make the claim.

By saying 'it's the best' you risk loosing credibility (imo) and people will just brush DIRECT off.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/13/2008 04:28 am
Ares or Direct, jobs will be lost at KSC.
The only difference is how many jobs will be lost and when the jobs will be lost.
Even if Direct is selected, many Shuttle workers will find their jobs phased out.
Examples:


Actually Scotty, that's not quite the way we're planning it. Let me go through these one by one to explain the "sort of thing I'm on about"...

:)

Quote
1) Orbiter TPS workers

Skilled manual labor positions. Can be re-trained to do a variety of things. Ideally suited to installing Thermal Blankets on our SSPDM modules and acoustic blankets in our Payload Fairings. Other unrelated work is possible too. Jupiter can provide work for these people during the transition years until they are needed by the LSAM/EDS/Outpost projects around 2015 or so.


Quote
2) Orbiter hydraulics systems workers

DIRECT's budget plans to re-fund Aeronautics division back to 2002 levels (about double today). Aeronautics will then need more trained staff in these fields. KSC has facilities for some new Aeronautic flight research, or some staff can be relocated (temporary or permanent) to Dryden or wherever they are needed. LSAM can use them back at KSC when its project ramps-up.

Yes, it's not perfect. Its inconvenient for some, but we can retain everyone who wants to keep their career within NASA.


Quote
3) Orbiter fuel cell system workers

LSAM will need these people eventually. So temporary work in related fields such as anything to do with Cryo LOX/LH2 would be a suitable location for the few years of the transition period. We need Delta-IV Upper Stages to be prepared and qualified for use on the "Apollo-8" Lunar Flyby. We need good people to work the test flights of the EDS in preparation for a Propellant Depot variant. These folk might be able to find a home in such project elements for a few years until LSAM is ready to take them.

Other missions now possible by Jupiter may also be able to utilize this expertise too. Mars Sample Return may utilize Fuel Cells. 8m diameter telescopes for NASA and/or DoD may also utilize Fuel Cells too. Large Europa/Titan missions ditto. With the Science Directorate re-funded to pre-Columbia budget levels these missions can be paid for and added to the manifest. They will thus require new staffing. If some of this work can be performed at KSC, great. If not, then re-location options may have to be investigated to other centers.


Quote
4) Orbiter airframe workers

We need approximately 10 new SSPDM's built from scratch. Each of these units will essentially be simplified Space Shuttle Payload Bay Structure without the rest of the Orbiter.

Who better to make replica parts of the Space Shuttle Airframe than the Space Shuttle Airframe workers? And these aren't exactly small projects. These guys will be kept quite busy for a number of years and can then find useful homes in the LSAM and Outpost projects later.


Quote
5) Shuttle payload workers

We have 5 Space Shuttle Payloads planned for launch in 2012 and 2013 alone. And more after that. It would be nice to retain these experienced guys and gals so we can process them all. They would also be the most logical people to process Lunar Outpost elements and any future upgrade modules going to ISS designed to extend its life beyond 2016.


Quote
6) OPF workers

One of the OPF's will need to be re-located at the Saturn-V Center sooner or later. Lets utilize these experienced staff who know the facility inside and out for a year or so and get them to manage a move of everything up the road a few miles and get it all set-up correctly ready for the Smithsonian to take over as a Museum. It would be the perfect venue to showcase whichever of the Orbiters is to be retired there at KSC.


Quote
Large numbers, likely 90 % in each of those groups will be with out jobs even if Direct is selected.

Our budget analysis allows KSC to be funded at 100% of its 2008 financial budget (see attachments below).

100% funding would allow every job to be protected after 2010. While Shuttle contracts will still expire, there will be the money available at the center to pay for "new work" during the transition years and than new work can pick up all of the surplus staff in the manner I have briefly tried to outline above.

The key is finding *productive* and *useful* work so that the workforce isn't just being paid "welfare checks". We certainly don't want that, and I don't even think the staff would want that themselves.

Jupiter comes on-line soon enough (2012) and has sufficient performance (>38mT to ISS) that we can add new mission hardware to the manifest. That all needs more bodies to do the work.

We pay for that because Jupiter-120 costs $5bn less to develop than Ares-I and Jupiter-232 costs $15bn less than Ares-V.


Deleting the costs associated with the 5-seg SRB, three all-new cryo stages, by slowing the J-2X development by 2 years, by deleting the massive changes needed at MAF, KSC and a variety of other infrastructure costs makes a big difference.   By choosing instead to re-use existing hardware (4-seg SRB, RS-68 & ET) this allows DIRECT to come online sooner while saving more than $5bn compared to Ares-I, and save another $15bn by not requiring Ares-V at all.

*That* is the money we then use to pay for keeping the staff and adding more mission hardware to the manifest. By also re-funding Science & Aeronautics to their full levels we can find work for all these people during the years between Shuttle ramping-down and CxP's new elements like EDS/LSAM/Outpost are ramping-up.

Its so difficult to explain it all here on the forum - but I hope I'm making it a bit clearer how we're trying to do what we're trying to do :)

Bottom line is:   We have sufficient budget to continue paying everyone at KSC, JSC, MSFC, SSC and MAF their salaries.   So all we have to do is provide *useful* and *productive* temporary work to "bridge the gap" and allow those who aren't actively involved in the Jupiter-120/Orion projects to still stay within the program during these 'transition years' - keeping them doing things which produce actual value.


Quote
On the other hand, Direct will continue to need most of the existing:
1) SRB work force
2) ET processing work force
3) VAB work force
4) Launch pad work force
5) MLP work force

Correct. Those jobs are also required as they are today because we would have test flights in 2010, 2011 and 2012 ahead of an operational flight in late 2012.


Quote
The difference is about 1 in 3 jobs gone with Direct, vs 2 in 3 jobs gone with Ares.
Additionally, there will be a lot fewer blue collar, technical workers jobs lost, between the Shuttle retirement and the start up of Direct flight operations.
With Ares, about 4 in 5 blue collar jobs will be lost at KSC for 2 to 4 years between the Shuttle retirement and the starting of Ares flight operations.

With all due respect our budget analysis (see below) shows we can retain at least 90% of the entire KSC workforce - and the reason for the other 10% would be only due to natural attrition (retirements etc.) and those positions would not be back-filled.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/13/2008 04:52 am
This is an election year; rather than Congressmen, it's the two presidential campaigns that should be contacted. The best chance Direct has is the new administration wanting to leave its stamp on Constellation. The best way for this to happen is to get both candidates to make the survival of Constellation important. Direct may follow from there. Thus far, McCain seems amiable to this, while Obama is less certain. The Moon shouldn't be a partisan issue, or it will surely die...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/13/2008 05:04 am
I don't know if there would be room on this card or not, but a good graphic would be to show a picture of ARES with only the shuttle derived parts.

All you'd see is the foam these days.   It sure wouldn't look much like a rocket.


Quote
Also I think pictures are better than words.   You could show a time line with graphics showing workers so you could see it visually.

The above graphs are a start in that direction...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/13/2008 01:24 pm
DIRECT people shouldn't be saying: write to your congressman because DIRECT is the best - you can't make that claim.

You should be saying: I want an investigation, an inquiry, a qualified panel that -can- make the claim.

I agree and disagree with what you're saying.  I agree that we want to avoid the appearance of hubris, and that we want to encourage the reader of the card to contact their representatives for an independent investigation into the whole thing.  However, we also need to at least mention DIRECT - after all, the DIRECT folks are paying for these cards.

How 'bout the following as a closing line on the postcard:

Quote
Do the math!  Write to both your Local and Congressional representatives today and tell them to ask DIRECT questions about Ares!

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/13/2008 01:52 pm

DIRECT people shouldn't be saying: write to your congressman because DIRECT is the best - you can't make that claim.

You should be saying: I want an investigation, an inquiry, a qualified panel that -can- make the claim.

Yes we can, based on 2 years of intense analysis done by design professionals all over the rocket design industry, including over 60 professionals from inside NASA and its contractors who assisted in the analysis on their own time.

Having said that, the independent investigation is what we are actually seeking from Congress because, while we may know it's the best, and it is, the members of Congress who have the authority to instruct NASA on what it is and is not to do don't know that yet. The independent investigation, done completely outside the influence of NASA, by someone like a Rand Corporation, will tell the story and validate the claim to the Congress what we have already demonstrated.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/13/2008 02:10 pm
 I was thinking of using symbols instead of bars.  I roughed up something that has both.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 06/13/2008 03:27 pm
Ok, I've tried to read the responses and make some revisions.... what do you think?



Under the proposed Ares Program:
   *Over 2 out of every 3 jobs at KSC will be lost by 2011
   *Ares won't be flying until 2016, so no launches for KSC workers for over 5 years.
   *Ares is much more expensive to develop & launch, so there will be far fewer launches for KSC workers,
        & no money for other interim projects to work on.

DIRECT is an alternative solution that uses the existing shuttle stack rocket system (wording?)
Under DIRECT:
   *Since we keep the shuttle rocket system, we keep most of the shuttle workforce
   *DIRECT would be flying in 2012, much smaller gap for KSC workers.
   *Since DIRECT uses existing systems, it is cheaper to develop & cheaper to launch, which means more
          launches for KSC workers, plus more money for interim projects to keep
          KSC workers employed in the 2 year gap.

DIRECT is safer, simpler, and sooner than Ares, and we will put DIRECT up against Ares in ANY independent study.  Write or call your congressman and tell them you want an independent study to show the best way forward for America's Space Program.
www.directlauncher.com
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 06/13/2008 04:53 pm
I don't know if it's been posted yet, in the last issue of AIAA Houston Horizons newsletter :

(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3833/horizonscoverep8.png)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 06/13/2008 06:04 pm
This is an election year; rather than Congressmen, it's the two presidential campaigns that should be contacted. The best chance Direct has is the new administration wanting to leave its stamp on Constellation. The best way for this to happen is to get both candidates to make the survival of Constellation important. Direct may follow from there. Thus far, McCain seems amiable to this, while Obama is less certain. The Moon shouldn't be a partisan issue, or it will surely die...

Simon ;)

McCain and Obama are deluged with information. Getting them to even pay attention will be difficult.

On the other hand, local mayors, town council members, municipal managers and county officials in and around the Kennedy Space Center  (or Michoud LA and elsewhere) are an entirely different story.

These people have no "direct" influence over NASA policy however they do feed the local political organizations (Democratic and GOP) and if they start barking up the political food chain people higher up will start paying attention.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/13/2008 07:01 pm
I didn't mean the candidates themselves (obviously too busy), I meant the campaign staffers who might have control over space policy. Each candidate now has the full force of the party, which means staffers to handle lesser affairs, like space.

Also, don't get trapped thinking of this as a Florida issue: If Ares fails, then _all_ manned spaceflight centers will suffer, MSFC, SSC, GSFC, and JSC included. Has Huntsville's (centerist-Democrat) rep Bud Cramer been contacted? If Direct could be sold to him as plus, rather than a minus, to MSFC, that's a huge bonus...

On a completely different tack, how much can a Jupiter 232 inject directly to a trans-lunar trajectory? Back-of-the-envelop says about 40 tonnes (based on Ares V about 50 tonnes)...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/13/2008 08:17 pm
I would like a bit of help from the local community here please.

We are preparing for an event soon in the KSC area in support of NASA.   We want to utilize the event to try to try to bring DIRECT to a larger audience. One of the things we're planning to do is to hand out post-cards about DIRECT. Because it's KSC, the primary focus of the event is likely to be the impending job losses coming with Ares. We want to try to show how DIRECT can solve that problem facing this region. The same message will also apply at any other center too, but this is the one which I can actually turn up at!

We're thinking the standard DIRECT Jupiter-120 front cover image for the front of the postcard so people can put the pictures up on their refrigerators at home and in their cubilces at work (hint, hint we want people to do that!!!).

On the reverse we want a really powerful message in a very small amount of text. Philip is planning a subtle background image behind the text. So far we are thinking about something along the lines of:-


Quote
Over 2 out of every 3 jobs at KSC are going to be lost by 2011. According to NASA documentation submitted to Congress the current plan is to reduce the 9,000 strong workforce in place today down as low as 2,600 - just 29% of current numbers.

The DIRECT alternative is a simpler rocket to design and develop.   It would save approximately $5 billion of development cash compared to current plans that KSC contracts can be continued beyond 2010, keeping all staff employed and within the program through the transition years to the new Constellation Program.

The DIRECT alternative plan can also become operational 3-4 years ahead of the current Ares-I - now internally planned for launch in March 2016 - which closes the gap after Shuttle from 6 years down to just 2.5 years.

We urge you to support the DIRECT alternative by writing to both your Local and Congressional representatives and asking them to Be DIRECT!

I'd appreciate your suggestions for improvement.

Ross.

This is a great idea, and a method of advertising widely used on college campuses today. My fraternity calls them "Hot Cards". The key is to have as little text as possible on the back. People don't want paragraphs of information. It has to catch their eye, their interest, and get them to go to the DIRECT website.

Instead of text on the back, have you thought about using the graphic that shows Ares I/V, Shuttle, and Jupiter and shows what is thrown away with Ares and kept with DIRECT? There is less text and gets the point across. I'm afraid people will just ignore the plain text without the useful graphic to catch their eye.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/13/2008 08:52 pm
This is a great idea, and a method of advertising widely used on college campuses today. My fraternity calls them "Hot Cards". The key is to have as little text as possible on the back. People don't want paragraphs of information. It has to catch their eye, their interest, and get them to go to the DIRECT website.

Instead of text on the back, have you thought about using the graphic that shows Ares I/V, Shuttle, and Jupiter and shows what is thrown away with Ares and kept with DIRECT? There is less text and gets the point across.

Hmmm. Maybe the front side shows a really nice graphic of the Jupiter, almost collector item quality, and something on the back showing a stark contrast like on the left is a picture of the Ares-I/V but the background is a 1/2 empty abandoned town all overgrown with a few abandoned cars on the street and a long line of people going into a building with an "Unemployment" sign over the door, and on the right shows a pair of Jupiter-232's but the background is a bustling town with families all in smiles walking hand-in-hand with full shopping bags down a well kept and pleasant street. Something like that?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/13/2008 09:09 pm
I'd like Gladiator's idea better; glossy Jupiter 120 launch on the front, simple comparison of Ares and Direct on the back, with the website address prominent "for more information"...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/13/2008 09:40 pm
Yeah, it is great to have informative text, but with these Hot Cards, you want to catch the eye. The collectors item front is great, that keeps people from just throwing it away.
But you want them to flip it over and read the back as well...if they just see boring text it doesn't drive the point. The chart attached above is a perfect starting point, the graphics catch the readers eye, and it drives all of the points that you want to make home.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/13/2008 11:29 pm
OK, I did a slightly better dV analysis (backsolved to find effective dV to LEO, added L2 TLI dV of 3142.5 m/s, and solved for new payload). For a Jupiter 120 with a Delta IV upper stage, gross TLI payload was 20.9 tonnes. Adding in a faring, this is just enough for an Orion. For a standard Jupiter 232, single-launch L2 gross payload was 39.4 tonnes, about what I had guessed.

Interestingly enough, if I plugged the numbers for the 5.5 seg Ares V into the same analysis, I get a TLI payload of 39.7 tonnes; only 300 kg of extra payload for ~1,300 tonnes more GLOW!

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DLK on 06/13/2008 11:30 pm
Has Huntsville's (centerist-Democrat) rep Bud Cramer been contacted? If Direct could be sold to him as plus, rather than a minus, to MSFC, that's a huge bonus...
I don't know if he's been contacted or not. However, he announced (much to our surprise) that he's retiring, so I don't know if he could still wield the influence he did.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/14/2008 12:17 am

This is a great idea, and a method of advertising widely used on college campuses today. My fraternity calls them "Hot Cards". The key is to have as little text as possible on the back. People don't want paragraphs of information. It has to catch their eye, their interest, and get them to go to the DIRECT website.

Instead of text on the back, have you thought about using the graphic that shows Ares I/V, Shuttle, and Jupiter and shows what is thrown away with Ares and kept with DIRECT? There is less text and gets the point across. I'm afraid people will just ignore the plain text without the useful graphic to catch their eye.

I like this idea.  If you move the text at the bottom of the graphic out to the sides, then there is room at the bottom for a message.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 06/14/2008 12:31 am
kttopdad's card text edited.

IMHO, FWIW:

2/3 jobs lost --> 2 of 3 current jobs lost

(I believe it can fit)

= = =

By maximizing STS heritage, Jupiter 120 will minimize layoffs, infrastructure expense and overall program expense, slash several years from the looming gap in America's ability to put people into space and provide America a more robust capable space program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 06/14/2008 12:41 am
Seems the Jupiter 120 would save the lunar program as I don't have much fate in Ares V getting funded in the present economic climate.

If you already have the means to launch people to the moon then it becomes a lot harder to justify cutting the lunar exploration program.

Political and economic survivability are one of the big issues I see with Ares V plus the nasty political fallout from spending billions reinventing the wheel as is the case with Ares I.

I also think the Brits could benefit from Jupiter as it would give another option on how to launch their HEM modules.

This case it could cut their cost since the Orion could eliminate the need to develop a propulsion system for the HEM modules other then a simple cold gas system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/14/2008 01:22 am
OK, I did a slightly better dV analysis (backsolved to find effective dV to LEO, added L2 TLI dV of 3142.5 m/s, and solved for new payload). For a Jupiter 120 with a Delta IV upper stage, gross TLI payload was 20.9 tonnes. Adding in a faring, this is just enough for an Orion. For a standard Jupiter 232, single-launch L2 gross payload was 39.4 tonnes, about what I had guessed.

Interestingly enough, if I plugged the numbers for the 5.5 seg Ares V into the same analysis, I get a TLI payload of 39.7 tonnes; only 300 kg of extra payload for ~1,300 tonnes more GLOW!

Simon ;)

Using an updated version of the CEPE spreadsheet I found the gross J-232 TLI payload to be 42.6 mT (fast manned trajectory) or 43.7 mT (slow unmanned trajectory).  The J-231 has a slightly better performance with 43.1 mT (fast manned trajectory) and  44.1 mT (slow unmanned trajectory). All above estimates are done with a 5,195 kg interstage and a 7,338 kg fairing.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/14/2008 02:45 am
Seems the Jupiter 120 would save the lunar program as I don't have much fate in Ares V getting funded in the present economic climate.

Political and economic survivability are one of the big issues I see with Ares V plus the nasty political fallout from spending billions reinventing the wheel as is the case with Ares I.



I strongly agree.

 It is one of the things often overlooked. You can defend Ares I/V all you want, however, one thing still remains...getting the funding to build them.

Ares V has become nothing short of a joke. You are in absolute dreamland if you believe that the funding for such a project will ever materialize.

Direct saves the ISS, it gives us LEO, and when the time is right, we can go to the Moon. In the next 4 years congress is going to have to handle high gas prices, the war, and a possible recession. Giving NASA the funding to go to the Moon is not going to be one of their priorities. But as long as we have an architecture that can get us there, then we have a shot in hell.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/14/2008 05:30 am
Thanks for these suggestions guys.   We're going to use some.

I won't show the results until the day of the event though - we don't want to give away too much too soon.

What I will say is that there will be more than one card.   You can collect the whole set! :)

Keep your suggestions coming. There's still a little bit of time to change these before we send them for printing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/14/2008 05:57 am
We will be overly conservative - as always - with our published estimates.

A 1-launch Cargo Jupiter-232 with a 10m PLF can throw at least 40.9mT of useful payload mass thru a TLI of 3,175m/s.

I would be quietly confident of matching PaulL's figures though if we use only regular GR&A margins.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/15/2008 12:15 am
What I will say is that there will be more than one card.   You can collect the whole set! :)

So how will those of us not in Florida get our hands on them?  Got any local contacts here in Houston (he asked with tongue firmly in cheek)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/15/2008 12:40 am
A 1-launch Cargo Jupiter-232 with a 10m PLF can throw at least 40.9mT of useful payload mass thru a TLI of 3,175m/s.

Interesting...

If I assume a reusable, single-stage LOX/LH2 lander with an inert mass of 6500 kg, and an isp of 430 sec (to account for throttling losses), it can inject to L2, deposit a crew and 6500 kg of payload to the surface, and return to L2 with 27,004 kg of propellant, giving a total TLI mass of 40,004 kg...

Furthermore, if the lander then stays at L2 and waits for a tanker, it can land a crew and 1000 kg of payload for 18,826 kg of propellant. Thus, if a tanker of sufficient mass ratio could be produced, a single Jupiter 232/1 could fuel two lunar missions, cutting by a third the number of launches required...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/15/2008 01:08 am
I've had a little more time to play with the postcard.  This is just a rough draft, working with the jpg file as a source, but it contains the elements I'd respond to on a post-card.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 06/15/2008 11:22 am
I've had a little more time to play with the postcard.  This is just a rough draft, working with the jpg file as a source, but it contains the elements I'd respond to on a post-card.

Adding "NNN kg to LEO" under "Operational <YEAR>" will look even better
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 06/15/2008 01:02 pm
...
Interestingly enough, if I plugged the numbers for the 5.5 seg Ares V into the same analysis, I get a TLI payload of 39.7 tonnes; only 300 kg of extra payload for ~1,300 tonnes more GLOW!

Simon ;)

That's because Ares V is an inefficient design.  With a core twice as heavy as Jupiter or Shuttle ET, it really needs FOUR times 4-seg SRB's.

Otherwise it wastes most of that extra fuel.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/15/2008 01:07 pm
I've had a little more time to play with the postcard.  This is just a rough draft, working with the jpg file as a source, but it contains the elements I'd respond to on a post-card.

Adding "NNN kg to LEO" under "Operational <YEAR>" will look even better

I like that, especially when the payload capacity of the two systems directly impacts the CEV.  Ares cannot lift the full, lunar-ready CEV, so many things have been cut from the spacecraft.  In addition to just listing the relative lift capacities of the two vehicles, we should also address the implications of that data - crippled CEV vs. robust CEV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 06/15/2008 01:57 pm
Word of caution:
DO NOT make claims of no jobs being lost if Direct is adopted, as that claim it totally false.
Even if Direct was the choice, it will still take less manpower to operate than does Shuttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/15/2008 02:37 pm
Word of caution:
DO NOT make claims of no jobs being lost if Direct is adopted, as that claim it totally false.
Even if Direct was the choice, it will still take less manpower to operate than does Shuttle.

I agree, I think the word MINIMAL is the better choice. NASA itself has proven that Jupiter is the best when it comes to protecting jobs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/15/2008 02:49 pm
Scotty is right.

There's no sensible way to claim "No STS Job Loss" for DIRECT.

It's a credibility issue. If we claim that, and if there were any way to prove just one single job would be lost under DIRECT, then Griffin could lever a lot of questions regarding credibility at that point.

Our baseline costings certainly allow for KSC, MAF etc to be fully funded at 2008 levels. With that money we are planning a series of new contracts to take over in October 2010 when Shuttle hands out all of its pink slips.

But the workforce affected will still have to apply for new jobs and there are no guarantees the exact same people will end up being hired to do the exact same things. There is no way I can see to avoid a bit of a "shuffle" in this.

All we can realistically do is provide enough work to take up all 6,400 jobs at KSC (and we do the same at the other affected centers too, but this specific discussion is about this rally event happening in the KSC region) and make it clear to workers that those people who have already passed background checks and who already have experience in the Space Shuttle Program are going to clearly be preferential choices compared to a Mr. Joe Q Public who comes in fresh and green looking for a job in the new program with no background in it. The current staff will therefore be at the top of the lists for any such new work.

Its partially up to the staff involved in the end. We can only build the bridge half way.


For example, lets say that Jupiter & Orion would employ 3,000 Shuttle workers at KSC (just a figure to use in this example, not a precise number) but we have sufficient funding to continue employing the 6,400 we have today.

Say also that regular retirements and natural attrition account for the '400' so we have a nice neat 3,000 workers 'displaced' at the end of Shuttle. At that point we would simply be trying to use the spare cash we have saved from Ares-I to provide a sufficient number of new contracts to pick up those 3,000 staff.

Make no mistake: It's no small feat to manage such a thing. But the budget analysis looks capable of doing it alongside Jupiter & Orion development. Combined with with the greater lift capabilities of the Jupiter compared to the Ares-I, we can certainly make new *use* of that greater performance for new things which would simply be impossible with Ares-I.

We can do new *work* - all needing new *contracts* and *employees* - which Ares-I can only dream about. So we have the potential to allow us to keep the staff gainfully employed.

Bottom Line: I think we can safely say "Minimize STS Job Loss". But, as always, the Devil is in the Details.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 06/15/2008 02:49 pm
OK, I did a slightly better dV analysis (backsolved to find effective dV to LEO, added L2 TLI dV of 3142.5 m/s, and solved for new payload). For a Jupiter 120 with a Delta IV upper stage, gross TLI payload was 20.9 tonnes. Adding in a faring, this is just enough for an Orion. For a standard Jupiter 232, single-launch L2 gross payload was 39.4 tonnes, about what I had guessed.

Interestingly enough, if I plugged the numbers for the 5.5 seg Ares V into the same analysis, I get a TLI payload of 39.7 tonnes; only 300 kg of extra payload for ~1,300 tonnes more GLOW!

Simon ;)

Are you really sure ? The current 5-seg Ares V can do 56mT and the 5.5 seg 6 RS-68 Ares V should do 63mT.  Ares V gives you 50% more for all that extra cost over DIRECT.

p4
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/aresv/ppt/Saturday/2Sumrall/2Sumrall.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/15/2008 04:19 pm
I've had a little more time to play with the postcard.  This is just a rough draft, working with the jpg file as a source, but it contains the elements I'd respond to on a post-card.

Adding "NNN kg to LEO" under "Operational <YEAR>" will look even better

I like that, especially when the payload capacity of the two systems directly impacts the CEV.  Ares cannot lift the full, lunar-ready CEV, so many things have been cut from the spacecraft.  In addition to just listing the relative lift capacities of the two vehicles, we should also address the implications of that data - crippled CEV vs. robust CEV.

New infrastructure is ambiguos.   You could say New infrastructure including new mobile launch platform.   I also noticed that there is nothing regarding the safety, IE loc/lom numbers.   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/15/2008 05:04 pm
New Infrastructure covers a *lot* of ground.

* Destroy current tooling for Shuttle ET manufacturing
* New tooling at MAF for Ares-I Upper Stage.
* New tooling for Ares-V Core.
* New tooling for Ares-V EDS too.
* New transportation facilities (Pegasus barge) between MAF and KSC to handle Ares-V Core.
* Remove existing Shuttle ET checkout facilities
* New checkout facilities in the VAB for Ares-I U/S.
* Another for Ares-V Core.
* Again for Ares-V EDS.
* Destroy all the Ground Support Equipment for Shuttle
* Build all-new GSE for Ares-I and then do it all again for Ares-V
* Remove a dozen work platforms in the VAB currently configured for Shuttle
* Half a dozen new work platforms in one High Bay used to process Ares-I.
* Another half dozen new work platforms in the other two VAB High Bays which will be used for Ares-V's.
* New Crawlerway to Pads A and B for handling much heavier Ares-V stack.
* Two new 6-truck Crawler Transporters for Ares-V.
* Two all-new Mobile Launchers with associated Launcher/Umbilical Towers for Ares-I.
* Remove the existing Rotating Service Structures at both Pads.
* Remove the existing Fixed Service Structures at both Pads.
* Two new Emergency Escape Rollercoaster towers permanently affixed at each Pad.
* Three highly modified Shuttle MLP's forming the basis for new Mobile Launchers (now totalling 5!) for Ares-V - each with its own LUT too.
* 2 Modified SRB recovery ships for handling 5.0 or 5.5 segment SRB's.
* New SRB hoisting slip & facilities at Hangar AF for handling 25%-38% longer & heavier SRB's.
* Re-wire and re-build all of the electrical/computer/communication infrastructure between the LCC and Pads & vehicles, plus all the equivalent facilities at JSC too.

That's a list to start with - just off the top of my head.

And lets not forget increased maintenance costs for all that new stuff too.

I feel a song coming on...   To the tune of 12 days of Christmas...

Five massive Mobile Launchers,
Four refitted Firing Rooms,
Three refurbished High Bays,
Two rebuilt Crawlers,
And a Crawlerway across the faciliteee...

Yikes.   $$$.   $$$.   $$$.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/15/2008 05:20 pm
Quote from: Scotty
Word of caution:
DO NOT make claims of no jobs being lost if Direct is adopted, as that claim it totally false.
Even if Direct was the choice, it will still take less manpower to operate than does Shuttle.

There's no sensible way to claim "No STS Job Loss" for DIRECT.

It's a credibility issue. If we claim that, and if there were any way to prove just one single job would be lost under DIRECT, then Griffin could lever a lot of questions regarding credibility at that point.

I absolutely agree.  I should have put "Minimal" or something along those lines.  Kids were clamoring for pancakes, and I rushed a bit. 

Each of the bullet points on the draft card I worked up should be considered a place-holder for a point to be made.  "NNN" is an obvious example of that, but every point on the card should be hammered around to find the best verbiage.  My apologies for appearing to suggest the impossible with regards to job retention.

I hope that glaring problem don't detract from the basic idea which is an amalgam of several posters' suggestions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 06/15/2008 05:26 pm
All in all I think the draft cards are very good.
You have to draw attention to the issues quickly and precisely.
I think the cards will do that job very well.
I'm really looking forward to the event.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 06/15/2008 07:09 pm
Something just occurred to me, regarding the card and what is being put on it... you are wanting to tailor this for the KSC event specifically, right?   Well, to me, a lot of the points about Ares might seem like positives to people whose jobs depend on NASA activities.   For example... New 5 seg SRB, New J2-X engine, New Config, New Infrastructure, New Upper Stage.... $14.4 Billion being spent..... those all sound like positives in a way .... like this is going to give them more work.... they might think "hey, NASA is doing all this new stuff and spending all this money, i'll definitely have a job in the new program"....  see what i mean?  is just a thought, but i think it's possible that having all that stuff on there could make it backfire a little...   just a thought...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/15/2008 10:39 pm
Are you really sure ? The current 5-seg Ares V can do 56mT and the 5.5 seg 6 RS-68 Ares V should do 63mT.  Ares V gives you 50% more for all that extra cost over DIRECT.

p4
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/aresv/ppt/Saturday/2Sumrall/2Sumrall.pdf

I had been using different numbers (not sure if newer/better). If Ares V can indeed actually launch 63 tonnes to TLI, then you can do a single-launch lunar mission, and Ares I is unnecessary...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/15/2008 11:05 pm
Simon,
Not quite. The current minimum requirement is 75.1mT thru TLI.

63mT would mean the LSAM would be ~12mT smaller than is actually needed.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 06/15/2008 11:32 pm
That 75mT though does contain about 10mT of margin does it not ? 65mT is still the actually required CEV/LSAM stack weight is it not ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/15/2008 11:35 pm
You can't plan these dangerous missions without such margins. That'd be a recipe for disaster.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/16/2008 01:46 am
I don't know if there would be room on this card or not, but a good graphic would be to show a picture of ARES with only the shuttle derived parts.

All you'd see is the foam these days.   It sure wouldn't look much like a rocket.


I'd love to collect THAT postcard. An Ares V with everything ghosted but the foam. With something linking the ghosted parts to lost jobs. Or maybe the STS on one side saying "this goes" and a pile of orange foam saying "this stays."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/16/2008 01:50 am
I don't know if there would be room on this card or not, but a good graphic would be to show a picture of ARES with only the shuttle derived parts.

All you'd see is the foam these days.   It sure wouldn't look much like a rocket.


I'd love to collect THAT postcard. An Ares V with everything ghosted but the foam. With something linking the ghosted parts to lost jobs. Or maybe the STS on one side saying "this goes" and a pile of orange foam saying "this stays."

Ooh!  I love that!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 01:54 am
I'm still betting that they'll change the formula of the foam - just to make Ares-I/V 100% different from Shuttle and not just 99.999% different.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/16/2008 01:24 pm
Where is this memo showing NASA studying the DIRECT concept?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 01:28 pm
mnewcomb,
The "memo" is on the L2 section here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10925.msg215893#msg215893

The actual studies are a slightly different thing though.   The comparison study was done in Oct/Nov of last year and the team was disbanded before they could finish writing their official report because they didn't say what management wanted them to say.   Separate NASA teams also did their own comparison studies and validated the results which we have shown.

There was also a mutli-center Impacts Study done around the same time at KSC, MSFC, SSC & MAF that we know about.   We guess JSC also would have done one, but we just never heard about that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 06/16/2008 01:46 pm
Got an error going to the link:

The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 06/16/2008 01:47 pm
What are the chances, supposing VSE and ESAS are cancelled next Spring, that a consortium of ATK/Boeing/P&W (at least) would see the wisdom of developing the Jupiter 120 partly on their own dime, with some support from USAF and NASA (assuming manned ISS and unmanned solar system exploration constituencies survive)? It sure seems like if Ares I/V (and possibly all of Constellation) goes down in political flames, it would be smart for them to take a hard look at it. Might a commercial market for something like that evolve?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 01:56 pm
Got an error going to the link:

The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.

You need to be a member of L2 to get access to that portion of the site.   That's where all of the interesting documentation always goes and only some of it percolates down to the rest of the site.   That memo hasn't been released outside of L2 by the looks of it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 02:02 pm
What are the chances, supposing VSE and ESAS are cancelled next Spring, that a consortium of ATK/Boeing/P&W (at least) would see the wisdom of developing the Jupiter 120 partly on their own dime, with some support from USAF and NASA (assuming manned ISS and unmanned solar system exploration constituencies survive)? It sure seems like if Ares I/V (and possibly all of Constellation) goes down in political flames, it would be smart for them to take a hard look at it. Might a commercial market for something like that evolve?

It will have to happen *fast*.   There isn't anything happening in that direction yet to my knowledge, but if ATK etc are beginning to see the writing on the wall I'd think it a very smart thing for them to open a dialogue between the other 'partners' and just have it ready as a backup for when (not if) Ares goes toes-up.

Not to do so puts all their eggs in the Ares-I basket and their shareholders won't be happy if that gets screwed up and there are no alternatives.   ATK is particularly at risk here because they have no other alternatives but an SRB-derived system.   At least Boeing and Lockheed each have EELV's to earn some money if everything Shuttle vanishes.   ATK's space division would be left totally excluded after 2010 if they haven't considered a backup plan that uses a different SDLV solution - like DIRECT.

Like I say - the biggest danger of all is that ESAS dies, but nothing is ready to replace it and Congress loses *confidence* in the program.   If that happens they could very well just decide to give up the whole VSE and stick to launching nothing but two Orion's to ISS for the next 20 years for the US Human Space Flight Program.

I currently give that a 50% probability of happening within the next 12 months.   From where I sit that is the #1 risk to the VSE today.

I just hope that DIRECT has made sufficient impact and been noticed by enough influential people by the time the crunch actually happens, that people will still rally around the VSE and try to find a better solution for its implementation.   DIRECT has gotten a lot of attention already, but has it got enough yet?   I surely hope so.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2008 02:09 pm
1.  What are the chances, supposing VSE and ESAS are cancelled next Spring, that a consortium of ATK/Boeing/P&W (at least) would see the wisdom of developing the Jupiter 120 partly on their own dime,

2.  with some support from USAF and

3.  NASA (assuming manned ISS and unmanned solar system exploration constituencies survive)?
4.  Might a commercial market for something like that evolve?

1.  Zero.  They make more money on ESAS systems.  The ET is LM territory and not Boeing.  Boeing upperstage is out for Direct until an EDS is needed.

2.  there is no "real" USAF interest in Direct. 

3.  Direct is too big for them.  They don't even use a D-IV heavy.  They actually try to avoid using it. 

4.  There is no commercial market for this capability.  Comsats haven't maxed out Ariane V yet or Atlas V or even D-IV Heavy
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 02:33 pm
I don't completely agree with Jim.

1) The premise of William's question is based upon ESAS having already died.  In that situation none of the ESAS contractors would be making any money at all unless they have already been smart enough to consider backup plans like DIRECT before the crunch comes.   If ESAS dies the contractors Shuttle-related divisions will be scrabbling around searching for a solution which will still earn them money - and DIRECT can do that.   Oh, and Boeing would continue the Ares-I US contracts and IU contracts under DIRECT - but they would simply be re-specified for the J-232 EDS.   By the time this all actually pans-out it'll be 2010 anyway, so the Shuttle money will be on the cusp of becoming available anyhow.

2) True.   There is interest in what a Heavy Lift system can provide in terms of new capabilities. But nobody is yet putting any eggs in any specific baskets.   If we get a Heavy Lift system, there will be potential new classes of DoD payloads for it.   But until it actually happens nobody is banking on it.   DIRECT is just 'being studied'.

3) If ESAS dies, then NASA will be after a new solution which can service ISS, go to the Moon, go on to Mars and which will be affordable to do it all, yet they will also prefer a solution which saves jobs too.   If ESAS dies, then DIRECT is a clear option for them.

4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).

Jupiter-120 is a fairly cheap rocket - as these things go - and sharing the cost with a couple of partners makes economic sense.   I believe that the US has (Jim correct me if I'm wrong) only done dual manifest launches for the military so far, not for commercial satellites.   But Arianespace does dual manifest all the time and its one of the reasons their system is so much cheaper than the competition.   Jupiter could certainly lift quite a few different payloads at once if anyone wanted to try.

As an aside, we know of one group who also looked at Jupiter from the perspective of being a launcher for a whole cluster of emergency comms/gps satellites if we ever got into a conflict which resulted in the bulk of US satellites being disabled.   They were considering that a single Jupiter could launch half a dozen such satellites in one shot and at least 'patch' US capability fairly quickly in such an emergency.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 06/16/2008 05:02 pm
4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).
Ross, what would be the payload of a Jupiter 120 to TLI (DeltaV 1500 m/s) ?
I guess Jupiter 120 is more optimized for LEO (no upper stage) so what would it be with a Centaur stage for that kind of commercial launches ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 05:14 pm
Stephen,
A Delta-V of just 1500m/s is really low.

If you could do a TLI for that little amount of impulse (I'm dubious), you could send 61.5mT thru the burn using a Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage.   47.6mT with the Atlas-V Centaur-V1 (the main difference is the Centaur just has smaller fuel tanks).

A more 'regular' 3,175m/s dV for TLI would result in 21.1mT going through TLI with the DIVHUS and 16.8mT with the Centaur.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jimvela on 06/16/2008 05:16 pm
4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).
Ross, what would be the payload of a Jupiter 120 to TLI (DeltaV 1500 m/s) ?
I guess Jupiter 120 is more optimized for LEO (no upper stage) so what would it be with a Centaur stage for that kind of commercial launches ?

Everyone should get this point very clearly:

By law,  NASA may not offer a launch vehicle for sale competitive with commercial launch services.  (not that NASA could even be price competitive with private industry)

There will never be a commercial launch on an ARES or Direct vehicle, ever, without additional legislative intervention from congress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 05:21 pm
Very true Jim.   But equally true is that a commercial operation derived from the same equipment NASA uses is something Congress is fairly open to discussing if the contractors ever wanted to.

But neither Saturn nor Shuttle was ever economical enough for anyone to try before now.   If NASA made an economically viable launcher for a change though...

:)

Well, we know ATK have been trying hard to push for a commercial Ares-I already and the political world has been open to their plans so far.   And at one point Congress was supportive of a plan for USA to spin-off the whole Shuttle Program into a commercial venture, but USA didn't want the liability in the end.

While paperwork will certainly have to be pushed around, I don't think Congress would actually stand in the way of such a thing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 06/16/2008 06:14 pm
New Infrastructure covers a *lot* of ground.

* Destroy current tooling for Shuttle ET manufacturing
* New tooling at MAF for Ares-I Upper Stage.
* New tooling for Ares-V Core.
* New tooling for Ares-V EDS too.
* New transportation facilities (Pegasus barge) between MAF and KSC to handle Ares-V Core.
* Remove existing Shuttle ET checkout facilities
* New checkout facilities in the VAB for Ares-I U/S.
* Another for Ares-V Core.
* Again for Ares-V EDS.
* Destroy all the Ground Support Equipment for Shuttle
* Build all-new GSE for Ares-I and then do it all again for Ares-V
* Remove a dozen work platforms in the VAB currently configured for Shuttle
* Half a dozen new work platforms in one High Bay used to process Ares-I.
* Another half dozen new work platforms in the other two VAB High Bays which will be used for Ares-V's.
* New Crawlerway to Pads A and B for handling much heavier Ares-V stack.
* Two new 6-truck Crawler Transporters for Ares-V.
* Two all-new Mobile Launchers with associated Launcher/Umbilical Towers for Ares-I.
* Remove the existing Rotating Service Structures at both Pads.
* Remove the existing Fixed Service Structures at both Pads.
* Two new Emergency Escape Rollercoaster towers permanently affixed at each Pad.
* Three highly modified Shuttle MLP's forming the basis for new Mobile Launchers (now totalling 5!) for Ares-V - each with its own LUT too.
* 2 Modified SRB recovery ships for handling 5.0 or 5.5 segment SRB's.
* New SRB hoisting slip & facilities at Hangar AF for handling 25%-38% longer & heavier SRB's.
* Re-wire and re-build all of the electrical/computer/communication infrastructure between the LCC and Pads & vehicles, plus all the equivalent facilities at JSC too.

That's a list to start with - just off the top of my head.

And lets not forget increased maintenance costs for all that new stuff too.

I feel a song coming on...   To the tune of 12 days of Christmas...

Five massive Mobile Launchers,
Four refitted Firing Rooms,
Three refurbished High Bays,
Two rebuilt Crawlers,
And a Crawlerway across the faciliteee...

Yikes.   $$$.   $$$.   $$$.

Ross.
If you would send me a list of the facilities/equipment that will be lost or destroyed I could try and put a graphic together showing the facilities and the equipment dropping down into a waste basket.  In addition to the foam I believe they will be keeping the srb seqments unless I have missed something.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 06:21 pm
vee,
You can start with that list - it's probably >90% complete already and does hit all the major cost items.   I have added a few items since I first posted the message as I thought of them so its pretty comprehensive.

I personally think we will be adding "Pad A concrete hardstand" and "Pad B concrete hardstand" to the list soon too, but that's an opinion on my part, not yet documented in any way.


As for the rest, a famous quote from fictional character of Sir Francis Urquhart comes to mind.   But you'll have to go look that up to get my meaning.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 06/16/2008 06:28 pm
Stephen,
A Delta-V of just 1500m/s is really low.
Argh, sorry Ross I meant GTO (for satcom, with the usual DeltaV of 1500 m/s to GEO), not TLI.
Off course it changes everything in my request ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 06:30 pm
Stephan (got the spelling right this time!),
You know, I never did work out any rule of thumb for working out GTO stuff.

If 1,500m/s is what you need to do a transfer (Hohmann I assume) from LEO to GTO then the numbers above are still accurate for a 1,500m/s burn: 61.5mT w/ DIVHUS or 47.6mT w/ Centaur.

If not, all I need is the total dV for the transfer and I can get you some first-order numbers in minutes :)


One thing this does assume though, is that we're injecting the LEO payload (spacecraft & unused 'full' upper stage) straight into circular 130nm 29deg LEO. There may well be better trajectories available than that which can optimize performance further.   I seem to recall a recent GTO launch inserting initially into about 80x80nm first, which would obviously improve LEO payload delivery performance quite a bit.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jimvela on 06/16/2008 06:41 pm
I seem to recall a recent GTO launch inserting initially into about 80x80nm first, which would obviously improve LEO payload delivery performance quite a bit.

You wouldn't stay in orbit very long at 80x80nm... Has to be a staging event and burn or additional burn of the stage that got you there very shortly after arrival at that orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 06/16/2008 06:55 pm
Ross, I don't know what is the regular GTO from Florida. From French Guyana I know the GTO is about 250x36000 km, leaving the circularization burns to the satellites.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 07:00 pm
Agreed jimvela,
The mission is only a vague memory for me now (there have been so many over the last few years!) but it stuck in my mind specifically because I remember it inserting into what at the time made me go "wow - that's an incredibly low orbit" and I was left wondering if the satellite had been designed to cope with any 'heating effects' from being that low.

IIRC (!), they were there for half an orbit - somewhere around 45 mins or so - before the transfer burn took place.   It might have been something around 85x85, or even 89x89 possibly - but I don't think so because that doesn't actually 'shock' me in the way this did at the time.   I just remember the numbers started with 8's because they're pretty unusual, and my lasting memory of that flight is how surprised I was about the initial altitude.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 06/16/2008 07:27 pm
1.  What are the chances, supposing VSE and ESAS are cancelled next Spring, that a consortium of ATK/Boeing/P&W (at least) would see the wisdom of developing the Jupiter 120 partly on their own dime,

2.  with some support from USAF and

3.  NASA (assuming manned ISS and unmanned solar system exploration constituencies survive)?
4.  Might a commercial market for something like that evolve?

1.  Zero.  They make more money on ESAS systems.  The ET is LM territory and not Boeing.  Boeing upperstage is out for Direct until an EDS is needed.

2.  there is no "real" USAF interest in Direct. 

3.  Direct is too big for them.  They don't even use a D-IV heavy.  They actually try to avoid using it. 

4.  There is no commercial market for this capability.  Comsats haven't maxed out Ariane V yet or Atlas V or even D-IV Heavy

Your item 1 does rather beg the question. If ESAS is cancelled, then they will make nothing off ESAS systems. Do they really lack the wisdom to do anything on their own initiative? Maybe we donj't deserve to go to the Moon, or anywhere else, if that is so. For the rest of it, if it's true there is no commercial market for that capacity, are we saying there will never be such a market? I asked if one could evolve. Seems like you're saying no, never, can't happened, forget about it. Another reason maybe we don't deserve to go anywhere.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 06/16/2008 07:33 pm
4) I tend to agree with Jim, although with the proviso that Arianespace is showing a way where a commercial Jupiter-120 might offer some real advantages - dual manifest launches (or tri- or quad- too).
Ross, what would be the payload of a Jupiter 120 to TLI (DeltaV 1500 m/s) ?
I guess Jupiter 120 is more optimized for LEO (no upper stage) so what would it be with a Centaur stage for that kind of commercial launches ?

Everyone should get this point very clearly:

By law,  NASA may not offer a launch vehicle for sale competitive with commercial launch services.  (not that NASA could even be price competitive with private industry)

There will never be a commercial launch on an ARES or Direct vehicle, ever, without additional legislative intervention from congress.

That's not the question. Assuming ESAS is gone, meaning there would be no NASA launch vehicle called Ares, DIRECT, or Space Shuttle, would there be a market for a DIRECT-like commercial vehicle developed using the resources of the commerical entities that currently build the SRMs, ETs, and RS-68 engines? Really what we are talking about in Jupiter 120 is a second-generation EELV. Not to mention the fact that there IS no "commercial launch service" equivalent to Jupiter 120. It would be the first.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2008 07:43 pm

That's not the question. Assuming ESAS is gone, meaning there would be no NASA launch vehicle called Ares, DIRECT, or Space Shuttle, would there be a market for a DIRECT-like commercial vehicle developed using the resources of the commerical entities that currently build the SRMs, ETs, and RS-68 engines? Really what we are talking about in Jupiter 120 is a second-generation EELV. Not to mention the fact that there IS no "commercial launch service" equivalent to Jupiter 120. It would be the first.

no,
1.  No market
2.  it still would need NASA resources
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 07:48 pm
I believe that yes, a commercial market exists where Jupiter could be very competitive indeed.

However, it would require the contractors to be totally ready and waiting to "catch" the Shuttle infrastructure when it is "dropped" in September 2010.

And I don't see any attempts yet in that direction.   The truth is that if they aren't ready and waiting to catch that ball when it comes at them, the infrastructure and workforce will be lost with no way to retrieve it.   Trying to get it back even just 3 or 6 months after Shuttle has closed-down, would be nigh-on impossible IMHO.   I don't think it could realistically be done 'after the fact'.

There would be a one-time-only opportunity to grab it and run, but *nobody* is currently even looking at that option.   There is precious little time for that situation to turn around by Sept 2010 if they wanted to do it.   These sorts of negotiations and company agreements take time and if they aren't ready, it just wouldn't ever happen.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2008 08:00 pm
I believe that yes, a commercial market exists where Jupiter could be very competitive indeed.


What market?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 08:06 pm
On a different topic, I'd like to ask the general opinions of any engineers familiar with the RS-68 and J-2X here what they think of us possibly re-baselining to the 108% RS-68 and the 294,000lb thrust J-2X.

We've already got opinions from engineers within the team, but I'm really interested to hear other 'professionals' on this subject if they'd like to weigh-in on the discussion.   Non-pro's can chip in too, but the professionals are whom I'm really trying to canvas for their thoughts right now.


Our thinking is split currently on a number of different talking points, including...

RS-68:

Baselining the 102% RS-68 guarantees earlier operation, but would likely create a second production line at PWR for a while until the RS-68B is qualified later.

There are current units 'on the shelf' right now which NASA could purchase for qualification purposes and that would accelerate the human-rating process faster than waiting for USAF to finish developing the new variant.

We could use the 102% RS-68 on the early Jupiter-120 flights, and fairly easily qualify the more powerful variant in time for the Lunar missions around 2017 on a "Block-II" for Jupiter-232.


J-2X:

All J-2XD plans appear to have been completely dropped by NASA right now, so we aren't sure there is any tangible cost/schedule advantages any longer to sticking with the lower spec engines any further.


Both:

One thought we do have against any changes though, is that we *really* like having additional margins all over the place in this project because over on Ares we've clearly seen what can happen if you don't have enough margin and it ain't pretty.   These 'lower-spec engines' are handy margin to have in our back-pockets if we should ever need them.

Thoughts?   Opinions?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 08:30 pm

What market?

Still under the assumption that Ares has already died, the market for a commercially operated Jupiter would thus be three-fold:-


NASA:

Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more - they could just buy launch services for the missions instead.

The odd probe/satellite which can't be launched on a smaller rocket - like an 8m diameter replacement for Hubble, a Mars Sample Return mission or some new JIMO-class spacecraft could all be lifted by Jupiter-120 quite easily.   Operated as a commercial domestic launcher, Jupiter could certainly do things no other service can.

DoD

Jupiter-120 can match and beat the $ per kg to GTO price point of either EELV program today if it launches just three flights per year in a single-manifest usage mode.

DoD has flown dual manifest missions previously on Titan-IV.    A similar capability would be possible with Jupiter-120 too.   But it would have a much larger payload capacity allowing either more satellites or larger satellites - or a combination.

Part of a satellites basic cost is because it is designed down to a minimum mass for launch.   If that is no longer such a tight requirement, satellite development and manufacturing cost can actually be lowered.   Jupiter has sufficient capability to practically remove any such limitations, so there are a few less tangible benefits too.

Commercial

As a purely commercial entity the Jupiter-120 can directly compete with current Ariane-V costs at a flight rate of just 5 per year.

If Jupiter-120 were to provide dual-manifest, tri-manifest or even quad-manifest capabilities on the commercial international market it could undercut Arianespace's cost structure and compete very directly in their markets.

Utilized in this manner and at a very moderate flight rate of just 6 per year, Jupiter-120's cost per kg would rival both China and Russian cost structures and would thus be able to compete for the international business they are currently enjoying - a market all other current domestic US launchers are just too expensive to compete for.



Please understand, I personally don't think anything like a commercial Jupiter-120 will ever actually happen.   I really don't.   I just don't see how industry would be able to afford to develop it without NASA's money doing that hard part first.   But its cost numbers are surprisingly good if it were built.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2008 08:47 pm
NASA:

1.  Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.

2.  The odd probe/satellite which can't be launched on a smaller rocket - like an 8m diameter replacement for Hubble or Mars Sample Return.   

DoD

3.  Jupiter-120 can match and beat the $ per kg to GTO price point of either EELV program today if it launches just three flights per year in a single-manifest usage mode.

4.  DoD has flown dual manifest missions previously on Titan-IV.    A similar capability would be possible with Jupiter-120 too.   But it would have a much larger payload capacity allowing either more satellites or larger satellites - or a combination.

5.  Part of a satellites basic cost is because it is designed down to a minimum mass for launch.   If that is no longer such a tight requirement, satellite development and manufacturing cost can actually be lowered.   Jupiter has sufficient capability to practically remove any such limitations, so there are a few less tangible benefits too.

Commercial

6.  As a purely commercial entity the Jupiter-120 can directly compete with current Ariane-V costs at a flight rate of just 5 per year.



1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program.  They are mutually exclusive.

2.  There is no 8m HST or MSR.  Therefore no market.  There has to be a market first.   The point is there is no market.  Didn't say that there weren't missions that could be done.

4.  There is a difference between dual manifested and multiple spacecraft. 

5.  bad reason.  You can't have this and multiple manifesting at the same time.  Bigger spacecraft have to pay for of the launch costs.  Also, since the launch costs are still relatively high, it still means that mass and size will be minimized for spacecraft.

3 & 6.  Your numbers are off or you are making the wrong comparison.

the 120 is not a GTO launcher.  You need to add the EDS
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 09:03 pm
Jim,
I was including a standard EELV Upper Stage in the GTO comparison, not the full-up EDS from Jupiter-232.   I don't see any commercial entity ever developing the J-2X nor that large Upper Stage when they can borrow one from an EELV and get a good portion of the same performance.

At the end of the day, the Jupiter-120 offers more than double the performance of an EELV Heavy for the same cost as an EELV Medium.

That's what 25 years of continual budget cuts have done to the cost profile of the Shuttle ET and SRB systems.   Today they are *very* lean, mean and and highly competitive.   But they are totally overshadowed by the 200,000lb gorilla of a spaceplane which they're currently associated with.   Take that out of the equation and give them a chance to shine on their own, and they're quite a surprise.

There's a very good *potential* commercial opportunity there - just as long as you can afford to develop it first!   That's the bit where I don't think it would ever happen on its own though, not unless ATK has a spare $7bn burning a hole in their accounts currently...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/16/2008 09:41 pm

There's a very good *potential* commercial opportunity there - just as long as you can afford to develop it first!   That's the bit where I don't think it would ever happen on its own though, not unless ATK has a spare $7bn burning a hole in their accounts currently...

Ross.

How much was ATK going to spend to buy MDA again?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 06/16/2008 09:42 pm

That's not the question. Assuming ESAS is gone, meaning there would be no NASA launch vehicle called Ares, DIRECT, or Space Shuttle, would there be a market for a DIRECT-like commercial vehicle developed using the resources of the commerical entities that currently build the SRMs, ETs, and RS-68 engines? Really what we are talking about in Jupiter 120 is a second-generation EELV. Not to mention the fact that there IS no "commercial launch service" equivalent to Jupiter 120. It would be the first.

no,
1.  No market
2.  it still would need NASA resources

Item 1 is the usual chicken/egg conundrum. If you build it, will they come? Or should you wait til they come before you build anything? Companies go broke making both choices at the wrong time. Bigelow is developing a space station on the assumption if they do, a market will develop. But there's no market now.

As for item 2, if VSE is cancelled completely (not just ESAS, but the whole idea of going to the Moon, Mars, Beyond, and maybe even ISS in our own ships, what happens to those resources?

Of course, if somebody built Jupiter 120 on their own dime, then there's a market or two could evolve. ISS. Bigelow maybe. And Congress could then tell NASA, there's a moon rocket for sale. Buy some and go.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2008 09:43 pm

There's a very good *potential* commercial opportunity there - just as long as you can afford to develop it first!   That's the bit where I don't think it would ever happen on its own though, not unless ATK has a spare $7bn burning a hole in their accounts currently...

Ross.

How much was ATK going to spend to buy MDA again?

$1.3bn I believe.   Still a *long* ways to go.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2008 09:52 pm
Jim,
I was including a standard EELV Upper Stage in the GTO comparison, not the full-up EDS from Jupiter-232.   I don't see any commercial entity ever developing the J-2X nor that large Upper Stage when they can borrow one from an EELV and get a good portion of the same performance.

At the end of the day, the Jupiter-120 offers more than double the performance of an EELV Heavy for the same cost as an EELV Medium.

That's what 25 years of continual budget cuts have done to the cost profile of the Shuttle ET and SRB systems.   Today they are *very* lean, mean and and highly competitive.   But they are totally overshadowed by the 200,000lb gorilla of a spaceplane which they're currently associated with.   Take that out of the equation and give them a chance to shine on their own, and they're quite a surprise.


No way.  You are only counting on the incremental costs.  Most of the EELV cost is in the upper stage.  yes, the orbiter was the bulk of the cost, but you still have to fund the VAB, pads, CT, MLP's, JSC flight design, the IU is going to cost some bucks.  The thrust structure is going to have costs that will have to be amortized and will have high incremental

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/16/2008 11:02 pm
On a different topic, I'd like to ask the general opinions of any engineers familiar with the RS-68 and J-2X here what they think of us possibly re-baselining to the 108% RS-68 and the 294,000lb thrust J-2X.

J-2X:

All J-2XD plans appear to have been completely dropped by NASA right now, so we aren't sure there is any tangible cost/schedule advantages any longer to sticking with the lower spec engines any further.

Thoughts?   Opinions?

Ross.

Ross, if you go to the more powerful J-2X engine for the EDS, one thing you could consider is to switch to a J-231 rocket. The extra thrust of the J-2X could particially compensate for the removal of one engine. A J-231 rocket would have less "pure" LEO capability (all EDS propellant used to reach LEO) than the J-232 but more TLI payload capability thanks to its lighter EDS.  It would also make your rocket a bit cheaper.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 06/17/2008 01:57 pm
I am a non-pro and this is just my thought.

I'd say scrap em both. There are better engine and thrust designs on the drawing board that would do better for Direct in the long run when more mass to LEO is needed for Mars missions.

At the rate things are going mixed in with the obvious red tape as NASA converts I just highly doubt that we are going to have a flight to LEO before 2015 anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/17/2008 04:39 pm
Why even bother with the J2-X?  J2-S performance levels could do the job.

At the rate Ares is going, I think RS-25d might not have been as expensive as initially thought...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/17/2008 04:42 pm
Using the same engines as are baselined for Ares V also helps on the "jobs" case, as PWR continues the same development work that they're already doing. In addition, it puts the emphasis on Direct being a more optimised configuration of Ares, rather than a completely different vehicle...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/17/2008 04:49 pm
Using the same engines as are baselined for Ares V also helps on the "jobs" case, as PWR continues the same development work that they're already doing. In addition, it puts the emphasis on Direct being a more optimised configuration of Ares, rather than a completely different vehicle...

Simon ;)

Actually, I think that makes a lot of sense. In the beginning we tried to keep as much in sync as we could with the Ares, for comparison sake, while always taking the less stressful and most economical option. But now both the stronger RS-68 and the J2X are much further along and barring some major fubar, are likely to be available anyway. So why not baseline them? Makes sense to me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/17/2008 10:39 pm
Dual J-2X (or dual J-2??? for that matter) EDS is problematic.

Quoting from 20080018610_2008018440.pdf @ ntrs :
Quote
For the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shift
to a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly
241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodate
load limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system
.

With the proposed dual engine EDS, and if the load limit issue stands, "Direct" would be forced to explore a bizzare single engine TLI / dual engine launch...



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/17/2008 11:01 pm
Dual J-2X (or dual J-2??? for that matter) EDS is problematic.

Quoting from 20080018610_2008018440.pdf @ ntrs :
Quote
For the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shift
to a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly
241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodate
load limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system
.

With the proposed dual engine EDS, and if the load limit issue stands, "Direct" would be forced to explore a bizzare single engine TLI / dual engine launch...


... or the unthinkable beefing of up the docking system.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2008 02:22 am
NASA:

1.  Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.
{snip}

1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program.  They are mutually exclusive.


Public Relations definition of NASA lunar mission.

NASA LSAM
NASA astronauts
NASA lunar outpost
NASA sign on pad
NASA press release
NASA money.

That sounds like a NASA lunar mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2008 03:55 am
NASA:

1.  Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.
{snip}

1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program.  They are mutually exclusive.


Public Relations definition of NASA lunar mission.

NASA LSAM
NASA astronauts
NASA lunar outpost
NASA sign on pad
NASA press release
NASA money.

That sounds like a NASA lunar mission.


wrong again as usual.  The point is if NASA isn't funding Ares I & V or Direct, then NASA isn't funding lunar missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 06/18/2008 04:29 am
A commercial Jupiter could be very useful to the satellite business since com sats mostly geostationary sats are getting bigger and heavier.
Don't believe me just compare the average sat from 15 years ago to one today and then one from 30 years ago you'll see a trend and they're getting huge.
24ton class vehicles may not be up to the job in the future since there are demands for higher data rates and smaller devices on the receiving end this means the com sat need to be more powerful in transmission power.

Though if we stick with Ares there is no moon program it'll continue to cost more and will get cut when congress realizes the damage it's doing to the other part of NASA.
Ares I with out Ares V doesn't equal a moon program and instead equals another X33 fiasco.

BTW I don't see why NASA can't just buy EELVs,Falcons, Taurus IIs etc other then pride.

I'm sure we can safely say the myth of Ares I being safer then an EELV has been throughly killed with all the evidence of instability and deadly oscillation issues etc.

On what someone said about docking port stress on a two engine EDS if the structural margins of LIDS are so narrow that a two engine EDS even with throttling would break it then we should not be using it.
That makes me wonder if it would have the usual pressure safety margin of being able to take 1.5 to 3x norm before failure NASA usually has on stuff.
The old Apollo LEM windows were pressure tested to over 25psig to verify the safety.

Might be best to beef it up so it can handle the stress this also will allow the standard to be used in the future on larger and heavier vehicles and space tugs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2008 04:37 am
A commercial Jupiter could be very useful to the satellite business since com sats are getting bigger and heavier.
Don't believe me just compare the average sat from 15 years ago to one today and then one from 30 years ago you'll see a trend and they're getting huge.


wrong. Jupiter is too big.  Comsats have yet to max out current vehicles
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 06/18/2008 04:58 am
wrong. Jupiter is too big.  Comsats have yet to max out current vehicles
[/quote]

Not yet but they are going to might take another 15 to 20 years but it's not a matter of if just when.

Still even now they could use it if it's very reliable to launch two or three big birds at once.
This would save on logistics and lower the over all cost but would increase risk since a failure will destroy 3 satellites vs one.

The DOD also could use it to replace large military payloads in bulk or test their solar power sat concepts.

Now space probes have already maxed out existing vehicles a few times and the same with space telescopes they just can't get enough payload it seems.

Then you have the emerging space tourism and space research market which could quickly find use for a vehicle the size of the J-120.

Though that last market might be better served by small RLVs or the experts on that market seem to think so.

But if you're building a space station like bigelow is there is no such thing as too big of a vehicle except maybe something crazy huge like Ares V but then it's not it being too big thats the issue it's that it's just too expensive for anyone to afford.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/18/2008 05:15 am
If anything Com sats will get smaller; as Jim said, there is no commercial market for Direct...

If Direct is ever accepted, it will be as a new iteration of Ares (probably as "Ares II" and "Ares IV" or somesuch). The purpose of Ares, in both current and any future Direct iteration, is to launch Constellation missions, and not much else. Besides, I can't realistically imagine a flight rate much higher than STS, meaning all that capacity is need for lunar flights...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/18/2008 05:29 am
The only other possibility will be for Mars Sample Return or other larger JIMO sized probes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 06/18/2008 05:48 am
If anything Com sats will get smaller; as Jim said, there is no commercial market for Direct...

If Direct is ever accepted, it will be as a new iteration of Ares (probably as "Ares II" and "Ares IV" or somesuch). The purpose of Ares, in both current and any future Direct iteration, is launch Constellation missions, and not much else. Besides, I can't realistically imagine a flight rate much higher than STS, meaning all that capacity is need for lunar flights...

Simon ;)

I don't see them getting smaller and we're getting very close to the theoretical limits of solar cell efficiency.

Coms sats are not personal computer though they do have computers.
Instead they are radio relay stations in space so your not going to see
an 18KW sat shrunk down to something you can carry in your pocket for many of the same reasons you will not see a power plant become tiny.

But yes there are things they can do and are doing to make them lighter such as using Lipo batteries in place of nickel hydrogen cells , using ion thrusters in place of arcjet thrusters and use of composites in the structure plus lastly the recent developments in solar cells.

 Some stuff is just physics if you want to push a lot of data over a far distance over a wide area you need power.

Not everyone wants an 8 foot dish on their house to receive 100 HDTV channels from one sat.

Increases in satellite transponder power are one of the the main reasons as to why you can receive digital tv with an 18" dish now vs needing a eight foot dish as was the case 20 years ago.
The switch to KU band made the LNB and dish smaller too.

Very high power transponders are what made things like XM radio even possible.
Sat transponder output has grown from 4 watts for early C-band to 50 to 80 watts per channel.
Your typical Boeing 702 or Astrium E3000 have 18KW and 14KW solar arrays.

Though LEO and mid orbit sats can be much smaller as with Iridium only 700Kg each but these also need to be numerous for continuous coverage for obvious reasons.

But GEO sats are forced to be large machines unless you want the ground equipment to be large to gather a weak signal .
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2008 07:28 am

wrong again as usual.  The point is if NASA isn't funding Ares I & V or Direct, then NASA isn't funding lunar missions.

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/18/2008 08:41 am
Dual J-2X (or dual J-2??? for that matter) EDS is problematic.

Quoting from 20080018610_2008018440.pdf @ ntrs :
Quote
For the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shift
to a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly
241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodate
load limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system
.

With the proposed dual engine EDS, and if the load limit issue stands, "Direct" would be forced to explore a bizzare single engine TLI / dual engine launch...


... or the unthinkable beefing of up the docking system.



Beefing up the docking system ... hmm... I wonder why those square heads @ NASA didn't thought about such a simple solution. Why messing up with the J-2X power level when you can have even two engines and for example:

1/ replace the LIDS with CBM !

or
2/ keep the LIDS but stage an pre-TLI EVA to attach I beams between Orion and Altair !

or
3/ keep the LIDS but don't use it until after TLI (a la Apollo); this one was proposed by "Direct" some time ago, and mandates cutting openings in the shroud to let the solar arrays deploy.

The problem is not simple and I would say aggravates with increasing Orion's mass (in fact moment of inertia).

Another thing: what you make you must also break - this is a critical requirement, if un-docking Orion from Altair fails, it's a very bad situation, especially for return and entry. So any "beefing up" must take this into account too.

NASA solution so far: single J-2X EDS, reduced power level for TLI, disposable LIDS.

IMO.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/18/2008 11:21 am

1/ replace the LIDS with CBM !


CBM is a berthing mechanism, not a docking port.  Also in Direct docking would only take place after TLI, so no worries for the docking system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 06/18/2008 12:15 pm

Beefing up the docking system ... hmm... I wonder why those square heads @ NASA didn't thought about such a simple solution.


Yeah, I mean, why wouldn't those "square heads" want to add mass to a capsule from which they already had to strip multiple redundant safety systems (which weighed more than a beefed up docking system would) and mission capabilities because the Ares I rocket on which they intended to launch it couldn't even lift the original design?  I just don't get it either.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/18/2008 12:42 pm
Guys,
This whole issue of a commercial Jupiter is a moot point.   If NASA doesn't build it first, no commercial entity will.   Arguing about how it might or might not work is a completely pointless exercise given that overriding fact.

The *only* way a commercial Jupiter might ever fly would be in *addition* to a healthy and robust NASA operation running in parallel.   In that scenario all the arguments change anyway.   And I still believe there's less than a 5% chance of a commercial venture doing that even in such a positive environment.

So I'm going to ask that this topic be spun off from this point on into a separate thread - here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13504.msg291409#msg291409).   It has nothing to do with what we're trying to achieve here and I don't think a single person on the DIRECT Team really expects to see a commercial Jupiter launch.

If people want to argue about minutiae in such a hypothetical situation, please do so in the other thread.   Not this one.   Thanks.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/18/2008 12:48 pm

1/ replace the LIDS with CBM !


CBM is a berthing mechanism, not a docking port. 
Thanks for the clarification. It confirms what I already suspected after reading this:
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/ICES01-2435.ISS_CBM.pdf

Quote
Also in Direct docking would only take place after TLI, so no worries for the docking system.

Let's ask Ross or Chuck about this. I'd say your "Direct" is off the baseline. My knowledge about "Direct" supports my post, i.e. Orion docking with Altair before rendezvous with the second J-232 (the one with fully fueled, dual engine EDS), so before TLI.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/18/2008 12:51 pm

Beefing up the docking system ... hmm... I wonder why those square heads @ NASA didn't thought about such a simple solution.

Yeah, I mean, why wouldn't those "square heads" want to add mass to a capsule from which they already had to strip multiple redundant safety systems (which weighed more than a beefed up docking system would) and mission capabilities because the Ares I rocket on which they intended to launch it couldn't even lift the original design?  I just don't get it either.

The answer of course is to go thru TLI on the J-2X “eyeballs in”, just like Apollo.
LIDS should not have to be designed as a structural member – that’s dumb.
Detach, rotate and re-dock after TLI, just like Apollo. The Ares architecture can’t do that, but the Jupiter-232 profile can do it. So the answer is, of course, don’t use the Ares. Fly the Jupiter instead. Problem solved.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2008 01:32 pm

1/ replace the LIDS with CBM !


Not doable.   CBM is not a docking system.  It is a berthing system.  Also it is "weaker" than a docking system
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Spacenick on 06/18/2008 01:38 pm
What about APAS-89? Then docking with Shenzhou and modified Soyuz/ATV would be quite easy or is LIDS as easy to implement for other nations as is APAS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/18/2008 01:54 pm
NASA:

1.  Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.
{snip}

1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program.  They are mutually exclusive.


Public Relations definition of NASA lunar mission.

NASA LSAM
NASA astronauts
NASA lunar outpost
NASA sign on pad
NASA press release
NASA money.

That sounds like a NASA lunar mission.


wrong again as usual.  The point is if NASA isn't funding Ares I & V or Direct, then NASA isn't funding lunar missions.

I disagree with that completely.  NASA has never built a thing on its own - it has always contracted out the construction of its launch vehicles.  The only difference between a lunar mission using the Saturn V and a lunar mission using a commercial launch vehicle is the contract that defines the relationship between the LV builder and the end user (NASA).  The piece of paper defining the ownership of the LV would be the only difference between a "traditional" lunar mission and one utilizing a COTS launch vehicle, and the public would never know (or care) about the difference.  NASA astronauts walking around a NASA moon base is all they would see, and if that could be done more efficiently through the use of COST LVs, then that would be all the better.

I, as a tax payer, would love to see NASA get out of the LV business altogether.  I absolutely feel COTS is the way to go, and that NASA should be a purchaser of vehicle services rather than a builder of vehicles.  If NASA were to commit to X lunar missions per year for the next 30 years using a COTS LV provider, I imagine a way could be found to make a profit.  And every flight would be a NASA flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/18/2008 02:11 pm
NASA:

1.  Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services.   NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.
{snip}

1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program.  They are mutually exclusive.


Public Relations definition of NASA lunar mission.

NASA LSAM
NASA astronauts
NASA lunar outpost
NASA sign on pad
NASA press release
NASA money.

That sounds like a NASA lunar mission.


wrong again as usual.  The point is if NASA isn't funding Ares I & V or Direct, then NASA isn't funding lunar missions.

I disagree with that completely.  NASA has never built a thing on its own - it has always contracted out the construction of its launch vehicles.  The only difference between a lunar mission using the Saturn V and a lunar mission using a commercial launch vehicle is the contract that defines the relationship between the LV builder and the end user (NASA).  The piece of paper defining the ownership of the LV would be the only difference between a "traditional" lunar mission and one utilizing a COTS launch vehicle, and the public would never know (or care) about the difference.  NASA astronauts walking around a NASA moon base is all they would see, and if that could be done more efficiently through the use of COST LVs, then that would be all the better.

I, as a tax payer, would love to see NASA get out of the LV business altogether.  I absolutely feel COTS is the way to go, and that NASA should be a purchaser of vehicle services rather than a builder of vehicles.  If NASA were to commit to X lunar missions per year for the next 30 years using a COTS LV provider, I imagine a way could be found to make a profit.  And every flight would be a NASA flight.

Ross has created a separate thread for ANY AND ALL discussion of a commercial variant of the Jupiter launch vehicles; all applications, whether used by NASA or not.

Please move ALL such posts to the thread that was created for them. They do not belong here. Go HERE instead. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13504.msg291409#msg291409).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2008 02:24 pm
What about APAS-89? Then docking with Shenzhou and modified Soyuz/ATV would be quite easy or is LIDS as easy to implement for other nations as is APAS?

Huh?    APAS is not easy for other nations to implement, they would have to buy the hardware from RSC-E.

Also the issue is about structural capability and not commonality.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 06/18/2008 02:31 pm
Quote
Ross has created a separate thread for ANY AND ALL discussion of a commercial variant of the Jupiter launch vehicles; all applications, whether used by NASA or not.

Please move ALL such posts to the thread that was created for them. They do not belong here. Go HERE instead. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13504.msg291409#msg291409).

My post was an artifact of replying-to-posts-in-the-order-read.  You need to give a little time for those of us who don't read the forum hourly to reach the post announcing the new thread before you get too bent out of shape about new posts on the forbidden topic.  That's just the nature of the beast with threads.  I wasn't ignoring your injunction, just hadn't reached it yet.

Regards
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Swatch on 06/18/2008 08:38 pm
Let me preface what I'm about to say with the fact that I am quickly becoming a staunch supporter of DIRECT in the face of the NOVA-esque boondoggle that Ares V looks to become.

I wanted to put forth a few questions though.  First off, if Ares V has to grow bigger to accommodate the requirements of the Orion program, how has DIRECT managed to absorb these requirements?  DIRECT, like Ares V, will be carrying an EDS and LSAM, however it's doing so with only 3 engines and 2-4seg motors vs. 5(6) engines and 2-5.5seg motors.  What accounts for this discrepancy?

Secondly:  Who are the people currently working to make DIRECT a reality?

Thirdly:  How much difficulty would there be in designing a new thrust structure for the ET-tanking at this point and how long would it probably take?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zachstar on 06/19/2008 06:24 am
Atleast for me. I am attempting to aid the future reality of Direct by growing support within my political party.

Thankfully, If successful the candidate from the party (Obama) Could fall back to Direct (And obviously a delay as that is how the game works in congress) Rather than looking at the monster failure in my view (Current Ares Program) And canning the whole thing with little more than a digg article and a few seconds on the news before they return to live coverage of a Movie Star's baby.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/19/2008 04:30 pm
Ross/Chuck/et.al.:

One of the detractions we've heard before is that DIRECT is too much for ISS, therefore not appropriate.

You've listed the replacement of STS-payload delivery capability to ISS (through the SSPDM) as one benefit. 

How about some others using J-120's "surplus capacity" to ISS, such as carrying up an ISS reboost module, or even a second CEV in payload form for use as a cargo de-orbit module, or as an ECRV/runabout?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/19/2008 06:26 pm

Beefing up the docking system ... hmm... 


The answer of course is to go thru TLI on the J-2X “eyeballs in”, just like Apollo.
LIDS should not have to be designed as a structural member – that’s dumb.
Detach, rotate and re-dock after TLI, just like Apollo. The Ares architecture can’t do that, but the Jupiter-232 profile can do it. So the answer is, of course, don’t use the Ares. Fly the Jupiter instead. Problem solved.

"Jupiter profile" is so sleek... hanging a baseline to it and make it stick is very difficult.

So... page 14 from DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.1.pdf goes to the shredder.
Since figure 20 is a gonner ... while we wait for a replacement... may I ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/19/2008 06:51 pm

1/ replace the LIDS with CBM !


Not doable.   CBM is not a docking system.  It is a berthing system.

I am aware of it. That line was in jest.

Quote
Also it is "weaker" than a docking system

This is a surprising statement. I always thought that with all the bolts, larger diameter, etc. a berthing system is "tougher" than a docking one. But there is no data readily available on the net for LIDS or CBM limit loads.

Conceivably a berthing system could be developed to serve for assembling two ~70...90 tonnes subsystems like in the "Direct" proposal. I do not see placing a docking ring under the LSAM such a straightforward solution. Maybe 4 berthing pods.

Of course berthing "Direct"s EDS#1 with the LSAM/cargo or LSAM/CEV stack would mandate the presence of a robotic arm (Canadarm 3 ?!). Disposable.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/19/2008 07:11 pm
Ross/Chuck/et.al.:

One of the detractions we've heard before is that DIRECT is too much for ISS, therefore not appropriate.

That comes from a speech that Dr Griffin recently made. He chose his words carefully to lend a false impression without actually saying anything wrong. He was speaking of using the Jupiter-232 for ISS duty. That would make his statement a true statement. But we all know that the Jupiter-232 is not slated for ISS duty; it is a lunar and deep space launcher. We assign the Jupiter-120 to ISS and other LEO duty.

Note this:
The Shuttle delivers a manned spacecraft and ~20mT of cargo to the ISS
Jupiter-120 delivers a manned spacecraft and ~20mT of cargo to the ISS

The Jupiter-120 is every bit as perfectly matched for ISS duty as is the Space Shuttle, a point that Dr Griffin conveniently avoided by referencing the Jupiter-232 as being too much for ISS. His statement is totally accurate, and imo, deliberately misleading.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/19/2008 09:21 pm
The Jupiter-120 is every bit as perfectly matched for ISS duty as is the Space Shuttle, a point that Dr Griffin conveniently avoided by referencing the Jupiter-232 as being too much for ISS. His statement is totally accurate, and imo, deliberately misleading.

Yes, Dr. Griffin's answer is both accurate and misleading at the same time, though I don't know if it is deliberate misleading, or simply not being informed regarding the complete story around the DIRECT architecture.

I think the problem with your statement is that post-2010, Shuttle is also "too much for ISS", since assembly will be "complete".  So just saying that "J-120 = STS for ISS" could be interpreted as "J-120 is too much for ISS"...

...unless you present a list of reasons why the "surplus" capacity of J-120 makes it superior for ISS compared to Ares I (assuming both systems work as proposed).

Don't get me wrong, I agree that J-120 looks like a far more flexible solution for ISS operations, as you have the potential for mission modes that Ares I simply doesn't offer!

The point is that if you don't whet the appetite with why that extra ~20mT to ISS is "good", why shouldn't everyone buy what NASA is selling... that it is "too much"?

SSPDM and ISS completion missions are a good start here, I believe.  But I think a couple other proposed, potential ISS benefits for J-120 could help as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/20/2008 04:41 am
BongoMIPS, somewhere in the 250 page DIRECT2.0 thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7868.0 there are endless discussions of what the "spare" 20mt could be used for along with relevant discussions on the goodiness of mixing cargo and crew. There is probably some discussion in this thread's 50 pages too. Two that stand out in my recollection;
1) the possibility of carrying an ATV along and letting it find its own way to the ISS.
2) the possibility of creating a cradle with the same support structure as the shuttle payload bay to carry existing un-flown modules and using the CEV as a tug to deliver the cradle to the ISS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/20/2008 04:29 pm
In earlier discussion, I know Ross said that the DIRECT team would prefer an EELV as the ISS launcher for the initial phase. Is it possible for the CEV to be launched on an existing EELV, and Jupiter used as the cargo launcher?
This way Shuttle jobs are kept, and we get CEV on EELV much sooner.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/20/2008 04:57 pm
In earlier discussion, I know Ross said that the DIRECT team would prefer an EELV as the ISS launcher for the initial phase. Is it possible for the CEV to be launched on an existing EELV, and Jupiter used as the cargo launcher?
This way Shuttle jobs are kept, and we get CEV on EELV much sooner.

The mass of the CEV, as currently designed, is too much for either EELV. Having said that, I have to note that the majority of that mass is propellant in the SM, which was increased to allow Orion to complete the ascent to orbit on its own because of the inability of Ares-I to complete that task. So theoretically, if all that additional propellant were offloaded, then it becomes possible that either EELV could handle the job. We would need to actually look at that very carefully, because that's not a foregone conclusion. Even if the numbers support, that is easier said than done. Offloading that much propellant would change a lot of things on the SM and it would need to be traded as to whether or not it would be better to have a separate, smaller SM for LEO/ISS operations. Doing something like that however begins to negate a lot of what DIRECT has going for it; namely using the spacecraft as designed, rather than creating two separate spacecraft stacks. The cost savings of DIRECT could be eaten up quickly doing stuff like that. But yes, theoretically it is possible that could be done.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 06/20/2008 05:06 pm
In earlier discussion, I know Ross said that the DIRECT team would prefer an EELV as the ISS launcher for the initial phase. Is it possible for the CEV to be launched on an existing EELV, and Jupiter used as the cargo launcher?
This way Shuttle jobs are kept, and we get CEV on EELV much sooner.

The mass of the CEV, as currently designed, is too much for either EELV. Having said that, I have to note that the majority of that mass is propellant in the SM, which was increased to allow Orion to complete the ascent to orbit on its own because of the inability of Ares-I to complete that task. So theoretically, if all that additional propellant were offloaded, then it becomes possible that either EELV could handle the job. We would need to actually look at that very carefully, because that's not a foregone conclusion. Even if the numbers support, that is easier said than done. Offloading that much propellant would change a lot of things on the SM and it would need to be traded as to whether or not it would be better to have a separate, smaller SM for LEO/ISS operations. Doing something like that however begins to negate a lot of what DIRECT has going for it; namely using the spacecraft as designed, rather than creating two separate spacecraft stacks. The cost savings of DIRECT could be eaten up quickly doing stuff like that. But yes, theoretically it is possible that could be done.

I'm not so sure about that.  Much of the SM would need to remain the same.  The design of the prop system would remain the same regardless if they were smaller tanks or not.  I would make a guess that smaller tanks/slightly smaller SM package does not make a major impact over the current SM package/partially loaded tanks. 

While you certainly could make a LEO only version, which you really could do still anyway without significantly changing the OML of the ship, I'm not sure you would need to do that and some weight could certainly be lost from the very fact it is being only a taxi. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/20/2008 07:02 pm
General Message and Request

For all you supporters and non-supporters alike – PLEASE refrain from bringing the DIRECT architecture or the Jupiter launch vehicles into other threads, unless it is very specifically within the context of the thread. All it does is hijack those threads, make people angry and ruin our image, DIRECT’s prospects of being implemented, and other forum members enjoyment of what is otherwise the very best spaceflight forum on the internet.

Please be considerate of other people and what they want to discuss. If you see something on another thread that begs a DIRECT response, please come to THIS thread and post it here. Please do not post it over there. If it’s something that really is a comment to a specific poster, then use the PM to that poster.

I’ve been watching the names and number of posts all over the forum quite a lot lately, and I have noticed a DIRECT trend (pun definitely intended) of long term members visiting some of the other threads less and less frequently. Usually DIRECT shows up there in some form. Is it related? I don’t know, but I DO know that a lot of them had been complaining to the moderators for a long time about the constant mentioning of DIRECT as the be-all, save all answer on so many other threads that were not about DIRECT. Please – that has got to stop.

And so I’m asking all of you to please keep in mind that the other threads are about something else. People want to talk about other things than DIRECT, myself included. When you have a DIRECT thought, please come and post it here for all of us to discuss. Please let the rest of us enjoy the other threads for the topics they were initiated for, without fear of hijack. Everyone gains by that and everyone will appreciate it.

Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/21/2008 02:12 am
Although its difficult for instance, to discuss Ares V and its problems/capabilities without inevitably(?) referencing Jupiter/Direct, you are quite right, Chuck and I note your request.

Thank you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/21/2008 02:26 am
Although its difficult for instance, to discuss Ares V and its problems/capabilities without inevitably(?) referencing Jupiter/Direct, you are quite right, Chuck and I note your request.

Thank you.

Thanks Matt. But like I said, that's not an "absolute" prohibition. Mentioning DIRECT in another thread is fine so long as it actually contributes to the purpose of the thread. For example, a recent poster was talking about the TLI capability of the Ares-V and he compared it to several other launch vehicles, including the Jupiter-232, among others. In that case, the Jupiter's numbers were used as a point of reference and the subject of the post remained squarely about the Ares. Such an injection of the Jupiter is fine, because it contributes to the conversation within the context of that thread.

It's when there needs to be a stretch to see how it relates that it starts to upset people, and rightly so. I love DIRECT, obviously, but it's not the only interest I have. And everyone else is like that as well. When we turn our caps around and talk about something else, it becomes quite annoying to have someone inject something that doesn't belong, diluting the topic and sometimes causing friction. That has been happening too often lately, and that's what prompted my post.

Thank you Matt for supporting this, and thank you for your DIRECT support.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/21/2008 03:34 pm
Just getting back online after a week-long house move so am only just picking up the discussion again...

The Orion is internally being designed in two different configurations anyway, one for ISS and one for Lunar.   And I'm not just talking about internal seating arrangements in the CM - I'm on about mostly the deletion of two of the four fuel tanks in the SM for ISS missions flying on Ares-I.   This relatively simple and logical change has all-but been baselined inside CxP already and would cut the Orion's mass by about 4-5mT or so for ISS use - allowing it to fly on an EELV.

Obviously management won't announce this change because there would be a massive industry "foul ball" outcry, but there you have it.


And my position on EELV is not that I specifically prefer it initially for ISS use, but that I think Jupiter-120 and EELV together adds a layer of redundancy for US Human Spaceflight activities that no other plan is even contemplating yet.   If one suffers a stand-down, the other could continue US human access to space uninterrupted.

My actual preference is still to field Jupiter-120 first because that impacts the schedule for the Lunar missions too.   Once J-120 is flying operationally, then work with USAF and human-rate an EELV as well.   Doing the EELV first would remove $1bn from the very tight budget we have currently and that would result in slipping the Lunar schedule by a year or more.

That's my preferred approach.   Jupiter-120/Orion.   Then EELV.   Then Jupiter-232/LSAM.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 06/21/2008 03:43 pm
That would be great,

Jupiter - 120/Orion could finish the things left over from the STS program.

EELV may be cheaper for ISS long term than J-120 and would also get out of the way for COTS resupply.

Then then onto the real exploration with J-232.

I think that your politicians would like that plan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/21/2008 03:46 pm
Especially Senator Nelson.

If he doesn't get his extra Shuttle flight bill, the first operational Jupiter-120/Orion flight could bring AMS up to station in late 2012 - along with one of the MPLM's filled with spares and supplies.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/21/2008 04:34 pm
That would be great,

Jupiter - 120/Orion could finish the things left over from the STS program.

EELV may be cheaper for ISS long term than J-120 and would also get out of the way for COTS resupply.

Then then onto the real exploration with J-232.

I think that your politicians would like that plan.

I like the sound of that plan. Build Jupiter-120 to secure the Moon. Once the lunar ops are in place, retire the 120 from ISS service and hold a competition similar to COTS for the ISS launch vehicle.
This way SpaceX, ULA, and anyone else has a shot at launching the CEV to the ISS.
In the end you get affordable access to ISS, and you always have the 120 as a backup if something goes wrong with EELV or Falcon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/21/2008 06:27 pm
Exactly.

You close the gap after Shuttle to the minimum possible, saving the workforce and protecting the key infrastructure for the Lunar program later (especially important if Obama ever manages to slash NASA's budget).

You then qualify the EELV for routine ISS crew rotation work.   Maybe USAF would even consider cover some of the human-rating costs too.   We could probably get USAF to agree to assist NASA at existing launch facilities (cheaper) if their use is only 2 flights per year too.

You can still use the Jupiter-120 for any missions to LEO which need a crew & large bits of cargo/logistics (ISS upgrades, AMS, Hubble Servicing for example) and for any cargo payload an EELV can't handle (Mars Sample Return for example).

You then concentrate NASA Exploration efforts on upgrading the Jupiter to 232 specification for the moon.

Protect the workforce: Yes
Contractor Base Protected: Yes
Orion spacecraft includes all safety systems: Yes
ISS support: Yes, 2012.
Backup crew lift capabilities: Yes, 2013-14 ish.
Lunar capabilities: Yes, 2017.

Win x6.


And the later Propellant Depot plans open the path to an international market for 40-60 EELV class flights worldwide every year - business which US domestic launchers can all compete for.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/21/2008 07:00 pm
Sorry if this has been asked before, but you know me and curiosity.  ;)

Would a J-150 or J-252 with no SRBs at all get off the ground and have decent performance?  Assume I support the stack on the MLP with a tractor beam (I know of that minor issue ;) ).  It seems like that would be a sort of D-IV Heavy with 5 CBCs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/21/2008 07:47 pm
Sorry if this has been asked before, but you know me and curiosity.  ;)

Would a J-150 or J-252 with no SRBs at all get off the ground and have decent performance?  Assume I support the stack on the MLP with a tractor beam (I know of that minor issue ;) ).  It seems like that would be a sort of D-IV Heavy with 5 CBCs.

My BOTE calculations... (Thanks PaulL for spreadsheet!)

A Jupiter core with 5 engines (J-150) puts ~32mT in orbit.  Compare that to ~50mT for Jupiter core with 2 engines (J-120).

Notional J-252 puts ~91mT in LEO, ~36mT on TLI.
Notional J-232 puts ~105mT in LEO, ~41mT on TLI.

The trick is that 5 RS-68s burns that fuel WAY faster, not to mention weigh more.  You need a core stretch and/or diameter increase to provide more fuel for that many engines.

Also, 4 or 5 RS-68s might have plume impingement on the SRBs.  You might need a diameter increase to avoid that,

...and if you're gonna stretch the core, you could run longer SRBs... Say 5, or even 5.5 segments.

;D  ;D  ;D



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/21/2008 08:38 pm
Exactly BogoMIPS.   And as we all know, that path then leads further and further away from the cost effective "re-use" of the Shuttle hardware/infrastructure and eventually gets you to the Ares-V and all its 'issues'.

But I'll drag the topic back to the key question:   WHAT PERFORMANCE DO WE ACTUALLY NEED?

For the 1.5 launch solution, the CaLV must be a total behemoth to get sufficient performance because the CLV can't help.

For the 2.0 launch solution, the CaLV and CLV can be equal - and neither needs the everything-or-bust performance of Ares-V.

At that point we are lucky that what we have today in the Space Shuttle (ET & 4-seg SRB's) & the current-RS-68 engine makes for a really ideal match for what we actually need.

That's the "sweet spot" which we've tried to identify with DIRECT.


*If* we ever needed more performance, a Jupiter-25x series is still an option for the future.   But it works best with a larger Upper Stage.   A Jupiter-254 Heavy or Jupiter-255 Heavy configuration has an incredible amount of raw performance, although I'd suggest it only for Cargo use, its not ideal for Crew.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/21/2008 08:41 pm
The Orion is internally being designed in two different configurations anyway, one for ISS and one for Lunar.   And I'm not just talking about internal seating arrangements in the CM - I'm on about mostly the deletion of two of the four fuel tanks in the SM for ISS missions flying on Ares-I.   This relatively simple and logical change has all-but been baselined inside CxP already and would cut the Orion's mass by about 4-5mT or so for ISS use - allowing it to fly on an EELV.

Obviously management won't announce this change because there would be a massive industry "foul ball" outcry, but there you have it.

Before everyone shouts "foul ball" too loudly remember this is a major sales opportunity - your company will be trying to sell NASA several billion dollars worth of EELV.  NASA gets to decide which make of rockets the Orion will fit on.  Annoy NASA too much and it will be officially "too difficult" to fit Orion capsules on your rockets.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/21/2008 08:44 pm
The Orion is internally being designed in two different configurations anyway, one for ISS and one for Lunar.   And I'm not just talking about internal seating arrangements in the CM - I'm on about mostly the deletion of two of the four fuel tanks in the SM for ISS missions flying on Ares-I.   This relatively simple and logical change has all-but been baselined inside CxP already and would cut the Orion's mass by about 4-5mT or so for ISS use - allowing it to fly on an EELV.

Obviously management won't announce this change because there would be a massive industry "foul ball" outcry, but there you have it.

Before everyone shouts "foul ball" too loudly remember this is a major sales opportunity - your company will be trying to sell NASA several billion dollars worth of EELV.  NASA gets to decide which make of rockets the Orion will fit on.  Annoy NASA too much and it will be officially "too difficult" to fit Orion capsules on your rockets.

Yep.   That's *precisely* what has been going on over the last few years.

Anyone remember Lockheed being silenced regarding their promotion of Atlas-V for human use?   The Orion contract was held over ther heads and they silenced their people.   Anyone remember "Kayla"?


DIRECT has a lot of support all over the place.   Within NASA, within the contractors, government and local political organizations, even members of the press.   The big thing that holds them all back is the fear of retaliation in some way or another from Griffin.   NASA employees don't get promotions or risk pensions.   Contractors would lose lucrative new contracts.   Political figures would get work re-assigned to different regions.   Press would lose accreditation and/or access to inside sources.

I don't blame any of them for not speaking out with those threats hanging over them.   I'd like them all to speak up together, at the same time because from my position at 40,000ft I can see specifically just how much influence they would actually have if they all rallied together.   Griffin couldn't face the strength there if everyone just got coordinated.

Of course, soon as he's gone, that problem will go away.   So everyone's just taking the less-risky option of biding their time and just waiting for G-day.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/21/2008 09:00 pm
Sorry if this has been asked before, but you know me and curiosity.  ;)

Would a J-150 or J-252 with no SRBs at all get off the ground and have decent performance?  Assume I support the stack on the MLP with a tractor beam (I know of that minor issue ;) ).  It seems like that would be a sort of D-IV Heavy with 5 CBCs.

My BOTE calculations... (Thanks PaulL for spreadsheet!)

A Jupiter core with 5 engines (J-150) puts ~32mT in orbit.  Compare that to ~50mT for Jupiter core with 2 engines (J-120).

Notional J-252 puts ~91mT in LEO, ~36mT on TLI.
Notional J-232 puts ~105mT in LEO, ~41mT on TLI.

The trick is that 5 RS-68s burns that fuel WAY faster, not to mention weigh more.  You need a core stretch and/or diameter increase to provide more fuel for that many engines.

Also, 4 or 5 RS-68s might have plume impingement on the SRBs.  You might need a diameter increase to avoid that,

...and if you're gonna stretch the core, you could run longer SRBs... Say 5, or even 5.5 segments.

;D  ;D  ;D





BogoMIPS, I think that what is asked here is the payload capability without any SRB.  In such condition, I found with CEPE that the J-150 would not be able to put a positive payload in LEO.  According to CEPE estimation, the only Direct rocket able to act as a SSTO is the J-130 core and that barely (without fairing or payload adapter): 300 kg gross payload in a 185 km circular orbit at 28.5 degrees inclination.

The J-252 rocket without SRB is a much more better rocket: 72.2 mT gross CEPE estimated payload in LEO (241 km circular orbit, 28.5 degrees inclination) and 24.3 mT gross CEPE estimated payload to TLI (umanned trajectory).

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/22/2008 01:45 am
BogoMIPS, I think that what is asked here is the payload capability without any SRB.  In such condition, I found with CEPE that the J-150 would not be able to put a positive payload in LEO.  According to CEPE estimation, the only Direct rocket able to act as a SSTO is the J-130 core and that barely (without fairing or payload adapter): 300 kg gross payload in a 185 km circular orbit at 28.5 degrees inclination.

The J-252 rocket without SRB is a much more better rocket: 72.2 mT gross CEPE estimated payload in LEO (241 km circular orbit, 28.5 degrees inclination) and 24.3 mT gross CEPE estimated payload to TLI (umanned trajectory).

PaulL

Yes indeed, this is what I was asking.  I only asked about the 150 for completeness, but it makes sense that it needs a second stage, just like the D-IV heavy.  Thanks for the answer, and remember this was another of my curiosity questions (just trying to learn about rocketry), not a suggestion as to a way forward.  I support the J-120 + J-232 approach with SRBs as proposed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/22/2008 02:22 am
BogoMIPS, I think that what is asked here is the payload capability without any SRB.
Yes indeed, this is what I was asking.
D'oh.  I should've read that closer... My bad.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/22/2008 02:32 am
Exactly.

You close the gap after Shuttle to the minimum possible, saving the workforce and protecting the key infrastructure for the Lunar program later (especially important if Obama ever manages to slash NASA's budget).

You then qualify the EELV for routine ISS crew rotation work.   Maybe USAF would even consider cover some of the human-rating costs too.   We could probably get USAF to agree to assist NASA at existing launch facilities (cheaper) if their use is only 2 flights per year too.

You can still use the Jupiter-120 for any missions to LEO which need a crew & large bits of cargo/logistics (ISS upgrades, AMS, Hubble Servicing for example) and for any cargo payload an EELV can't handle (Mars Sample Return for example).

You then concentrate NASA Exploration efforts on upgrading the Jupiter to 232 specification for the moon.

Protect the workforce: Yes
Contractor Base Protected: Yes
Orion spacecraft includes all safety systems: Yes
ISS support: Yes, 2012.
Backup crew lift capabilities: Yes, 2013-14 ish.
Lunar capabilities: Yes, 2017.

Win x6.


And the later Propellant Depot plans open the path to an international market for 40-60 EELV class flights worldwide every year - business which US domestic launchers can all compete for.

Ross.

Another note I should point out...NASA has been using multiple launchers in the unmanned area of spaceflight for years. There is no reason why crew has to be allotted to one launch vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 06/22/2008 12:39 pm
An article about Direct on Orlando Sentinel website :

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-rocket2208jun22,0,6150021.story
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/22/2008 02:27 pm
That is a great article! Thanks for posting
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/22/2008 03:11 pm
Quote
But Metschan says his supporters will attend a rally before the hearing; organizers are hoping to attract 6,400 people, to dramatize the number of workers who could be laid off. Direct supporters will hand out pamphlets seeking more converts and the public scrutiny he thinks the project deserves.

kraisee, are you going out to the cape for this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2008 03:16 pm
I'm going to be there handing out postcards & leaflets.

There will only be a few of us DIRECT guys there, because this event is happening during work hours for most, but we will have a presence.

The four different postcards we have look *beautiful* and we really hope that people will stick them up somewhere really visible at work or at home.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2008 03:17 pm
An article about Direct on Orlando Sentinel website :

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-rocket2208jun22,0,6150021.story

That is awesome!

I think we're reaching critical mass at last people...

Its on their front page too.   You can Download a pdf version of their Front Page here (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/about/orl-frontpage,0,7602011.htmlstory) but here is a simple jpg of it too...

(http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/FrontPage_Sentinel.jpg)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 06/22/2008 03:43 pm
You need a congressional champion who's not afraid to tussle, a la Gore vs. Fletcher. But I understand that you don't want this to be contentious. Good luck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/22/2008 03:46 pm
I just read the article is it very favorable..Somethere there should tape the presentation....Now to see if other news outlets will pick it up.  I wonder if a TV station in the area has been contacted and will attend the presentation and maybe mention Direct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2008 03:57 pm
A private e-mail pointed out that the article doesn't explain *how* we plan to "save the workforce" and that some may draw the mistaken impression that this is a "workers welfare" program.

I'd like to take a moment here and clarify that once more.

DIRECT will not keep the entire Space Shuttle workforce doing work on the replacement Jupiter-120 launch vehicle.   

About half of the current workforce will be reassigned to new elements like the Earth Departure Stage, the new Lunar Lander and the variety of Lunar Outpost modules - all of which can be accelerated by 2 years if we don't have to spend all that money building Ares-V first.

Make no mistake - the full Lunar Program will be noticeably larger than the Space Shuttle/International Space Station we have today.


The trick is getting the staff we have today across the 'gap' and into the new program without massive lay-offs.


There will be a period after Shuttle, where the new elements are still ramping-up though and the workforce no longer has work on the Shuttle's either.   During this 'transition period' - which could last 2-4 years - DIRECT's plan is to create a series of new missions which can use the extra performance of teh Jupiter-120 (compared to Ares-I) to 'pick up' the affected workforce for a few years and make real use of them during the transition period.

Firstly, we are planning to build new carrier modules to allow us to fly Shuttle payloads up to the space station.   They need to be designed, built and fitted-out for use.   There will be many airframe and TPS engineers working Shuttle today who would be perfectly suited for taking on such a project at KSC.   Using these, Shuttle payloads such as the $1.5bn Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) could be delivered to station and the three Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM), Leonardo, Raffaello, and Donatello could all fly one more time to ISS delivering valuable spares and supplies to the station around 2012-2015 - with Orion crews.

We are planning a Lunar Flyby mission for 2013 which will require the human-rating of a Delta-IV Heavy's Upper Stage, propulsion engineers can take on.

We are planning another Hubble Servicing Mission in the 2014-2015 timeframe which will require planning and preparation too.

There are other unmanned missions which also become possible too, such as JPL's Mars Sample Return (MSR) missions which is looking for a larger more capable rocket to launch upon than any we currently posses.   Jupiter-120 would be the perfect solution for it.   And the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) missions could be re-started again too thanks to NASA having more cash available each year for Science missions instead of developing two new launchers.

I just wanted to make sure people understand that the jobs aren't all going to be on the Jupiter, but that there will be work for anyone who wants it within the much larger program - which will be expanding far beyond just the launch vehicles.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 06/22/2008 04:01 pm
According to CEPE estimation, the only Direct rocket able to act as a SSTO is the J-130 core and that barely (without fairing or payload adapter): 300 kg gross payload in a 185 km circular orbit at 28.5 degrees inclination.

Ah-ha! So SSTO is possible!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Marsman on 06/22/2008 04:05 pm
Perhaps instead of a slogan along the lines of DIRECT: Save the workforce; instead use something like DIRECT: Utilize the workforce.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: AresWatcher on 06/22/2008 05:23 pm
An article about Direct on Orlando Sentinel website :


Wow. Does this change NASASpaceflight.coms position on covering Direct  development in news articles?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 06/22/2008 06:40 pm
According to CEPE estimation, the only Direct rocket able to act as a SSTO is the J-130 core and that barely (without fairing or payload adapter): 300 kg gross payload in a 185 km circular orbit at 28.5 degrees inclination.

Ah-ha! So SSTO is possible!

I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't. Expendable SSTO is not just possible but easy; several rocket stages developed in the 60s had SSTO performance by themselves. It's just that there would be no point in doing the stunt since the payload was typically miniscule compared to the size of the stage; the cost per pound of payload would typically be higher than the corresponding multi-stage ELV. And cost-per-pound is the point.

Reusable SSTO, on the other hand, is quite difficult.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2008 07:29 pm
Here are some Letter-sized leaflet designs based on the four different Postcard designs which we will be handing out at Port Canaveral tomorrow morning.

We strongly encourage you to print copies for yourselves and stick them up at work/home to get attention - especially if you work in the program!

And if you know anyone who might like to know something about DIRECT, please pass one (or more) of these along.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2008 07:38 pm
I can't add any more attachments to messages so there two images of the postcards will have to go here instead...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 06/22/2008 08:28 pm
I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't. Expendable SSTO is not just possible but easy; several rocket stages developed in the 60s had SSTO performance by themselves. It's just that there would be no point in doing the stunt since the payload was typically miniscule compared to the size of the stage; the cost per pound of payload would typically be higher than the corresponding multi-stage ELV. And cost-per-pound is the point.

Reusable SSTO, on the other hand, is quite difficult.

It`s ok, I`m just a noob.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 06/22/2008 08:55 pm
Ross,

Could you still close NASA's requirements with a J-232 lifting the CEV/LSAM and a J-231 being the EDS LV/upper stage ? Just in case you only could have one J2-X on the EDS because of the docking mechanism.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ckiki lwai on 06/22/2008 08:58 pm
Drrooooll
These postcards are beautiful!

But the quotes of Mike Griffin are a bit confusing...
It's like Mike Griffin is behind Direct, while he isn't.
Is there some kind of philosophy behind it that don't get?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jimvela on 06/22/2008 09:13 pm
But the quotes of Mike Griffin are a bit confusing...
It's like Mike Griffin is behind Direct, while he isn't.
Is there some kind of philosophy behind it that don't get?

It looks to me more like "turnabout is fair play"...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/22/2008 10:22 pm
An article about Direct on Orlando Sentinel website :

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-rocket2208jun22,0,6150021.story

This article paints DIRECT as a welfare program for Kennedy Space Center employees.  This is not a winning argument.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/22/2008 10:25 pm
The philosophy is that its even more difficult to argue against points you've made yourself.

The more arguments we can use of Griffin's which support our position - and there are *LOTS* - the fewer things he can argue against without looking like a hypocrite.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/23/2008 12:08 am
I love the postcards. A+.  The qutoes remind me of a political ad program--short and to the point!

Now to phase II...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/23/2008 12:08 am
I find it funny and ironic that under Ares I the Orlando article states, "NASA says: DIRECT 2.0 lacks enough power to go to the Moon"

HAHAHA! That's hilarious! I guess it was opposite day when NASA came up that statement.

The chart is a little off in some areas...they state that both Ares and DIRECT use the existing Shuttle boosters...wrong, since Ares now uses 5 and 5.5 segment boosters.

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2008 12:14 am
An article about Direct on Orlando Sentinel website :

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-rocket2208jun22,0,6150021.story

This article paints DIRECT as a welfare program for Kennedy Space Center employees.  This is not a winning argument.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed, I think the article is supposed to attract non-space folk to the basic idea, nothing more.   The technical details of the how or the why are not going to be of any interest to most readers, but this is a simple article meant to be an introduction for people in the 'non space' community, but who might be affected by the fallout of the job losses here in the central Florida region.

It works from that point of view.

The technical stuff can follow later for those who are interested in finding out more.   I've left a comment on the discussion forum there that this thread is a good place to come ask questions for anyone who wishes.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/23/2008 12:16 am
Ross,

Could you still close NASA's requirements with a J-232 lifting the CEV/LSAM and a J-231 being the EDS LV/upper stage ? Just in case you only could have one J2-X on the EDS because of the docking mechanism.
 

Ross should be able "officially" confirm the answer to your question, but playing with the CEPE spreadsheet, it seems that the J-231 should be able to handle both the EDS and LSAM/CEV flights. CEPE estimates that by switching to the J-231, the LEO net payload of the LSAM/CEV flight would be reduced from 96.9 mT to 90.9 mT or, if the J-2X engine is selected, 92 mT. This is still more than enough to put both crafts in LEO.

According to CEPE, the EDS flight launched by the J-231 would still be able to put 100.4 mT of propellant in LEO compared to 101.3 for the J-232. A J-231 with J-2X engine would do slighlty better: 100.8 mT. As the lost in propellant is less than the mass of a J-2XD engine, the TLI payload capability of the EDS would actually increase.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2008 01:37 am
PaulL,
Our performance numbers for a Jupiter-231 configuration are a fair bit below that.   We're losing over 12mT to LEO compared to the regular Jupiter-232 - even for an optimized configuration.

And as you've already seen for yourself, a full J-2X doesn't buy back much more than a ton of that at best.

You do end up with a lighter EDS burnout mass, but it's still not sufficient to make up for the short-fall and doesn't 'close' the performance target of 75,085kg thru TLI - you end up losing about 7mT payload mass in total.

So we're sticking with 2x Jupiter-232.   It also reduces development & operational costs significantly by sticking with the single variant too - and you also get more flight experience with each piece of hardware too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/23/2008 04:28 am
First off, I have to say the postcards look great.

I remember you saying something earlier about T-Shirts Ross...great idea, however with all of the great visuals available, have you thought about posters?
I mean all 4 images used on the postcards would also make great full size posters.

It would be great to have a giant piece of art to tack up on the wall, or even frame.

I mean, I know you don't want DIRECT to turn into some commercial operation, but I know there are people out there willing to pay for such high quality artwork that has come out of this endeavor.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jjnodice on 06/23/2008 02:21 pm
The Orlando Sentinel article is on the front page of the Huntsville Times today (Monday June 23).  The article is titled, "Will NASA indirectly stifle best rocket?" with a subtitle of "Backers say Direct 2.0 is cheaper, better than Ares".  No graphics were included with the article.

Congrats on the press time!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 06/23/2008 02:42 pm
http://www.al.com/huntsvilletimes/pageone/monday.pdf

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 06/23/2008 03:31 pm
Front page news at two newspapers serving NASA centers.....will Houston and Washington be next?

Great press for the Direct Team.  Attaboy!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Squid.erau on 06/23/2008 03:41 pm
Also, the Lockheed-Martin Mission Services daily news e-mail included this article.  I'm pretty sure it goes out to all LM CEV employees in Houston. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2008 03:48 pm
Gladiator,
We have made use of the CafePress.com system to make a range of "DIRECT" related merchandise from T-Shirts to Mugs to Calendars and Clocks.

Please be aware that we (DIRECT) make no money from this.   These are the base prices Cafe Express charges for the merchandise itself, we take no cut at all.

So I hope that any of you who wish to will Enjoy flying the DIRECT colors! :)   Have at it!

http://www.cafepress.com/directlauncher/

Ross.

PS - I think the Teddy Bear is really cute! :)

(http://images.cafepress.com/product/273767941v1_150x150_Front.jpg)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2008 05:07 pm
We had an excellent response today at the Link To Launch event in Cape Canaveral.

Handed out more than 600 Postcards and Leaflets and got a lot of recognition by a lot of USA workers there, many saying "yeah, thats what we should be doing" while pointing at the "Be DIRECT" T-Shirts and leaflets.

We've already noticed a peak in traffic at our website since the Orlando Sentinel article yesterday, and with the Huntsville Times picking it up as well, I expect today will be a fairly busy time.

We are at the point where we want people to understand the key questions: "why is Ares costing so much and taking so long?" and "why are we sacrificing the US workforce almost completely while outsourcing $2bn to Russia at the same time?".


These both lead to a much simpler question:   "What are the alternatives?"



Right now NASA's Administrator has made it plainly clear he is strongly against any other plan but Ares.

So we want a truly Independent Review - not performed by NASA - to make sure that the US Government is spending money on developing the right hardware for this 40-year long program and isn't repeating the mistakes of Shuttle by simply believing what the Administrator claims - completely absent of any independent validation - that 'all will be fine' with the shiny new systems, only to find that they end up too expensive to use as often as hoped, not safe enough, underpowered and are going to all be late too.

We have suffered with Shuttle because it was never able to deliver what it promised - 50 flights per year to reduce the cost of launching lots of payload ended up being 6 or 7 per year - which made it very uneconomical to use.

I hope we will not make that same mistake again by developing two very expensive new launchers which we will never have sufficient money to actually make use of - as Ares appears to be - and all while sacrificing the majority of the great people who have supported the program with their livelihoods.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 06/23/2008 05:39 pm
Ross-

I think that's a great idea.

Who do you think should carry out the independent review, and who would initiate it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 06/23/2008 05:49 pm
RAND has been suggested, IIRC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2008 05:58 pm
Correct Crispy,
RAND would be our primary choice because we believe they have no historic affiliation with anyone connected to Ares and none to us either.

Aerospace Corporation is another alternative which has been suggested to us, but they do have a few loose connections in the past to Griffin, so I'd still recommend RAND.


And I would also like Congress to instruct CBO and GAO to work up a completely independent financial comparison between Ares and DIRECT too.   I would have a lot of faith in their results being fair.


I'm convinced that on a level playing field DIRECT would outshine Ares by quite a long way.   And I think most people inside NASA know it too.   However, I no longer believe a NASA run by Mike Griffin would be able to ever give us such a fair hearing because it does not achieve his personal ambition of creating a larger rocket than von Braun's mighty Saturn-V.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 06/23/2008 07:05 pm
RAND is tied in with the Air Force, but I don't know if that negates its impartiality or not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2008 07:44 pm
I can live with that.

I don't believe that USAF/ULA are trying to distort anything.   I think they'd be happier if we had a fair fight too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kenny008 on 06/23/2008 07:56 pm
The Chicago Tribune has picked up the story:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080623-nasa-rocket-ares-story,0,6724124.story

It was distributed via AIA dailyLead news service.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2008 07:58 pm
Chicago Tribune owns Orlando Sentinel so that's a logical thing.   But wow, I'm so glad after 2.5 years of hard work, that we are getting some real exposure to the larger space community and the general public.

I know of at least two other news outlets who are also looking at stories too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/23/2008 08:02 pm
Also on United Press international:

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2008/06/22/Jupiter_rocket_eyed_by_space_enthusiasts/UPI-36521214175869/

Also on Aero-News Network:

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=653acb0d-ec77-4419-8c33-597690a7378e
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/23/2008 08:22 pm
Ron,
Both of those are re-written versions - nice.   I'm delighted to see the coverage and thanks for locating the links.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/23/2008 09:20 pm
Ron,
Both of those are re-written versions - nice.   I'm delighted to see the coverage and thanks for locating the links.

Ross.

Google news seems to show it popping up everywhere:

http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=%22Direct+2.0%22&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/23/2008 09:34 pm
Is it worth while issuing a press release with a link to the website and a picture of the rocket plus the video showing the Shuttle changing into J-120?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: riney on 06/23/2008 09:45 pm
Not to nitpick, but "retirement" is misspelled in the opening moments of that video. ("Shuttle retirment in 2010-2011")

--riney
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/24/2008 02:49 am
Wow, this is taking off...literally.

Congrats guys...just bought a poster on cafe press.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rdale on 06/24/2008 02:52 am
Wow, this is taking off...literally.

Literally? That'd be news to all of us here ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/24/2008 03:22 am
I wish literally, but I exaggerate. But all in all, this thing is finally getting the outside attention it deserves.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: CFE on 06/24/2008 03:53 am
This question may have been asked before, but does DIRECT have a solution for the problems of loads transmitted into the LIDS during the TLI burn?  This is already a problem for the single-engine EDS on Ares, and it would seem to be a bigger problem for DIRECT.  It might be advisable to simply change the rendezvous point from earth orbit to lunar orbit, after both EDS have been discarded (assuming one EDS for Altair and one for Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/24/2008 05:18 am
I had posted this in the Ares V forum, but to avoid mentioning Direct in that thread, I'm posting this here. I hope that is OK.

Here's the NASA press release (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/jun/HQ_08155_LCCR.html) announcing Ares VI, although still calling it Ares V. I thought this quote was amusing.

"To accomplish those objectives, the current configuration of the Ares V will use six RS-68B liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen engines on a core stage along with two five-and-one-half segment solid propellant rocket boosters, which are a direct evolution from the first stage of the Ares I rocket."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/24/2008 06:02 am
This question may have been asked before, but does DIRECT have a solution for the problems of loads transmitted into the LIDS during the TLI burn?  This is already a problem for the single-engine EDS on Ares, and it would seem to be a bigger problem for DIRECT.  It might be advisable to simply change the rendezvous point from earth orbit to lunar orbit, after both EDS have been discarded (assuming one EDS for Altair and one for Orion.

With LOR that would require a larger Orion, but the opposite with L2 rendezvous (and still no thrusts while docked)...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/24/2008 11:27 am
Not to nitpick, but "retirement" is misspelled in the opening moments of that video. ("Shuttle retirment in 2010-2011")

--riney

Good catch. Thanks riney. It's fixed now.
Chuck
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/24/2008 11:58 am
This question may have been asked before, but does DIRECT have a solution for the problems of loads transmitted into the LIDS during the TLI burn?  This is already a problem for the single-engine EDS on Ares, and it would seem to be a bigger problem for DIRECT  … [snip]

From the AIAA paper, page 86 & 87:

Quote
This approach will also provide enough margin to maintain the LSAM and CEV in their respective launch manifest positions as shown in figure 104. Some Payload Fairing (PLF) design configurations would allow a portion of the aero shell to be jettisoned on accent revealing a truss structure enabling the CEV to deploy its solar panels. This TLI configuration could solve a current concern in that the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), and in particular the extremely mass sensitive Lunar Surface Ascent Vehicle (LSAV). Both spacecraft will need to support the high inertial compression loads of the CEV during TLI in the current ESAS plan. The need to prevent these elements from being crushed under the inertial strain of the CEV above it in the TLI stack could increase their respective weights significantly above that required by the actual lunar surface mission. Any increase in mass of a component that must transit to and from the lunar surface will result in significant increases in the total Initial Mass in Low Earth Orbit (IMLEO) number. While carrying some portion of the payload manifest adaptor all the way through the TLI burn will detract for the useful mass placed on a lunar trajectory, the inertial loading of Astronauts, CEV and LSAM will be from their primary load directions. As such this may produce an overall improvement in mass available for the lunar mission all things considered. Because the current ESAS plan is so limited they must continue along their current pre-TLI configuration path of having the CEV attached to the nose of the LSAM during the TLI burn. With DIRECT we have other options should they be needed.

This configuration initially involved a small amount pf propellant transfer once in LEO, but refinements have since eliminated the need for that. We are able to send the lunar stack thru TLI in the “as-launched” configuration, completely eliminating the stresses that are your concern. After the TLI burn, Orion detaches, rotates and docks with the LSAM, exactly the same as Apollo. This is not possible with the Ares profile, but DIRECT handles it with ease.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 06/24/2008 02:25 pm
I had posted this in the Ares V forum, but to avoid mentioning Direct in that thread, I'm posting this here. I hope that is OK.

Here's the NASA press release (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/jun/HQ_08155_LCCR.html) announcing Ares VI, although still calling it Ares V. I thought this quote was amusing.

"To accomplish those objectives, the current configuration of the Ares V will use six RS-68B liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen engines on a core stage along with two five-and-one-half segment solid propellant rocket boosters, which are a direct evolution from the first stage of the Ares I rocket."

They wish that it will be a direct evolution. But in reality, the 5.5 seg booster will be as much of an evolution of the Ares I first stage, as the Delta IV is an evolution of the rest of the Delta family.

It is funny, even they have realized it is pure insanity to call this thing Shuttle Derived anymore...now its "Ares I derived".  ;D

It seems a lot of Ares these days is based on appearances, rather than hard facts. Ares I-X looks like the real deal, when in reality it has as much in common with Ares I as that model rocket you can buy at the local hobby store.
Ares I looks Shuttle derived, when in reality it uses a new 5 seg booster and a pretty much new upperstage engine. There is nothing truly Shuttle derived about it.
And Ares V...well damn, Ares V doesn't even look Shuttle derived anymore. A blind man could see that one. But still HQ still tries to pass it off as "Ares I derived".

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/24/2008 03:27 pm
Is it worth while issuing a press release with a link to the website and a picture of the rocket plus the video showing the Shuttle changing into J-120?

I'm not actually sure what the normal conventions are for releasing Press Releases.

If we can, it would be a pretty good thing to do IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: iontyre on 06/24/2008 05:27 pm
Ross and friends,

Just discovered this proposal.  I must say this is RIGHT ON!!  Wish I had the candidates ear!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/24/2008 06:50 pm

I noticed this as well...not to play devils advocate, but what changed Keith's mind? A few weeks ago, anyone supporting DIRECT on his site was classed as a "Direct amazing people".

Happily for us, it plays well for DIRECT. There appears to be a growing consensus that all is not well within NASA and that perhaps an independent review of DIRECT might be in order.

One can only hope that sufficient public exposure causes the Congress to seek one.

Edit: I have removed my personal comment about Keith. It was inappropriate of me to make such an observation and is therefore deleted.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 06/25/2008 01:27 am
Is it worth while issuing a press release with a link to the website and a picture of the rocket plus the video showing the Shuttle changing into J-120?

I'm not actually sure what the normal conventions are for releasing Press Releases.

If we can, it would be a pretty good thing to do IMHO.

Ross.

I think to find ou the "normal" way to do a press release would maybe to talk to the people at NASASPACEFLIGHT and/or SPACE.COM and ask them.  Another thing that you may want to do talk to person who runs NASAWATCH and maybe do an interview with him.  Ask him what he likes/dislikes about the Direct concept.  Why do the interview? not to change anyone's mind--but to get a differant prespective, found out what he thinks is lacking in the concept.  One of the good things in the US, is a free debate about people's ideas--the good and bad.  Make him list out A,B,C what are wrong, right and be prepared to discuss the proposal.  Kieth may find agruments that people have overlooked to make it a better proposal.

At the end of the day what do people want?  A better space program using Direct or something.  How does calling people names etc, help this matter? Kieth like the majority here, wants to see NASA's data.  People can critique, disagree but do it in a positive way. Think how we can learn from each other and make the US have a better space program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2008 06:10 am
I do not believe there is any hope of getting a fair interview with him, so we would not accept such an invite even if it were to be received.


But we would be delighted to talk to any organization wishing to know more about DIRECT.

We can do interviews, presentations or just answer questions either privately or publicly here on this forum - whatever people like to do, we can work with them.

We welcome any press contacts or chances to reasonably debate the issues.   In fact, a means to legitimately and fairly compare the options - based on real data, not speculation - is precisely what we are striving to get from Congress.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2008 08:17 am
We would expect the EELV's to be included too.

But they can't do much about the Shuttle jobs (Orion will employ only about 600 of the total 21,000 current workforce).   They'd lose even more than Ares is going to.   I don't think they'll actually get much consideration from Congress because of that issue alone.

I'm also convinced that the EELV costs can't match Jupiter in the Lunar arena either - although I do think they're better value than Ares.

And third, it doesn't seem likely that they can realistically support a Mars mission.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Achilles on 06/25/2008 08:56 am
Agree with most of your post Ross.  I was just speculating why a certain well-known EELV advocate might nefariously soften his stance on DIRECT :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Launch Fan on 06/25/2008 10:34 am
What is interesting is the denials of Direct's claims in news media, like this one,

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/121438279465780.xml&coll=2

Apparently it's not safe.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/25/2008 02:20 pm
I don't think I'd be all that pleased about people commenting about NSF or me on another site. So can you all keep it on Direct please.

If it's related to another site, use that other site - and keep it on that other site. I don't want to be seeing duplication of questions/opinon on another site and then repeated here, as that's where it'll get messy and annoying.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 06/25/2008 02:51 pm
It seems the NASA's main problem with Direct at least officially is related to a strange aversion to launching crew and cargo on the same rocket. That also includes the lunar lander as cargo.

It is strange since they have been doing so with STS for almost 30 years and neither accident was cargo related. Both crews would be just as dead if they had had an empty cargo bay.

They claim that Direct is over powered for sending Orion to ISS  and under powered for lunar objectives, but both claims are only true if you refuse to launch crew and cargo on the same rocket.

Given that it is now clear that both Ares I & V are under powered for their intended jobs, this claim is rather mute. Here is a perfect time to make the change with out embarrassment. All they need to do is call the J120, Ares II and the J232, Ares III. They come out looking really good. So the only real problem seems to be one of ego.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2008 04:43 pm
The only reason to continue with Ares is if you are determined to build the largest rocket in history.

It's no longer about 'doing the job' - its all about getting the gargantuan Ares-V - by any means necessary.

In the path is $30bn of development money, $7.5bn worth of annual operational budget, more than 7,000 NASA Contractor jobs (mostly at USA), $2bn outsourcing to Russia, virtually no US ISS support for 6 years (the year it is supposed to retire in) and the whole Shuttle infrastructure and manufacturing capability.   Nothing important - apparently.

It seems everything is open to be wrecked just as long as we get the big bad expensive Ares-V and Mike gets recognized ahead of von Braun for making the biggest baddest world-record holding rocket of them all.

Don't worry that the last time we made a rocket that size and that expensive it got canceled after just 12 flights.   I don't think the Administration wants to remember that bit though...   Takes the shine off the goal.

Ares-I will be over budget, late and under-powered.   So once that's up and running, we will be going cap-in-hand to WH & Congress, asking "please give us even more money for Ares-V too, because - we did mention, right - that Ares-I can't do the moon on its own".   Can anyone spell "unlikely"?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 06/25/2008 06:14 pm
here's a question... just wondering how the costs compare for the different systems....

let's just assume 6 launches per year for each of these, as a baseline.... and these can all just be approximations... don't bother doing any complex calculations or anything....

what is the cost per launch of the shuttle?

what is the projected cost per launch of the Ares I?

What is the projected cost per launch of the Jupiter 120?

What is the projected cost per launch of the Ares V?

What is the projected cost per launch of the Jupiter 232?


as i said... just keep it at 6 flights per year for each rocket, to save complexity.  and just make them estimates...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/25/2008 06:19 pm
I think it's interesting that Ares I+V now has 16 SRB segments (1x5 and 2x5.5) and 6 RS-68s... Just like two J-232s. :)

I don't have enough baseball cards in front of me to look at any other commonalities between the two systems, but I suspect that are several interesting similarities and differences.

You might use this as a talking point... NASA is evolving their design to the same underlying hardware that the DIRECT team suggests, but in a different and, in some opinions, less efficient layout, as it requires the R&D, implementation, and maintenance of two LVs and their infrastructure.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/25/2008 06:42 pm
Ares I + Ares V requires 1 new booster development, 1 new engine development, 1 new core stage development and 2 new upper stage developments, none of which have any commonality with STS.  This requires virtually all new infrastructure.

DIRECT requres 0 new booster developments, 1 new engine development, 1 new core stage development and 1 new upper stage development, the core stage of which has some commonality with STS.  This requires very little new infrastructure. A J-120 easily out-performs Ares-I, and 2 J-232s outperform Ares-I + Ares-V.

I'm being charitable and claiming the Ares-I core stage is the same as the Ares-V boosters, and also that the RS-68 108% isn't a development.  Even so, how in the world could anyone claim the first is more efficient, more cost effective, or has better performance than the second?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/25/2008 06:49 pm
here's a question... just wondering how the costs compare for the different systems....

let's just assume 6 launches per year for each of these, as a baseline.... and these can all just be approximations... don't bother doing any complex calculations or anything....

what is the cost per launch of the shuttle?

what is the projected cost per launch of the Ares I?

What is the projected cost per launch of the Jupiter 120?

What is the projected cost per launch of the Ares V?

What is the projected cost per launch of the Jupiter 232?


as i said... just keep it at 6 flights per year for each rocket, to save complexity.  and just make them estimates...

You'll get a lot of distorted numbers this way because at one end of the scale you're lifting 96mT with 6 launches of some of those solutions vs. 960mT with others.   That's ten times the performance for some options for the same number of flights.

You're also comparing manned and unmanned launchers too.   Manned will always include more cost overheads.

But given those inaccuracies and that specific flight rate, here's the ballpark numbers (includes Orion cost where appropriate):-

Shuttle (manned, 16mT): ~$600m ea.
Ares-I (manned, 22mT): ~$400m ea.
Ares-V (unmanned, 160mT): ~$1,000m ea.
Jupiter-120 (manned, 47mT): ~$400m ea.
Jupiter-232 (unmanned, 103mT): ~$500m ea.
Jupiter-232 (manned, 97mT): ~$650m ea.



Note that the table below does not include Orion costs, and that both Ares vehicles and Jupiter vehicles "share" their fixed costs, but you can clearly see that Jupiter does so a bit more efficiently.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/25/2008 07:54 pm
I think it's interesting that Ares I+V now has 16 SRB segments (1x5 and 2x5.5) and 6 RS-68s... Just like two J-232s. :)

...I suspect that are several interesting similarities and differences.

Second stage (EDS) engines, ISS: Ares 1 ; Jupiter 2

Second stage (EDS) engines, manned lunar transport: Ares 2 ; Jupiter 4

Second stage (EDS) engines, cargo lunar transport: Ares 1 ; Jupiter 4

Docking pairs, manned lunar transport: Ares 1 LIDS ; Jupiter 1 LIDS + 1 heavy docking system (100 tonnes class)

Docking pairs, cargo lunar transport: Ares 0 ; Jupiter 1 heavy d.s.

etc.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/25/2008 09:43 pm
I think it's interesting that Ares I+V now has 16 SRB segments (1x5 and 2x5.5) and 6 RS-68s... Just like two J-232s. :)

...I suspect that are several interesting similarities and differences.

Second stage (EDS) engines, ISS: Ares 1 ; Jupiter 2


No, it is Ares :1, Jupiter 0 in that jupiter-120 does not have an upperstage for ISS flights.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/25/2008 09:51 pm
I think it's interesting that Ares I+V now has 16 SRB segments (1x5 and 2x5.5) and 6 RS-68s... Just like two J-232s. :)

...I suspect that are several interesting similarities and differences.

Second stage (EDS) engines, ISS: Ares 1 ; Jupiter 2


No, it is Ares :1, Jupiter 0 in that jupiter-120 does not have an upperstage for ISS flights.

Well, J-120 has two liquid engines compared to Ares-I's 1 no matter how you slice it...

I guess I didn't mean to derail the thread into a part count comparo. 

I just thought it interesting that the Ares I+V lunar architecture's 1st stage now had the same "moving parts" as the DIRECT 2xJ-232 lunar architecture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/26/2008 12:16 am
I just thought it interesting that the Ares I+V lunar architecture's 1st stage now had the same "moving parts" as the DIRECT 2xJ-232 lunar architecture.

And yet, 2xJ-232s lift substantially more mass (~50mT more, IIRC).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/26/2008 12:22 am
PaulL,
Our performance numbers for a Jupiter-231 configuration are a fair bit below that.   We're losing over 12mT to LEO compared to the regular Jupiter-232 - even for an optimized configuration.

And as you've already seen for yourself, a full J-2X doesn't buy back much more than a ton of that at best.

You do end up with a lighter EDS burnout mass, but it's still not sufficient to make up for the short-fall and doesn't 'close' the performance target of 75,085kg thru TLI - you end up losing about 7mT payload mass in total.

So we're sticking with 2x Jupiter-232.   It also reduces development & operational costs significantly by sticking with the single variant too - and you also get more flight experience with each piece of hardware too.

Ross.

What if DIRECT ends up stuck with the 5-seg, the J2x, and the upgraded RS-68s?  Would that allow you to switch to the J-231?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 06/26/2008 03:10 am
PaulL,
Our performance numbers for a Jupiter-231 configuration are a fair bit below that.   We're losing over 12mT to LEO compared to the regular Jupiter-232 - even for an optimized configuration.

And as you've already seen for yourself, a full J-2X doesn't buy back much more than a ton of that at best.

You do end up with a lighter EDS burnout mass, but it's still not sufficient to make up for the short-fall and doesn't 'close' the performance target of 75,085kg thru TLI - you end up losing about 7mT payload mass in total.

So we're sticking with 2x Jupiter-232.   It also reduces development & operational costs significantly by sticking with the single variant too - and you also get more flight experience with each piece of hardware too.

Ross.

What if DIRECT ends up stuck with the 5-seg, the J2x, and the upgraded RS-68s?  Would that allow you to switch to the J-231?

A 8.4 m core stage stretched to accomodate 5-seg SRBs would contain about 1,000 mT of propellant and be more optimized to use 4 RS-68 engines instead of 3. Therefore, your question should be for a J-241 instead of a J-231.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2008 04:04 am
Remember that this train of thinking leads you further and further away from Shuttle and closer and closer to the unsustainable costs of Ares-V.

And I would not recommend going to the 4-engine layout because of the base heating and plume impingement problems - and I'll lay even odds that SRB ignition will require a barrier between those engines and the mains - something which is *really* hard to include unless you can line up all your engines in a row at a right-angle to the SRB axis like we have done on Jupiter.


Purely for the curious though, a standard Jupiter-231 Core Stage configuration, using 5-segment SRB's and 108% RS-68's and full J-2X would certainly improve on the regular J-231's performance to about 98.3mT.   Such an improvement, coupled with the lighter weight smaller EDS (18.5mT), *might* close.   It would be a close thing though, IMHO.

Jupiter-231, even without those engine upgrades, can close comfortably with the Propellant Depot architecture though - and can carry the CEV 'eyeballs in' thru TLI without the EDS having to structurally support its weight.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/26/2008 06:46 am
It seems the NASA's main problem with Direct at least officially is related to a strange aversion to launching crew and cargo on the same rocket. That also includes the lunar lander as cargo.

It is strange since they have been doing so with STS for almost 30 years and neither accident was cargo related. Both crews would be just as dead if they had had an empty cargo bay.

I also think the issue is with an integral cargo bay. Saturn-V mixed crew and cargo but then it had a thing called an escape tower. Shuttle also had an escape option... quietly deleted later on. I would stick to this "don't mix crew and cargo" with a future RLV simply because it makes economic sense.

If they really wanted to be stubborn about it then they could still launch 2xJ232, 1xJupiter-120 and still save money over Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 06/26/2008 09:17 am
...
If they really wanted to be stubborn about it then they could still launch 2xJ232, 1xJupiter-120 and still save money over Ares.

Wouldn't this also allow a much, much bigger payload to the lunar surface?

IIRC, CAIB said "Don't compromise safety in order to mix crew and cargo.". So it's allowed as long as crew safety is not reduced. Does J-232 do that? Well maybe launch safety since it's a little less safe than J-120. But if overall mission safety goes up, through more TLI mass?  And the launch LOC number is still over 1000?

I think the case can be honestly made that 2 x J-232 is safer accross the whole mission than J-120 + J-232.   And safer than Ares I + Ares V.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: publiusr on 06/26/2008 03:45 pm
Mixing crew and cargo worked pretty well with Apollo 13--and the use of the LEM as a handy lifeboat. More options.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 06/26/2008 03:54 pm
I think the problem with mixing crew and cargo is if the crew has to go long just to control the vehicle when there is no real need for them to be there. For example launching a com sat on the STS when an EELV can do it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 06/26/2008 04:49 pm
It seems the NASA's main problem with Direct at least officially is related to a strange aversion to launching crew and cargo on the same rocket. That also includes the lunar lander as cargo.

It is strange since they have been doing so with STS for almost 30 years and neither accident was cargo related. Both crews would be just as dead if they had had an empty cargo bay.

I also think the issue is with an integral cargo bay. Saturn-V mixed crew and cargo but then it had a thing called an escape tower. Shuttle also had an escape option... quietly deleted later on. I would stick to this "don't mix crew and cargo" with a future RLV simply because it makes economic sense.

If they really wanted to be stubborn about it then they could still launch 2xJ232, 1xJupiter-120 and still save money over Ares.

But Orion does have an escape tower nor would the cargo be in an integral cargo bay. The most that would be involved would be for Orion to have to rotate and dock with the cargo carrier.

However separating crew and cargo at all costs seams to be the operating principle of the Ares I/V system. Other wise why not put all the money into the Ares V and do a single launch system. Orion test and ISS flights could use a modified EELV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 06/26/2008 04:53 pm
I think the problem with mixing crew and cargo is if the crew has to go long just to control the vehicle when there is no real need for them to be there. For example launching a com sat on the STS when an EELV can do it.

Not a problem for Orion all they would doing is sharing the ride to obit with cargo. But separating crew and cargo does seam to be the operating principle of the Ares I/V system even if it means sacrificing the Moon to do it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 06/26/2008 05:10 pm
It's all a matter of semantics. When it goes up by itself, it's "cargo." When it goes up with the crew, it's "luggage." Clever of SpaceX to call the unpressurized cargo hold of Dragon, the "trunk." Rather than "the pickup truck of space," I guess it's going to be "the sedan of space." Passengers & luggage, rather than crew & cargo...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 06/26/2008 05:33 pm
I think the problem with mixing crew and cargo is if the crew has to go long just to control the vehicle when there is no real need for them to be there. For example launching a com sat on the STS when an EELV can do it.

Not a problem for Orion all they would doing is shearing the ride to obit with cargo. But separating crew and cargo does seam to be the operating principle of the Ares I/V system even if it means sacrificing the Moon to do it.

"shearing the ride to obit?"

Sounds unpleasant. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 06/26/2008 06:07 pm
I think the problem with mixing crew and cargo is if the crew has to go long just to control the vehicle when there is no real need for them to be there. For example launching a com sat on the STS when an EELV can do it.

Not a problem for Orion all they would doing is shearing the ride to obit with cargo. But separating crew and cargo does seam to be the operating principle of the Ares I/V system even if it means sacrificing the Moon to do it.

"shearing the ride to obit?"

Sounds unpleasant. :)

Thanks for seeing the typo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/26/2008 06:22 pm
The edict of not mixing crew and cargo in the same spacecraft is not part of the requirements set out by the CAIB. It was a remark made by the head of the CIAB describing a personal preference to a group of reporters AFTER the CAIB Findings Report had been published. The edict is NOT binding on NASA.

That being said, and given the extreme nature of the dangers the astronauts are subjected to just by taking the ride, it is a good idea to design the spacecraft in such a way that either the crew and cargo ride in completely separate spacecraft, or that the crew portion of any cargo-laden spacecraft is free to be easily separated from the cargo portion in the event of a life-threatening situation.

The DIRECT team has taken the first approach. The manned spacecraft is designed to carry no cargo whatsoever, excepting personal items belonging to the crew, or perhaps a small amount of personal necessities requested by the crew located at the spacecraft’s destination. Any and all “cargo” would be carried aloft in a completely separate “cargo canister” launched below the spacecraft in the PLF, and would be “delivered” to the destination by the manned spacecraft, in much the same way as an ocean-going tug boat can dock to and deliver an unmanned floating barge to a waiting dock. In this way, if there is ever a need to separate the crew from the launch vehicle, the value of the cargo is turned over to the insurance companies while the value of the lives of the crew is held to the highest possible priorities, unencumbered by the presence of cargo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2008 06:57 pm
And the launch LOC number is still over 1000?

Yep.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Alpha Control on 06/26/2008 07:11 pm
Good chart, Ross.  Excellent at-a-glance comparison of the LOC/LOM numbers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 06/26/2008 07:19 pm
Remember that this train of thinking leads you further and further away from Shuttle and closer and closer to the unsustainable costs of Ares-V.

And I would not recommend going to the 4-engine layout because of the base heating and plume impingement problems - and I'll lay even odds that SRB ignition will require a barrier between those engines and the mains - something which is *really* hard to include unless you can line up all your engines in a row at a right-angle to the SRB axis like we have done on Jupiter.


Purely for the curious though, a standard Jupiter-231 Core Stage configuration, using 5-segment SRB's and 108% RS-68's and full J-2X would certainly improve on the regular J-231's performance to about 98.3mT.   Such an improvement, coupled with the lighter weight smaller EDS (18.5mT), *might* close.   It would be a close thing though, IMHO.

Jupiter-231, even without those engine upgrades, can close comfortably with the Propellant Depot architecture though - and can carry the CEV 'eyeballs in' thru TLI without the EDS having to structurally support its weight.

Ross.

I always wonder if the standard LOC/LOM figures cater for engine out capability fully as experience with Saturn V showed this really makes a difference to real-world LOM/LOC. A J-232 is well positioned in this regard with some margin on both the lower and upper stages. Good to hear that you are not forced to use only a one engine EDS as stated in a previous reply.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Rusty_Barton on 06/26/2008 07:28 pm
Is there a chart available that shows LOC/LOM numbers for earlier manned launch vehicles (Mercury-Redstone, Mercury-Atlas, Gemini-Titan, Apollo-Saturn IB, Apollo-Saturn V, Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 06/26/2008 08:16 pm
Do you have a chart showing payload capacity of the various configurations of Jupiter compared to Aries I and V?  And what they are for a moon mission?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 06/26/2008 08:35 pm
IIRC, isn't the LOC target for Ares I 1500? It'd be useful if Direct could reach that first...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2008 08:41 pm
Spacenut,
Your wish is my command...

Performance chart below.


You should note that all of these - and much more - are in our 16 page UPDATE Summary on the front page of our website:   www.directlauncher.com

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2008 08:46 pm
IIRC, isn't the LOC target for Ares I 1500? It'd be useful if Direct could reach that first...

Simon ;)

At the time these were compiled (April 2008) these were the correct values for both and are equally comparable.

I would like to know *how* NASA has somehow managed to squeeze another 300 points out of their system.   They haven't changed any significant things like the number of engines, type of engines, number of stages, basic design of stages or separation events.

Fundamentally it's still the same vehicle which only achieved ~1:1200 so the improvements have come from other places less 'tangible' to observers - probably from things like avionics improvements.

I would therefore suggest that whatever mitigation approaches they have come up with can *probably* also be applied to DIRECT equally.   That would then boost both basic Jupiter vehicle's scores by a similar amount too.

I would therefore suggest that this would still be a fair comparison - which is all the LOC/LOM numbers really are anyway.


As for getting DIRECT above 1:1500 LOC; I have no doubts that with the experience they've gathered from fighting so hard to make Ares-I work, that the engineering teams at MSFC & within the contractors network - I believe they could achieve that.   But that's something we could only confirm when (not if) they get the chance to actually *do it*.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 06/26/2008 08:59 pm
As for getting DIRECT above 1:1500 LOC...

Ross, do DIRECT's J-120 LOC numbers include the notional "ballistic shield" payload underneath the Orion?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/26/2008 09:06 pm
As for getting DIRECT above 1:1500 LOC...

Ross, do DIRECT's J-120 LOC numbers include the notional "ballistic shield" payload underneath the Orion?

No.   So far we have been unable to quantify that so can not include it.

Also we have not been able to quantify the effect of simply placing the CEV an additional ~12m (36ft) further away from the stage by mounting it on top of a large Payload Fairing instead of directly on top of the stage.

Both of those *should* improve matters, but we have not got sufficient accurate analysis completed to include those improvements yet.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/27/2008 12:08 am
But Orion does have an escape tower nor would the cargo be in an integral cargo bay. The most that would be involved would be for Orion to have to rotate and dock with the cargo carrier.

However separating crew and cargo at all costs seams to be the operating principle of the Ares I/V system. Other wise why not put all the money into the Ares V and do a single launch system. Orion test and ISS flights could use a modified EELV.

Absolutely. My honest opinion on the matter is that shared by many: Ares I is just a "stalking horse" for Ares V - with the soon-to-be 5.5-seg and J-2X. And Ares V is a stalking horse for Mars...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 06/27/2008 05:33 pm

Absolutely ... Ares I is just a "stalking horse" for Ares V ...

I do not beleive Ares V could work without Ares I. Not with the current 4 crew Orion.

The 1,5 launch architecture cannot be replaced with a 1 launch architecture. And a 2-launch Ares-V architecture is a tough proposition.

If the 21mT Orion be part of the payload through launch, complete with extra hardware for her own hard mount (which is not mass free; edit: and the LAS..), then there would be about zip cargo to accompany the Ascent Module to the lunar surface. No 7-day sortie mission, just Apollo with double crew, I guess. Or less.

Ares-I is indeed a front payment for Ares-V technology (hopefully) but Ares-I is needed there nontheless. Even if the first stage would get rid of the SRB and get a liquid fuelled booster, Ares-I is still needed for a rational 1,5 architecture. Cannot be abandoned. It's either 1,5 or 2 launch.

And by the way Ares-I is not the 0,5 fraction but the 1/5 fraction of this architecture. 1 part Ares-I, 5 parts Ares-V. Recipe for success LOL.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/30/2008 02:12 am
Ares I is not a vital part of the 1.5 launch architecture. A launcher with a ~25mT throw weight is. Ares I is nothing but a particularly finnicky, underperforming zero flight heritage launcher.

What changes, if any, would be needed to the 1.5 launch architecture would there be if Orion flew on a Delta IV-H? I don't think there would be any. Except that Ares V might have to push even more mass through TLI because of a heavier, safer Orion afforded by an EELV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/30/2008 11:50 am
Ares I is not a vital part of the 1.5 launch architecture. A launcher with a ~25mT throw weight is. Ares I is nothing but a particularly finicky, under performing zero flight heritage launcher.

Incorrect. Ares-I is critically central to the 1.5 Ares architecture. Without the 5-segment booster or the J-2X engine that the development of Ares-I pays for, Ares-V will never, ever be built. Without Ares-I, the 1.5 architecture ceases to exist.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 06/30/2008 12:03 pm
Ares I is not a vital part of the 1.5 launch architecture. A launcher with a ~25mT throw weight is. Ares I is nothing but a particularly finicky, under performing zero flight heritage launcher.

Incorrect. Ares-I is critically central to the 1.5 Ares architecture. Without the 5-segment booster or the J-2X engine that the development of Ares-I pays for, Ares-V will never, ever be built. Without Ares-I, the 1.5 architecture ceases to exist.

Considering the 5 seg is not going to be used now I wouldn't be so sure. There is nothing impossible in grouping J2-X development under Ares V too if they save money going EELV for the CLV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/30/2008 12:40 pm
Ares I is not a vital part of the 1.5 launch architecture. A launcher with a ~25mT throw weight is. Ares I is nothing but a particularly finicky, under performing zero flight heritage launcher.

Incorrect. Ares-I is critically central to the 1.5 Ares architecture. Without the 5-segment booster or the J-2X engine that the development of Ares-I pays for, Ares-V will never, ever be built. Without Ares-I, the 1.5 architecture ceases to exist.

Considering the 5 seg is not going to be used now I wouldn't be so sure. There is nothing impossible in grouping J2-X development under Ares V too if they save money going EELV for the CLV.

How ever many segments end up being used on the A5 is irrelevant. It is the same bucket of development money. It is the same situation with the J-2X. That development money is already tied to the A1. The A5 cannot absorb the development costs for a new engine (J-2X) nor for new Booster (SRB).

Whether or not the A1 actually ever flies is also completely irrelevant. It's main purpose for existance, despite claims to the contrary, has always been to develop the new SRB and J-2X needed for the A5 *because* the A5 would be otherwise unaffordable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 06/30/2008 04:19 pm
For any payload that this system would carry with it, how does Orion rendeavous and dock (with ISS for example) if it has this mass hanging off the end of its nose?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 06/30/2008 04:24 pm
Ares I is not a vital part of the 1.5 launch architecture. A launcher with a ~25mT throw weight is. Ares I is nothing but a particularly finicky, under performing zero flight heritage launcher.

Incorrect. Ares-I is critically central to the 1.5 Ares architecture. Without the 5-segment booster or the J-2X engine that the development of Ares-I pays for, Ares-V will never, ever be built. Without Ares-I, the 1.5 architecture ceases to exist.

Considering the 5 seg is not going to be used now I wouldn't be so sure. There is nothing impossible in grouping J2-X development under Ares V too if they save money going EELV for the CLV.

How ever many segments end up being used on the A5 is irrelevant. It is the same bucket of development money. It is the same situation with the J-2X. That development money is already tied to the A1. The A5 cannot absorb the development costs for a new engine (J-2X) nor for new Booster (SRB).

Whether or not the A1 actually ever flies is also completely irrelevant. It's main purpose for existance, despite claims to the contrary, has always been to develop the new SRB and J-2X needed for the A5 *because* the A5 would be otherwise unaffordable.

I agree with you for the most part, except for the first sentance.  If A1 uses a newly developed first stage that is different than that of what ultimately is used on A5, then you have to spend more money to develop that booster as well. 

Obviously, if A1 and A5 use seperate length boosters than your sustaining and operating costs have increased due to the non-commonality.  If A1 switches at some point in time, than you have to recert the vehicle and deal with any poke-outs that may occur leading to more cost and flushing all the 5 seg development money that has already been spent. 

I believe this is what you may have been trying to imply. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 06/30/2008 04:24 pm
Some interesting links from this weekend regarding the debate between Constellation and everyone's favorite LV.

Dave King's (MSFC director) attempt at a Direct rebuttal on the Huntsville Times:
http://www.al.com/huntsvilletimes/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1214730935124260.xml&coll=1

Slashdot: Ares V Rocket Bigger and Stronger For Moon Mission
(discussion includes someone who claims to work for MSFC and claims to have seen the infamous internal NASA Direct study)
http://science.slashdot.org/science/08/06/29/0426204.shtml

and...

The Space Review: How to know when an engineering project is failing
by Eric R. Hedman
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1158/1

Ok - that should be enough fuel...discuss amongst yourselves... :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/30/2008 04:50 pm
How ever many segments end up being used on the A5 is irrelevant. It is the same bucket of development money. It is the same situation with the J-2X. That development money is already tied to the A1. The A5 cannot absorb the development costs for a new engine (J-2X) nor for new Booster (SRB).

Whether or not the A1 actually ever flies is also completely irrelevant. It's main purpose for existance, despite claims to the contrary, has always been to develop the new SRB and J-2X needed for the A5 *because* the A5 would be otherwise unaffordable.

I agree with you for the most part, except for the first sentance.  If A1 uses a newly developed first stage that is different than that of what ultimately is used on A5, then you have to spend more money to develop that booster as well. 

Obviously, if A1 and A5 use seperate length boosters than your sustaining and operating costs have increased due to the non-commonality.  If A1 switches at some point in time, than you have to recert the vehicle and deal with any poke-outs that may occur leading to more cost and flushing all the 5 seg development money that has already been spent. 

I believe this is what you may have been trying to imply. 

The answer to your concern is actually to be found in the last paragraph. While I believe there will be some test flights, I am leaning to the position that the A1 will never become operational. Assuming it lives long enough (doubtful given the developing political climate), it will be reclassified as an 'X-Vehicle' and everything it had achieved, under the guise of developing a crew launcher, *now paid for*, will be slid over to the A5 for final implimentation.

NASA will not be flying crews to LEO, just to the moon, on a man-rated A5. Human LEO access will be via COTS-D.

However, there is a better way. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: John Duncan on 06/30/2008 04:53 pm
So, reading the bit by David King, NASA continues to lie about Direct and blow smoke.  Perhaps Mr. King is doing what he is told but it is sad.

I guess this will continue until the program is cancelled and we wind up with nothing.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 06/30/2008 05:18 pm
Mr. King's whole article was fluff for the most part and did not address any of the key concerns head on with substantial, easily backed data (written for the masses of course)

The only "meat" was here:

Direct 2.0, the concept in question in the June 23 Times article, falls significantly short of the lunar lander performance requirement for exploration missions as specifically outlined in Constellation Program ground rules. The concept also overshoots the requirements for early missions to the International Space Station in the coming decade. These shortcomings would necessitate rushed development of a more expensive launch system with too little capability in the long run, and would actually increase the gap between space shuttle retirement and development of a new vehicle. Even more importantly, the Ares approach offers a much greater margin of crew safety - paramount to every mission NASA puts into space.

To accomplish the nation's goals in space, we need more than a new rocket. We need a robust, multipurpose space fleet.

Ares meets those requirements. We have a good plan in place - based on years of flight data, practical experience, new and proven technologies and, above all, exhaustive study - and we're making excellent progress."

I believe this could all easily be argued by the following:

1.  It's actually a good thing to have some performance margin so that your concept of operations can evolve and be more robust without having to make another launch, especially of a massive rocket, for what unknown needs may not require. 

2.  How is this launch system more expensive if it uses everything in place now essentially minus the Orbiter (which is the cost driver in the Program)?  The 5 or whatever segment booster still needs to be refurbed, an upper stage still needs to be built every time, which requires all new tooling.

3.  How is this vehicle more safe?  Regardless of the rocket Orion will have an escape capability.  Why is this stack "safe enough" to then continue to fly with the orbiter?

4.  Given the current design, what flight data is he refering to?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/01/2008 03:48 am
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."   --  Mahatma Gandhi

Looks like we're at the fighting stage. I could hardly believe the words that Mr. King said.

Direct 2.0, the concept in question in the June 23 Times article, falls significantly short of the lunar lander performance requirement for exploration missions as specifically outlined in Constellation Program ground rules.

The current Ares-V/Ares-I configuration can send 71.1 t (1 t = 1000 kg) through trans Lunar injection (TLI) [1]. The Direct 2.0 2xJupiter-232 configuration can send 76.8 t through to TLI [2], exceeding both Ares-V/Ares-I and the Constellation program requirement of 75.1 t through TLI [2]. The current Ares-V/Ares-I configuration is not able to meet the Constellation program requirement.

The concept also overshoots the requirements for early missions to the International Space Station in the coming decade.

The current Ares-I configuration can only deliver the 21.8 t Orion spacecraft to the International Space Station [3]. The Direct 2.0 Jupiter-120 configuration can deliver the Orion spacecraft, along with 17.1 t of additional payload, similar to the current capability of Space Shuttle [2].

These shortcomings would necessitate rushed development of a more expensive launch system with too little capability in the long run, and would actually increase the gap between space shuttle retirement and development of a new vehicle.

This conclusion applies only to Ares-I/Ares-V, not to Direct 2.0. Due to the performance shortfalls of Ares-I/Ares-V, NASA has had to make an extensive and expensive number of modifications to the Ares-I/Ares-V configuration. These include:

1) The development of a 5-segment solid rocket booster (SRB) from the current 4-segment SRB. The SRB propellant shape needs to be redesigned which needs extensive testing to be qualified. Other changes are also required, for example a new nozzle and dampening to compensate for thrust oscillations in Ares-I.

2) The development of a new 10.0 m diameter core stage for Ares-V. All new tooling is required since the Shuttle external tank is 8.4 m in diameter.

3) The Ares-I upper stage had to be redesigned with a more expensive conformal tank, compared to the previous separate tanks.

4) The development of a 5.5-segment SRB for Ares-V.

5) The addition of another RS-68B engine to Ares-V, from five to six engines.

Direct 2.0 reuses the existing 4-segment SRB's and tooling from the 8.4 m Shuttle external tank for its core stage. This minimises development cost and time, allowing the first crewed Orion launch with Direct to be in 2012, compared to 2016 for Ares-I [2]. The first crewed Lunar mission would be in 2017 with Direct, compared with 2020 with Ares [2].

Even more importantly, the Ares approach offers a much greater margin of crew safety - paramount to every mission NASA puts into space.

For missions to ISS, the loss of crew probability (LOCP) for Ares-I is 1/1250. The LOCP for Jupiter-120 is 1/1400, which is much safer than for Ares-I [2]. For Lunar missions, the LOCP for Jupiter-232 is 1/1150, which meets NASA's requirement of a LOCP of 1/1000 or less. With two Lunar and four ISS missions per year, the LOCP is 1/210 for Ares-I and 1/220 with Direct, making Direct 2.0 slightly safer than Ares overall.

[1] NASA, "Lunar capability concept review (LCCR): Transportaion systems only. Report to the Planetary Science Subcommittee," 18-20 June 2008. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/pss/presentations/200806/12neal.pdf

[2] C. Longton, A. Maia, P. Metschan, S. Metschan, and R. Tierney, "Direct space transportation system derivative: The Jupiter launch vehicle family," v2.0.1, 7 May 2008. http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.1.pdf

[3] NASA Facts, "Constellation Program: America's Fleet of Next-Generation Launch Vehicles. The Ares l Crew Launch Vehicle," FS-2007-08-110-MSFC http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/187391main_aresI_fact_sheet.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/01/2008 04:49 am
Steve great rebuttal---it should be sent to the Times.  Also ask, if NASA is so confident of their numbers why does not NASA release the data to support their numbers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/01/2008 05:19 am
Ares I is not a vital part of the 1.5 launch architecture. A launcher with a ~25mT throw weight is. Ares I is nothing but a particularly finicky, under performing zero flight heritage launcher.

Incorrect. Ares-I is critically central to the 1.5 Ares architecture. Without the 5-segment booster or the J-2X engine that the development of Ares-I pays for, Ares-V will never, ever be built. Without Ares-I, the 1.5 architecture ceases to exist.

Well, that was kind of the point I was trying to make. Ares I is a stalking horse only exists to pay for Ares V; if cost weren't the issue then they would fly Orion on an EELV and close the gap.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/01/2008 05:22 am
Steve great rebuttal---it should be sent to the Times.  Also ask, if NASA is so confident of their numbers why does not NASA release the data to support their numbers?

With a 10-20Hz oscillation of ~4g's RMS, I hate to think what would happen to the LOC/LOM numbers. Think of all those valves etc. that you'll have to beef up. That's with backups *already* stripped from Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/01/2008 06:51 am
Thanks for the encouragement HIP2BSQRE. I've sent the above to the Huntsville Times with the following introductory paragraph.

I would like to respond to Mr. King's letter of Sunday, June 29, 2008 "Ares remains the answer for new frontiers" in regard to his comments about Direct 2.0 alternative to Ares. As one who has carefully studies both Ares and Direct 2.0, I could hardly believe the words that Mr. King said.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/01/2008 01:57 pm
Another mention of Direct in the Orlando Sentinel.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed01108jul01,0,7748081.story
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/01/2008 02:15 pm
If possible..in future communications with news media---use some of the same qutoes that are on the post cards. 

“The most obvious split involves launching
two identical vehicles with approximately
equal payloads, mating them in orbit, and
proceeding to the Moon. Non-recurring
costs are lower because only one launch
vehicle development is required, recurring
costs are amortized over a larger number
of ights of a single vehicle, and the
knowledge of system reliability is
enhanced by the more rapid accumulation
of ight experience.”
Dr Mike Grin, NASA Administrator
Speech at the Space Transportation Association
January 22, 2008
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 07/01/2008 02:36 pm
Another mention of Direct in the Orlando Sentinel.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed01108jul01,0,7748081.story

I like the call for a GAO review of Constellation and DIRECT.  I say bring em all on....GAO, OMB, RAND, etc.  We need an independent review that addresses this issue.  Reading between the lines, it seems there is a bias call here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 07/01/2008 07:57 pm
For any payload that this system would carry with it, how does Orion rendeavous and dock (with ISS for example) if it has this mass hanging off the end of its nose?

I'm sure this got lost in the shuffle but I'd still like to know the answer....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/01/2008 08:09 pm
For any payload that this system would carry with it, how does Orion rendeavous and dock (with ISS for example) if it has this mass hanging off the end of its nose?

I'm sure this got lost in the shuffle but I'd still like to know the answer....

The SSPDM would have the appropriate sensors built into the fwd end, which would tie directly into Orion’s navigational computers, along with a LIDS docking ring.
Docking would be automatic, like the Progress and ATV, with manual override capability. Actual eyeballs visibility won’t be necessary as the same navigational computer that would automatically dock Orion without the SSPDM would be used with the SSPDM.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 07/01/2008 08:26 pm
For any payload that this system would carry with it, how does Orion rendeavous and dock (with ISS for example) if it has this mass hanging off the end of its nose?

I'm sure this got lost in the shuffle but I'd still like to know the answer....

The SSPDM would have the appropriate sensors built into the fwd end, which would tie directly into Orion’s navigational computers, along with a LIDS docking ring.
Docking would be automatic, like the Progress and ATV, with manual override capability. Actual eyeballs visibility won’t be necessary as the same navigational computer that would automatically dock Orion without the SSPDM would be used with the SSPDM.

Ok, so this SSPDM also has a tunnel so the crew can get back and forth?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 08:29 pm
Why not undock from SSPDM and redock at another port?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 07/01/2008 08:47 pm
Why not undock from SSPDM and redock at another port?

Why waste the prop and do another round of prox ops?  Not to mention having probably multiple major software modes for two distinct operations, one with accounting for some x amount of mass on the nose and then one where it is just Orion. 

As long as we're redefining the architecture with NLS/Jupiter and considering prop depots, why don't we do some tweaking to Orion. 

A "stretched" version of Orion may be possible by placing what is being called the SSPDM between the CM and the SM.  The umbilical between the CM and SM would need a cable union between the two but the outer bulkheads of the SSPDM could be configured so that they are functionally the same as either the CM/SM mating surfaces so the acutal CM and SM don't know the difference. 

This cargo version of Orion would be placed in the NLS/Jupiter fairing just like being currently proposed with the CM still having the escape tower.  The only difference being once in orbit you essentially have the "orbiter config". 

Once departing the station and the CM seps it deorbits this SSPDM with the SM
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/01/2008 08:47 pm
Why not undock from SSPDM and redock at another port?

That's exactly what it would do.
Access to the Station interior would be by Orion re-docking to another port. Removal of the payload would be via the station robotic arm.

I must say that this works, but it is not my favorite approach. I have what I think is a better approach, which we detailed in DIRECT v1 thread. Essentially, the Payload Module (PM) would be a tubular frame, just like the SSPDM, and would be attached between the CM and the SM. The fwd end of the PM would mimic all the connections of the fwd end of the SM, and the aft end of the PM would mimic all the connections of the aft end of the CM, so that it would be mated on the ground in this configuration. The entire stack would proceed to the station in a normal manner, and Orion would dock with the station in the normal manner. Then the PM would be opened and the contents extracted by the station robotic arm. At the end of the mission, the entire stack undocks, the SM engine does the retro fire and the CM separates and re-enters normally, leaving the SM/PM stack to atmospheric disposal.

In the case of a launch abort, the LAS pulls the CM off the stack in the exact same way as if it were pulling it off the SM. So the presence of a Payload Module in no way endangers the crew, like it does with Shuttle, because it is simply left behind as the crew is taken to safety by the LAS burn.

For flights where there is no Payload Module, the CM and the SM are mated and fly normally. When payload is required, the PM is mated between them.

But that's my personal opinion. I don't speak for the entire team. It is one option among many that is made available by flying with the Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 07/01/2008 08:50 pm
Why not undock from SSPDM and redock at another port?

That's exactly what it would do.
Access to the Station interior would be by Orion re-docking to another port. Removal of the payload would be via the station robotic arm.

I must say that this works, but it is not my favorite approach. I have what I think is a better approach, which we detailed in DIRECT v1 thread. Essentially, the Payload Module (PM) would be a tubular frame, just like the SSPDM, and would be attached between the CM and the SM. The fwd end of the PM would mimic all the connections of the fwd end of the SM, and the aft end of the PM would mimic all the connections of the aft end of the CM, so that it would be mated on the ground in this configuration. The entire stack would proceed to the station in a normal manner, and Orion would dock with the station in the normal manner. Then the PM would be opened and the contents extracted by the station robotic arm. At the end of the mission, the entire stack undocks, the SM engine does the retro fire and the CM separates and re-enters normally, leaving the SM/PM stack to atmospheric disposal.

In the case of a launch abort, the LAS pulls the CM off the stack in the exact same way as if it were pulling it off the SM. So the presence of a Payload Module in no way endangers the crew, like it does with Shuttle, because it is simply left behind as the crew is taken to safety by the LAS burn.

For flights where there is no Payload Module, the CM and the SM are mated and fly normally. When payload is required, the PM is mated between them.

But that's my personal opinion. I don't speak for the entire team. It is one option among many that is made available by flying with the Jupiter.


Well you just said what I said in the previous post.  This approach is better. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/01/2008 08:54 pm
Why not undock from SSPDM and redock at another port?

That's exactly what it would do.
Access to the Station interior would be by Orion re-docking to another port. Removal of the payload would be via the station robotic arm.

I must say that this works, but it is not my favorite approach. I have what I think is a better approach, which we detailed in DIRECT v1 thread. Essentially, the Payload Module (PM) would be a tubular frame, just like the SSPDM, and would be attached between the CM and the SM. The fwd end of the PM would mimic all the connections of the fwd end of the SM, and the aft end of the PM would mimic all the connections of the aft end of the CM, so that it would be mated on the ground in this configuration. The entire stack would proceed to the station in a normal manner, and Orion would dock with the station in the normal manner. Then the PM would be opened and the contents extracted by the station robotic arm. At the end of the mission, the entire stack undocks, the SM engine does the retro fire and the CM separates and re-enters normally, leaving the SM/PM stack to atmospheric disposal.

In the case of a launch abort, the LAS pulls the CM off the stack in the exact same way as if it were pulling it off the SM. So the presence of a Payload Module in no way endangers the crew, like it does with Shuttle, because it is simply left behind as the crew is taken to safety by the LAS burn.

For flights where there is no Payload Module, the CM and the SM are mated and fly normally. When payload is required, the PM is mated between them.

But that's my personal opinion. I don't speak for the entire team. It is one option among many that is made available by flying with the Jupiter.


Well you just said what I said in the previous post.  This approach is better. 

Yea, I saw the notice that the thread had been updated while I was writing my post, but I went ahead with my post anyway before I read yours. I'm glad to see that we agree. This approach also has the capability to later morph into additional capability in the future.  Think MOL.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 09:00 pm
Why not undock from SSPDM and redock at another port?

Why waste the prop and do another round of prox ops?  Not to mention having probably multiple major software modes for two distinct operations, one with accounting for some x amount of mass on the nose and then one where it is just Orion.  [...]

Hauling the LM was not a problem for Apollo.

Soyuz routinely undocks and redocks, it's not a big headache.

I like the solution because Orion is flown unchanged.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 07/01/2008 09:00 pm
I would suggest you really pursue this with the rest of your proposal.  It's a simpler and cleaner concept, both in terms of design and ops. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 07/01/2008 09:03 pm
Why not undock from SSPDM and redock at another port?

Why waste the prop and do another round of prox ops?  Not to mention having probably multiple major software modes for two distinct operations, one with accounting for some x amount of mass on the nose and then one where it is just Orion.  [...]

Hauling the LM was not a problem for Apollo.

Soyuz routinely undocks and redocks, it's not a big headache.

I like the solution because Orion is flown unchanged.

It's not impossible but it makes like easier to have a this version of Orion as well.  Soyuz does not change configuration when it moves from one port to another where mass properties have significantly changed. 

Orion itself doesn't change anyway.  All you have done is put a cargo module between them when the mission calls for it. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/01/2008 09:09 pm
No it isn't a better idea.  An escape system is not a "get out of jail free card" wrt to mixing crew and cargo.  It compromises the design of the  SM to carry payloads.   Also now the SM is not usable for Lunar and other missions. 

The SSPDM does need LIDS or docking sensors.  The CEV just has to deliver it so the SSRMS can grab it.  The CEV can undock from the SSPDM and then dock to the station.   The SSPDM can have a CBM or a CAS interface.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 07/01/2008 09:10 pm
Seems like a convoluted solution when you could berth the PM to a CBM in the same way as the HTV then either move the CM and SM to a PMA via undocking and redocking or using the SSRMS

Edit: Great minds think alike, or is it fools never differ :)

What is a CAS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 09:14 pm
It's not impossible but it makes like easier to have a this version of Orion as well.  Soyuz does not change configuration when it moves from one port to another where mass properties have significantly changed. 

Orion itself doesn't change anyway.  All you have done is put a cargo module between them when the mission calls for it. 

Yes, but let's not forget that Orion is designed to fly with LSAM attached. Does having SSPDM change the game that much?

Apollo performed transposition, docking with LM, extraction, braking into LLO, TEI with all due mass changes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/01/2008 09:22 pm
Just a reminder, this discussion [Orion as orbital tug] is deja vu all over again,
from
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7868.2100
to
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7868.2160

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/01/2008 09:23 pm
No it isn't a better idea.  An escape system is not a "get out of jail free card" wrt to mixing crew and cargo.  It compromises the design of the  SM to carry payloads.   Also now the SM is not usable for Lunar and other missions. 

The SSPDM does need LIDS or docking sensors.  The CEV just has to deliver it so the SSRMS can grab it.  The CEV can undock from the SSPDM and then dock to the station.   The SSPDM can have a CBM or a CAS interface.
The base of the CM and fwd end of the SM are totally unchanged. PM mated between them completely mimics the non-PM connections. CM and SM are unchanged. There is absolutely no difference between the CM & SM themselves whether flown with or without a PM. *ALL* changes necessary are in the PM alone. That's what makes this work. If either the CM or the SM needed to be different to fly with the PM, then this wouldn't work. Baseline design premise: the CM and the SM do not change at all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/01/2008 09:30 pm
That's exactly what it would do.
I must say that this works, but it is not my favorite approach. I have what I think is a better approach, which we detailed in DIRECT v1 thread. Essentially, the Payload Module (PM) would be a tubular frame, just like the SSPDM, and would be attached between the CM and the SM. The fwd end of the PM would mimic all the connections of the fwd end of the SM, and the aft end of the PM would mimic all the connections of the aft end of the CM, so that it would be mated on the ground in this configuration.

This "mimic" thing would double the tension ties with pyros, the tight application of the SM to the CM - really, Chuck, a nightmare...

The tension ties are nonsense when placed between your Payload Module and the regular SM.

Edit: Also the guillotine for umbilicals CM-SM doubled, the umbilicals extended through your Payload Module, and so on.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/01/2008 09:59 pm
Quote from: clongton link=topic=12379.msg294575#msg294575
The base of the CM and fwd end of the SM are totally unchanged. PM mated between them completely mimics the non-PM connections. CM and SM are unchanged. There is absolutely no difference between the CM & SM themselves whether flown with or without a PM. *ALL* changes necessary are in the PM alone. That's what makes this work. If either the CM or the SM needed to be different to fly with the PM, then this wouldn't work. Baseline design premise: the CM and the SM do not change at all.

Another problem with a module "between" the SM and CM.  For a mission where you want to have astronauts working in your SSPDM bay, you don't have an airlock (Orion doesn't provide one). 

With the DIRECTv2 SSPDM proposal, you can put an external airlock in your SSPDM which Orion will mate to after launch.  Then you can have your EVA team depress/repress in the external airlock independently from Orion.

Assume an HST or JWST servicing mission where you use your SSPDM as your work area.  No ISS airlock.  Do you want to depress/repress the entire Orion several times and have your EVA team have to crawl down the side of the Orion , or perform one transposition/docking maneuver and allow your any non-EVA crew members to remain in shirt-sleeves during the EVA?

How does STS solve this problem?  How does a Shuttle dock with ISS, and allow in-bay EVA access at the same time?

Perhaps equip your SSPDM with an ISS mating adapter similar (or identical?) to what STS carries in its payload bay for an ISS mission??
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/01/2008 10:00 pm
Baseline design premise: the CM and the SM do not change at all.

SM would have to change.   power cables, data cables etc for the PM. 

CM would have power and data connections near the LIDS for the LSAM already. 

Software would have to change for the different CG.  (forward vs aft)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 07/01/2008 10:45 pm
Baseline design premise: the CM and the SM do not change at all.

SM would have to change.   power cables, data cables etc for the PM. 

CM would have power and data connections near the LIDS for the LSAM already. 

Software would have to change for the different CG.  (forward vs aft)



I'm with Jim on this ... even if the PM didn't require any power or data cables for its own use, and assuming the power and data cables did nothing but pass through the PM, lengthening the cables, adding connectors ... changes things ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 07/01/2008 11:24 pm
Baseline design premise: the CM and the SM do not change at all.

SM would have to change.   power cables, data cables etc for the PM. 

CM would have power and data connections near the LIDS for the LSAM already. 

Software would have to change for the different CG.  (forward vs aft)



I'm with Jim on this ... even if the PM didn't require any power or data cables for its own use, and assuming the power and data cables did nothing but pass through the PM, lengthening the cables, adding connectors ... changes things ...

Yeah production breaks.  The vehicle isn't that big that you would have massive line loss.

This would essentially be a cargo variant.  I really do not believe the SM or CM would change with the payload module designed to *not* impact the design of either.  The guidance software would have this cargo version installed to know it had the payload module in between.  All keep alive power would be distributed from the payload module and not the SM/CM.  Obviously, no one here has worked out the design and the trade-offs that need to be evaluated.  However, because of that I do not think any of you can just instantly say it is not feasible either. 

With the SSPDM on the nose, what happens when the SSPDM is berthed to ISS somehow and the payload is extracted?  What gets the shell off the ISS unless you are now going to outfit it with a seperate guidance and prop system, in which case what is the point of having Orion take it at all?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/02/2008 08:49 am
With the SSPDM on the nose, what happens when the SSPDM is berthed to ISS somehow and the payload is extracted?  What gets the shell off the ISS unless you are now going to outfit it with a seperate guidance and prop system, in which case what is the point of having Orion take it at all?

IIRC an answer to this question was that Orion - at the end of the mission - redocks with the "empty SSPDM" and takes it through the de-orbit burn. Then that payload carrier is discarded for its own destructive entry, probably when Orion drops the LIDS too.

Quote
This would essentially be a cargo variant.  I really do not believe the SM or CM would change with the payload module designed to *not* impact the design of either.

How could it be possible to not impose changes to the SM when the launch loads are dramatically changed ? The CxP Orion is supported at the SM base, right ? A payload module would add 10-20mT to the vehicle, right ? How is "Direct"s Orion mounted for launch, anyway ? The recent "Direct" presentations show Orion supported at the CM/SM separation plane, isn't this a significant departure from what NASA/LM are working now ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 07/02/2008 02:47 pm
With the SSPDM on the nose, what happens when the SSPDM is berthed to ISS somehow and the payload is extracted?  What gets the shell off the ISS unless you are now going to outfit it with a seperate guidance and prop system, in which case what is the point of having Orion take it at all?

IIRC an answer to this question was that Orion - at the end of the mission - redocks with the "empty SSPDM" and takes it through the de-orbit burn. Then that payload carrier is discarded for its own destructive entry, probably when Orion drops the LIDS too.

Quote
This would essentially be a cargo variant.  I really do not believe the SM or CM would change with the payload module designed to *not* impact the design of either.

How could it be possible to not impose changes to the SM when the launch loads are dramatically changed ? The CxP Orion is supported at the SM base, right ? A payload module would add 10-20mT to the vehicle, right ? How is "Direct"s Orion mounted for launch, anyway ? The recent "Direct" presentations show Orion supported at the CM/SM separation plane, isn't this a significant departure from what NASA/LM are working now ?



So now we have to take up two docking ports for an extended period of time, manage prop for 3 docking operations and one undock and breakaway.  Again not saying it is impossible but it seems cumbersome.

As for loads, that was the one area I was not sure about and figured someone may bring it up.  However, I don't know how it would be mounted in Jupiter.  While certainly this would have to be considered this is just something else that would have to be studied and traded in the benefit verus cost relative to design and operations. 

If we did go from the current Ares to something like NLS/Jupiter, then there probably would be some impact to the Orion design for exactly this reason.  However, in the design phase this could be addressed if and when we do switch and if the cargo variant was an option loads could be considered at that time. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/02/2008 02:59 pm

So now we have to take up two docking ports for an extended period of time, 

The PMA isn't going to be occupied or used by any other vehicle.  It is dedicated to the CEV
The SPDM CBM occupancy would be no different from a visiting  HTV or CRS (COTS II) visiting vehicle.  Or is could use a CAS.   This would allow the SPDM "mission" to be independent of the CEV mission.   The SPDM could stay on the ISS and be deorbited on a later CEV mission.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2008 07:07 pm
Been mostly offline for a number of days, but I wanted to weigh in on this discussion.

Not sure how we got to the topic of an integrated Payload Module (PM) in between the CM and SM, but actually this idea got shot down internally a little over a year ago because there were cost and design issues which would negatively impact Orion - severely by all accounts.

While cost & schedule were the key reasons not to go with this option (and instead to use a separate "cradle" module under the CEV inside the regular PLF and mounted on a fairly regular adapter, there was also a technical problem of supporting the weight of the CEV including the PM and the payload itself.   The whole concept was deemed to be 90% likely to be a non-starter - although that still leaves a little room for a trade study to be performed 'just in case'.

We will not be recommending any sort of Payload Module be integrated into CEV's design because of this.   Unless a trade study shows differently the official recommendation is that the SSPDM should remain a completely separate module and Orion should always fly the same configuration every time it flies.   Adding and removing things continually only increases the chance of a new problem creeping in to the crew vehicle systems and is one of the specific things CAIB flagged as a no-no for future vehicles.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2008 07:16 pm
How is "Direct"s Orion mounted for launch, anyway ? The recent "Direct" presentations show Orion supported at the CM/SM separation plane, isn't this a significant departure from what NASA/LM are working now ?

The imagery we have in our Animation is not quite accurate.   We are showing an old design of Orion there which has not been updated to the 'Narrow Service Module' configuration yet.

We are planning to support the Orion in one of two ways (see attached diagram for a simplified representation):

1) Support the spacecraft under the wider 18ft dia. "upper ring" of the SM.

2) Using the current Ares-I mounting system (supports under the SM, separate panels around the outside - although these would *not* be ejected before MECO due to possible impact with the PLF) and the whole structure fitted directly atop the PLF.


Option 1 would produce a different load path to the present configuration of Orion, so would require a design change.   Option 2 would virtually be a 'drop in' solution, but there is a small (as Jupiter's performance goes!) performance impact.

We would prefer Option 1, but we need a detailed trade study to make the final decision.   Option 2 is good too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2008 07:29 pm
The most likely means of utilizing an Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module (SSPDM) is by transitioning the Orion and extracting the separate SSPDM from the regular payload adapter after orbital insertion.   Orion performs the necessary rendezvous maneuvers to get to its destination (ISS, Hubble, wherever) and then there are two options:

1) The SSPDM carries an "airlock module" (although the module does not actually have to include an actual airlock system of its own).   The Orion is attached to this via LIDS adapter and the airlock module has a docking interface for the station.   Exactly like Shuttle does today, the 'stack' would approach the station 'face upwards' and would dock via the airlock module, not the Orion's LIDS.   Payloads can then be extracted from the rest of the SSPDM.


2) The Orion docks the SSPDM to the station (or in close proximity, the RMS grabs the entire SSPDM), Orion then detaches from the SSPDM and docks itself at a separate docking hatch.


Like with most things - there are a variety of pro's and con's with both approaches, but thankfully they tend to be rather mutually exclusive.   So using one technique can usually offer a good way around problems with the other.   And the SSPDM is capable of supporting both configurations.   This would allow mission planners the maximum flexibility depending on factors such as the type of payload being delivered, the number of visiting spacecraft, available hatches etc.   If one method isn't quite suitable, the other is likely to be a better fit.

If people need a diagram for these, I could probably whip something up in a few hours.   Let me know.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2008 09:05 pm
Here is a graphic showing the notional SSPDM as currently envisaged.

It is shown with a module the same dimensions as the Destiny Lab just as an example of it's size.

You can also clearly see the optional "Airlock Module" (here, not attached to the payload and with no "to space" doors, only the docking hatch for Orion and the PMA).

This arrangement would mean Orion would only have to be designed to use the LIDS adapters and would never have to fly with any Shuttle-compatible docking hatch - that functionality would be provided by the airlock module.

Also depicted here is an RCS pack on both 'aft' sides of the SSPDM - to provide sufficient control authority.   The hardware should be off the same production line as the Orion's RCS system to keep costs down.   It would be controlled by Orion, not a separate system.   Needs software, but that's obvious.

Also pictured here is the optional RMS system on the SSPDM itself too.   Probably not required for any ISS flight, but such a system would be particularly useful for Hubble missions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/02/2008 09:56 pm
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."   --  Mahatma Gandhi

Looks like we're at the fighting stage. I could hardly believe the words that Mr. King said.

(SNIP)

Steven,
Great rebuttal!   Thanks for sending it in.   Did HT print this yet?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/03/2008 07:30 am
Thanks Ross. I've had a look and my letter does not appear to have been published. I submitted it to http://www.al.com/contactus/ with the feedback topic of Huntsville News & Business. It seems this was the wrong address. The correct address is given at the bottom of http://www.al.com/huntsvilletimes/info.ssf?contact.html I will try again.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 07/03/2008 04:00 pm
FYI:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/07/nasa_starts_to.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28513
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 07/03/2008 04:15 pm
That white paper seems pretty damning. Has the Direct team had much time to digest it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2008 04:53 pm
Yes, we are aware of that and are indeed 'digesting' it.

We had already seen the White Paper and there are lots of mistakes in there.   We aren't worried about that at all.   Most of what's in there was actually in the documentation we were sent back when v1.0 was FUD'd at the end of 2006.   That information was used to improve the v2.0 version we have now.   The differences need to be looked at, but the body of that document is 'nothing new' to us.

But the performance analysis is new to us today and I'm very thankful that Keith was able to get NASA to release it.   So far we've only had a brief chance to look over it, but there are quite a few highlighted points which we have 'issues' with already.   The fact that it uses all the same assumptions as CxP instantly sets the field askew.   The acceleration curve assessment is a joke because our curve is a delta curve not including Earth gravity (they *really* should have spotted that given the T:W figures), and the mass of the RS-68/J-2X was amended 6 months ago (we've been assuming a 7,000kg RS-68 and 5,450lb J-2X since our 29.x.x series).   Two different EDS?   We have a variety of different EDS sizes optimized for different profiles in our AIAA paper, but only one would ever be built - once we decide which profile we would ultimately use.   I thought we've always been very clear that we only want one EDS.   And don't even get me started on reviewing that horrid LOX-transfer we had in our AIAA paper baseline - I was personally so glad that this year we have been able to get completely away from that last-minute 'kludge' we included in that paper too.

We don't think the results are correct - obviously - but its the best attempt at a workup we've seen so far from inside the agency.   Even if it doesn't include any of the changes we have made since the September 2007 AIAA paper and misses some of the different assumptions we have specified.

It's nice to at least see confirmation that we were absolutely correct in ditching the J-120/J-232 EOR-LOR profile and the LOR-LOR profiles last year - our figures showed similar reasoning.   This possibly helps clarify why we changed the baseline to 2x Jupiter-232 EOR-LOR with no propellant transfer - but our current baseline isn't assessed here.

I won't go into any further the details yet.   We want some time to go over this 70 page document with a fine toothed comb, so give us a bit of time to prepare a formal dispute/rebuttal.   We're discussing whether we need to do a point-by-point reply (probably quite boring and confusing for most people) or whether a higher level reply wouldn't be better.   With a bit of luck we might be ready to reply some time next week, after the long weekend.

One thing I will make specific note of though, is that there is no cost comparison to speak of between Ares/DIRECT.   That would have made for *very* interesting reading indeed.


My personal opinion is that this simply reinforces my belief that we can not get a truly unbiased and totally fair hearing from the agency while it remains under Mike Griffin's thumb.   This serves only to strengthen my belief that the only real answers any of us are going to get will be from an independent review conducted outside of the agency.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 07/03/2008 05:04 pm
That white paper seems pretty damning. Has the Direct team had much time to digest it?

I'm not on the DIRECT team, but a couple funnies I caught:

1-lots of references to the need for autonomous rendezvous capabilities for the LOX transfer.  How exactly is it autonomous when you have a crew attached to the vehicle doing the docking?  Am I missing something?
2-trying to force DIRECT to operate in a way as close to the planned approach as possible is a great way to overlook any potential advantages that can be had by doing a different architecture

There are probably others, in particular I think their whines about propellant transfer are a lot of BS--sure the TRL isn't all the way there yet, but it isn't needed for another 10 years, so we have plenty of time to eliminate that risk. 

All that said, I'd still prefer NASA to obey the law and get out of the earth-to-orbit launch business.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/03/2008 05:14 pm
Some of the things that stood out to me were the following:

pooh poohing manrating the RS-68.
1.  It would be easier than the J-2 development for Ares I (J-2 can go on a slower path)
2.  they will have to still do it for Ares V

Stating that the ET mods are too hard.  Not when compared to the A-I upperstage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 05:19 pm
That white paper seems pretty damning. Has the Direct team had much time to digest it?

I'm not on the DIRECT team, but a couple funnies I caught:

1-lots of references to the need for autonomous rendezvous capabilities for the LOX transfer.  How exactly is it autonomous when you have a crew attached to the vehicle doing the docking?  Am I missing something?
2-trying to force DIRECT to operate in a way as close to the planned approach as possible is a great way to overlook any potential advantages that can be had by doing a different architecture

There are probably others, in particular I think their whines about propellant transfer are a lot of BS--sure the TRL isn't all the way there yet, but it isn't needed for another 10 years, so we have plenty of time to eliminate that risk. 

All that said, I'd still prefer NASA to obey the law and get out of the earth-to-orbit launch business.

~Jon

The LOX transfer between the Crew stack and the EDS was dropped several months ago, in fact late last year. We have always said that this was an ever-evolving project, and that the documents are constantly being revised. For the record, we do NOT use a LOX transfer - we simply don't need it. We used that transfer at the end of our AIAA paper submission deadline because we had not completed the final analysis of the mission without it. We had quite simply run out of time and it was the LOX transfer or nothing. We have sense verified the entire mission without it, and with margin to spare. We have also publicly stated that many times on this forum and elsewhere.

But that doesn't mean Jon that we are against propellant transfer technology, not at all. DIRECT very much favors deploying that technology in the form of orbiting propellant depots, specifically to bring the ELV's, the EELV's and international partners into the game. We do not believe that the lunar efforts should be restricted to a NASA-owned heavy lift-only architecture. We want the EELV's to be right in there with us, with skin in the game. If deployed, the DIRECT architecture does not suck all the air out of the room,leaving plenty of financial room for deploying the technology.  And we intend to push for the depots because that, more than anything else, will open the solar system to humanity.

One nice thing about the depots is that once deployed, the lunar effort with the Jupiter-232 is a Single-Launch mission. Launch the entire stack on a single J-232, go to the gas station, tank up and go to the moon. There will be at least one crew member aboard from another nation because his or her nation put the propellant in the depot for the mission at no financial cost to NASA. NASA pays for a single launch of the J-232 and gets a full lunar mission.

Together we can accomplish and enable far more than either camp could do alone. I believe, and I stress that this is just my opinion, that Dr Griffin knows that DIRECT can do this (enable the depot architecture) and it scares him because it takes away all justification for a king-kong rocket, the mother of all waste.

As for the document, I've already seen several serious and glaring errors in it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/03/2008 05:38 pm
This seems to be one of the seminal charts. 

If correct, then if NASA were to use its mass models on Ares-I, the mass problem would vanish.

If they use the NASA models on DIRECT, it doesn't appear meet the payload requirements for TLI without propellant transfer.

I know I'm missing something, so please edumacate me.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 05:43 pm
icewiz;
Their numbers are not correct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bobthemonkey on 07/03/2008 05:47 pm
Chuck, I know you, Ross and the rest of the TeamVision/Direct 2.0 are proponents of the depot architectue, and see D2.0 as the enabling LV. While I would never suggest you renounce your work, I think it may be a good idea to do a re-hash of the AIAA paper as just the preferred 2xJ232 EOR-LOR with no mention of prop transfer. The transfer as you admit can be seen as a bodge and people will rigtly or wrongly pick up on it.

I guess what I'm suggesting is a "State of the Project" kind of breifing -just what you are trying to sell NASA and Congress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/03/2008 05:59 pm
Which numbers?

Their mass estimates are too high (meaning that the mass of Ares I is also over estimated)?

Their performance estimates are too low (meaning that apples-to-apples the Ares I might also benefit from those mistakes)?

They used bad assumptions for the Jupiter trajetory that do not apply to the Ares I (which ones specifically)?

They misunderstood the LOR vs. EOR trade?

(combinations of the above?)

I looked in the DIRECT proposals and surprisingly could not find a single estimate for TLI capability.  What is your estimated capability of Jupiter to TLI for the Lander, that is, max lander mass?

thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Space.Cadet.2008 on 07/03/2008 06:02 pm
That white paper seems pretty damning. Has the Direct team had much time to digest it?

I'm not on the DIRECT team, but a couple funnies I caught:

1-lots of references to the need for autonomous rendezvous capabilities for the LOX transfer.  How exactly is it autonomous when you have a crew attached to the vehicle doing the docking?  Am I missing something?
2-trying to force DIRECT to operate in a way as close to the planned approach as possible is a great way to overlook any potential advantages that can be had by doing a different architecture

There are probably others, in particular I think their whines about propellant transfer are a lot of BS--sure the TRL isn't all the way there yet, but it isn't needed for another 10 years, so we have plenty of time to eliminate that risk. 

All that said, I'd still prefer NASA to obey the law and get out of the earth-to-orbit launch business.

~Jon

The LOX transfer between the Crew stack and the EDS was dropped several months ago, in fact late last year. We have always said that this was an ever-evolving project, and that the documents are constantly being revised. For the record, we do NOT use a LOX transfer - we simply don't need it. We used that transfer at the end of our AIAA paper submission deadline because we had not completed the final analysis of the mission without it. We had quite simply run out of time and it was the LOX transfer or nothing. We have sense verified the entire mission without it, and with margin to spare. We have also publicly stated that many times on this forum and elsewhere.

But that doesn't mean Jon that we are against propellant transfer technology, not at all. DIRECT very much favors deploying that technology in the form of orbiting propellant depots, specifically to bring the ELV's, the EELV's and international partners into the game. We do not believe that the lunar efforts should be restricted to a NASA-owned heavy lift-only architecture. We want the EELV's to be right in there with us, with skin in the game. If deployed, the DIRECT architecture does not suck all the air out of the room,leaving plenty of financial room for deploying the technology.  And we intend to push for the depots because that, more than anything else, will open the solar system to humanity.

One nice thing about the depots is that once deployed, the lunar effort with the Jupiter-232 is a Single-Launch mission. Launch the entire stack on a single J-232, go to the gas station, tank up and go to the moon. There will be at least one crew member aboard from another nation because his or her nation put the propellant in the depot for the mission at no financial cost to NASA. NASA pays for a single launch of the J-232 and gets a full lunar mission.

Together we can accomplish and enable far more than either camp could do alone. I believe, and I stress that this is just my opinion, that Dr Griffin knows that DIRECT can do this (enable the depot architecture) and it scares him because it takes away all justification for a king-kong rocket, the mother of all waste.

As for the document, I've already seen several serious and glaring errors in it.

Not to go against the grain here - but if you dropped the LOX transfer late last year - why did you present it again at the Feb. 17th, 2008 Space Show (from looking at the documents attached at your website www.directlauncher.com)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 06:10 pm

Not to go against the grain here - but if you dropped the LOX transfer late last year - why did you present it again at the Feb. 17th, 2008 Space Show (from looking at the documents attached at your website www.directlauncher.com (http://www.directlauncher.com))?

It's not presented as a baseline, but as an available option, one among many.
On the show itself, we spoke to that. The fact remains that we simply don't need it. We can do the complete lunar mission without a propellant transfer of any kind.

And if you're speaking specifically about Slide 28, Propellant Transfer, that is using an orbiting propellant depot, as I mentioned in my post above to Jon. The slide explains graphically how such a transfer could occur.

There are many different ways that this mission can be done, all enabled by the DIRECT architecture, which Ares is quite simply incapable of.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/03/2008 06:10 pm
I read the NASA presentation. I am not troubled if it references data that was actual at the time the presentation was prepared.

I am more troubled when there's people that negates any work has been performed on Direct while this presentation states that was not the case.

Anyway assuming that NASA doesn't do PowerPoint engineering, there should be backing information that should be released with the presentation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Seattle Dave on 07/03/2008 06:13 pm
Well now we know that memo on L2 last year was 100 percent right about the studies. Why would Constellation managers tell NASAWatch the opposite, that no work was being done on it? It's one thing to say no comment, but to give an answer that a FOIA would prove them to be covering it up, hmmmm. Especially when they've (apparently) got the study wrong to the point it would have been a good idea for them to say yes and show how Direct doesn't work?

What a strange thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Space.Cadet.2008 on 07/03/2008 06:15 pm

Not to go against the grain here - but if you dropped the LOX transfer late last year - why did you present it again at the Feb. 17th, 2008 Space Show (from looking at the documents attached at your website www.directlauncher.com (http://www.directlauncher.com))?
It's not presented as a baseline, but as an available option, one among many.
On the show itself, we spoke to that.

Sorry, I guess I was confusing the only real architecture plan w/ mass statements in the entire presentation w/ the baseline.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 06:23 pm
Well now we know that memo on L2 last year was 100 percent right about the studies. Why would Constellation managers tell NASAWatch the opposite, that no work was being done on it? It's one thing to say no comment, but to give an answer that a FOIA would prove them to be covering it up, hmmmm. Especially when they've (apparently) got the study wrong to the point it would have been a good idea for them to say yes and show how Direct doesn't work?

What a strange thing.

My guess is that they are following orders.
"If you want to keep your job, if you don't want to loose your home, car and retirement, if you don't want to have your career ruined, then this is what you are to say".

IMHO of course, FWIW.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Tim S on 07/03/2008 06:24 pm
Well this just made Direct a lot more serious than the other option, EELV. I get the feeling there will be some ULA guys wondering how Direct got a new study when their's died with ESAS.

I don't think it matters what the study found, especially if the data is proven to be inaccurate. It gains it major eyeballs and attention.

Problem is for guys working Ares I like myself, and do not support any alternatives, it's causes a distraction and makes this all a bad thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/03/2008 06:31 pm
Problem is for guys working Ares I like myself, and do not support any alternatives, it's causes a distraction and makes this all a bad thing.

I think even those like you realize that this isn't being done to hurt NASA, the human spaceflight program, or those working in Constellation.  At the highest level, I think we all want the same thing - the most robust program we can have given limitations on time and funding.  Even neither time nor funding were limitations, we wouldn't be doing either Ares I+V or DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Peter NASA on 07/03/2008 06:37 pm
This is a big deal for Direct. From an idea from a couple of guys, who happen to post here, to a full blown and PAO-level (not surprising) denied NASA study.

I know you knew about it, but seeing it go public must be a good day for you. I say that as someone who will tow the NASA line. However, as Tim says, I hope this doesn't prove to be a distraction, now that some engineers will be wondering why this was denied at a PAO, management level. It doesn't help confidence when PAO, management say all is well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/03/2008 06:43 pm
And as much as anyone might have good intentions, these sorts of "distractions" do matter to the workforce (morale, retention, overtime, focus) and to Congress (uncertainty is a bad thing).  One better be 100% sure they have not just a better path, but also the ONLY feasible one before roiling the waters.  The waves and unintended consequences can sink all boats.

This is a big deal for Direct. From an idea from a couple of guys, who happen to post here, to a full blown and PAO-level (not surprising) denied NASA study.

I know you knew about it, but seeing it go public must be a good day for you. I say that as someone who will tow the NASA line. However, as Tim says, I hope this doesn't prove to be a distraction, now that some engineers will be wondering why this was denied at a PAO, management level. It doesn't help confidence when PAO, management say all is well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: STS Tony on 07/03/2008 06:44 pm
The question of interest is why was this study carried out? After ESAS, there was only ESAS lead Doug Stanley's Q&A on this site and his paper on Direct that showed it not to work. Then there was that dismissive and a bit childish page on ATK's Safe Simple Soon site, then nothing, then the L2 memo showing something was going on and a study was to be carried out, then the denials of any work on it, then the study that shows a lot of work has been carried out.

Anyone got their heads in a spin?

Point is WHY was the study carried out? I doubt it was any reaction to the Direct people. Someone had to have ordered it to be carried out. Question is who and why?

Anyone got a link to the Doug Stanley Q&A on Direct? Can't find it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 06:45 pm
Well this just made Direct a lot more serious than the other option, EELV. I get the feeling there will be some ULA guys wondering how Direct got a new study when their's died with ESAS.

I don't think it matters what the study found, especially if the data is proven to be inaccurate. It gains it major eyeballs and attention.

Problem is for guys working Ares I like myself, and do not support any alternatives, it's causes a distraction and makes this all a bad thing.

Tim;
I apologize for the distraction, I really do. You guys are doing an incredibly good job with your tasks. I appreciate you honesty about not being a supporter of alternatives and you're right; as a distraction, this could make your job more difficult. That does not please me and I'm sorry for that.

The DIRECT team believes that what we propose is capable of doing the job that the Ares-I/V cannot, and we are seriously trying to get an impartial review by someone like a Rand Corp to validate that claim. With NASA putting out things like this that have serious holes in it even at a first blush, you can understand why we want an independent review, devoid of NASA's input. Sadly, we have learned the hard way that we cannot trust them to be honest with us. Our personal experience with them has been disheartening in that regard. But without that study, or something equally as disturbing, our men and women will be betting their lives on the quality of the work you and others like you are doing on the Ares-I. As distracting as this may be, I thank you for providing 100% to your efforts on the A-1. Win, loose or draw, we all want our astronauts to ride a safe launch vehicle and it's guys like you that can make that happen. Thank you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/03/2008 06:49 pm
Well this just made Direct a lot more serious than the other option, EELV. I get the feeling there will be some ULA guys wondering how Direct got a new study when their's died with ESAS.

I don't think it matters what the study found, especially if the data is proven to be inaccurate. It gains it major eyeballs and attention.

Problem is for guys working Ares I like myself, and do not support any alternatives, it's causes a distraction and makes this all a bad thing.

Maybe a distraction but it's needed, in this day and age of instantaneous mass online information everybody needs reassuring that the long Cx path is the right one against all alternatives every big step of the way. If this study ultimately proves that DIRECT can't do what ARES is supposed to do then that will only increase general backing and support for ARES long-term.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2008 06:49 pm
Chuck, I know you, Ross and the rest of the TeamVision/Direct 2.0 are proponents of the depot architectue, and see D2.0 as the enabling LV. While I would never suggest you renounce your work, I think it may be a good idea to do a re-hash of the AIAA paper as just the preferred 2xJ232 EOR-LOR with no mention of prop transfer. The transfer as you admit can be seen as a bodge and people will rigtly or wrongly pick up on it.

I guess what I'm suggesting is a "State of the Project" kind of breifing -just what you are trying to sell NASA and Congress.

That's essentially what we have already done in our Summary Update document available on our website - just click the big red "UPDATE" button on the right of our front page.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/03/2008 06:52 pm

Problem is for guys working Ares I like myself, and do not support any alternatives, it's causes a distraction and makes this all a bad thing.

Big Deal.
So something that may be better is a distraction?  Especially, when the status quo is sub par and getting worse.  Maybe this will wake some people up to see what a folly and money pit Ares and it's developer are.

Maybe Ares I cancellation will be just another distraction like the cancellation of X-33, X-34, SLI, OSP, X-37, etc



BTW, EELV's are not dead, just dormant.  And their developers are the experts, not NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2008 06:57 pm
Problem is for guys working Ares I like myself, and do not support any alternatives, it's causes a distraction and makes this all a bad thing.

Agreed.   Which is why I think it would have been better all-around if NASA had given real serious thought to the concept and really tried to make it work before just dismissing it.   At worst such a change would prompt a couple of dozen folk here on this site to get excited for a few weeks, the press might put something about NASA changing the design of its rocket on page 2, and nobody else would give a darned hoot.


Even this analysis (the best we have so far seen) still falls a long way short of attempting to examine what changes (assumptions or otherwise) to the baseline which we have presented might make this actually work - NASA studies such things for breakfast if its even vaguely interested, but management have prevented any such attempts other than ones simply designed to discredit all opposition.


My point though, is that its going to be far more of a "distraction" when 4 out of every 5 Contractors jobs are lost in a few years on the current plans, and when the financial plug is pulled on Ares-5 (6, 7, whatever) and the whole VSE collapses.

NASA's own cost numbers show Ares-I/V (old 5-engine, 5.0 seg config which is 13mT short of closing TLI performance requirements) was going to cost $7.5bn every year to operate.   Not including Orion, Altair, crew or science experiments/outpost costs.

Any way we try to cut it, a program costing half of NASA's entire yearly budget just for the launch vehicles will simply never be paid for.   All we will likely actually get from Ares is the Ares-I - an EELV Heavy class booster costing 5 times as much as an EELV Heavy.   And without Altair and without a moon program, you guys - the workforce - are in big trouble.


I would argue that *that* is actually going to be far more distracting than changing the course of this 40-year long program now, while we're still firmly in the planning stages.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/03/2008 06:59 pm
Well this just made Direct a lot more serious than the other option, EELV. I get the feeling there will be some ULA guys wondering how Direct got a new study when their's died with ESAS.

I don't think it matters what the study found, especially if the data is proven to be inaccurate. It gains it major eyeballs and attention.

Problem is for guys working Ares I like myself, and do not support any alternatives, it's causes a distraction and makes this all a bad thing.

Tim;
I apologize for the distraction, I really do. You guys are doing an incredibly good job with your tasks. I appreciate you honesty about not being a supporter of alternatives and you're right; as a distraction, this could make your job more difficult. That does not please me and I'm sorry for that.

The DIRECT team believes that what we propose is capable of doing the job that the Ares-I/V cannot, and we are seriously trying to get an impartial review by someone like a Rand Corp to validate that claim. With NASA putting out things like this that have serious holes in it even at a first blush, you can understand why we want an independent review, devoid of NASA's input. Sadly, we have learned the hard way that we cannot trust them to be honest with us. Our personal experience with them has been disheartening in that regard. But without that study, or something equally as disturbing, our men and women will be betting their lives on the quality of the work you and others like you are doing on the Ares-I. As distracting as this may be, I thank you for providing 100% to your efforts on the A-1. Win, loose or draw, we all want our astronauts to ride a safe launch vehicle and it's guys like you that can make that happen. Thank you.

Who says Tim is not one of the them?   He automatically discredits Direct just quick as Stanley and Cooke did, and spouts the company line. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 06:59 pm
Point is WHY was the study carried out? I doubt it was any reaction to the Direct people. Someone had to have ordered it to be carried out. Question is who and why?

Anyone got a link to the Doug Stanley Q&A on Direct? Can't find it.

To quote a NASA official to one of our members: "Hmm. It looks like we seriously missed this option." This was in response to a direction from "an office at HQ" to "go find me an alternative [to ARES] that works" and after spending a fair amount of time, over several days, with our team member. This person was disturbed that what we proposed worked so much better than the Ares-1/V. That result was validated internally at NASA. Presenting this result to an "unnamed senior official" at HQ nearly cost him his job, and the report has now gone missing. Fortunately, others have seen it.

As to Doug Stanley's thread, it's there - I'll find it. But there was only one serious thing he had to say about DIRECT, and it was his comment about the RS-68 engine. It turns out that his comment was actually wrong, and he said so, but privately. What we had stated the Regen RS-68 engine was capable of is exactly what the P&WR engineers say it is capable of. The entire thread, and his document, was more a defense of the Ares-I than about the DIRECT launcher.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Tim S on 07/03/2008 07:03 pm
I meant the distraction of management apparently making false comments. Sorry Jim, you spoke too soon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 07:04 pm
Well this just made Direct a lot more serious than the other option, EELV. I get the feeling there will be some ULA guys wondering how Direct got a new study when their's died with ESAS.

I don't think it matters what the study found, especially if the data is proven to be inaccurate. It gains it major eyeballs and attention.

Problem is for guys working Ares I like myself, and do not support any alternatives, it's causes a distraction and makes this all a bad thing.

Tim;
I apologize for the distraction, I really do. You guys are doing an incredibly good job with your tasks. I appreciate you honesty about not being a supporter of alternatives and you're right; as a distraction, this could make your job more difficult. That does not please me and I'm sorry for that.

The DIRECT team believes that what we propose is capable of doing the job that the Ares-I/V cannot, and we are seriously trying to get an impartial review by someone like a Rand Corp to validate that claim. With NASA putting out things like this that have serious holes in it even at a first blush, you can understand why we want an independent review, devoid of NASA's input. Sadly, we have learned the hard way that we cannot trust them to be honest with us. Our personal experience with them has been disheartening in that regard. But without that study, or something equally as disturbing, our men and women will be betting their lives on the quality of the work you and others like you are doing on the Ares-I. As distracting as this may be, I thank you for providing 100% to your efforts on the A-1. Win, loose or draw, we all want our astronauts to ride a safe launch vehicle and it's guys like you that can make that happen. Thank you.

Who says Tim is not one of the them?   He automatically discredits Direct just quick as Stanley and Cooke did, and spouts the company line. 
Nobody says. But lacking evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He wants to do a good job and works hard at it. That's what I thank him for.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 07/03/2008 07:10 pm
I think it would do the project a big favour to have a clear and consistent version system for the proposal at any one time. It's currently called Direct 2.0, but it's actually been substantially revised since it got that name. It's more like Direct 2.2 now. Reports like this one can call it Direct and damn the whole thing. If they have to refer to the particular version, then any interested parties can easily see that it's an obsolete version.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2008 07:11 pm
I meant the distraction of management apparently making false comments.


Yes, that's disturbing on a whole other level quite apart from this LV debate.

That shakes the very foundations of the confidence we have in the agency's management.   Note that our dispute is not with the agency - only with certain members at it's highest levels of management, and even then is specifically over one particular agenda.   I think I speak for every one of our Team when I say we have the deepest respect for the agency and the people within it as a whole - especially when 9 out of 10 of us work actually for the agency!

But perhaps it *is* time that this issue came to light, given all the other BS that's been going on for the last 4 years or so.

Without doubt it spotlights the question of why Congress is reliant upon NASA's claims when their claims have so very clearly been put into question.   Worse still, Congress has absolutely no independent validation one way or the other so far.   They simply can't tell what is the truth any more.


It is time for an independent review of all the options.   Ares, DIRECT, EELV.   A fair and balanced review of the cost, the schedule and the technical aspects together.

It is time now - before we destroy all the Shuttle infrastructure and leave ourselves trapped with nowhere else to turn.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/03/2008 07:20 pm
Not sure how to react to this one. All you guys have wanted from the start is a review by NASA, and finally we have one. Whether it was a fair review is anyone's guess.
The best option is an independent review...that's the only way to solve thi thing once and for all.

But now, it seems the situation has to be handled carefully. Any calls of a coverup by NASA, etc, will hurt DIRECTs credibility.
It is great to be NASA right now, they have the ability to fudge A1's numbers...and that is what they have done from the start. Use parameters to make A1 sound good. Eventually this practice will bite them in the ass...let's just hope its before any crews are onboard.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 07/03/2008 07:20 pm
didn't both the recent bill passed by the house... AND the one passed thru the senate both have provisions that all the shuttle infrastructure must be kept in place?  i was surprised that both houses kept that in there... and of course the office of the president was frakked about those inclusions.... but i think it's a great thing that really works in Direct's favor. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 07/03/2008 07:24 pm
 agree with gladiator - this require delicate handling. For that reason, I think a point-by-point reply/rebuttal is the best way forward. Show where your figures/methods have been updated. Argue (with sources wherever possible) your version of the numbers. Clarify the mission plan (ie. no propellant depot).

Actually on that point, I think removing any non-critical items from the proposal documentation would be a good idea. Jupiter 120, Jupiter 232, performring the Constellation mission. Nothing else. Direct wins on this basis alone, and the extra stuff can be used against you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/03/2008 07:32 pm
Upper Management knows how to play the game. They see DIRECT gathering momentum, they need to do something, anything, to set it back a little. Think of the fallout after the Doug Stanley assessment of DIRECT...a lot of it had to go back to the drawing board.
Still, NASA referenced this assessment even after the proposal was improved. It was a setback.
People start forgetting 1.0, and start focusing on 2.0 and in the last few months it starts gaining momentum.
HQ has to put something out that discredits this version of DIRECT. It doesn't matter if the numbers line up or are accurate. It just has to create some bad press to discredit Jupiter.
If Congress sees that NASA has already done a report, some congressmen might not bother to look into thing further.

I think it was Ross who has used the Fox guarding the hen house analogy before. As long as the current administration is in power, they are going to do all they can to discredit Jupiter and pump up Ares Is muscles.

There is no way in hell that it will be tougher to modify the Shuttle Stack for Jupiter than it will be to build the 6 engine, 10m, 5.5 booster JOKE that is Ares V. Do they really think we are all that stupid to just be spoon fed this junk?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 07:36 pm
Not sure how to react to this one. All you guys have wanted from the start is a review by NASA, and finally we have one. Whether it was a fair review is anyone's guess.
The best option is an independent review...that's the only way to solve this thing once and for all.

But now, it seems the situation has to be handled carefully. Any calls of a cover up by NASA, etc, will hurt DIRECT's credibility.
It is great to be NASA right now, they have the ability to fudge A1's numbers...and that is what they have done from the start. Use parameters to make A1 sound good. Eventually this practice will bite them in the ass...let's just hope its before any crews are onboard.

When Doug Stanley did his FUD review on version 1 in December '06, and then admitted privately that he had been wrong about our engine (the only serious objection), we knew then that any "public" review from NASA would be "slanted", and started back then, with version 2, asking for an "independent" review.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 07/03/2008 07:37 pm
Reading though the performance analysis, the really big red flag waving left and right is the EDS.

They really don't disagree with most of the performance, but the mass provisions on the EDS for 14-day loiter completely don't impress them. Personally, I'd tend to believe them, considering the convulsions the Ares V EDS has gone through just to get 4 days of loiter. Plus, they make a very valid point about adding a completely new docking system, plus LOX transfer, and all the extra technology risk they imply. All that adds up them thinking you drastically underestimated the residual mass of the EDS, thus eating away at the lander. That's not politics, that's physics...

Also, they make some valid points about analysis methodology. The structural loads on the core stage and the overall LOC/M numbers stood out to me as areas where the methodology of the claimed numbers isn't as clear as it could be. Plus, they make a good point about the amount of time it would take to transition from Ares to Direct.

Overall, I think the analysis shows that Direct is plausible, but without a significant improvement in the EDS, it's not a major advance over the current baseline. Were I a manager given this presentation, I'd put a few of the ideas in the back of my mind (especially 2-launch vs. 1.5 launch), but not seriously consider the exact proposal...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/03/2008 07:44 pm

Without doubt it spotlights the question of why Congress is reliant upon NASA's claims when their claims have so very clearly been put into question.   Worse still, Congress has absolutely no independent validation one way or the other so far.   They simply can't tell what is the truth any more.

It is time for an independent review of all the options.   Ares, DIRECT, EELV.   A fair and balanced review of the cost, the schedule and the technical aspects together.

It is time now - before we destroy all the Shuttle infrastructure and leave ourselves trapped with nowhere else to turn.

Ross.

Ross, while I agree with you, this is not how government agencies, or even companies, work.  If the Army wants to buy a tank, Congress doesn't get an independent assessment from outside the DoD.  If Interior wants to open up land for grazing, they do a study, check it internally, and then recommend legislation or take action.  If the Navy wants a new sub design, they don't get independently assessed from outside of DoD unless they themselves want it or feel they need it.  Congress has no reason to trust ANY of these agencies, but they do because the have to.   It is delegation, and it is necessary to get anything done.

Asking NASA to allow its plans to be checked by external entities that know very little about NASA's plans, organization, or culture is asking for them to make your plan unexecutable.  At some point the President, the Congress, and people have to say "Mr. Adminisrator, I trust you" and give him the power to make mistakes and then correct them.  That's what they've done.  To allow everyone to have a voice on every procurement decision at every turn is not healthy and doesn't work.

I applaud all the efforts to shine light on the problem and suggest solutions.  NASA has clearly considered your alternatives much more seriously than other obvious ones (EELV) ... 

The problem you face is that even if NASA changes to DIRECT TODAY, the same people that are making the mistakes and decisions for Ares I will be making decisions with regard to DIRECT.  You will need to trust them then ... which nobody will and additional "democratic" concepts and changes will emerge.  People will call for Griffin's head and someone like O'Keefe or Goldin will come in.  Then there will be new charges and new concepts, but eventually they have to sink or swim.  Griffin is our best chance, but eventually we have to accept the decisions he has made ... and hope.

Right now they are sinking and IMO, a new concept isn't going to save them ... They have bigger problems.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/03/2008 07:57 pm

Right now they are sinking and IMO, a new concept isn't going to save them ... They have bigger problems.


An old concept that has been analyzed for two decades, just maybe, might help, though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/03/2008 08:00 pm
Cute.  OK, a different concept then.

People are measured on outcomes, not ideas.


Right now they are sinking and IMO, a new concept isn't going to save them ... They have bigger problems.


An old concept that has been analyzed for two decades, just maybe, might help, though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/03/2008 08:06 pm

I won't go into any further the details yet.   We want some time to go over this 70 page document with a fine toothed comb, so give us a bit of time to prepare a formal dispute/rebuttal.   We're discussing whether we need to do a point-by-point reply (probably quite boring and confusing for most people) or whether a higher level reply wouldn't be better.   With a bit of luck we might be ready to reply some time next week, after the long weekend.

You need both replies.  They have different audiences.

Keep the high level reply under a page and assume that the readers do not know the what the difference between a launch vehicle and a rocket is.

You may need a third reply for NASA management, also short.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 08:25 pm
Reading though the performance analysis, the really big red flag waving left and right is the EDS.

They really don't disagree with most of the performance, but the mass provisions on the EDS for 14-day loiter completely don't impress them. Personally, I'd tend to believe them, considering the convulsions the Ares V EDS has gone through just to get 4 days of loiter. Plus, they make a very valid point about adding a completely new docking system, plus LOX transfer, and all the extra technology risk they imply. All that adds up them thinking you drastically underestimated the residual mass of the EDS, thus eating away at the lander. That's not politics, that's physics...

Also, they make some valid points about analysis methodology. The structural loads on the core stage and the overall LOC/M numbers stood out to me as areas where the methodology of the claimed numbers isn't as clear as it could be. Plus, they make a good point about the amount of time it would take to transition from Ares to Direct.

Overall, I think the analysis shows that Direct is plausible, but without a significant improvement in the EDS, it's not a major advance over the current baseline. Were I a manager given this presentation, I'd put a few of the ideas in the back of my mind (especially 2-launch vs. 1.5 launch), but not seriously consider the exact proposal...

Simon ;)

The convulsions they have with the Ares V EDS is because they are trying to re-invent the wheel.

Their problem with the EDS is they don't believe Lockheed Martin on cryo storage technology, even though they have been doing it for 40 years. To the extent allowed, and completely mindful of their obligations to their employers, we received assistance for our EDS design and mass allocations from some on the Atlas Advanced Systems teams but, and I stress, on their own time and not as representing the AAST. No SBU data passed hands, and nothing classified in any way was passed on. It was informal, completely unofficial conversations, with various "what ifs" passed around. Sort of like the kind of conversation you'd have around a kitchen table at night over coffee with friends. But the fundamentals of Centaur technology are well known and in the public domain, and some individuals did assist, in a purely academic manner, in helping us avoid incorrect applications of the public domain technology for a Centaur/2xJ-2XD combination. In the end, we had an EDS that represented something they felt was more than sufficient for our needs, which we identified as being akin to the ESAS lunar mission. It is pure Centaur technology. The cryo technology used by the Centaur is the fundamental base for our EDS, and is based entirely on the Centaur, adapted for the J-2XD engine. They said what we had done was fine. We ran our mass allocations past them and they told us we were actually being a little too conservative, but we didn't take all the margin they said we could, preferring to keep some reserve.

The NASA vs. LM cryo feud is 35 years old. But LM has launched a significant number of cryo stages in the last 40 years, the vast majority very successfully. How many NASA designed cryo stages have flown? Zero. Who's numbers therefore would you believe? I'll put my faith, and have, in the Centaur cold storage technology any day. Those people have a 40-year long track record of making it work. How far back do we have to go to get to a NASA designed cryo stage? Where has the technology developed from there, and who developed it? Yep. LM, and Centaur.

I think it's a little silly to conclude that people who haven't done this for 40 years know better than the people who have actually been flying the hardware.

I am not slighting the Boeing cryo technology; I just don't know a lot about it beyond what is in the public domain.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/03/2008 09:04 pm
Hi Folks,
I am quite encouraged that NASA has done this analysis. I highlights some potential mass & development issues with the core stage that are quite valid. The points on overall development time also need to be addressed seriously by the Direct team. NASA cannot be faulted for basing a study on the best available information at the time - the AIAA paper. I myself found that paper confusing as it seemed to rely of propellent depots, propellent transfers and all other sorts of trickery. It wasn't a simple document.

NASA's assessment though didn't talk about cost savings associated with using the 4 seg booster or with using existing infrastruture - this simply wasn't addressed and so they should not have faulted the Direct team for not including cost estimate justifications when they failed to do so themselves.

What needs to happen now is for NASA assessers to talk directly with members of the Direct team to understand the current state of the project and to perform an assessment using input from both sides. An independant assessment by RAND or whoever would not acheive the benefits that can be gained from simply working together. It would also take longer and put NASA on the defensive, which is counter-productive. DIRECT's claims need to be validated by NASA first and foremost, otherwise the project will die right here right now.

Time to work together. Time to PROMOTE working together. It's the only way to move forward.

Natahn
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/03/2008 09:07 pm

Ross, while I agree with you, this is not how government agencies, or even companies, work.  If the Army wants to buy a tank, Congress doesn't get an independent assessment from outside the DoD.  If Interior wants to open up land for grazing, they do a study, check it internally, and then recommend legislation or take action.  If the Navy wants a new sub design, they don't get independently assessed from outside of DoD unless they themselves want it or feel they need it.  Congress has no reason to trust ANY of these agencies, but they do because the have to.   It is delegation, and it is necessary to get anything done.


What about John McCain and the Boeing versus Airbus re-fueling tanker kerfluffle?




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 09:13 pm
Either top officials lied, or they are ignorant of what's being done in their name, it's one or the other. Neither situation bodes well. They cannot, on the one hand, state that they are not doing any studies of the DIRECT alternative, and then on the other hand produce a document like this and expect to maintain credibility.

As Tim stated above, it creates quite a "distraction".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/03/2008 09:13 pm

What needs to happen now is for NASA assessers to talk directly with members of the Direct team to understand the current state of the project and to perform an assessment using input from both sides. An independant assessment by RAND or whoever would not acheive the benefits that can be gained from simply working together. It would also take longer and put NASA on the defensive, which is counter-productive. DIRECT's claims need to be validated by NASA first and foremost, otherwise the project will die right here right now.

Time to work together. Time to PROMOTE working together. It's the only way to move forward.

Natahn

I agree with this but it "takes two to tango" or "you can drag a horse to water but it has to want to drink"

Therefore, if NASA brass refuses to cooperate, then it shall be harder to resist either John ("freeze & review)  McCain or Barack ("I like robots") Obama.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/03/2008 09:16 pm

What about John McCain and the Boeing versus Airbus re-fueling tanker kerfluffle?


Fair point.   Doesn't happen very often.

However, that was a source selection protest and therefore had legal implications.  DIRECT vs. Ares I has no such benefit.

Ultimately, Congress (and the U.S.) can't afford to second guess every action of the Administration with anything more than speeches and press releases.  If they did, we would get even less done than we are today.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 09:17 pm

What needs to happen now is for NASA assessers to talk directly with members of the Direct team to understand the current state of the project and to perform an assessment using input from both sides. An independant assessment by RAND or whoever would not acheive the benefits that can be gained from simply working together. It would also take longer and put NASA on the defensive, which is counter-productive. DIRECT's claims need to be validated by NASA first and foremost, otherwise the project will die right here right now.

Time to work together. Time to PROMOTE working together. It's the only way to move forward.

Natahn

I agree with this but it "takes two to tango" or "you can drag a horse to water but it has to want to drink"

Therefore, if NASA brass refuses to cooperate, then it shall be harder to resist either John ("freeze & review)  McCain or Barack ("I like robots") Obama.

Without going into unnecessary details, NASA has made it abundantly clear to us that
Quote
they are not interested in a dialog. They have chosen their launcher. End of discussion.
Close quote.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2008 10:18 pm
***** has been saying that for a long while - even though there are numerous similar concepts dating right back to the start of the Shuttle Program.

Here is one of the very earliest pictures of such a concept which I've managed to collect so far.   I understand its from Thiokol, and originating in 1979!   Note the similarity to the STS-1 & 2 "white" tanking which never made it past 1981.

To my knowledge Thiokol, Martin Marietta, Boeing, Aerospace Corp, ATK, Mars Society, NASA Advisory Council, MSFC, KSC, HQ, USAF and DIRECT have all proposed near-enough the same thing at some point in the last 27 or-so years - and almost all of them more than 5-years ago.   This really is not a new concept and Gaetano had no hand in it at all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/03/2008 10:32 pm
[snip] ... NASA cannot be faulted for basing a study on the best available information at the time - the AIAA paper. ... [snip]

Yes they can, because they didn't use the latest available data. We have made it clear, time and time again that this was a work in progress, and that the AIAA paper was a snapshot in time. Better, more up to date data has been on the website for some time.

As a design supervisor, the very last question I have my designers sign off on before going to "Issue", is that they have used the latest available data for their design.

They are required to pull up their model (we do everything with 3D Catia) and then pull in the entire section of the ship where their component must fit, with every system and subsystem attached. Then the Interference program is run, with the required envelopes to identify any interferences with reserved spaces and all mating surfaces are analyzed to ensure correct fit, form and function. Then, and only then, provided the structural, mechanical and acoustical analysis documents are signed off, does the model get issued.

That ladies and gentlemen is standard procedure in the world of design, but apparently NASA didn't do it. They used outdated material and long abandoned configurations. All this stuff was known, and published. Everyone here on this thread that has been following the development of DIRECT can attest to how many times we have posted updated numbers and any configuration changes. They don't come every day, or even every week. Sometime not for several months. But all changes are made public just as soon as we have confidence in them.

NASA did not bother to check if they were using the latest data or not. They didn't even need to look for hidden new data. All they had to do was notice that there was an update available on the website. They didn't bother. Shame on them!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bobthemonkey on 07/03/2008 10:36 pm
Chuck, I know you, Ross and the rest of the TeamVision/Direct 2.0 are proponents of the depot architectue, and see D2.0 as the enabling LV. While I would never suggest you renounce your work, I think it may be a good idea to do a re-hash of the AIAA paper as just the preferred 2xJ232 EOR-LOR with no mention of prop transfer. The transfer as you admit can be seen as a bodge and people will rigtly or wrongly pick up on it.

I guess what I'm suggesting is a "State of the Project" kind of breifing -just what you are trying to sell NASA and Congress.

That's essentially what we have already done in our Summary Update document available on our website - just click the big red "UPDATE" button on the right of our front page.

Ross.

Heh. Didn't realise that had been published. Yes, it is almost exactly what I was suggesting!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/03/2008 10:50 pm
Heh. Didn't realise that had been published. Yes, it is almost exactly what I was suggesting!

Excellent.   When we did our last The Space Show radio piece a caller asked for much more simplified documentation for people who aren't rocket scientist.   While the Summary is still for the technically inclined, in order to describe how we intend to do what we want do, it is a *much* shorter and more compact read than the full 131 page AIAA paper.   The Summary is designed to be a well rounded, but manageable "primer" into the DIRECT plan.

The Summary has also given us the opportunity to update the figures - a never ending process, but one which has changed a huge amount since last September's paper.   What's there right now is only a slight tweak to the May 7th version we put up.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Space.Cadet.2008 on 07/03/2008 11:38 pm
[snip] ... NASA cannot be faulted for basing a study on the best available information at the time - the AIAA paper. ... [snip]

Yes they can, because they didn't use the latest available data. We have made it clear, time and time again that this was a work in progress, and that the AIAA paper was a snapshot in time. Better, more up to date data has been on the website for some time.

As a design supervisor, the very last question I have my designers sign off on before going to "Issue", is that they have used the latest available data for their design.

They are required to pull up their model (we do everything with 3D Catia) and then pull in the entire section of the ship where their component must fit, with every system and subsystem attached. Then the Interference program is run, with the required envelopes to identify any interferences with reserved spaces and all mating surfaces are analyzed to ensure correct fit, form and function. Then, and only then, provided the structural, mechanical and acoustical analysis documents are signed off, does the model get issued.

That ladies and gentlemen is standard procedure in the world of design, but apparently NASA didn't do it. They used outdated material and long abandoned configurations. All this stuff was known, and published. Everyone here on this thread that has been following the development of DIRECT can attest to how many times we have posted updated numbers and any configuration changes. They don't come every day, or even every week. Sometime not for several months. But all changes are made public just as soon as we have confidence in them.

NASA did not bother to check if they were using the latest data or not. They didn't even need to look for hidden new data. All they had to do was notice that there was an update available on the website. They didn't bother. Shame on them!

I just went back and looked at the NASA document & it says the analysis was performed in October 2007. When did the AIAA paper come out? I was thinking it was just a couple of weeks before then...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2008 12:02 am
[snip] ... NASA cannot be faulted for basing a study on the best available information at the time - the AIAA paper. ... [snip]

Yes they can, because they didn't use the latest available data. We have made it clear, time and time again that this was a work in progress, and that the AIAA paper was a snapshot in time. Better, more up to date data has been on the website for some time.

As a design supervisor, the very last question I have my designers sign off on before going to "Issue", is that they have used the latest available data for their design.

They are required to pull up their model (we do everything with 3D Catia) and then pull in the entire section of the ship where their component must fit, with every system and subsystem attached. Then the Interference program is run, with the required envelopes to identify any interferences with reserved spaces and all mating surfaces are analyzed to ensure correct fit, form and function. Then, and only then, provided the structural, mechanical and acoustical analysis documents are signed off, does the model get issued.

That ladies and gentlemen is standard procedure in the world of design, but apparently NASA didn't do it. They used outdated material and long abandoned configurations. All this stuff was known, and published. Everyone here on this thread that has been following the development of DIRECT can attest to how many times we have posted updated numbers and any configuration changes. They don't come every day, or even every week. Sometime not for several months. But all changes are made public just as soon as we have confidence in them.

NASA did not bother to check if they were using the latest data or not. They didn't even need to look for hidden new data. All they had to do was notice that there was an update available on the website. They didn't bother. Shame on them!

I just went back and looked at the NASA document & it says the analysis was performed in October 2007. When did the AIAA paper come out? I was thinking it was just a couple of weeks before then...

Mid September. That was nine and a half months ago. They said they completed the analysis in October, just one month later. What have they been doing with it for 8 1/2 months? Sitting on it? In the light of the fact that we have always claimed the paper to be a snapshot in time, stated clearly that updates were coming and the updates have been posted sense, I find it arrogant that they didn't bother to check for updates, in all that time, before going to press. Anyone else would have done that simple check as a matter of standard procedure for no other reason than to cover their butts so they wouldn't look dumb. Now put that together with NASA OFFICIALLY claiming that they have never done an official analysis of DIRECT 2.0, and then publishing a deficient document like this, it makes we wonder if they are drinking their own kool-aid.

They are not doing the analysis, then they publish it. They are not muzzling climate scientists, then the scientists say different. What's going on? Dare we look behind the curtain?

Irresponsible and arrogant. IMHO FWIW
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Space.Cadet.2008 on 07/04/2008 12:19 am
[snip] ... NASA cannot be faulted for basing a study on the best available information at the time - the AIAA paper. ... [snip]

Yes they can, because they didn't use the latest available data. We have made it clear, time and time again that this was a work in progress, and that the AIAA paper was a snapshot in time. Better, more up to date data has been on the website for some time.

As a design supervisor, the very last question I have my designers sign off on before going to "Issue", is that they have used the latest available data for their design.

They are required to pull up their model (we do everything with 3D Catia) and then pull in the entire section of the ship where their component must fit, with every system and subsystem attached. Then the Interference program is run, with the required envelopes to identify any interferences with reserved spaces and all mating surfaces are analyzed to ensure correct fit, form and function. Then, and only then, provided the structural, mechanical and acoustical analysis documents are signed off, does the model get issued.

That ladies and gentlemen is standard procedure in the world of design, but apparently NASA didn't do it. They used outdated material and long abandoned configurations. All this stuff was known, and published. Everyone here on this thread that has been following the development of DIRECT can attest to how many times we have posted updated numbers and any configuration changes. They don't come every day, or even every week. Sometime not for several months. But all changes are made public just as soon as we have confidence in them.

NASA did not bother to check if they were using the latest data or not. They didn't even need to look for hidden new data. All they had to do was notice that there was an update available on the website. They didn't bother. Shame on them!

I just went back and looked at the NASA document & it says the analysis was performed in October 2007. When did the AIAA paper come out? I was thinking it was just a couple of weeks before then...

Mid September. That was nine and a half months ago. They said they completed the analysis in October, just one month later. What have they been doing with it for 8 1/2 months? Sitting on it? In the light of the fact that we have always claimed the paper to be a snapshot in time, stated clearly that updates were coming and the updates have been posted sense, I find it arrogant that they didn't bother to check for updates, in all that time, before going to press. Anyone else would have done that simple check as a matter of standard procedure for no other reason than to cover their butts so they wouldn't look dumb. Now put that together with NASA OFFICIALLY claiming that they have never done an official analysis of DIRECT 2.0, and then publishing a deficient document like this, it makes we wonder if they are drinking their own kool-aid.

They are not doing the analysis, then they publish it. They are not muzzling climate scientists, then the scientists say different. What's going on? Dare we look behind the curtain?

Irresponsible and arrogant. IMHO FWIW

Honestly, I don't think it was any of the irresponsibility or arrogance you speak of. I'm thinking it had more to do w/ the fact that the performance of the lander came in at 21 tonnes when they need a 45 tonne lander (on the best case that they show) - which was about 30 tonnes less than what was published in the document that they referenced. Why would that shortfall of stated performance warrant a 'check up'? Just so they can say 'yep, still way short of published value & a complete waste of our time again!'
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2008 12:21 am
[snip] ... NASA cannot be faulted for basing a study on the best available information at the time - the AIAA paper. ... [snip]

Yes they can, because they didn't use the latest available data. We have made it clear, time and time again that this was a work in progress, and that the AIAA paper was a snapshot in time. Better, more up to date data has been on the website for some time.

As a design supervisor, the very last question I have my designers sign off on before going to "Issue", is that they have used the latest available data for their design.

They are required to pull up their model (we do everything with 3D Catia) and then pull in the entire section of the ship where their component must fit, with every system and subsystem attached. Then the Interference program is run, with the required envelopes to identify any interferences with reserved spaces and all mating surfaces are analyzed to ensure correct fit, form and function. Then, and only then, provided the structural, mechanical and acoustical analysis documents are signed off, does the model get issued.

That ladies and gentlemen is standard procedure in the world of design, but apparently NASA didn't do it. They used outdated material and long abandoned configurations. All this stuff was known, and published. Everyone here on this thread that has been following the development of DIRECT can attest to how many times we have posted updated numbers and any configuration changes. They don't come every day, or even every week. Sometime not for several months. But all changes are made public just as soon as we have confidence in them.

NASA did not bother to check if they were using the latest data or not. They didn't even need to look for hidden new data. All they had to do was notice that there was an update available on the website. They didn't bother. Shame on them!

I just went back and looked at the NASA document & it says the analysis was performed in October 2007. When did the AIAA paper come out? I was thinking it was just a couple of weeks before then...

Mid September. That was nine and a half months ago. They said they completed the analysis in October, just one month later. What have they been doing with it for 8 1/2 months? Sitting on it? In the light of the fact that we have always claimed the paper to be a snapshot in time, stated clearly that updates were coming and the updates have been posted sense, I find it arrogant that they didn't bother to check for updates, in all that time, before going to press. Anyone else would have done that simple check as a matter of standard procedure for no other reason than to cover their butts so they wouldn't look dumb. Now put that together with NASA OFFICIALLY claiming that they have never done an official analysis of DIRECT 2.0, and then publishing a deficient document like this, it makes we wonder if they are drinking their own kool-aid.

They are not doing the analysis, then they publish it. They are not muzzling climate scientists, then the scientists say different. What's going on? Dare we look behind the curtain?

Irresponsible and arrogant. IMHO FWIW

Honestly, I don't think it was any of the irresponsibility or arrogance you speak of. I'm thinking it had more to do w/ the fact that the performance of the lander came in at 21 tonnes when they need a 45 tonne lander (on the best case that they show) - which was about 30 tonnes less than what was published in the document that they referenced. Why would that shortfall of stated performance warrant a 'check up'? Just so they can say 'yep, still way short of published value & a complete waste of our time again!'

Because it's standard procedure in every responsible organization I know of, ESPECIALLY when we told them revisions were coming.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/04/2008 01:34 am
i wonder how Ares I/V would stack up if we looked at where they were last Oct vs. Constellations Requirements?

Also, as I have stated elsewhere---is it not strange that NASA's papers is published just before a national holiday? 
If this paper was ready in Oct/Nov why was it not published then? 
Did NASA do another comparison since Oct that has not been published? 
Where is NASA's report that was mentioned in Orlando paper?

What are Ares I/V current figures?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Swatch on 07/04/2008 02:13 am
I'm a big believer in what you are trying to do, so I'm going to have to agree with whoever said it before....  don't give detractors more ammunition to hurl at you.

What do I mean? I mean perhaps it would be best to shift the "Depot" ideas under the table and focus on going purely head to head with Ares.   It is especially true to separate your arguements into two categories.  "Why we're a better option for what Ares is supposed to be."  and  "What additional benefits DIRECT affords."

The first one is obviously your bait and hook.  You can go to any congressman and state very clearly "This is why DIRECT is better than ARES".  Then once they're on the hook, you 'net' them by saying... "Oh, and by the way, DIRECT can also do this..."

Right now, you need a very concise and strong argument to present side by side to Ares, a White to their Black.  Don't create shades of gray until you have people walking toward the light.

[/end marketing soapbox]


That being said, I enjoyed reading your Summary pdf, but would like to suggest two things...

First:  You refer to the naming scheme before you explain it.  This is seen in the Upper Stage discussion, the page before you explain it.  I would suggest moving the "Launch Vehicle Family" section in front of the Hardware (or Hardware into the LV Family) to provide context before hitting the nitty-gritty of hardware design.

Second: Need a better conclusion.  Or one at all for that matter.  Just something that plainly pits Ares vs. DIRECT...even if a few things on there favor Ares (which is not a bad thing).  It'd be great to see it be just long enough to fill up the whitespace on the last page.

Anywho, just my $2.10 ($0.02 after going through a NASA budget) from the peanut gallery.  Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/04/2008 02:29 am
Don't match the flawed ESAS architecture.  Most of their denigrations seemed to revolve around the Earth-orbit rendezvous back-end first and the 14-day loiter.  Use the two-launch architecture to greatest advantage by doing independent trans-lunar injections and rendezvous at EML2.  Then you'll have no loiter and a straightforward rendezvous between CEV and LSAM.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/04/2008 02:47 am
Don't match the flawed ESAS architecture.  Most of their denigrations seemed to revolve around the Earth-orbit rendezvous back-end first and the 14-day loiter.  Use the two-launch architecture to greatest advantage by doing independent trans-lunar injections and rendezvous at EML2.  Then you'll have no loiter and a straightforward rendezvous between CEV and LSAM.

While I agree with you 100%, there is still an enormous portion of the agency management who don't yet recognize the benefits of an Lagrangian architecture at all.   Some simply haven't heard of it and don't know what it offers, others believe it can't be any good because it isn't what we did previously with the holy Apollo Project, yet others have somewhat valid concerns with the significantly longer transit times.   Whatever the reasoning, the L1 and L2 staging sites are not yet recognized as being an acceptable option by all but a very small group so far.

We have been advised that to gain any reviews at all, we would have no choice but to play by NASA's play-book and follow an EOR-LOR mission profile, and that even things like Propellant Transfer needed to be removed.   We have since complied with this arbitrary requirement - to our performance cost I might add.   If we could go to L2 staging and propellant transfer we could boost our performance by a seriously major amount, but "the powers that be" will just reject it out of hand *even sooner* because it isn't following their preconceived ground-rules and so will never be acceptable.

I really need to at least "show" our performance with the L2 architecture though.   It's impressive.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/04/2008 03:02 am
Who cares if they are ignorant.  Educate them.  The Ares vehicles can't do an L2R/L2R architecture.  Go where they cannot follow and make them figure out why you went there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/04/2008 03:11 am
Tried that tack before.   They FUD you to death because nobody can support your claims because nobody else understands it either.   If nobody understands, they can claim "its bullsh*t" and nobody can back you up.   They win by default - even if you are right.

You have to make your proposals "agreeable" to the lowest common denominator *first*, in order to build the largest possible support base. Then once you've won them around, you can begin to work "inside" from that point on.

If you bypass the support base step, you won't even get a seat at the table to talk.   You'll always be left outside the door looking in.

Sadly this is Bureaucracy 101 and it truly sucks.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rocketguy101 on 07/04/2008 03:19 am

Sadly this is Bureaucracy 101 and it truly sucks.

Ross.

"Bureaucracy is the epoxy that greases the wheels of progress."
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/jim_boren_quote_17b7
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/04/2008 03:28 am
Hahahaha.   I gotta remember that one...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/04/2008 03:42 am
Jim McDade posted this comment at NASA Watch:

Quote
"Unrealistic" was the key word used by Doug Cooke. That's all that needs to be said. This DIRECT scheme may work in daydreams, but it is not a go in reality. We are not talking about design changes here, we are talking about changing to a completely different launch system. Legally, you can't just rollover the Ares contracts into Jupiter development.

If shortening the post-Shuttle gap is a prime justification for going DIRECT, then the whole idea is self-defeating. A new competitive bid process would be required. NASA would have to go back to 2004 and write and RFP all over again.

Now, the next U.S. President might kill NASA human spaceflight outright, but he will certainly not order NASA to switch to Direct. It is not going to happen simply because there is no way to fiscally, politically, or even practically justify such a move.

What is the DIRECT response to these alleged procurement process issues?  Can DIRECT get its paperwork done in time to start bending metal in sufficient time to close the gap sooner, as claimed?

Corollary -- If Mike Griffin refuses to budge is there someone else who might have the ability and charisma and connections to serve as NASA Administrator and guide DIRECT into flight status? Someone confirmable by the US Senate?

For God's sake -- DO NOT mention any names, especially here.

But that question has been bothering me for a while. If Griffin refuses to give up ESAS who would be the best the new quarterback to get DIRECT done?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/04/2008 03:57 am
We've spoken with legal eagles within NASA about this.   If faced with Ares collapsing as most people seem to believe is coming within a year now, the contractors are apparently surprisingly accommodating to renegotiate existing contracts rather than risk losing them entirely.

We recently heard that a few of the major ones are itching to change in fact - and surprisingly for some - are not actually pushing for their 'other' well-known wares ... if you catch my drift, deliberately avoiding naming names.

There seems to actually be only one contractor who is totally happy with Ares at present (no prizes for guessing) - but even they are becoming seriously worried about Ares-V costs getting so high that is going to be canned before its ever built.


And yes, there are some individuals - a few in fact - who would each be excellent choices as replacements for Griffin in our opinion.   And you're right - we will not be mentioning any of their names publicly.

But at this point I'd probably even take Dan Goldin back as preferable to Griffin - and that's pretty damning.   Hmmm.   Maybe not.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/04/2008 03:59 am
Tried that tack before.   They FUD you to death because nobody can support your claims because nobody else understands it either.   If nobody understands, they can claim "its bullsh*t" and nobody can back you up.   They win by default - even if you are right.

If Ares 6 doesn't have the performance to achieve the EOR/LOR architecture then it doesn't matter if you meet their flawed architecture or not.

At this point, I pretty much figure that the next administration will flush the VSE anyway, so all efforts now are really for the benefit of history.  When they pick up the history books about 20 years from now and try this again, at least give them something good to start with.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/04/2008 04:18 am
I think, honestly, that your probably right.   I currently give it >60% chance that the Lunar Program will be dead by Christmas 2009.   With it will go all the Shuttle infrastructure and the majority of the workforce, all that experience will be lost permanently.   The vast number of support industries relying upon that business will also collapse across the whole nation - at least as badly as after Apollo collapsed.   It'll hurt the economy of a number of regions badly but might even have a national impact as tens of thousands start collecting welfare or serving fast food for minimum wage instead of processing spacecraft.

I am convinced that Ares is *completely* un-affordable even if it continues for a while.   At best, we might get Ares-I to fly - late, seriously over-budget and under-performance, but we might get it.   But I'm 100% sure Ares-V will remain nothing more than computer simulations.   It'll take a while for the die-hards to cotton-on though.   But it'll become real obvious to everyone that its "never going to happen" by no later than 2012 IMHO.

I think that if DIRECT isn't selected, we will more likely get Ares-I canceled and Orion flying to ISS on a much cheaper EELV instead.   That's actually a pretty good solution for a program only planning a few LEO missions per year.

The EELV guys will probably try to rally something together a few years from now, once the dust settles, but I think they'll find that the "shadow of un-affordability" from Ares will come down on that plan very heavily.   Before it ever gets anywhere, Congress will start asking hard questions about the costs - and having seen the cost profiles for EELV Lunar missions I'm convinced Congress will choke at that point again just as they're going to with Ares.

I'm not even sure a full-blown Chinese Moon Plan would be enough to re-start the effort if we end up squandering this opportunity any more than we already have - I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be in time this go around though because the Chinese have already made quite a bit of progress towards that goal and we really would be starting afresh again with no infrastructure or experience base.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 07/04/2008 04:19 am
Florida Today finally acknowledges direct...

http://floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=news02
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mikegi on 07/04/2008 06:06 am
First post although I've lurked for a long time. I'm not a rocket scientist and am ignorant of many of the important technical details of a mission. So, my comments are from the viewpoint of a space exploration advocate. I thought the DIRECT approach seemed like a no-brainer as the way to go forward in exploration. I couldn't understand why NASA chose a seemingly more expensive and, imho, risky course (risky in terms of new development required). In fact, yesterday I was about to start a new thread as my first post, asking "What is wrong with DIRECT?", so I could hear the arguments from the other side. I have to rely on the evaluation of experts in the field since I can't determine the truth myself.

I read the white paper on the other website and came here to see the reaction/response. Frankly, I was disappointed. I wanted to see a response that indicated confidence in the DIRECT approach. Instead, I see post after post from some of the leading DIRECT folks with "top officials lied, or they are ignorant", "My guess is that they are following orders", "FUD", yet more speculation on the cancellation of ARES, etc. It appears to me that the NASA evaluation was on the mark in showing the problem with LOX transfer since DIRECT has now dropped it.

What I wanted to see was a calm and thorough response to the flaws exposed by NASA, not flailing and accusations. Obviously, there hasn't been much time to make a complete response so simply point out the easy ones (we dropped LOX transfer) until the full response is available.

I guess my other piece of unsolicited advice is to completely can the talk about 'what Griffin really wants to do' and other unsupportable wild speculation, and the NASA trash talk. It makes DIRECT look bad. Read the post by "Swatch" at the end of page 65. Explain how the ET modifications would not pose a problem.

On the other side, I thought the frequent NASA points about how DIRECT didn't have complete plans was unfair. DIRECT is a very small group and to expect them to have all the details fleshed out is ridiculous. NASA has billions of dollars and hundreds (thousands?) of engineers designing ARES yet their plans are constantly changing.

My two cents.

Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 07/04/2008 06:21 am

Their problem with the EDS is they don't believe Lockheed Martin on cryo storage technology, even though they have been doing it for 40 years. To the extent allowed, and completely mindful of their obligations to their employers, we received assistance for our EDS design and mass allocations from some on the Atlas Advanced Systems teams... We ran our mass allocations past them and they told us we were actually being a little too conservative, but we didn't take all the margin they said we could, preferring to keep some reserve.

The NASA vs. LM cryo feud is 35 years old. But LM has launched a significant number of cryo stages in the last 40 years, the vast majority very successfully. How many NASA designed cryo stages have flown?

...I think it's a little silly to conclude that people who haven't done this for 40 years know better than the people who have actually been flying the hardware.

Yeah, but when was the last time a Centaur spent two weeks loitering in LEO? (Or even a single day!) That's what they hit you on, and that's what needs to be explained before Direct passes the sniff test. I'm not saying it's not possible you're right, but you have to have some analysis to back it up (like you already have for the core stage). Waving your arms around saying "LM said so" and blaming "feuds" just ain't gonna cut it...

Also, wouldn't the SLWT (the basis of the Direct core) count as the last cryo stage designed by NASA?  :-\

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PeteJ on 07/04/2008 07:50 am
mikegi

I'm in the same position as you regarding knowledge and would like to see the honest and considered response rather than anything else, however to be fair Ross stated that this would be done back on page 62 and that it would take about a week. These guys are doing a fairly complex engineering job in their spare time so it takes a while to produce a comprehensive response that is accurate and cannot be dismissed because of minor errors.

Just be patient
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bobthemonkey on 07/04/2008 11:00 am

Their problem with the EDS is they don't believe Lockheed Martin on cryo storage technology, even though they have been doing it for 40 years. To the extent allowed, and completely mindful of their obligations to their employers, we received assistance for our EDS design and mass allocations from some on the Atlas Advanced Systems teams... We ran our mass allocations past them and they told us we were actually being a little too conservative, but we didn't take all the margin they said we could, preferring to keep some reserve.

The NASA vs. LM cryo feud is 35 years old. But LM has launched a significant number of cryo stages in the last 40 years, the vast majority very successfully. How many NASA designed cryo stages have flown?

...I think it's a little silly to conclude that people who haven't done this for 40 years know better than the people who have actually been flying the hardware.

Yeah, but when was the last time a Centaur spent two weeks loitering in LEO? (Or even a single day!) That's what they hit you on, and that's what needs to be explained before Direct passes the sniff test. I'm not saying it's not possible you're right, but you have to have some analysis to back it up (like you already have for the core stage). Waving your arms around saying "LM said so" and blaming "feuds" just ain't gonna cut it...

Also, wouldn't the SLWT (the basis of the Direct core) count as the last cryo stage designed by NASA?  :-\

Simon ;)

Isn't some of the long duration validation work being done by NASA as part of the LRO/LCROSS[sp] mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/04/2008 11:14 am
We've spoken with legal eagles within NASA about this.   If faced with Ares collapsing as most people seem to believe is coming within a year now, the contractors are apparently surprisingly accommodating to renegotiate existing contracts rather than risk losing them entirely.

We recently heard that a few of the major ones are itching to change in fact - and surprisingly for some - are not actually pushing for their 'other' well-known wares ... if you catch my drift, deliberately avoiding naming names.

There seems to actually be only one contractor who is totally happy with Ares at present (no prizes for guessing) - but even they are becoming seriously worried about Ares-V costs getting so high that is going to be canned before its ever built.


And yes, there are some individuals - a few in fact - who would each be excellent choices as replacements for Griffin in our opinion.   And you're right - we will not be mentioning any of their names publicly.

But at this point I'd probably even take Dan Goldin back as preferable to Griffin - and that's pretty damning.   Hmmm.   Maybe not.

Ross.

Dan Goldin was an excellent administrator. Except for the X33 thing. And the metric stuff up.

We can't fault Griffin yet on this issue - especially if the Direct architecture really does have the significant weaknessess that the NASA study seems to reveal.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/04/2008 11:49 am
We've spoken with legal eagles within NASA about this.   If faced with Ares collapsing as most people seem to believe is coming within a year now, the contractors are apparently surprisingly accommodating to renegotiate existing contracts rather than risk losing them entirely.

We recently heard that a few of the major ones are itching to change in fact - and surprisingly for some - are not actually pushing for their 'other' well-known wares ... if you catch my drift, deliberately avoiding naming names.

There seems to actually be only one contractor who is totally happy with Ares at present (no prizes for guessing) - but even they are becoming seriously worried about Ares-V costs getting so high that is going to be canned before its ever built.


And yes, there are some individuals - a few in fact - who would each be excellent choices as replacements for Griffin in our opinion.   And you're right - we will not be mentioning any of their names publicly.

But at this point I'd probably even take Dan Goldin back as preferable to Griffin - and that's pretty damning.   Hmmm.   Maybe not.

Ross.

Dan Goldin was an excellent administrator. Except for the X33 thing. And the metric stuff up.

We can't fault Griffin yet on this issue - especially if the Direct architecture really does have the significant weaknessess that the NASA study seems to reveal.

It doesn't. The study is flawed. But please be patient. It will take us about a week more or less to put together a reasonable response that will address the points made in the study in a satisfactory manner. Piecemealing the answers will only make the final response take longer. Have patience.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/04/2008 01:09 pm

Also, wouldn't the SLWT (the basis of the Direct core) count as the last cryo stage designed by NASA?  :-\

Simon ;)

Isn't some of the long duration validation work being done by NASA as part of the LRO/LCROSS[sp] mission.

SLWT is not a cryo UPPER stage

The Centaur for LRO/LCROSS will be inerted and dead right after injection
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/04/2008 02:43 pm
We've spoken with legal eagles within NASA about this.   If faced with Ares collapsing as most people seem to believe is coming within a year now, the contractors are apparently surprisingly accommodating to renegotiate existing contracts rather than risk losing them entirely.

We recently heard that a few of the major ones are itching to change in fact - and surprisingly for some - are not actually pushing for their 'other' well-known wares ... if you catch my drift, deliberately avoiding naming names.

There seems to actually be only one contractor who is totally happy with Ares at present (no prizes for guessing) - but even they are becoming seriously worried about Ares-V costs getting so high that is going to be canned before its ever built.


And yes, there are some individuals - a few in fact - who would each be excellent choices as replacements for Griffin in our opinion.   And you're right - we will not be mentioning any of their names publicly.

But at this point I'd probably even take Dan Goldin back as preferable to Griffin - and that's pretty damning.   Hmmm.   Maybe not.

Ross.

Dan Goldin was an excellent administrator. Except for the X33 thing. And the metric stuff up.

We can't fault Griffin yet on this issue - especially if the Direct architecture really does have the significant weaknessess that the NASA study seems to reveal.

It doesn't. The study is flawed. But please be patient. It will take us about a week more or less to put together a reasonable response that will address the points made in the study in a satisfactory manner. Piecemealing the answers will only make the final response take longer. Have patience.

Let's hope your response gets fair coverage and allows the public to see that DIRECT is not going down without a fight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 07/04/2008 03:58 pm
Why has this thread turned into discussing small blog sites like hyperbol, or whatever it's called? Let's keep it on the subject, not what random bloggers personally think of it.

Will trim this thread back.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 07/04/2008 04:06 pm
>>>
We don't think the results are correct - obviously - but its the best attempt at a workup we've seen so far from inside the agency.   Even if it doesn't include any of the changes we have made since the September 2007 AIAA paper and misses some of the different assumptions we have specified.
<<<

I wouldn't expect NASA to spend time re-working this comparison with the kind of frequency that the DIRECT team does, so I can hardly blame them when they're ...err ... highly encouraged to release an out-of-date comparison that's ... out-of-date  ;)

As to the whole "we never did the study" "oh, here it is" thing, I couldn't care less.  Really.  No one else will either.  You've been lied to by politicians.  What a shocking development. 

The real problems is that, at the end of the day, ARES is too expensive.  Everything else is noise.  I don't see anything like a cost assessment in that paper.  Maybe I scanned it too rapidly.  I did see some comments regarding "ET" production costs, and I think the structural changes to that piece (and charges made on that front)  deserve some response.  But as to the rest?

I can practically guarantee that NASA budgets are going to decrease.  The economy is going to suffer, and even if NASA preserves its budgetary percentages, the total is going to decrease.  Frankly, I don't see them preserving their percentages.  Folks within the agency had better figure out how to to build it "cheaper", whatever "it" turns out to be.  At the end of the day, that is who your audience has to be.  Folks need to grow a backbone in there.  There are times that are worth risking your career.  I've been in those situations, with my stuff packed away in my car ready to go prior to sending out certain messages.  If now is not one of those times, I don't know what would be....

Best of luck to all -- I really hope that NASA pulls it out.  I don't harbor a lot of faith given the number of recent development failures, but I do hope, for the sake of my country, that we don't let the path off of Earth rot on the launching pads of timidity.

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: copernicus on 07/04/2008 08:05 pm

   I consider the release of the NASA DIRECT report to be another positive step in the eventual success of DIRECT.  Of course, NASA trashed it, but, at the same time, they have been forced to admit that DIRECT exists.  Every time that the media, or NASA, mention or discuss DIRECT, that moves it into the realm of the possible.  It becomes a real option, something that can be discussed and debated.  It becomes a real alternative to Ares 1 and 5. 
   Another observation  -  the Ares 1 and 5 combination now is approximately equal to 2 Jupiter-232's.  I am an engineer, but not a rocket engineer, so please excuse the simplification.  However, Ares 1and 5 now include 16 SRB segments and 2 Upper Stages (about 2 EDS equivalents).   This is what the DIRECT proposal includes for a lunar mission.  The difference is that NASA is trying to accomplish this mission the hard way.  Instead of using 2 approximately equal-sized Jupiter-232's, it is trying to go to the Moon by shuffling the pieces of the Jupiter-232 around so that you end up with one under-powered, shaking rocket (Ares-1) and one monstrous, expensive, complicated booster (Ares-5).   
    I also want to refer you all to a recent Newsweek article on the history of UAV's.  It is in the June 9, 2008 issue, and is titled, "Up in the Sky, An Unblinking Eye,"  and is available online.   The key quote from the article is  -  "The history of the UAV is deliciously quirky, and a reminder that innovation often comes from mavericks operating outside the military-industrial complex."   I think that the DIRECT team can identify with that statement.   
    I also want to point out the various space projects that overcame NASA's atempts to quash them.  That list would include the Pluto probe New Horizons, the Mars 2001 Lander (now re-named Phoenix) and the upcoming Shuttle mission to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope.   The Pluto probe especially experienced several attempts by NASA to cancel it.  It was through a combination of public grassroots efforts and Congressional directives that it made it to the launch pad.   





Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/04/2008 08:59 pm
    I also want to point out the various space projects that overcame NASA's atempts to quash them.  That list would include the Pluto probe New Horizons, the Mars 2001 Lander (now re-named Phoenix) and the upcoming Shuttle mission to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope.

Wrong, that is very inaccurate statement.  There was no squashing. 

1.  Mars 2001 Lander is not Phoenix.  The Mars 2001 Lander was a different mission and was canceled.  NASA saved the hardware to allow it to still be used.  Phoenix was a different mission that used the Mars 2001 Lander hardware.

2.  "NASA" did not cancel the HST mission.  A previous NASA Admin deemed it too risky and the current admin reinstated it.

3.  I believe, PNH w

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MrTim on 07/04/2008 11:07 pm
Tried that tack before.   They FUD you to death because nobody can support your claims because nobody else understands it either.   If nobody understands, they can claim "its bullsh*t" and nobody can back you up.   They win by default - even if you are right.
Ross, NASA is the designated bunch of "rocket scientists" (by congressional decree) in the US, so if you Direct guys are going to stand around complaining that you have a better plan and they are not able to understand it, you had better be prepared to be the ones who have to prove your case. This should have always been obvious.

You have to make your proposals "agreeable" to the lowest common denominator *first*, in order to build the largest possible support base. Then once you've won them around, you can begin to work "inside" from that point on. (snip)
Again, this should have been obvious to you guys before you started playing. All contests have rules and all competitors need to play by those rules even if they do not like them.

It's sad to see some of the pro-Direct comments come-across like something people in foil hats would write. You guys have been challenging NASA to look at your stuff for months and have insisted that your plans were superior to NASA's plans. Now that it seems they have looked at your plans, they have announced that your plans have flaws and are not complete enough for proper analysis. It is now up to you guys to (a) admit and fix the flaws in your proposal and apologize to them for the continual stream of insults you have been hurling at them, (b) identify and expose the flaws in their analysis, (or some mix of A and B). If you are going to be seen as grown-ups, however, you should not be wasting time complaining that Griffin is evil, the system is rigged, there is some grand anti-Direct conspiracy, secret sources in NASA or industry are whispering things to you, they used some intermediate version of Direct, etc.

NASA has made specific technical criticisms of your published proposals. Your responses to some of these items should be very simple and straight-forward. i.e. did you, or did you not, fail to include some engine mass? did you, or did you not, fail to account for extra developments like a blind-docking requirement (don't bother answering my version of these points, I cite them here (possibly erroneously) from memory only as examples of the straight-forward questions their paper has raised...you need to answer their actual points)

You guys have on occasion accused NASA of bait-and-switch on Ares, but by not having a locked-down proposal and always complaining that they have used some obsolete version of your plans, you have opened yourselves up to the same criticism; they criticized what you published and cannot reasonably be expected to keep re-downloading and re-analyzing a moving target from outsiders who are not even potential players in the business (you guys are not vendors, or an alternate design team with production-ready blueprints, etc). You guys apparently managed to generate enough congressional attention to make some people at NASA set-aside their normal day jobs and spend time on your stuff; no other non-NASA proposal got even the attention and consideration you got...the burden was on you to have had your ducks in a better row. Your proposal needed to be so solid that their debunking would require the sort of math that would make the eyes of a mere mortal glass-over. If they were indeed able to find even one major and obvious flaw in your plan, then it helps to move your plan into the amateur flights-of-fantasy column. I asked Chuck, months ago, if there was anything you guys had overlooked that would give NASA an open shot and he was certain there was nothing; so I presume you guys will be able to show that they are completely wrong about every detail of their analysis.  :(

This is the real world. There is a limit to the number of times you get to go back to members of congress and say "this time we have a really good proposal that NASA should have to adopt". Remember, NASA is already cutting steel. You have long claimed you had a superior plan, but if your plan was not solid and workable before they started cutting that steel, then the comparison is already unfair in your favor. The lesson here is to do a lot more self-criticism and self-editing up front before publishing a plan and insisting that it is better and must be considered. Above all, cut the conspiracy stuff and the questioning of people's motives...your responses need to be purely professional and technical; anything else makes Direct look bad  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/05/2008 01:12 am
Tried that tack before.   They FUD you to death because nobody can support your claims because nobody else understands it either.   If nobody understands, they can claim "its bullsh*t" and nobody can back you up.   They win by default - even if you are right.
Ross, NASA is the designated bunch of "rocket scientists" (by congressional decree) in the US, so if you Direct guys are going to stand around complaining that you have a better plan and they are not able to understand it, you had better be prepared to be the ones who have to prove your case. This should have always been obvious.

In all fairness, Ross has said before that there are "rocket scientists" within NASA who want DIRECT, and have even gone as far as to help the team out. The guys at HQ calling the shots are not the rocket scientists, they are policy makers. It is their job to listen to the rocket scientists when they say there is a problem. But past events (Challenger, Columbia, etc) show that this isn't what always happens.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/05/2008 03:26 am
Mr. Tim,

Like they said, give them another week or so to put their response together.  If they can't adequately answer the criticisms with a good official response, then your blurb might be justified - wait until then.  You also have to remember that these guys took the first set of criticism regarding Direct 1.0 and did fix the problems.  They're not a bunch of cry babies.  About 90% of them are real NASA engineers and contractors just like you who are also worried about their future employment.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Integrator on 07/05/2008 11:47 am

Ross, NASA is the designated bunch of "rocket scientists" (by congressional decree) in the US, so if you Direct guys are going to stand around complaining that you have a better plan and they are not able to understand it, you had better be prepared to be the ones who have to prove your case. This should have always been obvious.

In all fairness, Ross has said before that there are "rocket scientists" within NASA who want DIRECT, and have even gone as far as to help the team out. The guys at HQ calling the shots are not the rocket scientists, they are policy makers. It is their job to listen to the rocket scientists when they say there is a problem. But past events (Challenger, Columbia, etc) show that this isn't what always happens.


That's exactly right.  That study was apparently done by people who care only about "the Architecture", and do not fully understand how to make it real, or the pitfalls in some of the goals and supposed LV technologies they are staking their claims on.  This explains why none of us in Ares have even seen this until now, it was not done by anyone actively involved in LV design and analysis (as far as I know).  In my mind, stating that Direct fails to meet Architecture goals, which currently depend on promised performance of Ares-1 and Ares 5, is like the kettle calling the pot black. 

It has always made more common sense to me to design the best launch vehicle we can and build an exploration architecture around that, rather than cobble together some pieces and parts in Power Point, and then demand L3 develop LVs that can meet those needs, oh, by the way, using stipulated technology solutions.  One should always make plans based on available resources, not come up with some grandiose scheme and hope somehow the pieces you need to succeed will magically fall into place.  (Is this how these people manage their personal lives??)

LEVEL 1 and LEVEL 2 SHOULD NOT BE TELLING LEVEL 3 HOW TO BUILD THE ROCKETS. LET US DO OUR JOB, GIVE US PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ONLY.

As it is, we have largely wasted 3 precious years already. "The Architecture" is based on LVs that have as many shortfalls as Direct.  The Architecture is not sacred.  We need a new architecture.  Learn, Adapt, Change, Evolve.  When someone gives you lemons, take advantage of the unexpected windfall and MAKE LEMONADE.

Go Direct. Press for MECO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MrTim on 07/05/2008 01:07 pm
Tried that tack before.   They FUD you to death because nobody can support your claims because nobody else understands it either.   If nobody understands, they can claim "its bullsh*t" and nobody can back you up.   They win by default - even if you are right.
Ross, NASA is the designated bunch of "rocket scientists" (by congressional decree) in the US, so if you Direct guys are going to stand around complaining that you have a better plan and they are not able to understand it, you had better be prepared to be the ones who have to prove your case. This should have always been obvious.
In all fairness, Ross has said before that there are "rocket scientists" within NASA who want DIRECT, and have even gone as far as to help the team out. The guys at HQ calling the shots are not the rocket scientists, they are policy makers. It is their job to listen to the rocket scientists when they say there is a problem. But past events (Challenger, Columbia, etc) show that this isn't what always happens.
My point there was not to assess who was better at designing rockets or who had the better plans, but rather, to point out that since NASA was created by congress to be the nation's rocket science agency, the presumption by both congress and the public will always be that NASA is where the real rocket scientists are. As just a basic matter of realism, anybody outside of that tent of presumed gravitas will have to prove himself whereas anybody inside that tent is assumed to be right/competent/expert/etc.

This should have been obvious to the Direct team all along.

If they want the presumption of being the experts, and they truly have people inside NASA working with them, then some of those people may need to go public. There is something unseemly and dishonest about people inside NASA secretly working on and preferring Direct while implementing Ares; this means they are intentionally and knowingly providing the nation with something they believe is an inferior product. If somebody's heart is not in it, he should not be involved in the Constellation program and should not ever be permitted to be in proximity to Cx-related flight hardware. I'm sorry if it offends, but the "I believe I'm doing the wrong thing, but I'll keep quiet and stick with it because I just want to keep my job" line displays a complete lack of principles. If somebody does not believe enough in Direct to put his job on the line for it, then nobody should ever be expected to put his life on the line by climbing aboard a Jupiter. We just celebrated Independence Day, the day we remember the sacrifices of those original men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the American cause. Perhaps Jefferson, Adams, and associates should have just whispered their opposition on the internet while going in every day to jobs where they pretended to faithfully serve King George... it's a matter of character.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 07/05/2008 01:09 pm
Having read all of the info posted on this forum in the past two weeks, it is apparent to me that the publicity regarding DIRECT has backed the NASA leadership into a corner, in that they have had to respond publicly to the DIRECT alternative.

In taking the public dabate forward, it feel the first step must be a reasoned and technically robust response to the challenges that NASA has put forth.  It is time now to engage in an argument in the best sense of the term, that is a comparison of the advangages and disadvantages of DIRECT against the current Constellation architecture.  I believe there are people within NASA and the contractor community fully expect this kind of response.  NASA may be wrong or it may be right, but only a point for point discussion will suffice.

Secondly, DIRECT should continue the push for an independent review of the data presented so an unbiased analysis can take place.

Finally, DIRECT should, wherever possible, keep the DIRECT concept in the limelight as part of the public debate.

NASA offers both a challenge and an opportunity to the DIRECT Team.  The DIRECT team must show its stuff with its best efforts.  This may prove to be the most difficult challenge so far.  I wish the DIRECT team all the best as they move forward in the debate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Integrator on 07/05/2008 01:29 pm
Quote
We just celebrated Independence Day, the day we remember the sacrifices of those original men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the American cause. Perhaps Jefferson, Adams, and associates should have just whispered their opposition on the internet while going in every day to jobs where they pretended to faithfully serve King George... it's a matter of character.

Walk a mile in my moccasins before you criticize.  We do as we are told, we try as hard as we can to make their designs work.  It is extremely frustrating but most of us have mortgages and kids to support, so what are our options? Leave or keep on keeping on and hope and pray that eventually sanity and physics will reign, meanwhile, put a few aces up our sleeves in case Plan B materializes, so we will be ready.  As a matter of fact, many I know have become fed up and are indeed voting with their feet and going to other projects, private industry or other agencies.  They have given up.  I prefer to stupidly and stubbornly hang in there and wait, until the tide changes, as it inevitably will.  (As to the honor of patriots, the American Revolution started as a guerrilla war, the Colonists were viewed as terrorists by the English.  The victors always write the history books.)  This discussion of personal motivations is off topic of merits of Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MrTim on 07/05/2008 01:54 pm
(snip) It has always made more common sense to me to design the best launch vehicle we can and build an exploration architecture around that, rather than cobble together some pieces and parts in Power Point, and then demand L3 develop LVs that can meet those needs, oh, by the way, using stipulated technology solutions.  One should always make plans based on available resources, not come up with some grandiose scheme and hope somehow the pieces you need to succeed will magically fall into place.
Sounds good, but you cannot know what the "best launch vehicle" is without knowing what the mission is. Somebody needs to make the high-level decisions about the architecture and strategy and somebody must be entrusted with the authority to make the decisions and choices. The people elect the President and congress and they in-turn appoint and confirm an administrator to do exactly that.

(Is this how these people manage their personal lives??)
Unfortunately, in modern America, yes...this is exactly how many people manage their personal lives... ;)

(snip) As it is, we have largely wasted 3 precious years already. "The Architecture" is based on LVs that have as many shortfalls as Direct.  The Architecture is not sacred.
If, as the foil-hatted crowd would have us believe:
1. Cx is not workable
2. Direct is the answer
3. NASA is full of technical worker bees who all know 1 & 2, but they have been afraid to stand-up and speak-out publicly (when their identities and positions would give Direct all the credibility it needs to win the day)
then they are the ones responsible for the wasted 3 years; they could have come forward to share their great wisdom on day 1, before management, the administration,  congress  and the agency got too wrapped-up in the current plans. If these secret experts did not know on day 1 that the current architecture was wrong, then management was not wrong either on day 1 and the whole 3 years has not been wasted. If these masked-heroes concluded Ares was a bad architecture after the decisions were made and contracts were let, then we are in the realm of 20/20 hindsight; NASA's orders were to get going with a shuttle replacement and NOT to sit around for some indefinite time period tossing ideas about until the perfect plan fell into their laps. Often the worst decision one can make is NOT the imperfect decision, but rather no decision at all. That's not a happy thought, and it's not the perfection we might all like, but it is the real world.

We need a new architecture.
Depends on how tightly you define the word. One might argue that the changes to Ares V which cause some to now ridicule it as "Ares VI" constitute an architectural change, and on the other hand one might argue that a Jupiter-232 is just a mini Ares-V ("Ares II" or "Ares III" anybody?) Proponents of the Jupiter might find their arguments more palatable to decision makers if sold as simply alternate forms of Ares within the Cx "architecture" rather than as a superior, designed-by-outsiders, alternate "architecture" (which sounds like a major and expensive (in time and money) course-change). The rants by Direct supporters about dumb/evil/corrupt NASA management have probably won themselves and their proposal no friends and created some very determined enemies; this is basic human nature and also should have been obvious.

Learn, Adapt, Change, Evolve.  When someone gives you lemons, take advantage of the unexpected windfall and MAKE LEMONADE.
Sounds like what the folks working on Ares are doing: learning, adapting, changing, taking advantage of the unexpected... (New BPC shape, new landing bags ideas, etc... being forced by the constraints they are working within)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/05/2008 02:24 pm
I work for the Public sector in IT.  If your boss pushes for a piece of hardware/software and you know it is not going to do the job, what do you do?  You tell him the facts.  (S)he decides to go on---what are you meant to do?  You become a good soldier and do your job.  The product/service may turn out as expensive as you predicited and may not work...but then it is too late.  This is classic Project management going down the tubes.  You have go/no go points.   But if upper management wants to push any project/product what are the workers who are told to implement meant to do?  Mostly, they they try to implement it as best as they can. 

Ethically, you may say people should walk with thier feet.  But ethics does NOT pay the mortgage, feed your family, and pay for college education.  In a perfect world, if you disagree with managment---walk off the job.  But this is not a perfect world.  Remember Maslow.  People want their basic needs meet first---food, shelter, etc.  No job=no food.  Are they being unethical--maybe.    But who cares?   Being a whistleblower is unethical in your world, since you are going against the company line.  Looking under differant ethical therories ( http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/Theories.htm), I see people working on Direct as being ethicial.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/05/2008 02:28 pm
I have to say I agree with MrTim.  Some of the commentary immediately following the release of this document did come across as "counter-FUD".

The response should have simply been "we disagree with the findings, and will have a formal response", without all the extra baggage in subsequent posts about document dates, versions, etc.

It might be time for the DIRECT team to consider setting up their own equivalent of a PAO, in order to control how they communicate publicly.

I'm not saying the people working on DIRECT aren't entitled to their opinions or emotional responses.  But when they begin to reflect negatively on the project, they need to be filtered from public view.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/05/2008 02:28 pm
If they want the presumption of being the experts, and they truly have people inside NASA working with them, then some of those people may need to go public. There is something unseemly and dishonest about people inside NASA secretly working on and preferring Direct while implementing Ares; this means they are intentionally and knowingly providing the nation with something they believe is an inferior product. If somebody's heart is not in it, he should not be involved in the Constellation program and should not ever be permitted to be in proximity to Cx-related flight hardware.

Tim, you are in la-la land with that statement and it makes me wonder if you have any idea what goes on at the real NASA.

Your ideology test is an insult to any engineer out there and essentially a command to turn off their brain at work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/05/2008 02:37 pm
3. NASA is full of technical worker bees who all know 1 & 2, but they have been afraid to stand-up and speak-out publicly (when their identities and positions would give Direct all the credibility it needs to win the day)
then they are the ones responsible for the wasted 3 years; they could have come forward to share their great wisdom on day 1, before management, the administration,  congress  and the agency got too wrapped-up in the current plans. If these secret experts did not know on day 1 that the current architecture was wrong, then management was not wrong either on day 1 and the whole 3 years has not been wasted. If these masked-heroes concluded Ares was a bad architecture after the decisions were made and contracts were let, then we are in the realm of 20/20 hindsight; NASA's orders were to get going with a shuttle replacement and NOT to sit around for some indefinite time period tossing ideas about until the perfect plan fell into their laps. Often the worst decision one can make is NOT the imperfect decision, but rather no decision at all. That's not a happy thought, and it's not the perfection we might all like, but it is the real world.

This statement is so wrong I barely know where to begin.  Do you think that NASA management listens to anyone?  My goodness, you're dreaming.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mikegi on 07/05/2008 03:05 pm
I think it would be great if someone (eg. "rocket scientist") would start a new thread about NASA's review of DIRECT. One that listed the critical problems that NASA identified in the design. That would help non-rocket scientists like me understand NASA's objections and what, if anything, could be done to address them.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/05/2008 03:11 pm
Complain all you want to about the people calling the shots on Cx, they are publicly identified with it and they will rise or fall with it.

No they won't.  Most of these people are ex-SLI, good-ol-boy-club members whose past failures have never led to accountability.  There's no reason to think the fall of CxP will be any different.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/05/2008 03:33 pm
Sounds good, but you cannot know what the "best launch vehicle" is without knowing what the mission is. Somebody needs to make the high-level decisions about the architecture and strategy and somebody must be entrusted with the authority to make the decisions and choices. The people elect the President and congress and they in-turn appoint and confirm an administrator to do exactly that.

In of Spring 2009 all of this shall be given close scrutiny by a new Congress and a new President with the former President having approval ratings below 30% giving little incentive for the American people to give much credibility to decisions made during current tenures. The people currently entrusted to make these decisions shall be subjected to extreme Monday morning quarterbacking in less than 12 months, whether its McCain or Obama.

In my opinion (IMHO) those who favor ESAS will be unable to save ESAS unless full and complete transparent comparisons of ESAS versus DIRECT are completed, verified by a 3rd party (or with DIRECT advocates as happened with Dr. Stanley) and released into the public domain by the end of the year or early January. If ESAS defenders are correct "on the engineering numbers" doing this will win over a great many DIRECT advocates to face either POTUS John ("freeze & review") McCain or Barack ("I love robots") Obama

This is a political calculation, of course, rather than engineering and comes from observing a national mood that has Barack Obama leading current polls and even if McCain wins, the sentiments that motivate Obama supporters shall be felt in Congress.

If ESAS defenders are correct "on the engineering numbers" then they have nothing to fear from doing a comprehensive transparent review verified by a neutral party and doing this would greatly strengthen their political position come Spring of 2009.

If NASA refuses to do this -- NOW! -- that will constitute evidence that they are afraid of what a transparent and independently verified review shall reveal and should be taken into account by the "new masters" who will arrive next year.

I also predict that appeals to authority:

"I am NASA Administrator and thou shalt not question my authority!" 

Shall carry little weight with POTUS John ("freeze & review") McCain or Barack ("I love robots") Obama.

If ESAS defenders want the DIRECT supporters on their side in the political battles of Spring of 2009 NASA must "run the numbers" on both concepts in an even-handed and FULLY TRANSPARENT fashion.

Unless of course they already know those numbers and fear that an architecture best suited for "a lunar touch-n-go and then Mars" will not be politically sustainable.

= = =

Executive summary of my point:

NASA efforts to "ignore, stonewall or shout down" DIRECT will ricochet back in Spring 2009 against the Agency.

Whether they know it or not, ESAS advocates will need to persuade DIRECT advocates to join forces to face either POTUS (McBama) and I predict a NASA strategy based on "ignore, stonewall or shout down" will not be successful in forging that coalition while a candid, transparent comprehensive review of both concepts (accepted by leading DIRECT advocates as "fair") would help forge such a coalition.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/05/2008 03:39 pm
Quote
One of the most basic proofs of the merits of an idea lies in the willingness of its supporters to publicly stand-up and be identified with the idea.

Back in the days when Sparta was fighting Athens the Spartans assembled groups of Helots, a people enslaved by Sparta.

They said, "Any Helot who steps forward and volunteers to fight for Sparta in our army shall be given his freedom at the end of the war."

Many stepped forward. Those who did were taken away and promptly executed.

No one shall be executed today however very few have the connections and clout of a Dr. Hansen which allows him to avoid termination (despite calls in some quarters for Hansen to be prosecuted for his defiance of political authority on issues of global warming).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MrTim on 07/05/2008 03:56 pm
I think it would be great if someone (eg. "rocket scientist") would start a new thread about NASA's review of DIRECT. One that listed the critical problems that NASA identified in the design. That would help non-rocket scientists like me understand NASA's objections and what, if anything, could be done to address them.
I think this is the right thread, but the problem is basically that Direct supporters say (this is admittedly boiled-down pretty far):

1. we have a technically superior solution for VSE
2. NASA should take it seriously, analyze it and see the wisdom in it
3. there are a bunch of people within NASA who secretly support it and are working on it
4. NASA management is evil/stupid/corrupt for not adopting Direct

The technical arguments for Direct (item #1) are very interesting and possibly compelling (they need not be repeated here because the guys have done a good job of publishing them and I'd only make a mess of it) but when NASA looks at it (item #2) and finds faults item #4 gets erroneously adopted as the rally cry. Not only should #4 not be the entire answer, it should not even be mentioned. All the credibility which insiders claim to gain by #3 is unavailable to the public and to congress because they all hide and invoke #4. I, and certainly others, have encouraged the supporters of Direct to leave #4 out altogether (it only makes them look like amateurs to invoke it, even if true) and if the people in #3 are not going to "go public" then the credibility they offer is not available and citing their support also makes the Direct team look like kids on a playground arguing about whose dad is going to come and beat somebody up (i.e. it does not advance their argument at all, and on some level is probably damaging) I have questioned the commitment of the people in #3 to Direct not to attack them personally (I do not think I know any of them personally, and indeed the position of any individual is uniquely his), but rather to highlight the fact that this argument comes immediately to mind for any outsider watching the argument and their secrecy takes them off of the table and out of the debate. ( I have also made some comments to them related to some personal experiences in similar sorts of positions, but again not as personal attacks, rather as cautions that it may not be worth it to them on a personal or professional level to try to live that way (life is too short for that sort of conflicted existence))

The entire focus of Direct (and some on that team, like Chuck, have been pretty good about this) should always have been and (should continue to be) on the pure technical merits until such time as their mystery men within NASA are willing to go public. If those people are ever going to go public, however, then the earlier the better because with each passing day they have allowed the course they believe is wrong to become more cast in steel. These people are free to stay quiet and keep their jobs etc. But it must then be seen that for outsiders, the invocation of these secret NASA admirers is as the invocation of an "imaginary friend" (it does not really help or advance the public debate). I understand the degree to which these folks (and I'll assume they do exist, giving Chuck and Ross the benefit of the doubt) might think this is a personal attack on them as individuals (it could come across that way, but is not intended as such). At the heart of the issue though is that the discussion can really only involve facts that are on the table and not references to secret facts or secret supporters. Even having several revisions of a published plan has hurt Direct; this sort of thing must be cold, precise, complete, and without distraction. Stick to the hard facts guys. Leave the foil hats and secret friends out of it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/05/2008 04:10 pm
Quote
4. NASA management is evil/stupid/corrupt for not adopting Direct

This is unfair, IMHO

I would be content with a transparent public domain assessment of both systems done with identical degrees of rigor. If ESAS wins, ESAS wins.

I believe most DIRECT "fan boys" would concur with me.

= = =

IMHO the the true underlying issue is that ESAS is better suited for "lunar touch and go and then Mars!" while DIRECT allows a much more substantial lunar presence.

THAT decision (Moon? Mars? What weight is given to each) is not one that should be delegated to the NASA Administrator.

For the record, I opposed Admiral Steidle's EELV architecture because it took Mars off the table (IMHO) and now I see ESAS giving the Moon too short a shrift (along with other problems).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/05/2008 05:10 pm
I started off as a DIRECT fan boy very early in the concept process but I’ve been a constant critic of the negative attitude of DIRECT people from the beginning also. From the first presentation of DIRECT through the 2007 AIAA paper I’ve repeatedly pointed out that they were spending a lot more time harping on the purported failures of Constellation and NASA and far less time focusing on the basic concepts of DIRECT. With the 2007 AIAA paper I came to the realization that there was zero chance of DIRECT being adopted by NASA. Not because of things wrong with NASA but because of the increasingly adversarial and unprofessional commentary by the DIRECT people and because of their inability to focus on the strengths of the proposal. 
At this point I am deeply disappointed, DIRECT had offered NASA an opportunity to achieve the VSE safer, simpler, sooner and substantially cheaper than Constellation but due to the miss-steps in its presentation and due to the growth of an adversarial relationship with NASA I am sure I will never see Ares II and Ares III fly. (The whole Jupiter thing was a huge mistake, second only to the fuel depot in lack of focus on the basic concept.)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MrTim on 07/05/2008 05:13 pm
Quote
One of the most basic proofs of the merits of an idea lies in the willingness of its supporters to publicly stand-up and be identified with the idea.
Back in the days when Sparta was fighting Athens the Spartans assembled groups of Helots, a people enslaved by Sparta. They said, "Any Helot who steps forward and volunteers to fight for Sparta in our army shall be given his freedom at the end of the war." Many stepped forward. Those who did were taken away and promptly executed. (snip)
Please let's not go over-the-top with drama. It's been at least a year or two since Make Griffin ordered-up the firing squads and had a bunch of people killed. :P
Gads. (and sigh)
The absolute worst thing that will happen here is that somebody will lose a job. That's unpleasant, but it's not death. If you've never been fired before over your principles, I highly recommend it; you'll never feel better about yourself, and after you pick-up the pieces you will never again feel so cornered/intimidated in a job. Besides, as I indicated earlier, if there were all these folks in NASA they could go to capitol hill together and would in all likelihood be bulletproof (even more so with a lame-duck administration)
Dr. Hansen which allows him to avoid termination (despite calls in some quarters for Hansen to be prosecuted for his defiance of political authority on issues of global warming).
His political use of his position could well get him into trouble (has not yet however, due to his high public profile) but his congressional testimony would not be the cause of that trouble, and the support he has on the hill as a result of that testimony makes him nearly flame-proof (much more-so than anybody at NASA who secretly holds Hansen's views but who, having never publicly spoken-out, is just as vulnerable as any other employee). By being the public face of his positions, Hansen has not only kept his job, but he has become the go-to guy for some in congress. Also keep in mind that Hansen was not always so well protected; before he stuck his head up and went up to the hill the first time so many years ago, he was just another NASA employee.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 07/05/2008 06:45 pm
What I would like to see is a public debate between members of the Direct team and NASA officials. That would allow both sides to make their case in a forum where the other side can ask questions and reply to criticism.

Now, I do not expect this to ever happen but it would be great to see. 

Recommendation to the Direct team if not already tried: make the offer.  I would bet that the most likely response would be silence but that alone would speak volumes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 07/05/2008 08:09 pm
I started off as a DIRECT fan boy very early in the concept process but I’ve been a constant critic of the negative attitude of DIRECT people from the beginning also. From the first presentation of DIRECT through the 2007 AIAA paper I’ve repeatedly pointed out that they were spending a lot more time harping on the purported failures of Constellation and NASA and far less time focusing on the basic concepts of DIRECT. With the 2007 AIAA paper I came to the realization that there was zero chance of DIRECT being adopted by NASA. Not because of things wrong with NASA but because of the increasingly adversarial and unprofessional commentary by the DIRECT people and because of their inability to focus on the strengths of the proposal. 
At this point I am deeply disappointed, DIRECT had offered NASA an opportunity to achieve the VSE safer, simpler, sooner and substantially cheaper than Constellation but due to the miss-steps in its presentation and due to the growth of an adversarial relationship with NASA I am sure I will never see Ares II and Ares III fly. (The whole Jupiter thing was a huge mistake, second only to the fuel depot in lack of focus on the basic concept.)


Or, to spin it differently, NASA's bosses are frakked off that DIRECTS doesn't appreciate their brilliance and righteousness, and will never back down, as they can't face the cries of "I told you so".

But then I don't think the current NASA approach will survive much past the election, unless Bush gets re-elected, and I believe he's not standing.

So, what will survive? and
What are Griffin's plans for next year?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/05/2008 09:41 pm
FYI:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/07/nasa_starts_to.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28513


How reliable is a document which states on p14 that "Ares 1 : Current PDR Estimate is 1/2400 for contribution to PLOC (after 3 years of iterated analysis)" when we know it's closer to 1/1500 now and has been consistently under 1/2000 for a long time now ? 2 J-232s is over 200mT of LEO performance and they could only get a ~20mT LSAM out of it ? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 07/06/2008 02:01 am
Mr. Tim;

It is NOT Ares V that is the problem, it is Ares I.
Ares I is a underperforming kluge, that that keeps requiring change upon change just to overcome problem after problem.
Even with the very latest version of the Ares V, Constellation is still 4 mt short of Lunar injection throw weight, they now have 71 mT and they need a minimum of 75 mT.
Now they are talking about "Ares V Max" (as in a maximum size vehicle that will fit into the VAB), that in theory will give them the 75 MT throw weight they need, and maybe a few extra mT margin.
Once they reach Ares V Max, where do they look for additional performance?
They sure are not going to find it with Ares I.
As it is today, Ares I needs a bigger Upper Stage, so that means a bigger engine (around 450,000 to 500,000 pounds of thrust) or two engines (two existing J-2S engines would fit the bill nicely). A bigger engine is a totally new engine, that would require many years to develope and qualify (like the RS-25). But two engines would impact safety numbers (those LOM and LOC numbers).
With out the bigger upper stage, adding more booster will be of no help. The point of diminishing returns has already been reached with the Ares I First Stage. If they go with a 5 1/2 segment booster on Ares I with out a bigger Upper Stage, they gain very little additional lift performance. If they go with a 6 segment booster, they actually loose lift performance over the 5 1/2 segment booster.
The only way Ares I would gain from a different First Stage, would be from a longer burning booster, not more lift off thrust. The only way to get a longer burning solid is to increase its diameter; a 156 inch diameter booster would be very helpful, a 180 diameter booster would be better still. But, how would you get segments that large in diameter from Utah to KSC? By air would be the only way, and do you really see that happening?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/06/2008 04:58 am
The lack of total impulse has always been the Achilles heel of the Ares 1.

Von Braun wrote of this problem with solids in 1962 when Thiokol was pestering LBJ about safe simple and soon solids.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/06/2008 06:42 am
Now they are talking about "Ares V Max" (as in a maximum size vehicle that will fit into the VAB), that in theory will give them the 75 MT throw weight they need, and maybe a few extra mT margin.

The point of diminishing returns has already been reached with the Ares I First Stage. If they go with a 5 1/2 segment booster on Ares I with out a bigger Upper Stage, they gain very little additional lift performance. If they go with a 6 segment booster, they actually loose lift performance over the 5 1/2 segment booster.


If 5.5 seg is ideal for Ares I then if NASA want to keep up the theme they have developed of commonality savings 5.5 seg should be standard on both Ares 1 and Ares VI and Area VI should then be given 435 Isp regen RS-68s, co-developed with the DoD, to give it the extra performance needed. Sure 6-7 seg 6-7 RS-68B Ares V Max may give the same or more performance but at what extra cost and the regen RS-68 would benefit the Delta IV too adding to the commonality theme. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 07/06/2008 10:14 am
FYI:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/07/nasa_starts_to.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28513

How reliable is a document which states on p14 that "Ares 1 : Current PDR Estimate is 1/2400 for contribution to PLOC (after 3 years of iterated analysis)" when we know it's closer to 1/1500 now and has been consistently under 1/2000 for a long time now ? 2 J-232s is over 200mT of LEO performance and they could only get a ~20mT LSAM out of it ? ;)

Such a step backwards from Shuttle. IIRC it was 1/100000 or something like that. Well, at least until that pesky thing called "reality" made slight corrections to managers' world view on 1986-01-28.

I see that managers have recovered. 1/2400? Please don't be so shy. 1/24000 sounds better!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/06/2008 11:11 am
Now they are talking about "Ares V Max" (as in a maximum size vehicle that will fit into the VAB), that in theory will give them the 75 MT throw weight they need, and maybe a few extra mT margin.

The point of diminishing returns has already been reached with the Ares I First Stage. If they go with a 5 1/2 segment booster on Ares I with out a bigger Upper Stage, they gain very little additional lift performance. If they go with a 6 segment booster, they actually loose lift performance over the 5 1/2 segment booster.


If 5.5 seg is ideal for Ares I then if NASA want to keep up the theme they have developed of commonality savings 5.5 seg should be standard on both Ares 1 and Ares VI and Area VI should then be given 435 Isp regen RS-68s, co-developed with the DoD, to give it the extra performance needed. Sure 6-7 seg 6-7 RS-68B Ares V Max may give the same or more performance but at what extra cost and the regen RS-68 would benefit the Delta IV too adding to the commonality theme. 

Back when we did DIRECT v1.0, Dr Stanley pooh-pooh'd our 435 isp engine, saying it wasn't possible, and because we were blindsided by the FUD, it took us too long to refute him before the damage was done. He said that the regen engine was only capable of 415 seconds, or something around there (I don't specifically remember). The problem was that he was taking the RS-68, "as is" and simply incorporating a regen nozzle. The P&WR engineers told him that is what that engine would be capable of. What threw us off is that the same engineers had told us that what we were proposing was capable of 435 seconds. What took us a while to realize is that the engineers had answered very different questions, and Dr Stanley had asked a question designed very specifically to provide a less efficient engine than what we were proposing. The question you ask makes a huge difference. Here's the difference:

The current RS-68 engine uses an ablatively cooled nozzle and is tuned for lower atmosphere operations. In addition, the hydrogen preheating is not optimal because of an incorrect design calibration.

1. What Dr Stanley asked is what would be the isp of that engine if the ablative nozzle was exchanged for a regen nozzle. The result was the ~415 second engine he used to discredit us.

2. What we had asked the same engineers however, is what would be the isp of the engine if the ablative nozzle was exchanged for the regen nozzle, the H2 preheat was corrected *AND* the engine were re-tuned for vacuum operations. The answer to *THAT* question was 435 seconds.

Different questions provide different answers.

Our reasoning was to let the SRB's provide the lion's share of the lift up thru the lower atmosphere and let the RS-68s come into their own as the vehicle entered vacuum and the SRB's burned out. Essentially, we were igniting second stage engines on the ground and letting them "contribute" to the lower atmosphere climb-out, coming into their prime the thinner the atmosphere got. By the time the SRB's burned out in the vacuum of the upper atmosphere, the RS-68's were operating at their maximum efficiency, exactly the opposite of what we see on the Delta today. It was a carefully orchestrated balancing act extracting the maximum performance from each kind of engine in the environment for which they were best suited.

My reason for mentioning this is because we were accused of fostering a "magic engine" on everyone, when nothing was further from the truth. It was pure physics. Because the subject of the 435 second engine has come up again, I wanted to make sure everyone understood how that number is achieved.

And to remind everyone to make sure they know the question that is being asked before they simply accept the answer that someone provides, and to not believe anyone, just because they have credentials. Our mistake was that (1) we naively believed that Dr Stanley wouldn't do such a thing, and (2) it took too long for us to figure that he actually had and to figure out just what he had done. By the time we did, it was too late. Dr Stanley's "name brand" had trumped physics in a carefully timed FUD. Make everyone, including us, provide the numbers to back up what they say (which we are currently doing).

The 435 second engine is not a magic engine. It is a perfectly legitimate engine that we could have if NASA were willing to pay for it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 07/06/2008 01:03 pm
The only way Ares I would gain from a different First Stage, would be from a longer burning booster, not more lift off thrust. The only way to get a longer burning solid is to increase its diameter; a 156 inch diameter booster would be very helpful, a 180 diameter booster would be better still.

Somewhere else on this forum it was mentioned that bigger solids have oscillations with lower frequency. Solids that big can be impossible to dampen sufficiently to make them safe for crew launches.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 07/06/2008 01:09 pm
1. What Dr Stanley asked is what would be the isp of that engine if the ablative nozzle was exchanged for a regen nozzle. The result was the ~415 second engine he used to discredit us.

2. What we had asked the same engineers however, is what would be the isp of the engine if the ablative nozzle was exchanged for the regen nozzle, the H2 preheat was corrected *AND* the engine were re-tuned for vacuum operations. The answer to *THAT* question was 435 seconds.

A bit of caution would be prudent here. 435 second engines may be impossible to light on the ground due to flow separation issues. Either double check that they can operate without damaging themselves at 1 atm pressure, or use more conservative Isp.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ventrater on 07/06/2008 01:21 pm
1. What Dr Stanley asked is what would be the isp of that engine if the ablative nozzle was exchanged for a regen nozzle. The result was the ~415 second engine he used to discredit us.

2. What we had asked the same engineers however, is what would be the isp of the engine if the ablative nozzle was exchanged for the regen nozzle, the H2 preheat was corrected *AND* the engine were re-tuned for vacuum operations. The answer to *THAT* question was 435 seconds.

A bit of caution would be prudent here. 435 second engines may be impossible to light on the ground due to flow separation issues. Either double check that they can operate without damaging themselves at 1 atm pressure, or use more conservative Isp.

Vulcain2:
isp =434 sec.
sea level: 318 sec.

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/vulcain2.htm
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/06/2008 01:52 pm
By the time the SRB's burned out in the vacuum of the upper atmosphere, the RS-68's were operating at their maximum efficiency, exactly the opposite of what we see on the Delta today.

Seems a good thing that the 435 was replaced with the current generation engine then, because I don't think that two engine lines would  be feasible, while the current RS-68 Direct mentality maintains the commonality of the engines which improves the DIRECT clout.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Integrator on 07/06/2008 02:10 pm
3. NASA is full of technical worker bees who all know 1 & 2, but they have been afraid to stand-up and speak-out publicly (when their identities and positions would give Direct all the credibility it needs to win the day)
then they are the ones responsible for the wasted 3 years; they could have come forward to share their great wisdom on day 1, before management, the administration,  congress  and the agency got too wrapped-up in the current plans. If these secret experts did not know on day 1 that the current architecture was wrong, then management was not wrong either on day 1 and the whole 3 years has not been wasted. If these masked-heroes concluded Ares was a bad architecture after the decisions were made and contracts were let, then we are in the realm of 20/20 hindsight; NASA's orders were to get going with a shuttle replacement and NOT to sit around for some indefinite time period tossing ideas about until the perfect plan fell into their laps. Often the worst decision one can make is NOT the imperfect decision, but rather no decision at all. That's not a happy thought, and it's not the perfection we might all like, but it is the real world.

This statement is so wrong I barely know where to begin.  Do you think that NASA management listens to anyone?  My goodness, you're dreaming.

It's Sunday so I have some time to wax poetic.

The point is, what we are trying to tell everyone, is after three years of windtunnel, test and analyses in every area and discipline, we are now seeing serious problems in the Ares-1 design.  This is coming to light at PDR, as it should. To go past PDR with butterflies in our stomaches is a sure path to cancellation.  We expect and demand a totally honest, forthright and thorough PDR on Ares-1.  To accept anything less would be a disservice to ourselves, NASA and the American People. 

While the standard wisdom says these are simply engineering challenges, that are encountered in every project, in this case, each challenge we encounter is a mountain higher than the last and we see several more, even higher in the distance.  This is not getting any easier.  By PDR you should have full confidence that your basic design concept is sound.  I can not say that in clear conscience at this point about Ares-1.

I have worked on many projects, flight and otherwise over the past 22 years.  I know how success looks and feels, and also how 'bad project' looks and feels.  One sign of a 'bad project' is ever increasing difficulty and complexity as it progresses, the pieces never start to 'fall into place', one must fight and struggle with every step, more and more good people start leaving. 

In some projects this is overcome by pouring more and more money into it, a funding situation we do not enjoy at NASA.  This eventually results in cost and schedule overruns and the project gets cancelled before it can fly.  The appearance of delta PDRs on the Ares-1 schedule is a warning sign of this cost and schedule creep.

This is why I am a fan of Direct, because it is a much smaller step forward for us in LV design, but would allow us to become operational and demonstrate success in a much shorter time.  Designing Direct Jupiter type LVs would not be a trivial task, but it would be much more doable that the current path. 

My greatest fear, is that by stubbornly sticking to the current architecture no matter what, NASA HQ will lose the whole thing for us.  When cost and schedule become unacceptable to Congress and the White House, the entire VSE will be cancelled and EELVs will deliver crew and supply tio ISS.  We will be left behind by the other spacefaring nations, a minor power,100 years from now.  This is what happened to Portugal, once a great seafaring and exploratory nation, they were overcome later by Spain and England and France. 

While it would take significant effort to implement a Direct-type vehicle, I would consider that a bird in the hand, compared to Ares-1 and Ares-5 sitting in the bush.  The future of this country depends on these choices.  Will we move forward bravely into new areas, demand success, hone our skills and technologies, train our children and remain pre-eminant, or will we fall back on bureaucracy and bombastity and empty posturing on false principles?

The point should not be going to the moon per se, but staying ahead of our economic competitors.  VonBraun suggested to Kennedy to go to the moon rather than just build a space station because 1. he knew he had a launch vehicle and architecture concept that could do it, and 2. he knew the Russians could build a space station but could not reach the moon.  The motivation is economic, not inspired by what we find elsewhere, but by how the effort better positions us economically relative to our terrestrial competitors.  Whatever will accomplish the latter in the most efficient way, is the path that should be chosen. 

This is not about going to the moon people, it is about expansion of our economy through exploration.  Anyone who doubts we are in trouble and at a critical point in our national destiny has not shopped at the grocery store, applied for a mortgage or bought gasoline lately.

I saw a Calvin and Hobbs cartoon once, Hobbs asks "If you could have anything in the world, what would you wish for Calvin?" Calvin replies "My own private island and space shuttle fleet to the moon!" or something like that.  Hobbs says "I wish I had a peanut butter sandwich."  In the next frame, Hobbs is eating his sandwich and Calvin is very angry. 

Hobbs says "At least I got MY wish."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/06/2008 02:49 pm
My greatest fear, is that by stubbornly sticking to the current architecture no matter what, NASA HQ will lose the whole thing for us.

This is precisely what I see as the most likely scenario.  But when it happens HQ won't take responsibility for losing the whole thing, the cast of characters who perpetrated this mess will disperse to different assignments and jobs, and it will be the task of some future historian to actually write the sad tale of how NASA finally came undone.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 07/06/2008 02:58 pm
FYI:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/07/nasa_starts_to.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28513


How reliable is a document which states on p14 that "Ares 1 : Current PDR Estimate is 1/2400 for contribution to PLOC (after 3 years of iterated analysis)" when we know it's closer to 1/1500 now and has been consistently under 1/2000 for a long time now ? 2 J-232s is over 200mT of LEO performance and they could only get a ~20mT LSAM out of it ? ;)

The NASA document may be unreliable and only based on older versions of Direct, but they have raised some issues which need to be clearly refuted or adequately addressed by the Direct team (even if this means producing a new/clearer version of their architecture document). In particular, I am looking forward to see the Direct team reply on the following issues:

-Alleged over optimistic stages dry mass predictions (including mass of J-2XD engine).

-Alleged under-estimation of development required to create Jupiter core stage from ET.

-Alleged under-estimation of CFM technology required to handle the 15 days loiter in LEO.

-Alleged lack of explanation and required technology description to handle all the spacecraft separations/dockings of the Direct architecture. (By the way, this is also critical for the Direct cargo only moon mission which uses two J-232 rockets).

-Alleged stack “compression” problem when using two J-2XD engines for TLI burn.

-Alleged 6% over-estimation of 4 segments SRB thrust.

-Lack of details/propellant allocation for LEO circularization from initial elliptical orbit insertion.

-Alleged under-estimation of EDS residual propellant after TLI.

Now to be fair, the Direct team does not have to “totally” resolve the issues above. They just need to show that they can match the Ares I/V margins and allocations. If this is still not enough for reality, then that would mean that NASA would still have the same issue staying with the current Ares architecture.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 07/06/2008 03:39 pm
Again, this should have been obvious to you guys before you started playing. All contests have rules and all competitors need to play by those rules even if they do not like them.

It's sad to see some of the pro-Direct comments come-across like something people in foil hats would write. You guys have been challenging NASA to look at your stuff for months and have insisted that your plans were superior to NASA's plans. Now that it seems they have looked at your plans, they have announced that your plans have flaws and are not complete enough for proper analysis. It is now up to you guys to (a) admit and fix the flaws in your proposal and apologize to them for the continual stream of insults you have been hurling at them, (b) identify and expose the flaws in their analysis, (or some mix of A and B). If you are going to be seen as grown-ups, however, you should not be wasting time complaining that Griffin is evil, the system is rigged, there is some grand anti-Direct conspiracy, secret sources in NASA or industry are whispering things to you, they used some intermediate version of Direct, etc.

Ditto; enough with conspiracy theories, and more the engineering (especially the EDS!).

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/06/2008 03:42 pm

The NASA document may be unreliable and only based on older versions of Direct, but they have raised some issues which need to be clearly refuted or adequately addressed by the Direct team (even if this means producing a new/clearer version of their architecture document). In particular, I am looking forward to see the Direct team reply on the following issues:


Yes, it would be prudent for the DIRECT team to do this, however . . .

In my opinion, NASA must allow the assets and resources provided to them by the taxpayers to be employed for a transparent and rigorous review of both ESAS and DIRECT in an even-handed manner.

Either now, or after January 2009, Washington should order NASA to provide the DIRECT team full access to all of the computational capabilities and technical assessment capabilities available to ESAS supporters within NASA.

Or in the alternative direct a comprehensive even-handed review by a credible third party that has no horse in the race. Unless THAT happens any report issued by NASA saying ESAS is superior to DIRECT should remain suspect.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 07/06/2008 04:28 pm
The Direct team have said they need a week to analyse and respond in detail to the NASA document.  Which seems only fair, given NASA was still denying its existence a week ago.

Doesn't it seem odd that NASA didn't consult with the Direct team before making it public, so that any errors or misunderstandings could be corrected?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/06/2008 04:36 pm
[...] In my opinion, NASA must allow the assets and resources provided to them by the taxpayers to be employed for a transparent and rigorous review of both ESAS and DIRECT in an even-handed manner. [...]

NASA already evaluated hundreds of alternatives and considered studies performed over the last 30 years. I don't see why NASA would be willing to spend more resources in analysis of more concepts.

As MrTim pointed out, DIRECT is a moving target. It is constantly evolving, so, when is it the right time to perform an analysis? September 2007? Now? September 2008?

At this time NASA needs to be bending metal, and that's exactly what they are doing.

Obviously the DIRECT team did all they could, considering the limited resources. I don't see how they can outrun NASA, if NASA doesn't stumble on a show stopper.

Should show stopper happen, DIRECT is a good backup plan. But then you need to see what are NASA's actual backup plans.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/06/2008 05:21 pm
DIRECT v2.0 is still in the race.  It needs to answer the main points raise.  Its reply also needs to repeat the main advantages of the Jupiters.

If going to the Moon via EML2 produces a larger mass on the Moon then say so in a one page appendix called "Preferred Route".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 07/06/2008 05:24 pm
NASA already evaluated hundreds of alternatives and considered studies performed over the last 30 years. I don't see why NASA would be willing to spend more resources in analysis of more concepts.

There is evidence that latest "analysis" (ESAS) was rigged. Why ATK was informed about every step of evaluation while Boeing was not? Why ATK was allowed to refine and match their proposal while Boeing, I believe, was not even informed about "problems" with Delta IV Heavy? Etc...

Quote
As MrTim pointed out, DIRECT is a moving target. It is constantly evolving, so, when is it the right time to perform an analysis? September 2007? Now? September 2008?

Actually, Direct 2.0 differences from Direct 1.0 are much, much smaller than what already happened to Ares. Where is any commonality with Shuttle hardware promised in ESAS? Orange paint on the tanks?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 07/06/2008 05:42 pm
... Where is any commonality with Shuttle hardware promised in ESAS? Orange paint on the tanks?

Not to mention as mandated by Congress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/06/2008 05:55 pm
There is evidence that latest "analysis" (ESAS) was rigged. Why ATK was informed about every step of evaluation while Boeing was not? Why ATK was allowed to refine and match their proposal while Boeing, I believe, was not even informed about "problems" with Delta IV Heavy? Etc...

Paper cases fly even worse than paper spacecrafts. If you guys have something meaty, go to court. Then watch out for the black helicopters.

My disillusioned point of view is that the wealth had to be spread. There was a little struggle, but now everybody is happy. Last time I checked Boeing was not empty-handed.

Actually, Direct 2.0 differences from Direct 1.0 are much, much smaller than what already happened to Ares. Where is any commonality with Shuttle hardware promised in ESAS? Orange paint on the tanks?

Who cares about differences about v1.0 and v2.0? As I said it's just an architecture among hundreds. As far as the ESAS goes, there are big technical shortfalls (air started SSME?!?), so current implementation of VSE is working arond those problems. I am sure there is a better way. But every manager knows that the better is enemy of the good, and so he (M.G.) knows when to draw the line.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/06/2008 06:13 pm
My disillusioned point of view is that the wealth had to be spread. There was a little struggle, but now everybody is happy. Last time I checked Boeing was not empty-handed.

I just want to comment on the "spread the wealth" part. I have this particular personal experience.

I worked very hard on a proposal worth about 110M$. My company competed and lost the bid.

Then, the Customer, decided that the risk was too big on the project and had to be spread. So Customer forced the bid winner to use some of our systems and some of the technology in our proposal.

After three years... we lost the bid, but we didn't lose one penny (actually we made some good money!). The bid winner almost went broke.

If Mr. Customer didn't spread the risk (or if you will, the wealth), Mr. Competitor would be now broke and Mr. Customer would have nothing.

I don't know to what extent Mr. Customer piloted this outcome... maybe there have been telephone calls, maybe there have been secret dinners? Would these arrangements be classified as illegal?

Sure nobody got hurt.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/06/2008 07:08 pm
FYI:



How reliable is a document which states on p14 that "Ares 1 : Current PDR Estimate is 1/2400 for contribution to PLOC (after 3 years of iterated analysis)" when we know it's closer to 1/1500 now and has been consistently under 1/2000 for a long time now ? 2 J-232s is over 200mT of LEO performance and they could only get a ~20mT LSAM out of it ? ;)

The NASA document may be unreliable and only based on older versions of Direct, but they have raised some issues which need to be clearly refuted or adequately addressed by the Direct team (even if this means producing a new/clearer version of their architecture document). In particular, I am looking forward to see the Direct team reply on the following issues:

-Alleged over optimistic stages dry mass predictions (including mass of J-2XD engine).

-Alleged under-estimation of development required to create Jupiter core stage from ET.

-Alleged under-estimation of CFM technology required to handle the 15 days loiter in LEO.

-Alleged lack of explanation and required technology description to handle all the spacecraft separations/dockings of the Direct architecture. (By the way, this is also critical for the Direct cargo only moon mission which uses two J-232 rockets).

-Alleged stack “compression” problem when using two J-2XD engines for TLI burn.

-Alleged 6% over-estimation of 4 segments SRB thrust.

-Lack of details/propellant allocation for LEO circularization from initial elliptical orbit insertion.

-Alleged under-estimation of EDS residual propellant after TLI.

Now to be fair, the Direct team does not have to “totally” resolve the issues above. They just need to show that they can match the Ares I/V margins and allocations. If this is still not enough for reality, then that would mean that NASA would still have the same issue staying with the current Ares architecture.

PaulL


Good question and they are all legitimate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/06/2008 08:30 pm
I'm wondering if NASA has any more up-to-date studies of the Direct concept that it hasn't yet released...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 07/06/2008 09:16 pm
Why ATK was allowed to refine and match their proposal while Boeing, I believe, was not even informed about "problems" with Delta IV Heavy? Etc...
Paper cases fly even worse than paper spacecrafts. If you guys have something meaty, go to court. Then watch out for the black helicopters.

Who are "we guys"? Me? I'm just a space exploration entusiast, in no way associated with DIRECT, Boeing, LM or anyone else in particular. I just want humans to leave the cradle. I am frustrated by us being stuck on the very first step.

Quote
My disillusioned point of view is that the wealth had to be spread. There was a little struggle, but now everybody is happy. Last time I checked Boeing was not empty-handed.

I don't particularly care about Boeing. I could say exactly the same about LM.

My disillsioned view is that bureaucracy which is currently at helm doesn't care one iota about humans leaving the cradle, spending all its time and effort "spreading wealth", "preserving jobs", and caring about their own careers, pet ideas and the like. Witness Shuttle's $40000/kg. Witness ISS's $500000/kg. Read Alan Binder's "Against all Odds". Read Danny Deger's blog. Read posts of NASA employees on this forum.

And then people moan "why general public doesn't support NASA more? Why Obama wants to raid NASA's budget for education?" With the above trends, get prepared for much worse attitude from the general public. As in "why do we need NASA _at all_?"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 07/06/2008 11:51 pm

{snip}
After three years... we lost the bid, but we didn't lose one penny (actually we made some good money!). The bid winner almost went broke.

If Mr. Customer didn't spread the risk (or if you will, the wealth), Mr. Competitor would be now broke and Mr. Customer would have nothing.

I don't know to what extent Mr. Customer piloted this outcome... maybe there have been telephone calls, maybe there have been secret dinners? Would these arrangements be classified as illegal?

Sure nobody got hurt.

Well with all the different contracts out there (NASA, DoD, civil contractors), enough of those side-deals would make many an American taxpayer go red...especially in a time of economic slowdown.

The point is you have a tendering system to get the best value for you dollar. If that isn't happening, the process is wrong, and people (taxpayers) do get hurt.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/06/2008 11:56 pm
The Direct team have said they need a week to analyse and respond in detail to the NASA document.  Which seems only fair, given NASA was still denying its existence a week ago.

Doesn't it seem odd that NASA didn't consult with the Direct team before making it public, so that any errors or misunderstandings could be corrected?



No surprise when the only goal of the White Paper was to discredit DIRECT. Whether is was up to date with the latest data did not matter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/07/2008 12:16 am
snip
Should show stopper happen, DIRECT is a good backup plan. But then you need to see what are NASA's actual backup plans.

As I see it NASA already is up against a show stopper.  The performance of Ares1/V is not enough to perform the mission -- and NASA management knows this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/07/2008 12:21 am
snip

There is evidence that latest "analysis" (ESAS) was rigged. Why ATK was informed about every step of evaluation while Boeing was not? Why ATK was allowed to refine and match their proposal while Boeing, I believe, was not even informed about "problems" with Delta IV Heavy? Etc...

Quote

I can confirm this happened.  I was a NASA civil servant and watched NASA management send emails to ATK management realtime via a Blackberry while I was forbidden to ask Boeing to lower the trajectory of the Delta.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Avron on 07/07/2008 01:06 am
snip

There is evidence that latest "analysis" (ESAS) was rigged. Why ATK was informed about every step of evaluation while Boeing was not? Why ATK was allowed to refine and match their proposal while Boeing, I believe, was not even informed about "problems" with Delta IV Heavy? Etc...

Quote

I can confirm this happened.  I was a NASA civil servant and watched NASA management send emails to ATK management realtime via a Blackberry while I was forbidden to ask Boeing to lower the trajectory of the Delta.

And until the right thing is done... where the oversight system protects the system it wants in impose and not just say it wants to.. it will all be about the management, lets just call them "happings". When the "worker" can stand up and can be heard.. maybe not in a public forum.. no organization has the right to trash any one individual for doing what believes in ..  it may happen  in the private sector.. but as this is happening  in the public  sector, it better have the will of the people behind it or it will just trash the gov. system the founding fathers put in place, at the end of the day.. good ref.. the whole Credit crunch.. who provides oversite?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/07/2008 03:21 am
Well with all the different contracts out there (NASA, DoD, civil contractors), enough of those side-deals would make many an American taxpayer go red...especially in a time of economic slowdown.

The point is you have a tendering system to get the best value for you dollar. If that isn't happening, the process is wrong, and people (taxpayers) do get hurt.

How can the taxpayer get hurt (at least at this time) if only budgeted dollars are spent?

Best value for the dollar? What are the alternatives to the big-three?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 07/07/2008 04:24 am
The Direct team have said they need a week to analyse and respond in detail to the NASA document.  Which seems only fair, given NASA was still denying its existence a week ago.

Doesn't it seem odd that NASA didn't consult with the Direct team before making it public, so that any errors or misunderstandings could be corrected?



No surprise when the only goal of the White Paper was to discredit DIRECT. Whether is was up to date with the latest data did not matter.

So why would anyone give any weight to a paper intended to discredit?

If you are certain your position is correct, then you make every effort to ensure a fair comparison. To do otherwise is to admit you know you might be wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/07/2008 10:09 am
Here's an independent analysis of some of the data in Team Vision Direct 2.0.2 and NASA MSFC's analysis of Direct 2.0.0.

A first look at NASA MSFC's data seemed to indicate that they had overestimated the Core and EDS empty mass data. How to show this? Previously, in [1] I had plotted the stage empty mass to propellant mass ratio (in %) to propellant mass (in metric tons) for various liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen (H2/O2) stages. The formula I obtained was

m_e = 0.233*m_p^0.844

where m_p is propellant mass and m_e is the empty mass of the stage in metric tons. That paper was done over eight years ago, so there was lots of new data to add. This I have done, but I have instead removed the engine mass from the empty mass. The results of 37 stages (33 real and 4 paper) are attached in the document below in a log-log plot. The average (using real stages only) results in the formula

m_s = 0.186*m_p^0.856

where m_s the structure mass in metrics tons (empty mass minus engine mass). Looking at the data, we can see that there is a lot of variation, but that there is also a clear trend, with the mass fraction decreasing as we increase propellant mass. Of note, most stages above the line have separate H2 and O2 tanks, while most stages below the line have conformal tanks.

Also plotted are the EDS and Core stage results from Direct 2.0.2 [2] and NASA MSFC's evaluation of Direct 2.0 [3]. The good news is that NASA MSFC have definitely overestimated Direct 2.0's mass at a mass fraction (m_s/m_p) of 9.08% for the EDS. This point is over the line and would be expected for a stage with separate tanks, not conformal tanks which the EDS uses. The core stage mass fraction is almost the same as the EDS at 9.09%, even though it contains 2.27 times more propellant.

Now for the bad news. In my opinion, Direct 2.0.2 have definitely undestimated the required stage masses. The EDS stage has a mass fraction of only 4.62% = 100*(21079-2*2472)/348910, well below the average data and that of existing stages. The core stage is just below the line at 6.91%, even though it is a separate tank design.

Where should the mass fractions be? The variation in tank masses depends on many factors, but the main ones are propellant volume, separate or conformal tanks, and at the end of the day, how good your engineers are. In my opinion the NASA MSFC data is too pessimistic and the Team Vision data is too optimistic (especially for the EDS). I expect the reality to be somewhere in between, about 7% for the EDS and 8% for the Core.

Other discrepancies I picked up in the NASA MSFC analysis.

RS-68 engine mass. Team Vision has 6600 kg per engine and NASA MSFC has 6910 kg per engine, a 4.7% increase. The actual engine mass is 6747 kg [4]. On page 13 of [2], the engine is listed as RS-68B, which I believe is in error, as the text only discusses the RS-68.

EDS reserve and residual propellant. Team Vision has 3181 kg (0.98%) and 533 kg (0.16%), respectively (3714 kg or 1.15% of total), while NASA MSFC has 4562 kg (1.40%) and 4954 kg (1.52%), respectively (9516 kg or 2.93% of total). The Saturn V S-IVB and S-II [5] had an expected residual and reserve mass of 3594 kg (3.40% of 105,875 kg) and 5947 kg (1.3% of 452,352 kg), respectively. The Space Shuttle has about 4700 kg (0.67% of total) of reserve and residual propellant [6]. Thus, we have greatly conflicting data in terms of percentages, but in terms of mass we have an average (S-IVB, S-II, and Shuttle) of about 4750 kg. This makes the Team Vision value too optimistic and the MASA MSFC greatly pessimistic. A total residual and reserve mass of about 5000 kg would appear to me to be a more realistic value.

J-2X engine mass. Team vision has 1400 kg (for Direct 2.0.0) per engine and NASA MSFC has 2472 kg per engine, which is correct for the J-2X [7]. The 1400 kg value was previously reported by Team Vision to be in error. Note that Team Vision previously used the J-2XD, changing to the J-2X with Direct 2.0.2.

EDS propellant mass. Team Vision has 324,069 kg (for Direct 2.0.0) and NASA MSFC has 325,296 kg, even though the EDS empty stage mass increased from 30,111 kg for Team Vision to 34,767 kg for NASA MSFC. With an increase in mass ratio, this would result in the total EDS stage mass decreasing for an optimum stage, not increasing in this case. The higher total mass of the EDS would result in a higher mass penalty compared to that if the EDS stage was optimised for the higher mass ratio. This will therefore make the NASA MSFC performance results much more pessimistic than they should have been.

My overall impression is that Team Vision is much too optimistic and that NASA MSFC is much too pessimistic. Of course, I am not impervious to error and so if any one has any corrections, I would be very glad to receive them.

Steven S. Pietrobon, Ph.D.
Adelaide, Australia.
7 July 2008

[1] S. S. Pietrobon, "Lunar orbit propellant transfer," 8th Int. Aerospace Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Sep. 1999. http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/IAC99pap.pdf

[2] C. Longton, A. Maia, P. Metschan, S. Metschan, and R. Tierney, "Direct space transportation system derivative: The Jupiter launch vehicle family," v2.0.2, 24 June 2008. http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.2.pdf

[3] NASA MSFC, "Direct 2.0 space exploration architecture performance analysis," May/Oct. 2007. http://images.spaceref.com/news/2008/Direct.analysis.pdf

[4] Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, "RS-68" http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=3ffe34890cb06110VgnVCM1000004601000aRCRD

[5] NASA MSFC, Saturn V launch vehicle flight evaluation report AS-509: Apollo 14 Mission," MPR-SAT-FE-71-1, Apr. 1971.

[6] D. R. Jenkins, "Space Shuttle: The history of developing the National Space Transportation System; The beginning through STS-50," Waldworth Publishing Company, Marceline, 1993.

[7] Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, "J-2X" http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84ee34890cb06110VgnVCM1000004601000aRCRD

[8] Rockwell International, "J-2S basic engine features," SC818-12-1055 M468.

[9] S. L. Metschan, C. A. Longton, R. B. Tierney, A. H. F. Maia, and P. J. Metschan, "Achieving the Vision for Space Exploration on time and within budget," AIAA Space 2007 Conf. & Expos., Long Beach, USA, AIAA 2007-6231, Sep. 2007.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 07/07/2008 01:56 pm
Steven, that's interesting, but a couple of points:

Firstly, the Direct 2.0 core is based on the existing Shuttle SLWT.  This has a dry structure to propellant mass ratio of 3.74%. Adding the forward & rear support structure, shouldn't push this above the 6.9 you quoted for the TV estimate.

Secondly, the Direct EDS is based on the LM Wide Body Centaur. At 73,180 kg propellants, they quote a pf of .94. Taking off the engine masses, I get pm a little over 5.  And they say it gets better with increased propellant. Your 4.62 sounds a bit low, but not impossible.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 07/07/2008 02:38 pm
I'm not understanding the controversy with DIRECT not working or not being able to lift as much as needed...

The current STS architecture can lift the shuttle AND some payload into LEO.

So, as long as you replace the shuttle's thrust contribution, shouldn't you be able to match the lifting performance of the STS architecture?

Does it really take a rocket scientist to confirm the above?

I think not...

I think the DIRECT guys are fighting a losing battle. See, the Ares contractors don't give a rip if the program flies or not! THEY GET PAID EITHER WAY!

In fact I think they would rather not fly because then they can just piss away a load of money and then get A NEW CONTRACT to build something else!

It's all about money guys... It's like the stock market, whether it goes up or down, the brokers (contractors) get paid...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/07/2008 03:20 pm

1. So, as long as you replace the shuttle's thrust contribution, shouldn't you be able to match the lifting performance of the STS architecture?

2.  Does it really take a rocket scientist to confirm the above?



1.  It is not just thrust, it is ISP and mass fractions

2. Yes, it does. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 07/07/2008 03:50 pm
I'm not understanding the controversy with DIRECT not working or not being able to lift as much as needed...

The current STS architecture can lift the shuttle AND some payload into LEO.

So, as long as you replace the shuttle's thrust contribution, shouldn't you be able to match the lifting performance of the STS architecture?

Does it really take a rocket scientist to confirm the above?

I think not...

I think the DIRECT guys are fighting a losing battle. See, the Ares contractors don't give a rip if the program flies or not! THEY GET PAID EITHER WAY!

In fact I think they would rather not fly because then they can just piss away a load of money and then get A NEW CONTRACT to build something else!

It's all about money guys... It's like the stock market, whether it goes up or down, the brokers (contractors) get paid...

Your opinion is fine, but this argument can only be made point by technical point.  No one in NASA or the contractor community will even respond to any comment prefaced with "It doesn't take a rocket scientist...".

Let the arguments stand on their technical merits or shortcomings, and let those technically qualified make them.  The DIRECT Team has a golden opportunity to respond to these challenges and make their case.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 07/07/2008 06:22 pm
I have to agree half the stuff they stated in this report is moot direct is a lot easier then Ares I.
Plus no engineer worth his or her salt will say Ares is a better system then Direct.
Lets see one uses an unchanged SRB requires only minor changes to the ET tooling as Jim pointed out and something I see it ground starts it's sustainer which I feel is a safer option then having an upper stage start event.
While the other vehicles need new SRBs and new tank tooling.
The cargo vehicle needs 6 RS_68s while the CLV needs some sorta active damping system and is aerodynamically unstable as far as I know thats two firsts in launch vehicles Ares I needs to fly
Ares I became an unworkable design the moment they deleted the SSME upper stage but still expected it to orbit 24+tons you can't expect a design to work when your upper stage ends up with 40% less thrust.
SSME has 490,000lbs of thrust while the J2X only 294,000lbs it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it will not work any more the gravity losses in the second stage will eat you.
Griffin and the rest of the upper management behind Ares  needs to swallow their pride and admit their plan may not be the best for the program or they need to step down if they cannot do that.
There is no shame in admitting one is wrong sometimes esp compared to royally screwing up.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/07/2008 06:25 pm
I'm not understanding the controversy with DIRECT not working or not being able to lift as much as needed...

The current STS architecture can lift the shuttle AND some payload into LEO.

So, as long as you replace the shuttle's thrust contribution, shouldn't you be able to match the lifting performance of the STS architecture?

Keep in mind that the orbiter is not all "payload".  It includes elements (Main and OMS engines, propellant, structure) of what would otherwise be considered an upper stage.  So, while an orbiter with payload and crew might have a 125 tonne-ish mass on orbit, a 3xSSME "Shuttle-Derived" launch vehicle might only be able to orbit 60 to 90 tonnes of actual payload, depending on configuration.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 07/07/2008 06:30 pm
Your opinion is fine, but this argument can only be made point by technical point.  No one in NASA or the contractor community will even respond to any comment prefaced with "It doesn't take a rocket scientist...".

Let the arguments stand on their technical merits or shortcomings, and let those technically qualified make them.  The DIRECT Team has a golden opportunity to respond to these challenges and make their case.

The 'it doesn't take a rocket scientist' argument was not for NASA, but for non-rocket scientists. Most people (like me) understand simple concepts like, if you stop launching the whole freaking shuttle you will be able to launch more cargo and a little capsule. They don't understand (as I don't) all the super-technical arguments that make up 5% of the whole argument of getting from the STS picture (on wikipedia) to the DIRECT pictures...

For crying out loud, I had to defend DIRECT to someone who read the Orlando Sentinel article because they thought the DIRECT guys were trying to be the 'prime' contractor and that they wanted to get rich!

On the technical issue:
Doesn't 2xRS-68 >= 3xSSME and the 2xSRBs are exactly the same... So won't DIRECT pretty much follow the same path to orbit as the shuttle? AND be able to put shuttle cargo capacity + (shuttle mass - orion mass) mass into orbit?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 07/07/2008 06:45 pm
On the technical issue:
Doesn't 2xRS-68 >= 3xSSME and the 2xSRBs are exactly the same... So won't DIRECT pretty much follow the same path to orbit as the shuttle? AND be able to put shuttle cargo capacity + (shuttle mass - orion mass) mass into orbit?


No. 2xRS-68 >= 3xSSME only in terms of thrust, rather than total impulse, which is the relevant figure of merit here. So Jupiter-120 cargo capacity < Shuttle cargo capacity + (orbiter mass - Orion mass), even discounting the propulsive elements of the orbiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/07/2008 06:46 pm
On the technical issue:
Doesn't 2xRS-68 >= 3xSSME and the 2xSRBs are exactly the same... So won't DIRECT pretty much follow the same path to orbit as the shuttle? AND be able to put shuttle cargo capacity + (shuttle mass - orion mass) mass into orbit?

No.  RS-68 has much lower specific impulse (e.g. "gas mileage") than SSME.  A 2xRS-68 core with no upper stage (e.g. Direct 120) can only lift 40-ish tonnes to LEO. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Danny Dot on 07/07/2008 07:29 pm
snip

I think the DIRECT guys are fighting a losing battle. See, the Ares contractors don't give a rip if the program flies or not! THEY GET PAID EITHER WAY!

In fact I think they would rather not fly because then they can just piss away a load of money and then get A NEW CONTRACT to build something else!

It's all about money guys... It's like the stock market, whether it goes up or down, the brokers (contractors) get paid...

Unfortunately I think you are right.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 07/07/2008 11:47 pm
One thing that NASA MSFC's analysis of Direct 2.0.0 shows is that Direct has made an impression some place that scares NASA management. Other wise they would have just ignored it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 07/08/2008 12:28 am
Ross, I saw in the baseball cards of your last document (version 2.0.2 dated 24 June 2008) that you have now adopted the RS-68B and J-2X engines for the J-232 rocket as well as increased the upper stage propellant load by over 100 mT. However, despite those improvements, your payload numbers went down instead of up. Did you add new margins or modifications in your architecture to cause that?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 07/08/2008 01:13 am
snip

I think the DIRECT guys are fighting a losing battle. See, the Ares contractors don't give a rip if the program flies or not! THEY GET PAID EITHER WAY!

In fact I think they would rather not fly because then they can just piss away a load of money and then get A NEW CONTRACT to build something else!

It's all about money guys... It's like the stock market, whether it goes up or down, the brokers (contractors) get paid...

Unfortunately I think you are right.

In the short term, yes they get paid. But as noted in this and other threads, if it all gets too out of hand, they might pull the plug on the whole works and NOTHING flies. So much for future contracts from this program. There goes a huge chunk of aerospace jobs at the worst possible time (on top of shuttle retirement).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 07/08/2008 01:26 am
Well with all the different contracts out there (NASA, DoD, civil contractors), enough of those side-deals would make many an American taxpayer go red...especially in a time of economic slowdown.

The point is you have a tendering system to get the best value for you dollar. If that isn't happening, the process is wrong, and people (taxpayers) do get hurt.

How can the taxpayer get hurt (at least at this time) if only budgeted dollars are spent?

Best value for the dollar? What are the alternatives to the big-three?

Okay, say you will soon need a new engine, and the going rate is $1M. You need one so you budget $1M and request one. Of course the engine is only half that ($0.5M), but his buddy gets a 20% cut because he found you, the other 30% is margin. Now tell me you are happy that you paid $1M when in reality it should have been $0.8M?

As for alternatives, for (rocket) engines there are few, but that's a specific item. However, it doesn't negate the fact that there is a system in place to (supposedly) provide transparency and fairness. If that system worked, you would have more competition out there. Perhaps the reason there are only the 'big three' as you put it, is because the problem is too widespread.

If people weren't taken in for every dollar they had for even the simplest of items, there would be fewer have-nots, and more have's. Think of how many more rocket flights you could get with cheaper engines? (Example only).

back on topic...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/08/2008 01:31 am

I think the DIRECT guys are fighting a losing battle. See, the Ares contractors don't give a rip if the program flies or not! THEY GET PAID EITHER WAY!

In fact I think they would rather not fly because then they can just piss away a load of money and then get A NEW CONTRACT to build something else!

It's all about money guys... It's like the stock market, whether it goes up or down, the brokers (contractors) get paid...

This is totally off base and wrong. NASA is doing the design of Ares I.  The contractors are only doing production.  Whether Ares I works is totally  on NASA.  T 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Avron on 07/08/2008 01:32 am


It's all about money guys... It's like the stock market, whether it goes up or down, the brokers (contractors) get paid...


Holy cow.. someone who thinks the same way...yes, its the big business of wealth redistribution...


I also think that the Direct guys may end up loosing a battle here and there, but cannot lose the war if they stay in the game.. its only a matter of time when someone somewhere does not get their fair share of said wealth and we have great chance for a change...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/08/2008 01:34 am
Well with all the different contracts out there (NASA, DoD, civil contractors), enough of those side-deals would make many an American taxpayer go red...especially in a time of economic slowdown.

The point is you have a tendering system to get the best value for you dollar. If that isn't happening, the process is wrong, and people (taxpayers) do get hurt.

How can the taxpayer get hurt (at least at this time) if only budgeted dollars are spent?

Best value for the dollar? What are the alternatives to the big-three?

Okay, say you will soon need a new engine, and the going rate is $1M. You need one so you budget $1M and request one. Of course the engine is only half that ($0.5M), but his buddy gets a 20% cut because he found you, the other 30% is margin. Now tell me you are happy that you paid $1M when in reality it should have been $0.8M?

As for alternatives, for (rocket) engines there are few, but that's a specific item. However, it doesn't negate the fact that there is a system in place to (supposedly) provide transparency and fairness. If that system worked, you would have more competition out there. Perhaps the reason there are only the 'big three' as you put it, is because the problem is too widespread.

If people weren't taken in for every dollar they had for even the simplest of items, there would be fewer have-nots, and more have's. Think of how many more rocket flights you could get with cheaper engines? (Example only).

back on topic...

HUH?   That is not applicable in gov't procurement
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 07/08/2008 02:33 am
Aerospace/defense companies are restricted by law about the amount of profit they can make on a contract.  It is nowhere near 30%


Well with all the different contracts out there (NASA, DoD, civil contractors), enough of those side-deals would make many an American taxpayer go red...especially in a time of economic slowdown.

The point is you have a tendering system to get the best value for you dollar. If that isn't happening, the process is wrong, and people (taxpayers) do get hurt.

How can the taxpayer get hurt (at least at this time) if only budgeted dollars are spent?

Best value for the dollar? What are the alternatives to the big-three?

Okay, say you will soon need a new engine, and the going rate is $1M. You need one so you budget $1M and request one. Of course the engine is only half that ($0.5M), but his buddy gets a 20% cut because he found you, the other 30% is margin. Now tell me you are happy that you paid $1M when in reality it should have been $0.8M?

As for alternatives, for (rocket) engines there are few, but that's a specific item. However, it doesn't negate the fact that there is a system in place to (supposedly) provide transparency and fairness. If that system worked, you would have more competition out there. Perhaps the reason there are only the 'big three' as you put it, is because the problem is too widespread.

If people weren't taken in for every dollar they had for even the simplest of items, there would be fewer have-nots, and more have's. Think of how many more rocket flights you could get with cheaper engines? (Example only).

back on topic...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: arachnitect on 07/08/2008 02:50 am
I am interested in seeing the DIRECT team's response to the NASA conclusion that developing the core from the ET will be much more problematic than anticipated.

My understanding is that "milling less material" rapidly adds mass disproportionately to strength (correct me if I'm wrong).

How much does the current shuttle external tank have in common with the construction of a conventional first stage? Is this territory more familiar than the NASA report suggests?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/08/2008 02:59 am
I am interested in seeing the DIRECT team's response to the NASA conclusion that developing the core from the ET will be much more problematic than anticipated.

My understanding is that "milling less material" rapidly adds mass disproportionately to strength (correct me if I'm wrong).

How much does the current shuttle external tank have in common with the construction of a conventional first stage? Is this territory more familiar than the NASA report suggests?

In the early 90's when NASA was just looking at an aft cargo carrier for the ET it was going to cost between half a billion to a billion dollars to implement.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/08/2008 07:57 am
kkattula, Do you have a reference for the Wide Body Centaur? I could not find any information about it on the Lockheed Martin website.

I now have some information about the five engine Ares-V [1] and have plotted this below. We can see that the old Ares-V EDS is just above the line and has a better mass fraction than the NASA MSFC Direct 2.0.0 EDS, even though the latter has a higher propellant load. For the Ares-V Core, it is a lot closer to the line than NASA MSFC Direct 2.0.0 Core. This is further evidence that the NASA MSFC values are too pessimistic.

The residual propellant mass is 2333 kg (1% of total) for the Ares-V EDS and 15,630 kg (1.09% of total) for the Ares-V EDS core. I'm not sure if this includes reserve propellant mass, but these values are lower than the NASA MSFC Direct 2.0.0 values which had a 1.52% residual mass for the EDS plus 1.40% for the reserve. This again indicates that NASA MSFC was again being too pessimistic in their study.

If Team Vision want to be serious in their proposal, they should use the mass fractions that NASA is using in Ares-V, and not make believe ones.

By the way, does anybody have data for the upper stage of Ares-I? I need a specific reference that I can quote. Thanks.

Steven S. Pietrobon, Ph.D.
Adelaide, Australia
8 July 2008

[1] P. Sumrall, "Ares V overview," Ares V Astronomy Workshop, Moffett Field, USA, Apr. 2008.
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/aresv/ppt/Saturday/2Sumrall/2Sumrall.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/08/2008 09:11 pm
Just a quick update for folk here.   We've been obviously quite busy with these documents so far.   We're getting our results together and writing them up.

While we'd like to get the results out this week, There's an awful lot here to dispute and its going to take time to gather it all together in a coherent and comprehensive manner. So, it might take a little more than a single week, but we're working the details as quick as we reasonably can - given the volunteer nature of our 'workforce'.

One thing which we have been able to do so far is work through NASA's numbers and have that as a reference point for our own now.   In the process of analyzing NASA's figures and working out precisely how they arrived at these figures, we have already found quite a few 'issues' with their analysis.    We will identify all of these for everyone soon enough.   Bear with us.   

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/08/2008 09:20 pm
kkattula, Do you have a reference for the Wide Body Centaur? I could not find any information about it on the Lockheed Martin website.

I now have some information about the five engine Ares-V [1] and have plotted this below. We can see that the old Ares-V EDS is just above the line and has a better mass fraction than the NASA MSFC Direct 2.0.0 EDS, [snip] This is further evidence that the NASA MSFC values are too pessimistic.

The ICES/WBC stage data used for the Jupiter EDS includes 1.4 Factor of Safety (FS), full GR&A margins on all components (*** based on Centaur experience, not MSFC ***) and full GR&A's on performance runs.   It also assumes human rating is included.   It is a first order estimate with additional "healthy margins" suitable for our flight environment.   All of this has been *repeatedly* confirmed by Lockheed-based engineers.   The only changes we have made to [the data] supplied to us is an increase of J-2X engine mass from 3,080lb to 5,450lb which was adjusted around February of this year for our 28.x.x series.   We have been using that altered spec ever since. It is worth repeating that this is *** based on Centaur experience, not MSFC ***. This makes a huge difference. NASA has not developed anything like the Centaur for 40 years, while LM has not only done that, they have been constantly improving things along the way, AND been successfully flying the hardware for 40 years. With respect to the folks at Marshall, under those circumstances, who's numbers would you trust; the numbers from people who have never done this (the original designers are all gone) or the people who have been doing it for 40 years? Again - this in no way is meant to disrespect the people at MSFC, whos design engineering staff is top notch. They just do not have hard experience in this field, while LM does.

Quote
The residual propellant mass is 2333 kg (1% of total) for the Ares-V EDS and 15,630 kg (1.09% of total) for the Ares-V EDS core. I'm not sure if this includes reserve propellant mass, but these values are lower than the NASA MSFC Direct 2.0.0 values which had a 1.52% residual mass for the EDS plus 1.40% for the reserve. This again indicates that NASA MSFC was again being too pessimistic in their study.

If [the DIRECT Team] wants to be serious in their proposal, they should use the mass fractions that NASA is using in Ares-V, and not make believe ones.

The mass fractions we are using are carefully computed. We stand by them. Having said that, we are not simply repeating what we have done but are undergoing a full-boat review, with NASA's figures being individually examined for applicability. Rest assured that if we discover a NASA figure that is better than our own, we will incorporate it and let the chips fall where they may.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 07/08/2008 09:21 pm
Perfect timing Ross - I was just wondering where the team had gone.

Thanks for all your work on this; it gives me hope that our common desired end result of extended space exploration can be realised, which Ares I/V  doesn't convince me of.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/08/2008 09:27 pm
I'm not going to get into a pmf debate here (I don't have the time), so all I'm going to show on that is a graph which we have compiled based upon the data we have from LM showing what their ICES/WBC system is capable of achieving.

Note that representatives from Boeing also believe they can match these figures too, but we have not seen any specific data from them to be able to independently confirm this as yet.   If representatives of Boeing would like to make quiet contact with us though...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/08/2008 09:30 pm
Perfect timing Ross - I was just wondering where the team had gone.

Thanks for all your work on this; it gives me hope that our common desired end result of extended space exploration can be realised, which Ares I/V  doesn't convince me of.

Joffan,
We have been a bit quiet of late simply because we're working our butts off to debunk this latest round of what we consider "to be
expected FUD".

Just FYI:   We believe NASA intended to hold off releasing this as long as possible, so it would only delay our efforts.

By tying us up debunking this, they can proceed to demolish the STS infrastructure without questions being raised.   Tooling at MAF is being removed this month, so now isn't a bad time for them to release this - not a bad time at all.

I wonder if the House and the Senate are aware that their legislation demanding NASA protect the STS infrastructure has not yet passed and if it doesn't pass when Congress sits for 3 weeks in August, it never will pass and NASA will be totally free to Scorch the Earth as much as they want when Congress recesses for the rest of the election year.

I'll bet Griffin is aware that all he has to do is delay that vote long enough and he can cut up as much infrastructure as he likes, locking us into Ares-I no matter how many tens of billions it will cost us or whether Ares-V ever gets built or not.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/08/2008 09:53 pm
Would this improved u/s design work for Ares I and Ares V EDS, and if so, how much would they benefit from its use?

Does much of this discussion really come down to a technology that NASA decided (for whatever reason) was too high a risk for human space flight, and if it were adopted for Ares I / V would it solve the performance problems for both?

Does DIRECT work for lunar missions with NASA's (mass fraction) assumptions?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/08/2008 09:59 pm
icewiz - NASA refuses to allow the design to be placed in the contractors hands.   It is determined to develop what MSFC designs and understands, even though they haven't made any such stages in 40 years.

Go read the last NASA Budget Request document and you will see for yourself that NASA is, with Ares, very clearly attempting to create the technical expertise within the agency, and take that control away from the contractors.

While this goal might well be a noble aim on the part of NASA as an agency, the simple fact is that while MSFC has an great engineering team, that team has not produced such an element as the Ares-V or Jupiter-232 upper stages in four decades now.

It can't be that much of a surprise to anyone that their experience just isn't at the same level as that of a team who has been consistently developing & flying such upper stages for the last 42 years?

If they did relinquish this "control" mindset to Boeing or Lockheed, they might well be able to improve their situation, but I personally just don't see the current Administration budging from their current position, no matter what.   Their heels are stuck into the sand so deeply at this point their careers are in jeopardy now over this.


As for saying anything specific about what we can or can't do regarding NASA's assumptions - we would prefer to release a formal rebuttal on that before discussing it here.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/08/2008 10:56 pm
Ross

This approach is a well-known difference between NASA and the DoD.  NASA prefers to be the nation's space Agency, to have "the right stuff".  The DoD determines requirements and then buys stuff from contractors.  Both have their benefits and shortcomings, but as you point out, it is one of the Administrator's meta-goals to return NASA civil servant engineering (particularly in human space flight) to preeminence.  It is one of the reasons he was selected and confirmed.  These goals may align with yours, or may be orthogonal, but they are clearly the goals of the Congress and may be more important than the Moon, or science, or anything else.

It appears we have the nub of the disagreement ... It seems you are suggesting (or stating) that NASA civil servants lack the up-to-date experience to design and procure a modern space system, and that more of that work should be turned over to contractors ... meanwhile this lack of experience is the very problem that the Administrator is trying to solve by giving NASA civil servants the work.

If that is the case, perhaps it would benefit DIRECT to highlight this as an "either/or" moment for Congress ... to say that you can have a more experienced NASA, more ready to take on the challenges of 2020 and beyond ... or you can have a rocket that takes you to the Moon ... but you can't have both. 

If this has been hashed before I apologize, but I found it fascinating that the most fundamental disagreement with NASA is not technical, but in fact, policy and that if common assumptions are applied, you get much closer to the same answers.


icewiz - NASA refuses to allow the design to be placed in the contractors hands.   It is determined to develop what MSFC designs and understands, even though they haven't made any such stages in 40 years.

Go read the last NASA Budget Request document and you will see for yourself that NASA is, with Ares, very clearly attempting to create the technical expertise within the agency, and take that control away from the contractors.

While this goal might well be a noble aim on the part of NASA as an agency, the simple fact is that while MSFC has an great engineering team, that team has not produced such an element as the Ares-V or Jupiter-232 upper stages in four decades now.

It can't be that much of a surprise to anyone that their experience just isn't at the same level as that of a team who has been consistently developing & flying such upper stages for the last 42 years?

If they did relinquish this "control" mindset to Boeing or Lockheed, they might well be able to improve their situation, but I personally just don't see the current Administration budging from their current position, no matter what.   Their heels are stuck into the sand so deeply at this point their careers are in jeopardy now over this.


As for saying anything specific about what we can or can't do regarding NASA's assumptions - we would prefer to release a formal rebuttal on that before discussing it here.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/08/2008 11:22 pm
No, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that there is a difference between dictating the design by the team with the least experience and designing it with the more experienced team taking the lead and bringing the others along with them.

Surely, the team with the most experience should be brought in, not to do the design per se, but to improve the overall design approach and increase the level of understanding of both groups so that *together* they can create the best design.

This is not the current state of affairs though.

As an example, you have an inexperienced car mechanic and an experienced one working in the same shop.   Shouldn't the experienced one share their knowledge and experience with the less experienced one, or should the less experienced one do all the work and just ignore the advice of the other?

This isn't a competition between NASA and the agencies.   It isn't about one must have the experience at the cost of the other.   This is about getting the job done in the best way possible and without raping the taxpayers in the process.

This is not a turf war and anyone thinking it is needs to check their ego at the door.


I should also point out that at no level - not House, not Senate nor OMB or Oval Office - is there the slightest bit of legislation even suggesting that NASA needs to do this.   This is purely driven and motivated by NASA Administration.   Nobody else.   Nobody else has weighed in, at any level at all, that this is a requirement of the agency or program, that this is a need or even a fairly good thing.   Nobody.

Griffin was actually brought in because he said he could get Orion to fly by 2014 at the latest and that he would save the Shuttle jobs.   And most importantly he was to do so on a shoe-string budget in a balanced manner which would not harm Aeronautics or Science Directorates in the process.

He is failing to achieve all of those legislated objectives.

Orion's late.   4 out of 5 Shuttle jobs are going to be lost according to NASA's own documentation from 2 months ago and the agency is stripping budget from everywhere it can to pay for developments and is implementing a strategy which assumes a budget increase to $20bn (in real terms) will be a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y necessary if we are to ever afford it.

What really bothers me right now is none of our elected officials are questioning this properly yet.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/08/2008 11:28 pm
Quote
it is one of the Administrator's meta-goals to return NASA civil servant engineering (particularly in human space flight) to preeminence.  It is one of the reasons he was selected and confirmed.

More like, he was brought in because he had a plan to fulfill the VSE that was supposed to be 1) shuttle derived, 2) affordable, 3) safer than the shuttle, and 4) ready to go by 2012.  It would have been great if it had happened, but, so far, it might be one out of those four.  The whole "pre-eminent civil servant engineering" concept is very dubious if they aren't even willing to research the most up to date engineering available from the private contractors.  It's bad engineering to develop that which can be bought for less.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/08/2008 11:35 pm
But he knew that when he decided on this path, when he selected Ares I, and when he gave it to MSFC.  The decision for NASA to take the lead was part of his earliest plans.  He is thinking many steps ahead (to outposts and Mars) and doesn't want to wait to reinvigorate the workforce.

The fact is that unless you change THAT direction, the same inexperienced team will be in charge of DIRECT and make many more decisions that you disagree with.

The space station suffered mightily from split responsibilities between the civil servants and contractors. In the end, there was no accountability when mistakes were made, both sides could point at each other and point the finger.  He wasn't going to make that mistake again.

I'm with you ... I prefer the "write good requirements and let the contractors do it" of the Air Force, but that doesn't give the civil servants any real toys to play with.  And the only thing worse than having an inexperienced tour guide is having two out walking at the same time, each thinking the other is in charge of pointing the way.

I don't think you can have it both ways, and neither does this administrator.

That will be a huge policy change (going with the contractors) and it may benefit (or hurt) both Ares I and Ares V much more than the switch to DIRECT might.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/08/2008 11:39 pm
is it even remotely possible that they made the right decision by not going with the lighter weight technology?  Given the X-33 and X-37 (and others), isn't it even possible that going with the lowest technical approach was the right one?  At least they have been consistent with switches to the RS-68, not air starting the SSME, not using SLWT among others.  Does anyone here have enough data to show that NASA isn't just probably, but definitely wrong on this _policy_ decision?

The mass fractions aren't the only place that NASA pointed out where DIRECT had proposed more aggressive technical elements than NASA was confortable with. 

Again, it sounds to me like "is DIRECT better" isn't even the question anymore, but "was NASA too conservative".  That is a much harder question to answer, especially if you are an enthusiast with a higher than average tolerance for risk ...


Quote
it is one of the Administrator's meta-goals to return NASA civil servant engineering (particularly in human space flight) to preeminence.  It is one of the reasons he was selected and confirmed.

More like, he was brought in because he had a plan to fulfill the VSE that was supposed to be 1) shuttle derived, 2) affordable, 3) safer than the shuttle, and 4) ready to go by 2012.  It would have been great if it had happened, but, so far, it might be one out of those four.  The whole "pre-eminent civil servant engineering" concept is very dubious if they aren't even willing to research the most up to date engineering available from the private contractors.  It's bad engineering to develop that which can be bought for less.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/08/2008 11:52 pm
is it even remotely possible that they made the right decision by not going with the lighter weight technology?  Given the X-33 and X-37 (and others), isn't it even possible that going with the lowest technical approach was the right one?  At least they have been consistent with switches to the RS-68, not air starting the SSME, not using SLWT among others.  Does anyone here have enough data to show that NASA isn't just probably, but definitely wrong on this _policy_ decision?

I would agree with you if it were something not being done currently and continually for the last 42 years.   Centaur is nothing new.   The EDS for Jupiter has a considerably less aggressive pmf than the Saturn S-II stage - which flew, human-rated, long before the days of the stronger/lighter Al-Li 2195 and friction stir welding techniques utilized today on both Centaur and Shuttle ET.

Projects like X-33 needed a new layer of technology to be invented in order to succeed. That project required convoluted-shaped new composite pressurized tanking which had never been invented to that point.   That was a step too far, without doubt.

But Centaur has four decades of continual heritage already and a team in place right now who know precisely what they're doing and are continuing to do it regardless of NASA.   And before anyone says so, yes, Boeing has a similar team too :)

Scaling up the diameter from existing manufacturing models to a Wide Body Centaur of either 5.4m or 8.4m, using manufacturing techniques which have all been proven not just in the laboratory, but in real flight use, is therefore a far less daunting task than developing all new materials and construction methods for stages which have never even been contemplated, let alone developed and flown before.   It is especially reasonable to assume its possible given that previous modules of a similar size - and even better performance - have flown previously too.   Those give us *proof* it can be done.

With history very clearly showing Centaurs work very well and that Saturn S-II stages do too, I would suggest that an Al-Li 8.4m EDS with a common bulkhead and powered by 2 J-2X class engines is not a step too far at all.

Ares-V's composite EDS might still be though.

Quote
The mass fractions aren't the only place that NASA pointed out where DIRECT had proposed more aggressive technical elements than NASA was confortable with. 

Again, it sounds to me like "is DIRECT better" isn't even the question anymore, but "was NASA too conservative".  That is a much harder question to answer, especially if you are an enthusiast with a higher than average tolerance for risk ...

We have more than enough debates coming when we release our rebuttal.   Wait for that and we will try to answer all these questions in a simple and clear fashion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/09/2008 12:06 am
I would agree with you if it were something not being done currently and continually for the last 42 years.   Centaur is nothing new.   The EDS for Jupiter has a worse pmf than Saturn S-II - which flew long before the days of the stronger/lighter Al-Li 2195 and friction stir welding techniques utilized today on both Centaur and Shuttle ET.

That's what bothers me.  The engineers I know at MSFC aren't ludites and are rational when presented with good, demonstrated alternatives.  They agreed to switch to the engines of two vehicles based on updated data.  I'm not sure why I should believe that they are incapable of a good technical decision in this instance base on (no offense intended) some statements of people I don't know on an internet forum.

You are suggesting that they aren't making rational choices, which means that we have a bigger slate of problems than simply today's choices ... that is tomorrow and the day after

I would suggest that they ARE making rational choices, but with a different risk and policy filter than you have.  That is the only conclusion that fits the facts.  And in that and all other things being equal, I would have to side with conservatism on this one. 

 ... or simply switch the Ares I and Ares V to the less conservative design which would solve all of their problems ... and obviate the hard pressing "need" for DIRECT.  But despite the problems they have had, NASA has chosen not to go that route.  That says something to me.   It says go conservative.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/09/2008 01:15 am
I would agree with you if it were something not being done currently and continually for the last 42 years.   Centaur is nothing new.   The EDS for Jupiter has a worse pmf than Saturn S-II - which flew long before the days of the stronger/lighter Al-Li 2195 and friction stir welding techniques utilized today on both Centaur and Shuttle ET.

That's what bothers me.  The engineers I know at MSFC aren't ludites and are rational when presented with good, demonstrated alternatives.  They agreed to switch to the engines of two vehicles based on updated data.  I'm not sure why I should believe that they are incapable of a good technical decision in this instance base on (no offense intended) some statements of people I don't know on an internet forum.

You are suggesting that they aren't making rational choices, which means that we have a bigger slate of problems than simply today's choices ... that is tomorrow and the day after

I would suggest that they ARE making rational choices, but with a different risk and policy filter than you have.  That is the only conclusion that fits the facts.  And in that and all other things being equal, I would have to side with conservatism on this one. 

 ... or simply switch the Ares I and Ares V to the less conservative design which would solve all of their problems ... and obviate the hard pressing "need" for DIRECT.  But despite the problems they have had, NASA has chosen not to go that route.  That says something to me.   It says go conservative.

So this is the conservative route?  Two NEW launch vicheals and brand new infrastracture to support them?  At what cost? 

If someone told you, for your next car--you will need two cars.  One car for people and 1 for cargo, you would think they were crazy.  In addition, these same people also told you, by the way...you need two gargages instead of one.  And don't forget, your cargo car has now been made soo heavy that you need your streets redone--would  you be calling that design conversative?   Most people would be telling that salesperson---go sell ice to the eskimoes.  Go and look at NASA's design plans--they are those sales people selling that ice.  But there is one more catch---that NASA keeps quite about.  To drive these two new cars (Launch Viecheals), it is going to eat up at least 1/2 of your annual budget.  How long would you be driving those cars?    Please tell me what killed Apollo?  Cost.  Please tell me how many flights to the moon, NASA will be making/will be able to afford with these two vicheals?   



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nullset on 07/09/2008 01:42 am
The idea that NASA is "being conservative" across the board is interesting. That they have always been acting consistently, and their hesitance to "push the envelope" is merely an extension of this drive for safety would be commendable. That DIRECT was only able to suggest higher performance results by accepting more risk seems like a logical interpretation and a simple resolution to the differing architectures.

However, Ares I cannot be considered a rocket that was designed with "being conservative" in mind. Yes, the SSRM have flown for years, but the actual configuration (even the one _originally_ pursued: 1 SSRM + 1 SSME-airstart) is _nothing_ like any rocket ever used in manned space flight. If NASA was "consistently cautious", Ares I would never have been considered.

I think a big part of what's missing in this recent NASA analysis is how the architectures fail if funding does not come through. Considering the volatile nature of the US economy, US politics, and global stability it would seem prudent to be "consistently cautious". Even if the DIRECT team is far off on their budgets and timetables, a Jupiter series of rockets still appears to offer more fall back positions for manned space flight than an Ares series.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/09/2008 02:50 am

That's what bothers me.  The engineers I know at MSFC aren't ludites and are rational when presented with good, demonstrated alternatives.  They agreed to switch to the engines of two vehicles based on updated data.  I'm not sure why I should believe that they are incapable of a good technical decision in this instance base on (no offense intended) some statements of people I don't know on an internet forum.

You are suggesting that they aren't making rational choices ...

No, that's not what he is suggesting.

In the first place, the engineers at Marshall aren't driving the bus. They don't get to design what works. They get to design what they are told to design.

In the second place, there is a big difference, irregardless of equal technical ability (contractor vs. NASA), between 42 years of experience, and zero years of experience. There is no way to properly address that deficiency except to gain experience.

Theory teaches you the black and white of physics. Experience exposes all the gray in real-world application of theory. Experience teaches you where the theory is inviolable and where it is only approximate. Then experience teaches you what is possible within that approximate range. There is no way to gain that experience except to fly the hardware, which LM has been doing for 42 years, and NASA has not done for over 40. That's not a slight - it's just a fact. Theory gets you in the ballpark. Experience teaches you how to hit the home run. Theory gets you past the sand traps and close to the green with the first shot. Experience puts you on the green and close to the hole with the first shot. Theory is a good golfer. Experience is Tiger Woods. LM and Boeing have the experience. NASA does not.

It is not a matter of NASA being too conservative. With no disrespect meant for the fine engineers at Marshall, it is quite simply a matter that LM and Boeing already know how to do this (for 42 years now) and NASA does not, but NASA is not willing to have an outside contractor step in and do it for them, or even guide their engineers with their experience, even though it would solve a lot of problems. I'm sorry, but it really is that simple.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/09/2008 01:02 pm
LM and Boeing have the experience. NASA does not.

Remember that I said, many times, that the last time we went thru a transition like this (Saturn/Shuttle) that NASA fired the majority of the workforce? When NASA tried to re-hire them later, less than one in ten went back. I stated that it took more than twenty years for NASA to get back up to strength, but that there were still, to this day (July 9, 2008), things that NASA could do back then that they have not been able to duplicate? The fired workers took their skill sets, knowledge and experience with them to their new employers. This thing with the cryo upper stage is one of them. As smart as the NASA engineers at Marshall are (and they are smart - make no mistake), this is one of the lost abilities that NASA never regained. Over 40 years ago, these guys designed the Saturn cryo upper stage and then started flying the hardware. But Shuttle did not need a cryo upper stage, so NASA fired them. Guess where some of those guys went with their skill, knowledge and experience after NASA fired them? Guess where they and their protégés work today? Guess who is still doing it 42 years later? Not NASA. Guess whose cryo upper stage numbers I trust?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 07/09/2008 01:17 pm
Yeah but which organisation is pulling the strings?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/09/2008 01:20 pm
Yeah but which organisation is pulling the strings?

You mean "pushing" the string. About as effective.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/09/2008 02:21 pm

The residual propellant mass is 2333 kg (1% of total) for the Ares-V EDS and 15,630 kg (1.09% of total) for the Ares-V EDS core. I'm not sure if this includes reserve propellant mass, but these values are lower than the NASA MSFC Direct 2.0.0 values which had a 1.52% residual mass for the EDS plus 1.40% for the reserve. This again indicates that NASA MSFC was again being too pessimistic in their study.
Steven S. Pietrobon, Ph.D.
Adelaide, Australia
8 July 2008

Steven,

Thanks for this analysis.  I have not necessarily been a "supporter" of Direct, for a variety of reasons, but it troubles me deeply to see NASA actively "spinning", even distorting, the comparison in this manner.  The Ares development program has used 1% residuals from day one. 

The NASA presentation looks like something put together by an advocacy group or by a team of legal experts involved in a product defense case rather than by engineers, who I would hope would have the nerve to be ethical.  If NASA's intention was to convince people like me who might be ambivalent about the Ares plans, they have failed miserably.

 - Ed Kyle 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 07/09/2008 04:35 pm
kkattula, Do you have a reference for the Wide Body Centaur? I could not find any information about it on the Lockheed Martin website.

Steven, all the references to pdf's on the LM site are now dead links.
If anyone has saved copies, I'd love to see them.

I had to mostly source my data from a discussion on this site last year when the documents were still available.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6479.0

Maybe there's more on L2?



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/09/2008 04:49 pm
A lot of the Lockheed Atlas-related documents are available here now:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Atlas/

I don't know if there's an index page of any sort, but that's the folder.   I suspect the file you're actually after might be this one:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Atlas/Atlas_Centaur_Extensibility_to_Long-Duration_In-Space_Applications_2005-6738.pdf

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/09/2008 05:15 pm
LM and Boeing have the experience. NASA does not.

Remember that I said, many times, that the last time we went thru a transition like this (Saturn/Shuttle) that NASA fired the majority of the workforce? When NASA tried to re-hire them later, less than one in ten went back. I stated that it took more than twenty years for NASA to get back up to strength, but that there were still, to this day (July 9, 2008), things that NASA could do back then that they have not been able to duplicate? The fired workers took their skill sets, knowledge and experience with them to their new employers. This thing with the cryo upper stage is one of them. As smart as the NASA engineers at Marshall are (and they are smart - make no mistake), this is one of the lost abilities that NASA never regained. Over 40 years ago, these guys designed the Saturn cryo upper stage and then started flying the hardware. But Shuttle did not need a cryo upper stage, so NASA fired them. Guess where some of those guys went with their skill, knowledge and experience after NASA fired them? Guess where they and their protégés work today? Guess who is still doing it 42 years later? Not NASA. Guess whose cryo upper stage numbers I trust?

I have first hand experience that LM made the same claims about the conformal tanks of the X-33 and VentureStar.  Each time the contractor's make a claim they say "this time it's different", "slam dunk", or "no problem".

I'm not saying you are wrong, in fact, I agree with many of your points.  I'm just saying that not trusting the full optimism of contractor claims (for tech readiness, cost or schedule) has rarely gotten the government in trouble, whereas the opposite cannot be said.

(X-33, NASP, Big Dig, Shuttle, Osprey ...)

It's always the "stupid government's" fault, not the "smart" contractors.  If NASA is too conservative (even if they reject a technology they have no experience with -- that is conservatism) they get hammered.  If they are too aggressive (SEI, NASP, X-33) they get hammered.

While I don't deny your experiences and expertise, I have to view your position with some skepticism (same as I would RL-10 upgrade statements by PW) since you seem to have (and have had for many years) a dog in this fight.

Especially when that technology choice would fix a good bit of the problems on Ares I and Ares V and they are still not choosing it.  Makes me think that this technology and how it relates to human space flight operations is not acceptable to NASA's understanding of "safety".

Again, I don't disagree.  I'm just not willing to throw MSFC and the NASA safety process under the bus based on your personal experiences.  There are far too many recriminations and blanket statements being made for my comfort.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/09/2008 05:56 pm

Again, I don't disagree.  I'm just not willing to throw MSFC and the NASA safety process under the bus based on your personal experiences.  There are far too many recriminations and blanket statements being made for my comfort.

You miss my point. I'm not throwing anyone under the bus; just calling the situation as it is. Unlike some others, I try to not pass judgement on what motivates the policy makers. Sometimes I don't succeed, and then I apologize, if possible, and move on, determined to do better next time. But I mostly succeed. I'm just echoing the policy as it stands, and musing on what a different policy would bring.

I'm not engaging in the "smart contractor" vs. the "dumb NASA" tact.  I won't go there - that's dumb. I'm only observing that we chose LM WBC/Centaur technology for use in the Jupiter US design BECAUSE of their 42 years of demonstrated ability. In conversations with the appropriate people, we came to understand how they have achieved what they have, and how they arrive at their performance numbers, like the pmf for instance. We then incorporated their methods into our stage design, and ran it past them to ensure fidelity. After a few back and forths, they were satisfied, to the point even of saying we were being too conservative, and that our stage design is actually capable of better performance than what we have published to date. Instead of incorporating that additional performance however, we chose to keep it in the margins. With history as a guide, as the design turns to hardware, some of that reserve will likely be needed. We determined from the beginning to maintain healthy reserves in everything, for just that reason.

So yes, I do have skin in the game, so to speak. For that I do not apologize. We made some very deliberate choices, based on the best facts available, and then followed thru with it, constantly adhering to the fundamentals of Centaur's moncoque design as baseline, because that baseline design has 42 years of successful operations under its belt. The appropriate people have told us that we were successful in that endeavour. The still developing WBC design, now mostly complete, incorporates the LM COLD technologies for long term cryogenic storage, increasing existing capabilities by more than 2 orders of magnatude. Our stage is designed from the beginning around incorporating that. How they accomplish that is proprietary, and they (properly) have not shared those details, nor have we asked for them. All we did was make it clear that we wished to be completely compatable and in that we have succeeded. Obviously, once the decision is made to switch away from Ares to the Jupiter, the LM teams would would take over completing the detail design. It isn't necessary for our design to be that technically complete. We laid the foundation, with the proper guidance (which NASA could also have had but didn't want), and had it pass the sanity test. Final performance numbers of this stage will not be exactly what we are baselining, but they will be very close. Flying the hardware will ink the process.

Making a long story short, we actually have been conservative in what we did, but the difference is that we used industry standard performance data, flight verified, as our baseline. NASA could have done the same thing, but chose not to. As to why that decision was made, I will leave that question for you to ask them, as I will not speculate. They have made the choices they have for reasons that I'm sure they consider valid. We have done the same and stand by the performance numbers for this stage, which is based on industry standard, flight proven hardware.

42 years of consistant flight history carries a lot of weight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/09/2008 06:08 pm

1.  I have first hand experience that LM made the same claims about the conformal tanks of the X-33 and VentureStar.  Each time the contractor's make a claim they say "this time it's different", "slam dunk", or "no problem".

2.  Again, I don't disagree.  I'm just not willing to throw MSFC and the NASA safety process under the bus based on your personal experiences.  There are far too many recriminations and blanket statements being made for my comfort.


1.  X-33 is not applicable in this case.  X-33 was not run by the people who did Titan or Atlas/Centaur. 

2.  This isn't a "safety" process.  It is MSFC engineering conservatism, which is "further right" than the rest of the country's aerospace community. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/09/2008 06:24 pm

1.  I have first hand experience that LM made the same claims about the conformal tanks of the X-33 and VentureStar.  Each time the contractor's make a claim they say "this time it's different", "slam dunk", or "no problem".

2.  Again, I don't disagree.  I'm just not willing to throw MSFC and the NASA safety process under the bus based on your personal experiences.  There are far too many recriminations and blanket statements being made for my comfort.


1.  X-33 is not applicable in this case.  X-33 was not run by the people who did Titan or Atlas/Centaur. 

2.  This isn't a "safety" process.  It is MSFC engineering conservatism, which is "further right" than the rest of the country's aerospace community. 

Too literal.  I didn't mean it was LIKE X-33, just that X-33 is an example of where contractor claims didn't match reality.  I'm not saying the conservatism was right, just that the government has certainly gotten burned buying into contractor optimism more times than not.

They made the assessment of technical risk using the resources at their disposal.  Even if they were wrong, you fight with the army you have.  :-)

Again, the point is more that if NASA picked this design for Ares I and Ares V their performance problems would (from my calculations) vanish.  Their reluctance to choose that route (and work through a world of pain instead) says a lot about how they continue to feel about the "human ratableness" of that design.

You say 42 years and I say "so what" ... may not be applicable, and NASA has said (and continues to say based on hard design decisions) that it is still not applicable. 

If this is the crux of the disagreement, a choice of higher or lower technology readiness, DIRECT will lose the fight in the courtroom of political opinion, no matter what the history says.  You can't litigate these sorts of decisions ... it isn't as simple as "more performance", "costs less", or "gets there faster" which is where I thought the hang ups on DIRECT were.

If tech readiness is an issue (even if they are wrong), you are going to have a really hard time proving it in this environment.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/09/2008 07:00 pm

  Their reluctance to choose that route (and work through a world of pain instead) says a lot about how they continue to feel about the "human ratableness" of that design.


It is not an engineering decision that has led to the current Ares I and V design.  It is has nothing to do with human rating, using the 5 segment SRB for the current Ares I is proof of this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/09/2008 07:35 pm
ice,
There's a lot more issues which have not been accounted for yet with this particular discussion of Upper Stage mass (which is only one of the issues we have with that analysis).

For a start, look on page 36 of NASA's Analysis document and you'll clearly see that the design NASA uses for our EDS has no common bulkhead when every document we have released has made it clear that we intend to use a CB.

Not only does this "change" lengthen the stage and whole vehicle (adds weight), but it also increases the amount of insulation (adds weight) and also introduces an unpressurized intertank structure which must be strengthened in order to support additional bending loads (adds weight) and must support the mass of the payload above too (adds weight).

The length of the vehicle also increases the length of the 'lever' applying bending loads through the entire length of the vehicle - which increases the mass of all the other elements too.

Separate tanking also increases propellant boiloff too making NASA's interpretation of our design even less efficient.

Additionally the dynamic environment of Ares-V is far worse than for Jupiter-232.   Max-Q for Ares-V is a *LOT* higher than for Jupiter-232.   This requires strengthening of the structures supporting the loads (adds weight).

That huge cluster of upgraded RS-68B engines together with the 25% more powerful SRB's and the ~30% heavier payload on top of the EDS all push up the stresses and strains which the EDS will experience during launch - all of which adds...   can you guess?   Yup, yet more weight to the EDS structure to handle the stresses.

Ares-V's EDS - while visibly similar to Jupiter's is going to have to be a lot stronger to survive the flight.   Each of these small additions to the weight will adversely affect the pmf of their stage.   Further, Ares-V's EDS currently does not use a common bulkhead yet.   Therefore with all of these "thousand cuts" I would contend that comparing Ares-V's EDS with Jupiter's, with a far more benign environment, is a distorted view.

To put this into its correct perspective, note that the Centaur-G which flew on Titan-IV also had to fly through a pretty harsh flight environment and was the predecessor to the current Centaur-V1 used on Atlas-V now - which flys through a far more reasonable environment.   Note the difference in pmf between the two stages even though their capacity and engine packages are both actually pretty similar...

So lets put our numbers in their correct perspective:

0.8750 Titan-IVB Centaur-G
0.8776 Delta IVHUS
0.8823 Ares-I US*
0.8828 Ares-V EDS*
0.8891 Saturn S-IVB
0.9179 Atlas-V Centaur-V1
0.9321 DIRECT EDS*
0.9390 Saturn S-II
0.9400 Wide Body Centaur*
0.9459 STS ET SWT
0.9521 STS ET LWT
0.9564 STS ET SLWT

*Estimated - not flown yet

Now look again at the chart I posted before (attached again) and try plotting all of these on the pmf curve there to see what's reasonable and what's not.


Additionally, NASA assumes that *on top* of regular reserves and residuals in the EDS, that only 90% of the remaining propellant load (after boil-off too) could be transferred in such instances - this "assumption" accounts for approximately 10mT of highly valuable propellant.   This one change cuts TLI payload performance by roughly the exact same amount - 10mT.

We would contend that during Apollo Applications it was determined that a far smaller amount of residual would be left if using the vented boil-off low-g transfer techniques which were conceived at the time.   We have been baselining these techniques since the start, although still assuming than none of our regular 2% stage residuals/reserves will be accessible for transfer.

In point of fact, Apollo determined that a slow log-g transfer process would actually be able to gain access to most of the residual propellant too - because flow is very slow and very controlled.   The regular 1% (we use double the norm) reserves/residuals normally left in such a stage at MECO would mostly become available.   Apollo determined that expected losses are in the region of less than 0.5% assuming there are no baffles inside the "depot" tanking structures to disrupt flow, and less than 1% even if there are baffles.

For NASA to arbitrarily pick a worst case figure of ~12% losses is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to place their "thumb on the scales" in order to discredit us.   Nothing we didn't expect from them.   Its just FUD part 2.


For a moon mission, if you want to do maximum 'damage' to a competitors figures, just hit the EDS.   Every pound you hit there is a double whammy.   First you hurt the performance to LEO on a 1 for 1 basis.   Then you also hit the performance thru TLI as well.   For every pound you increase the EDS (or residuals) you actually reduce the effective TLI performance by more than 2lb!

So, if you can create some sort of '10 ton hurt' somehow, it'll actually translate to more than 20 tons of actual damage to the proposal's capabilities.

If it were my goal to just to try to discredit anyone, I'd probably try to skew the EDS figures too.   No shocks here.   Move along. :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jose on 07/09/2008 07:46 pm
You keep bringing up the X-33 as a contractor failure.  I'm not sure you're right after reading this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4180
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/09/2008 09:01 pm
The X-33 really has nothing to do with this discussion.

We aren't proposing to build a radically new reusable SSTO with unique new airframe, radically different engines, new TPS, landing systems, aerodynamic control surfaces or the infamous composite cryogenic propellant tanks in a weird shape - the primary root cause of most of the problems with X-33 - none of which had ever been tried previously.

We're talking about scaling up the size of an existing production stage to a point where it can make use of the efficiency of a larger tanking structure.   We are aiming for a target point comfortably below the envelope of a Stage which previously existed (S-II) and flew successfully and repeatedly, so this can be considered within the realm of a proven envelope at least.

No new materials or critical systems are involved - except maybe you could count the J-2X, which NASA will tell you is a derivative of the proven J-2.   Even J-2X isn't any sort of radical departure or step-too-far compared to other existing engines like SSME and RS-68.   Nobody seems to question whether the J-2X is achieveable, although GAO suggests schedules and cost estimates are 'optimistic' to reach a 2015 service date for Ares-I - but we don't need it until 2017 for Jupiter, so even that question mark essentially goes away.

Comparing Apples and Oranges does nobody any favors.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/09/2008 09:58 pm
Hi Ross,
It would be handy if the rebuttal could be organised by vehicle. The smaller vehicle supposedly has mass issues and problems with the tank milling etc. The larger vehicle has those problems plus the EDS issue.
If the analysis will take a long time a rebutal for the core vehicle would show onlookers that NASA's analysis is deeply flawed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/10/2008 02:43 am
One interesting sideline from this analysis is that I think NASA has possibly shown that a Jupiter-232-like launch vehicle configuration was indeed in ESAS.

Pages 57 onwards seem to indicate a launch vehicle designation of 37.03.03 has been applied to the Jupiter-232 design.

Given that the public version of the ESAS Report (without the appendices) stops at LV-29 it sure will be interesting to see what LV-37 - which nobody has ever seen - actually looks like.   Won't it be remarkable when that document finally sees the light of day if ESAS LV-37 bears a striking resemblance to Jupiter-232...

Anyone with the ability to search internally and who can confirm this "ESAS LV-37", earns themselves a nice cold beer in Cocoa Beach! :)

Although I won't extend that offer to the FOIA office.   I'm *still* waiting for Appendix 6A-6F after two years & three months.   You guys don't get any beer.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/10/2008 04:28 am

I'm not engaging in the "smart contractor" vs. the "dumb NASA" tact.  I won't go there - that's dumb. I'm only observing that we chose LM WBC/Centaur technology for use in the Jupiter US design BECAUSE of their 42 years of demonstrated ability.

42 years of consistant flight history carries a lot of weight.

This is another thing that bothers me about the whole DIRECT thing.  You act like you can pick and choose between contractors and that no problem this will all work that way.  Well Lockmart has that 42 years of demonstrated ability and yet Boeing won the Ares 1 upper stage contract.  This happens all the time and yet time after time I read things like, "we chose this contractor" or "no problem we just change ATK's contract for the SRB's for Jupiter.

This displays an amazing level of ignorance (lack of understanding) regarding the federal procurement process.  Other writers have been right on the money in declaring that it will take a lot of time to change horses in midstream relative to the development of a fundamentally different vehicle.  I don't care what you say about the ET either, that will be a development program that also has to be competed.  It takes six months to a year just to put a procurement package together and yet DIRECT is going to close the gap?

This is another why management types at NASA and those who are familiar with the procurement process dismiss DIRECT.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 07/10/2008 06:38 am
This displays an amazing level of ignorance (lack of understanding) regarding the federal procurement process.  Other writers have been right on the money in declaring that it will take a lot of time to change horses in midstream relative to the development of a fundamentally different vehicle.  I don't care what you say about the ET either, that will be a development program that also has to be competed.  It takes six months to a year just to put a procurement package together...(snip)

That's how we ended up with totally misdesigned LV (Shuttle) and were forced to use it for 30 years. But saved lots on development, eh?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/10/2008 08:54 am
The EDS for Jupiter has a considerably less aggressive pmf than the Saturn S-II stage - which flew, human-rated, long before the days of the stronger/lighter Al-Li 2195 and friction stir welding techniques utilized today on both Centaur and Shuttle ET.

This is not true. Excluding the engine mass, the Jupiter EDS empty to propellant mass ratio is 4.62% = 100x(21.079-2x2.472)/348.91. The S-II is 7.05% = 100x(39.05-5x1.438)/451.73, considerably worse than the Jupiter EDS.

Thanks for the links to the LM pdfs Ross.

Making a long story short, we actually have been conservative in what we did, but the difference is that we used industry standard performance data, flight verified, as our baseline.

I would disagree with this. The latest Centaur stage that has flown is that used on the Atlas V with one or two engines. This has a propellant mass of only 23.05 t (for the two engine version), a very far distance from that used on the EDS with 348.91 t. The Centaur V2 has a mass fraction (less engines) of 9.21%. I believe you are stretching the bow quite a bit to believe that you can get 4.62%. I don't trust LM's numbers. NASA doesn't trust LM's numbers. Neither should you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/10/2008 12:04 pm
I don't trust LM's numbers. NASA doesn't trust LM's numbers. Neither should you.

Steven;
Respectfully, I don't understand that position.

How many NASA-designed cryo stages have flown in the last 42 years? - None.
How many Centaur stages have flown in the last 42 years? Approximately 150.

Tell me again why I should trust NASA numbers over LM numbers.

For 42 years, Centaurs have been putting their payloads exactly where the LM numbers said they would put them. That means that the LM numbers are valid, otherwise the payloads would be somewhere else.

Why does NASA have a problem with flight-verified performance?
Just because NASA is unable to duplicate the performance does not mean that LM numbers are not trustworthy. It just means that NASA does not know how to do it and LM does. And they have proven it over and over again. After more than 150 flights one would suspect that the intelligent thing to do would be to go and ask LM to come show us how you do it, not pooh-pooh the 42 years of successful operations as non-existant.

Remember - a lot of NASA payloads have gone into space on Centaurs. And they entered orbit exactly where the so-called "unreliable" performance numbers said they would. So what's the problem?

Do you see my point? What am I missing?
Like I said above, 42 years of putting payloads exactly where they are supposed to be carries a lot of weight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/10/2008 12:20 pm

This is not true. Excluding the engine mass, the Jupiter EDS empty to propellant mass ratio is 4.62% = 100x(21.079-2x2.472)/348.91. The S-II is 7.05% = 100x(39.05-5x1.438)/451.73, considerably worse than the Jupiter EDS.

Overall stage PMF is .06 for Jupiter EDS.  It is .08 for S-II.  The Jupiter EDS only uses two engines, while the S-II uses five.  The lighter Jupiter EDS is also lighter than S-II because they use a more Centaur like construction method than the S-II uses.  But, you say,



Quote
The latest Centaur stage that has flown is that used on the Atlas V with one or two engines. This has a propellant mass of only 23.05 t (for the two engine version), a very far distance from that used on the EDS with 348.91 t. The Centaur V2 has a mass fraction (less engines) of 9.21%. I believe you are stretching the bow quite a bit to believe that you can get 4.62%. I don't trust LM's numbers. NASA doesn't trust LM's numbers. Neither should you.

Propellant mass fraction actually improves with larger stage size.  The Jupiter EDS holds 15 times more propellant than does the Centaur. That means that the volume/surface area ratio is 2.47 times higher in a Jupiter EDS.  9.21%/2.47 is 3.72%.  The walls need to be thickened somewhat, obviously, but that calculated PMF value is still below the 4.62% claimed.  After doing some simple geometry, the DIRECT numbers don't look quite so bad.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/10/2008 12:34 pm

How many NASA-designed cryo stages have flown in the last 42 years? - None.

Ummm... Saturn V second and third stages?
Ummm... Centuar was managed by Lewis was it not?
Ummm... Space Shuttle first stage?

Quote
How many Centaur stages have flown in the last 42 years? Approximately 150.

Tell me again why I should trust NASA numbers over LM numbers.

For 42 years, Centaurs have been putting their payloads exactly where the LM numbers said they would put them. That means that the LM numbers are valid, otherwise the payloads would be somewhere else.

Except Centuar was not owned by LM 42 years ago, LM did not design and develop the stage, they acquired it through mergers and acquisition... And it was not a trouble free development.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/10/2008 12:44 pm
1.  Ummm... Space Shuttle first stage?

2.  Except Centuar was not owned by LM 42 years ago, LM did not design and develop the stage, they acquired it through mergers and acquisition... And it was not a trouble free development.

1.  Not an upperstage

2.  LM is just a name change.  It is the same people/organization.  LM procured the rights, the data, the processes, the people. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/10/2008 12:59 pm

How many NASA-designed cryo stages have flown in the last 42 years? - None.

Ummm... Saturn V second and third stages?
Ummm... Centaur was managed by Lewis was it not?
Ummm... Space Shuttle first stage?

• Saturn V second and third stages predate the time frame asked about, and were designed by the engineers that NASA fired when they moved to Shuttle. NASA has never been able to replace them.
• Centaur was developed after the upper stage designers were fired by NASA post-Saturn, by the companies that hired the fired NASA engineers.
• Shuttle is not an upper stage - which is the subject.

Quote
Quote
How many Centaur stages have flown in the last 42 years? Approximately 150.

Tell me again why I should trust NASA numbers over LM numbers.

For 42 years, Centaurs have been putting their payloads exactly where the LM numbers said they would put them. That means that the LM numbers are valid, otherwise the payloads would be somewhere else.

Except Centaur was not owned by LM 42 years ago, LM did not design and develop the stage, they acquired it through mergers and acquisition... And it was not a trouble free development.

The name of the company today is irrelevant. The stage designers, and the engineers they mentored who have shepherded Centaur to what it is today are what matters. And they don't work for NASA. Regardless of where the merger and acquisitions efforts went, the design capability has remained essentially intact, and today they are LM and Boeing.

NASA has never been able to replace the design capability it lost when it fired its upper stage designers, the ones who designed the Saturn-V second and third stages. That design capability today resides in industry, and not at NASA. By virtue of those original designers that NASA fired, the companies that hired them and the design engineers they mentored who ultimately replaced them, today industry knows how to do this, and NASA does not. NASA fired the people that knew how to do this, and they never went back.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/10/2008 01:00 pm
I think Chuck's question should probably have been "How many cryogenic upper stages has NASA designed and flown in the past 42 years?"  The answer to that question makes the point he is trying to get across.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/10/2008 04:19 pm
But he knew that when he decided on this path, when he selected Ares I, and when he gave it to MSFC.  The decision for NASA to take the lead was part of his earliest plans.  [snip]

The fact is that unless you change THAT direction, the same inexperienced team will be in charge of DIRECT and make many more decisions that you disagree with.

Ice;
If the choice were yours, who would you suggest, if not MSFC, be the launch vehicle design agent for the Core Stage, who would be the design agent for the Upper Stage, and who would be responsible for integration and testing?
 
And why?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/10/2008 05:37 pm
As I have said, I prefer the DoD model of "write good requirements and buy what the contractors can build".  I am not naive enough to believe that the government can pick a contractor without doing a full source selection (of which ability to execute is a part).  In the DoD model the government has less say about the design and manufacture ... more of an oversight (or even insight) role rather than as "designers".

I would pick the best design, with the best contractor to build it.  That would probably mean laying off a fair number of NASA workers and having NASA become even less "technical" than it is today on the human space flight side.

However, this tact would be contrary to what NASA, the current Administrator, and Congress want ... so it is quite irrelevant what I would do. 

The technical goals and accomplishments of our space program are only a small part of a much larger set of goals ... and while I don't like it, that's the truth we live with.  In fact, DIRECT has even TOUTED its relevance to the "other objectives" by highlighting its proposed workforce and transition benefits.  In some ways, DIRECT wants the best of both worlds, it wants the government to pick the "winning" desing and make the contractor's build it, but won't let the contractors pick the actual solution (with unbiased guidance).  Would LM pick DIRECT?  Boeing?  NG?  Orbital?

To answer your question directly, if I were king for the day, I would pick the system that meets my personal objectives (meets budget phasing, safe, simple, soon, meets long-term capability goals) and let the contractor (whichever one I chose based on those criteria) do the work.  Notice that workforce was not in my list, nor ten healthy centers.

But that ain't gonna happen.

But he knew that when he decided on this path, when he selected Ares I, and when he gave it to MSFC.  The decision for NASA to take the lead was part of his earliest plans.  [snip]

The fact is that unless you change THAT direction, the same inexperienced team will be in charge of DIRECT and make many more decisions that you disagree with.

Ice;
If the choice were yours, who would you suggest, if not MSFC, be the launch vehicle design agent for the Core Stage, who would be the design agent for the Upper Stage, and who would be responsible for integration and testing?
 
And why?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/10/2008 06:11 pm
As I have said, I prefer the DoD model of "write good requirements and buy what the contractors can build". 

I personally agree with that.

The Navy does not design its own ships and submarines, nor does the Air Force design it's own aircraft. The Army does not design its own tanks. In all these cases, the service writes concise specifications, and buys their ships, planes and tanks from industry that meets the specifications and cost requirements.

DIRECT wasn't designed to create that kind of a paradigm shift. It was designed to get the most bang for the buck within the direction dictated by the Congress, who had specified what was to be done. How NASA goes about getting the hardware designed and built is beyond the scope of the DIRECT architecture. I say that, even while admitting to the element of workforce retention that DIRECT enables. Note that workforce retention has always been the underpining of what the Congress directed. To change that would quite literally require an act of Congress.

If I were king for a day, I would reorganize NASA procurement more along the lines of the DoD, like you have outlined. We have the world's best ships, aircraft and tanks, all procured this way, and I would dearly love to add spacecraft and launch vehicles to that list. Unfortunately for all of us, that is not what the current Administrator wants. He wants the ability to do it all in-house, which is unfortunate, because it robs us of what the free enterprise system does best.

All the DoD branches have design centers, like NASA has centers. But their job isn't to duplicate what industry can do less expensively and faster. The DoD does not compete with industry, it utilizes it. NASA should do the same thing. We would all be much better off.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: yinzer on 07/10/2008 06:48 pm
I would disagree with this. The latest Centaur stage that has flown is that used on the Atlas V with one or two engines. This has a propellant mass of only 23.05 t (for the two engine version), a very far distance from that used on the EDS with 348.91 t. The Centaur V2 has a mass fraction (less engines) of 9.21%. I believe you are stretching the bow quite a bit to believe that you can get 4.62%. I don't trust LM's numbers. NASA doesn't trust LM's numbers. Neither should you.

The Centaur is a monocoque pressure vessel constructed out of stainless steel that also has to resist bending loads.  For historical reasons it has a 10-foot diameter which gives it a pretty high aspect ratio.  This is bad for pressure vessels constructed out of isotropic materials because the hoop stress is much larger than the longitudinal stress, and is bad for structures that have to resist bending because the moments of inertia are lower.

The WBC, from which the EDS in the Direct papers was derived, is intended to be a monocoque pressure vessel constructed out of Al-Li with a much lower aspect ratio.  Both of these should have very easily calculable effects on structural weight fraction.  Ignoring those effects and then claiming that the WBC numbers are bogus because they are better than the existing Centaur numbers is not valid reasoning.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/10/2008 06:51 pm
As I have said, I prefer the DoD model of "write good requirements and buy what the contractors can build". 

I personally agree with that.

The Navy does not design its own ships and submarines, nor does the Air Force design it's own aircraft. The Army does not design its own tanks. In all these cases, the service writes concise specifications, and buys their ships, planes and tanks from industry that meets the specifications and cost requirements.

In the context of this quote from kraisee  (see above)

Quote
Given that the public version of the ESAS Report (without the appendices) stops at LV-29 it sure will be interesting to see what LV-37 - which nobody has ever seen - actually looks like.   Won't it be remarkable when that document finally sees the light of day if ESAS LV-37 bears a striking resemblance to Jupiter-232...

I'd say Step #1 is the full release of the ESAS Report and all appendices to GAO, OMB, all of Congress and the public. Perhaps all these designs already exist with NASA's data-sphere.

If "LV-37" accomplishes the tasks Congress intends for NASA at a better price (in terms of time and money) then we need not get too deep into a theoretical discussion about the federal government's procurement process.

Transparency simply is a mission critical element of political legitimacy in the 21st century and this lack of transparency (2 1/2 years for a FOIA!) casts a shadow over ESAS no matter what the engineering actually is. And given this lack of transparency, a POTUS McCain is not likely to be sympathetic to ESAS. Especially given rumors that Admiral Steidle (and his spiral EELVs) might be considered by McCain as the next NASA Administrator and given McCain's history with the Boeing versus Airbus kerfluffle over the Air Force refueling tanker.

Therefore, I assert it is politically foolish for ESAS supporters to fail or refuse to share ALL of their data and appendices with DIRECT supporters so they can forge a united front before Spring 2009. If looking at ALL of the data vindicates ESAS, then this lack of transparency is double plus stupid.

A POTUS Obama would also present challenges, but from a different direction and again a united front amongst heavy lift advocates would seem a political necessity with "Just trust us" or "Do not question my authority!" not being a useful route for achieving that political unity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/10/2008 06:53 pm
If I were king for a day, I would reorganize NASA procurement more along the lines of the DoD, like you have outlined. We have the world's best ships, aircraft and tanks, all procured this way, and I would dearly love to add spacecraft and launch vehicles to that list. Unfortunately for all of us, that is not what the current Administrator wants. He wants the ability to do it all in-house, which is unfortunate, because it robs us of what the free enterprise system does best.

All the DoD branches have design centers, like NASA has centers. But their job isn't to duplicate what industry can do less expensively and faster. The DoD does not compete with industry, it utilizes it. NASA should do the same thing. We would all be much better off.

Agreed, but now we come to effects of "critical mass" and "is HSF different".  I can't answer those questions definitively.

In the case of aircraft and ships, there are multiple procurements and even international and commercial sales to level out the workforce and keep core competency.   

NASA is in place with human space flight that maybe the ONLY way for them to keep "critical mass" is to pay for an nurture it themselves.  In other words, by building the workforce (as painful as it is, and perhaps with less than optimal technical decisions) now, the nation has a much better chance of having a successful lunar, outpost, Mars, and beyond programs. 

If NASA went to contractors, there would not be a "thread" carried through all of the developments, a thread that might be critical for the safety and success of human space flight.  One thing that we have learned in DoD is that continuity is not the strength of either the government or the contractors, that is why they hire either FFRDC's or systems integrators that build no hardware.

Although I like the DoD model, I'm not convinced human space flight would be as successful .... the science community is more in that vein, although there is still substantial DDT&E work that goes on at NASA.

interesting debate.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/10/2008 07:13 pm
Quote
If NASA went to contractors, there would not be a "thread" carried through all of the developments, a thread that might be critical for the safety and success of human space flight.


I agree such a thread is very important. But who decides what that thread is and where it leads to?

It seems to me that the United States Congress is the ONLY entity capable of sustaining that thread (if tax dollars are to be the primary funding source) across multiple Presidential administrations.

This is why a core of key congressional supporters of both parties need to know the whole story behind whatever architecture decisions are made and much of that same information needs to be made available more widely to sustain the political legitimacy of that core.

And this is NOT about rocket science, this is about politics.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/10/2008 07:18 pm
Agree with the political comment, but I was speaking from a design and operations standpoint.  Philosophies, best practices, stuff that you try to put in a book but can't.

Congress won't be doing that thread, and the government procurement process is probably antethetical to the contractors doing it.


Quote
If NASA went to contractors, there would not be a "thread" carried through all of the developments, a thread that might be critical for the safety and success of human space flight.


I agree such a thread is very important. But who decides what that thread is and where it leads to?

It seems to me that the United States Congress is the ONLY entity capable of sustaining that thread (if tax dollars are to be the primary funding source) across multiple Presidential administrations.

This is why a core of key congressional supporters of both parties need to know the whole story behind whatever architecture decisions are made and much of that same information needs to be made available more widely to sustain the political legitimacy of that core.

And this is NOT about rocket science, this is about politics.
 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/10/2008 07:24 pm
The technical know-how for just about everything rocket related is in the private sector.  If NASA wants the know-how back in its own agency, it shouldn't have to waste money reinventing the wheel.  It should work with industry to gain the understanding it needs now.   Then, using the money it saves, it should encourage growth within the sector by providing useful and interesting programs to work on, so that later, when there is enough spare talent, NASA can hire some of those experienced private sector employees who could provide NASA with the in-house expertise it desires.  More gets accomplished.  More technology is advanced.  Notice that NASA doesn't really need to grow its ranks for something like that to happen, either, given the current employee age distribution (retirement).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/10/2008 07:37 pm
While interesting and probably more efficient, this is not the NASA that Griffin envisions, and not the NASA that he promised when asked to do the job.  Under Space Station and beyond, NASA was in the "work with industry to gain the understanding it needs now" mode and it was unable to attract the best and the brightest to NASA.  Therefore, they were unable to learn.  Only by giving substantial DDT&E work to the civil servants (within reason, of course) can they hope to attract, retain, and train the next generation of great NASA engineers.  The depletion of talent (not numbers) in the Agency in the 90's was devastating to many involved, and possibly to the nation's capability to perform human spaceflight.  Griffin is trying to rebuild that.

Your mileage may vary, but he is the Administrator.


The technical know-how for just about everything rocket related is in the private sector.  If NASA wants the know-how back in its own agency, it shouldn't have to waste money reinventing the wheel.  It should work with industry to gain the understanding it needs now.   Then, using the money it saves, it should encourage growth within the sector by providing useful and interesting programs to work on, so that later, when there is enough spare talent, NASA can hire some of those experienced private sector employees who could provide NASA with the in-house expertise it desires.  More gets accomplished.  More technology is advanced.  Notice that NASA doesn't really need to grow its ranks for something like that to happen, either, given the current employee age distribution (retirement).

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/10/2008 07:38 pm

Agreed, but now we come to effects of "critical mass" and "is HSF different".  I can't answer those questions definitively.

In the case of aircraft and ships, there are multiple procurements and even international and commercial sales to level out the workforce and keep core competency.   

NASA is in place with human space flight that maybe the ONLY way for them to keep "critical mass" is to pay for an nurture it themselves.  In other words, by building the workforce (as painful as it is, and perhaps with less than optimal technical decisions) now, the nation has a much better chance of having a successful lunar, outpost, Mars, and beyond programs. 

If NASA went to contractors, there would not be a "thread" carried through all of the developments, a thread that might be critical for the safety and success of human space flight.  One thing that we have learned in DoD is that continuity is not the strength of either the government or the contractors, that is why they hire either FFRDC's or systems integrators that build no hardware.

Although I like the DoD model, I'm not convinced human space flight would be as successful .... the science community is more in that vein, although there is still substantial DDT&E work that goes on at NASA.

interesting debate.

The design centers that I spoke of in each of the services, while not producing the design itself, become the repository of the entire design and all its documentation once the procured system becomes operational. These men and women exist for no other reason than to be the subject matter experts of the operational system. The services, from that point on, prefer to have their own design subject matter experts to use on a day to day basis, calling in the original contractor only when needed. There is not a single question you could ask about the minutest part of the design, how it operates and how it interacts with other parts of the design that they cannot answer. The depth of knowledge and expertise they bring to their respective jobs often completely outclasses and outlives the original design agency. The critical mass you speak of is maintained there. I have personally witnessed an exchange in the Air Force where we answered questions for the contractor’s representative, who was no slouch himself, but was just not as knowledgeable as the military staff on hand.

The original design agencies may well maintain the design drawings and specifications in their archives, but the skills needed to maintain that data in an evolutionary way or to translate that data into hardware often moves on to other projects, and eventually dies out as the ones who designed and built the systems retire or otherwise are no longer available, having been replaced by different people working completely different projects. Industry is there to make a profit, which is fine, but there is no profit in being a librarian for long completed projects. The critical mass remains however, within the walls of the military's design centers, where as long as the system remains operational, the design itself is a living, breathing, cared for thing, and the military people who shepherd it are completely capable of "taking from there" if needed.

Comes the day when a new design is needed, these people are utilized to write the specifications for the new systems, because they already understand the desired mission capabilities and the details of what already exists, the limitations of the systems and the unfulfilled promise of the existing design. The specs then go out to industry for bid. Eventually the bids come back and these people are the ones that are capable of passing judgment on the technical merits of the industry proposed designs. These people are also the ones who work closest with the eventual winner of the bid process, guiding them as they get up to speed again, assuming that they even need to do so, which is not always the case. Sometimes the industry has maintained its own critical mass because of continuing, similar projects, in which case they just pick up where they left off.

Yes, interesting discussion. But we divert from the thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/10/2008 07:42 pm
OK, let's stop before we're shot.  :)

Bringing it back to DIRECT, you are essentially asking NASA and the Administrator to change their philosophy on how they plan to do business and what is good for NASA and placing that in competition with the "best" way to achieve the nations space capability goals.

He has found what he thinks is the right balance.  Others with different priorities and weightings see it differently.  From my view, neither is absolutely right or wrong, except based on their own figures of merit, time horizon, and weights.


Agreed, but now we come to effects of "critical mass" and "is HSF different".  I can't answer those questions definitively.

In the case of aircraft and ships, there are multiple procurements and even international and commercial sales to level out the workforce and keep core competency.   

NASA is in place with human space flight that maybe the ONLY way for them to keep "critical mass" is to pay for an nurture it themselves.  In other words, by building the workforce (as painful as it is, and perhaps with less than optimal technical decisions) now, the nation has a much better chance of having a successful lunar, outpost, Mars, and beyond programs. 

If NASA went to contractors, there would not be a "thread" carried through all of the developments, a thread that might be critical for the safety and success of human space flight.  One thing that we have learned in DoD is that continuity is not the strength of either the government or the contractors, that is why they hire either FFRDC's or systems integrators that build no hardware.

Although I like the DoD model, I'm not convinced human space flight would be as successful .... the science community is more in that vein, although there is still substantial DDT&E work that goes on at NASA.

interesting debate.

The design centers that I spoke of in each of the services, while not producing the design itself, become the repository of the entire design and all its documentation once the procured system becomes operational. These men and women exist for no other reason than to be the subject matter experts of the operational system. The services, from that point on, prefer to have their own design subject matter experts to use on a day to day basis, calling in the original contractor only when needed. There is not a single question you could ask about the minutest part of the design, how it operates and how it interacts with other parts of the design that they cannot answer. The depth of knowledge and expertise they bring to their respective jobs often completely outclasses and outlives the original design agency. The critical mass you speak of is maintained there. I have personally witnessed an exchange in the Air Force where we answered questions for the contractor’s representative, who was no slouch himself, but was just not as knowledgeable as the military staff on hand.

The original design agencies may well maintain the design drawings and specifications in their archives, but the skills needed to maintain that data in an evolutionary way or to translate that data into hardware often moves on to other projects, and eventually dies out as the ones who designed and built the systems retire or otherwise are no longer available, having been replaced by different people working completely different projects. Industry is there to make a profit, which is fine, but there is no profit in being a librarian for long completed projects. The critical mass remains however, within the walls of the military's design centers, where as long as the system remains operational, the design itself is a living, breathing, cared for thing, and the military people who shepherd it are completely capable of "taking from there" if needed.

Comes the day when a new design is needed, these people are utilized to write the specifications for the new systems, because they already understand the desired mission capabilities and the details of what already exists, the limitations of the systems and the unfulfilled promise of the existing design. The specs then go out to industry for bid. Eventually the bids come back and these people are the ones that are capable of passing judgment on the technical merits of the industry proposed designs. These people are also the ones who work closest with the eventual winner of the bid process, guiding them as they get up to speed again, assuming that they even need to do so, which is not always the case. Sometimes the industry has maintained its own critical mass because of continuing, similar projects, in which case they just pick up where they left off.

Yes, interesting discussion. But we divert from the thread.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/10/2008 07:44 pm
To the extent this is true, he should persuade his critics with data not arguments grounded on authority.

Quote
He has found what he thinks is the right balance.  Others with different priorities and weightings see it differently.  From my view, neither is absolutely right or wrong, except based on their own figures of merit, time horizon, and weights.

= = =

I also agree that a cadre of engineers needs to exist within NASA to keep alive the necessary "corporate culture" and operations philosophy however without a parallel committed core of Congressional patrons that will not be feasible or sustainable.

If this is Mike Griffin's objective (establish a thread that will create a space-faring America which will arrive at Mars in ~30 years) I do applaud the goal but wince at the tactics he is using to establish that thread. I am not qualified to second guess the engineering but as a one-time fanatical political supporter of Dr. Griffin I believe I am qualified to offer my opinion on his efforts at building a sustainable political consensus.

For a multi-decade program (Moon, Mars & beyond) NASA's critical patrons and supporters MUST be in Congress rather than the White House since the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue changes frequently and such patrons must also include Democrats and Republicans.

A lack of transparency on the ESAS alternatives is self destructive to building such cadre of Congressional supporters.


Agree with the political comment, but I was speaking from a design and operations standpoint.  Philosophies, best practices, stuff that you try to put in a book but can't.

Congress won't be doing that thread, and the government procurement process is probably antethetical to the contractors doing it.


Quote
If NASA went to contractors, there would not be a "thread" carried through all of the developments, a thread that might be critical for the safety and success of human space flight.


I agree such a thread is very important. But who decides what that thread is and where it leads to?

It seems to me that the United States Congress is the ONLY entity capable of sustaining that thread (if tax dollars are to be the primary funding source) across multiple Presidential administrations.

This is why a core of key congressional supporters of both parties need to know the whole story behind whatever architecture decisions are made and much of that same information needs to be made available more widely to sustain the political legitimacy of that core.

And this is NOT about rocket science, this is about politics.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/10/2008 07:58 pm
To the extent this is true, he should persuade his critics with data not arguments grounded on authority.

<snip>

A lack of transparency on the ESAS alternatives is self destructive to building such cadre of Congressional supporters.


Agree 100%.  But some of NASA management is also not very high on being critiqued by people that they view as less capable than themselves.  It is seen as a waste of time and a waste of resources.

Right or wrong, hence the reaction to DIRECT and the lack of transparency (external transparency) on ESAS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/10/2008 08:49 pm

Agree 100%.  But some of NASA management is also not very high on being critiqued by people that they view as less capable than themselves.  It is seen as a waste of time and a waste of resources.


Whom do they view as being equally or more capable than themselves?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/10/2008 08:52 pm
I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole, but let's just say it is a very short list.  And if you have the right staff, it probably should be a short list.

It takes a very "linear" (A better than B better than C) rather than collaborative (A+B+C > A,B,C) view of the world which I don't fully share.



Agree 100%.  But some of NASA management is also not very high on being critiqued by people that they view as less capable than themselves.  It is seen as a waste of time and a waste of resources.


Whom do they view as being equally or more capable than themselves?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/10/2008 09:10 pm
I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole, but let's just say it is a very short list.  And if you have the right staff, it probably should be a short list.

It takes a very "linear" (A better than B better than C) rather than collaborative (A+B+C > A,B,C) view of the world which I don't fully share.



Agree 100%.  But some of NASA management is also not very high on being critiqued by people that they view as less capable than themselves.  It is seen as a waste of time and a waste of resources.


Whom do they view as being equally or more capable than themselves?

I meant it more as a rhetorical question, but it's the answer I would otherwise have expected anyway.

So, moving on - Is there anything the rest of us could do to help out the DIRECT guys right now besides typing on the forum? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 12:32 am
Guru,
What can people discuss here to help?

Well, firstly I'd appreciate some additional eyes going through the NASA documents guru.

We're all extremely busy tearing it apart already, but we're still fairly small in number and it is taking a looooong time.   The more eyes on this, the more we can extract from it - quicker.   Some folk here are just as familiar with DIRECT as us members of the Team are, and eyes picking out additional points (beyond the obvious pmf contentions) would be very welcome - to make sure we don't miss anything.


Other than that, I'd like to put a second idea "out there" for discussion.   Purely as a "what if".   No plans to use it in the baseline yet, but maybe worthwhile talking about.

"What If"...We planned to use 5-seg SRB's on Jupiter-232 for the Lunar program.   The move is more to address the concern of ATK as a corporate body digging its heels in against DIRECT ebcause we would cancel their lucrative $1.8bn development contract rather than for the additional performance.   We are toying with the idea of trying to get ATK on our side by keeping the 5-seg development.   That way they get that contract still, but also get to produce ~400 additional SRB segments between now and 2020 compared to Ares-I + V.

That sort of profit might encourage them to take a second look at DIRECT themselves given that Ares is causing so many difficulties and that the writing seems to be appearing on the wall for that program already.   DIRECT would be a more profitable alternative "Plan B" for them to consider and they wouldn't lose any of their currently planned profits.

Bringing ATK's lobbying power over from the 'dark side' would be one helluva coup for us if we can do it.

Thoughts for the community???

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/11/2008 12:55 am
I think that would be a good move. It would look like less of a step backwards for ESAS. They could even still call it Ares-V because it has 5 segments. It would allow for a graceful changeover in the minds of management because it would look like a simpler shift (but Ares-I would be glaringly gone). Jupiter-120 could be billed as some kind of "super-Stumpy."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 07/11/2008 01:02 am
Aerospace/defense companies are restricted by law about the amount of profit they can make on a contract.  It is nowhere near 30%


 Think of how many more rocket flights you could get with cheaper engines? (Example only).

back on topic...

Okay, I guess you missed the (example only) at the end of my statement. Also, If anyone thinks that laws restricting profit margin has stopped them from making a little extra...is mistaken. It's all in the detail.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/11/2008 01:32 am
"What If"...We planned to use 5-seg SRB's on Jupiter-232 for the Lunar program.   The move is more to address the concern of ATK as a corporate body digging its heels in against DIRECT ebcause we would cancel their lucrative $1.8bn development contract rather than for the additional performance.   We are toying with the idea of trying to get ATK on our side by keeping the 5-seg development.   That way they get that contract still, but also get to produce ~400 additional SRB segments between now and 2020 compared to Ares-I + V.
Can the same connections, including the vibration reducing cross beam, be used by both 4 and 5 segment SRB?

This would permit the core J-120 and J-232 to be similar.  Also a J-120 heavy can be easily developed for LEO loads that do not require a J-232.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nullset on 07/11/2008 03:41 am
"What If"...We planned to use 5-seg SRB's on Jupiter-232 for the Lunar program.   The move is more to address the concern of ATK as a corporate body digging its heels in against DIRECT ebcause we would cancel their lucrative $1.8bn development contract rather than for the additional performance.   We are toying with the idea of trying to get ATK on our side by keeping the 5-seg development.   That way they get that contract still, but also get to produce ~400 additional SRB segments between now and 2020 compared to Ares-I + V.

This would move DIRECT far away from the simplicity that makes it desirable.

The 4-seg SRBs are well understood and the the current SLWT is designed for them. Developing and certifying 5-seg SRBs and restructuring the "Jupiter core" to support 2 SRB sizes would seem to add significant cost and complexity to the launch vehicles. Additionally, the impact of 5-seg SRBs on the current stacking and transport capabilities is one of the _worst_ aspects of Ares V.

The political support due to self interest gained by bargaining with ATK hardly seems worth the technical compromises.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/11/2008 04:00 am
"What If"...We planned to use 5-seg SRB's on Jupiter-232 for the Lunar program.   The move is more to address the concern of ATK as a corporate body digging its heels in against DIRECT ebcause we would cancel their lucrative $1.8bn development contract rather than for the additional performance.   We are toying with the idea of trying to get ATK on our side by keeping the 5-seg development.   That way they get that contract still, but also get to produce ~400 additional SRB segments between now and 2020 compared to Ares-I + V.

This would move DIRECT far away from the simplicity that makes it desirable.

The 4-seg SRBs are well understood and the the current SLWT is designed for them. Developing and certifying 5-seg SRBs and restructuring the "Jupiter core" to support 2 SRB sizes would seem to add significant cost and complexity to the launch vehicles. Additionally, the impact of 5-seg SRBs on the current stacking and transport capabilities is one of the _worst_ aspects of Ares V.

The political support due to self interest gained by bargaining with ATK hardly seems worth the technical compromises.

5-segment was going to be used with the shuttle anyways, seems logical to include it here as long as it still uses fundamental SRB technology versus the wolf -in-sheep's clothing SRB that is being pushed for Ares I/V.  However if Jupiter uses a 5-segment booster, it will still need a new nozzle based on the AIAA report on the Shuttle 5-segment booster report:

Quote
The basic 5-segment booster program objectives
were achieved by adding a center segment to the
current 4-segment RSRBs (see Figure 1). This
resulted in a booster that was 320 inches longer than
the current reusable solid rocket booster (RSRB). In
order to utilize the existing case metal hardware, a
new nozzle had to be included to accommodate the
increased mass flow rate resulting from the added
segment (see Figures 2 and 3). This new nozzle
incorporates many of the features developed during
the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) program.
One of the key changes is the elimination of the flex
boot from the current Shuttle nozzle as a protection
for the movable bearing and incorporating a flex
bearing protector (see Figure 4). This flex bearing
protector is similar to the flexible bearing systems
used on expendable rocket motors and will not be a
reusable component in the 5-segment nozzle.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/2000/PV2000_5070.pdf

For the DIRECT guys, if there are 5-segment boosters and we get the 106% RS-68, can a Jupiter Core lift a 10-m EDS?  If so, the only thing that would be missing from Dr. Griffins massive Hulk rocket would be a 10-m Core stage, which gives him a way out and gives Congress/NASA "options"  and that always strokes the ego.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 04:07 am
So far the feedback on the 5-seg question seems just as divided as it is amongst members of the team here.   I would greatly appreciate further comments though - to help get a much wider 'take' on the idea - especially from inside the program.


A_M_Swallow - there is a document (attached below) from Thiokol in 1999 showing how the 5-segment would have been used on the existing Shuttle Stack.   It would continue to use the same mounting location on the ET as at present - although would obviously require a stronger attachment and some other changes.   This would be the approach we would suggest for DIRECT.

FYI, This is the 'type' of 5-seg (FSB) which was already test-fired in October of 2003, not the new Ares-spec version (RSRMV) which will have new Nozzles, TVC and a number of other changes - probably including new cases.


*IF* this were a scenario worth pursuing, it would be most logical to start-out by using standard 4-segs on Jupiter-120 so as not to delay the deployment of Orion at all.

Then the Jupiter Core has to be re-qualified anyway for use with the Upper Stage (first tests 2016, operational 2017/18), so that would seem to be a logical point in time to do include any 'upgrades' which take more time to develop than we want for inclusion on the initial Orion flights - such as 5-Segment Boosters or maybe RS-68B.

Once such upgrades are qualified for use on the Jupiter-232 configuration they would then swiftly percolate back into the Jupiter-120 program as well so as not to double-up on different configurations.   The operational cost effectiveness of the Jupiter relies on the same SRB's and Core Stage being used for all flight variants, whether flying with the Upper Stage or not.

At least, that's the suggested path in this hypothetical scenario.   We're still a *long* way from choosing whether this is a good idea or not, but want a wider range of opinions from the wider community to help us consider it a bit more fully.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 04:28 am
For the DIRECT guys, if there are 5-segment boosters and we get the 106% RS-68, can a Jupiter Core lift a 10-m EDS?

There's nothing stopping *any* variant of Jupiter from launching an Upper Stage which is either wider or narrower than the Core.

To support a 10m diameter Upper Stage on the 8.4m diameter Jupiter Core you would require an inverted conical Interstage.   And you would just have to make sure your J-2X nozzle placement clears the structure of the narrowing Interstage.   But that shouldn't be too difficult given the 'narrow' point would still be pretty large at ~8m ID.

This is essentially what Mars Society suggested for the Ares launcher they proposed to support "Mars Direct" (no relation to us) - although their Upper Stage was powered by some new SSME-class engine highly optimized for vacuum operation with an Isp of 465s.  See attached.

Just as long as it is can handle the loads, the Jupiter Core is a flexible enough concept to be able to handle most reasonable configurations we can think of.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/11/2008 05:12 am
Under Space Station and beyond, NASA was in the "work with industry to gain the understanding it needs now" mode and it was unable to attract the best and the brightest to NASA.  Therefore, they were unable to learn.
The technical know-how for just about everything rocket related is in the private sector.


I just wanted to defend my position on this .  (I know, I'm way too sensitive and disagreeable sometimes.  :-[  I'm sorry.)  You are correct in your response regarding the space station development, icewiz, but the space station isn't an HLLV.  NASA was building and launching modules intended to circle in LEO at that time.  I'm sure they were able to attract some good employees during that time, but I also believe a lot of the skills that they needed for certain aspects of ISS design were already there.  The space station project started in 1984 and continued almost uninterrupted up to the present day.  People who had worked on the Space Shuttle design were still working in 1984 and were able to pass on their skills because they were needed and in use.  (Russia may have been helpful, too, but I don't know how much.)  Now those skills are also being applied to the manned sections of Orion and Altair.

That skill retention didn't happen with the rocket portion, though.  A few designs came out every now and then, but by the time the money for a real hardware development arrived three years ago, most of the rocket designers had been out of NASA for twenty to thirty years.  Now that they are designing rockets again, it is an excellent opportunity for them to glean what they can from the experienced people at Boeing, LockMart, ATK, Orbital, PWR, Aerojet, etc., and improve the already excellent staff they have working at NASA MSFC.

Even in the 60's, NASA relied on industry for the things that industry already knew how to do.  Through a lot of hard work, and under a real deadline, they learned how to do new things that had never been done before.  NASA can still do that and be the model of the agency that Griffin wants it to emulate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 05:41 am
Agreed guru.

There are aspects of the engineering within NASA - and MSFC in particular - which are quite amazing to me.   Anyone who watched the CAIB work very closely and the subsequent level of engineering work which went into the Shuttle Program afterwards - and which continues to this day - can't help but be impressed by the quality and detail to which the engineering teams go into every aspect of the Shuttle System.

But like you say, making station modules and operating an existing launch system are a completely different thing from conceiving of, designing and developing an entirely new launch system.   And the Shuttle folk who have impressed us so much are still busy with Shuttle today.   Shuttle folk are still few and far between amongst the ranks who have transferred over to CxP so far.

The simple truth is that after Apollo, NASA got rid of many of its most experienced launch vehicle designers and developers.   It tried to rehire them for Shuttle a handful of years later, but most refused to return having had a bad experience once with the agency.   So NASA had to train a new generation for Shuttle - and subsequently lost most of its Apollo experience base in the process.

Of the Shuttle generation, NASA's most experienced experts in this specific field haven't had much launch vehicle design work to do since Shuttle was commissioned.   Gradually, they mostly switched over to industry because NASA never really had the chance to do that sort of work in-house since then.   Those who did stay with the agency for two decades have all been promoted and are now managers, not engineers.   They now manage a third (or even fourth?) generation.

For more than 2 decades now NASA just hasn't been the organization actually offering jobs in the launch vehicle design & development world.   Companies like Lockheed employed many for projects such as developing X-33.   Boeing employed some for X-37.   P&W and Rocketdyne took all the propulsion experts.   Both Boeing and Lockheed employed many more for the various iterations of Atlas and Delta launchers which have appeared over the years, and they both retain those experienced staff today either in-house or now in the partnership organization; ULA.   Others still have changed career- paths entirely and aren't doing rocket development any more.

But NASA itself during this quarter-century period of time has provided mostly financing, management and administration for these projects and has typically left the bulk of the engineering work to the contractors throughout this time.

And now we have a major schedule crunch going on because Shuttle retires in just 26 months time.

While NASA can surely develop something in-house, the real question comes down to whether they can do so while meeting all of the cost/schedule/performance requirements while still "learning the ropes" of the technical intricacies of rocket design which separate a NASA Upper Stage pmf of 0.88 with an Industry Upper Stage pmf of 0.92 or 0.94.   Like it or not, NASA hasn't been in this particular game for a while and the agency is a little rusty compared to some other organizations.

This doesn't come as any surprise to most people though.   Neither Boing, Lockheed or NASA would be ideally suited to doing the development work on the Solid Rocket Boosters, would they?   No.   By far and away everyone recognizes that the engineering experience for those clearly lies in the hands of ATK these days.

Similarly you don't see ATK trying to give Boeing and Lockheed a run for their money in the liquid booster fields because their experience base in those fields is unquestionably stronger.

But NASA Administration has decided to "go it alone" in the design of new liquid booster elements for Ares.   The question I have - is is this a wise choice or another example of the Administrator dictating a pre-decided path which hasn't been peer reviewed and is going to suffer from not having been fully thought-out the way it should have been - like a few other decisions we're all too familiar with.

IMHO, NOW - with the looming GAP just months away - is the wrong time to be allowing any sort of turf war to occur between the agency and the contractors.   We should be leaving that sort of thing until after the "GAP" has been closed in the most efficient manner possible, on-time and on-budget.   Those are the underlying requirement right now and EVERYTHING which threatens to get in the way - like an engineering skills turf war - needs to be identified as the useless baggage it actually is.


NASA should, instead of trying to 'cut its teeth' on an entirely internal project, should instead rely upon the vast expertise available in industry to help it achieve its targets the best and most efficient way possible.   Then in the process of that cooperation, the agency's staff should learn directly from industry (as part of the contractual obligations if necessary) all the tricks of the trade so that by the time the next vehicle becomes operational both NASA staff and the relevant Contractor staff are all at the same high level of expertise.

It seems crazy to me to even conceive of just ignoring readily available expert resources for such an important venture which could clearly utilize them.   I especially question the validity and economy of doing so with a project funded by tax-payers money.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/11/2008 06:39 am
The Ares I project has already pretty much created the momentum that NASA needs to get the 5 seg SRBs and the J-2X engine developed, even if Ares I gets replaced with another design.  So, I think incorporating the new elements into the later phases of the DIRECT concept makes sense at this point in time, where it didn't two years ago.

Most of the cost of the Ares V now comes from the larger core tank diameter and the expensive mods to the launch facilities, so saving the 8.4 m core is the technical (and apparently political) fight that needs to be fought right now.  I would be okay with proposing the compromise, as Ross has suggested, of using the more expensive SRBs (and also finishing the development of the upper stage engine) for a J-232 class vehicle in exchange for replacing the Ares I with the J-120 possibly as currently designed, but open to revision.

(You could try to get something closer to the original Ares V concept back on the table, though, so that the Ares V would still be Griffin's rocket and still be able to fulfill the goals of being shuttle derived and reducing the gap to keep the work force in place.  That might mean using 5xSSMEs for Ares V, I don't know.  It would double the cost for engines over using 6xRS-68s, but it's better than not having a rocket.  To appear economical, the vehicle could be limited to three engines for early ISS flights, and thus only spend where necessary.  That's just an off the cuff suggestion).

Such a significant compromise would probably mean landing on the moon when NASA is predicting (2019 instead of 2017) due to a delay in funding to develop the Altair lander, so a lot of the late scheduling advantages of DIRECT wrt to the Moon missions would be wiped out, but the main elements of the Moon rocket would already be flying by the end of the next presidential term.

The big contract that would need to be redone would be with Boeing on the Ares I upper stage.  They worked very hard on that proposal and came up with an excellent and relatively low cost process for the Ares I upper stage construction.  (My company's alliance lost in our bid against them, so the praise should be taken as whole hearted.) I'm neither a businessman nor a lawyer, so I don't know truly how difficult that process would be.  Still, I believe it could be worked out with enough time left to have a rocket flying by the end of 2012.

Do your best to show the merits of the DIRECT architecture and to defend the team's engineering reputation.  (I'll try to look at NASA's report tomorrow.) That will keep you in the position to be heard.

Finally, Ross, thank you for the response regarding what we can do to help.  I was also wondering if you feel it would be productive to call our senators and request that they try to pass the NASA funding authorization bill next month.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/11/2008 06:59 am
Below is my anaylsis of Ross's propellant mass fractions (pmf). m_g and m_p are gross and propellant mass, respectively. I don't know where Ross got his numbers from, but my numbers are quite different. pmf Ross, SSP, and LM are the pmf's given by Ross, myself and Lockheed Martin [1]. For the Delta IVHUS and S-II we see that my and LM's pmf values are very close and quite different to Ross's values. For the S-IVB I used actual data from Apollo 14 [5] where I get a higher value than Ross and LM. I do not have a reference for the Ares-I US and Wide Body Centaur, so I could not make a comparison. If anyone can provide a reference, that would be much appreciated.

Of significance is that Ross has given a lower value for Jupiter EDS and much larger value for the S-II. This again shows that the Jupiter EDS has a much better pmf than the S-II and not the other way round as Ross claims. If Team Vision were to use the actual S-II pmf, I would have no problem with their design. The Ares-V EDS also has a pretty good pmf (for a separate tank design) of 0.9124, compared to the bad pmf of 0.8828 given by Ross.

                       pmf    pmf     pmf    m_g     m_p
                      Ross    SSP     LM      t       t
Titan-IVB Centaur-G  0.8750  0.8839   -     23.877  21.105 [2]
Delta IVHUS          0.8776  0.8864  0.886  30.708  27.220 [3]
Ares-I US*           0.8823           -
Ares-V EDS*          0.8828  0.9124   -    259.564 236.819 [4]
Saturn S-IVB         0.8891  0.9004  0.888 117.870 106.125 [5]
Atlas-V Centaur-V1   0.9179  0.9112   -     22.825  20.799 [6]
DIRECT EDS*          0.9321  0.9430   -    369.989 348.910 [7]
Saturn S-II          0.9390  0.9204  0.920 490.780 451.730 [8]
Wide Body Centaur*   0.9400           -
STS ET SWT           0.9459  0.9537   -    755.640 720.668 [9]
STS ET LWT           0.9521  0.9597   -    750.968 720.668 [9]
STS ET SLWT          0.9564  0.9635   -    747.974 720.668 [10]

* Not yet flown

So what's the problem?
Do you see my point? What am I missing?

The problem is that LM's experience is only with small cryogenic stages. Until they actually build a large cryogenic stage, I will be skeptical of their claims. My analysis of cryogenic stages that have actually been built show that the Jupiter EDS value is way below the experience base.

It may turn out what they are claiming is true, but you should not bet the performance of your launch vehicle on it. This is what NASA is doing and I fully agree with their methodology.

Overall stage PMF is .06 for Jupiter EDS.  It is .08 for S-II.

I agree with these numbers. This was what I was saying. That the Jupiter EDS has a better pmf than the S-II, and not the other way round as Ross is claiming.

Quote
That means that the volume/surface area ratio is 2.47 times higher in a Jupiter EDS.

I believe that propellant tank mass scales by volume, not by area. You can see this in the graph Ross showed for the EDS.

• Centaur was developed after the upper stage designers were fired by NASA post-Saturn, by the companies that hired the fired NASA engineers.

Not true. The first Centaur flew in 1962, well before the S-IV, S-IVB and S-II were developed. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlrlv3c.htm The development of Centaur started 50 years ago in 1958, not 42 years ago. Centaur has been flying for 46 years.

Ignoring those effects and then claiming that the WBC numbers are bogus because they are better than the existing Centaur numbers is not valid reasoning.

I never claimed the WBC numbers are bogus. As I have not seen any WBC mass data, I can not make any conclusion about what the WBC can do. What I do see is that the Jupiter EDS is way below the current experience base, including that of the S-II which currently has the second best mass fraction (excluding engines) of any cryogenic stage at 7.05% (the Ariane V H173 at 6.86% has a slight better value). The Jupiter EDS is claiming 4.62%. This is just so far below the experience base that I do not trust this value.

Steven S. Pietrobon, Ph.D.
Adelaide, Australia
11 July 2008

[1] B. F. Kutter, F. Zegler, S. Lucas, L. Hines, M. Ragab, I. Spradley, and J. Hopkins, "Atlas Centaur extensibility to long-duration in-space applications," AIAA Space 2005, AIAA 2005-6738, Denver, USA, Aug-Sep. 2005.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Atlas/Atlas_Centaur_Extensibility_to_Long-Duration_In-Space_Applications_2005-6738.pdf

[2] http://www.astronautix.com/craft/centaurg.htm

[3] http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm

[4] P. Sumrall, "Ares V overview," Ares V Astronomy Workshop, Moffett Field, USA, Apr. 2008.
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/aresv/ppt/Saturday/2Sumrall/2Sumrall.pdf

[5] NASA MSFC, Saturn V launch vehicle flight evaluation report AS-509: Apollo 14 Mission," MPR-SAT-FE-71-1, Apr. 1971.

[6] http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cenaurv1.htm

[7] C. Longton, A. Maia, P. Metschan, S. Metschan, and R. Tierney, "Direct space transportation system derivative: The Jupiter launch vehicle family," v2.0.2, 24 June 2008. http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.2.pdf

[8] http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm

[9] D. R. Jenkins, "Space Shuttle: The history of developing the National Space Transportation System; The beginning through STS-50," Waldworth Publishing Company, Marceline, 1993.

[10] http://www.astronautix.com/stages/shuttank.htm
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 07:14 am
Steven,
You aren't accounting for reserves & residuals.   We've been using the NASA method for calculating pmf, which does, in order to get an apples-to-apples comparison with published Ares figures.   And before you say it, yes, I personally think that gross prop would be a better measure, but you'll have to argue that one out with CxP :)

Usable Propellant / GLOW = pmf

When some of the larger stages have maybe 4-7mT of R&R in a ~20mT stage this is a fairly high percentage of the inert dry mass and changes the results quite a bit.

For some stages where I don't have a precise R&R figure (Centaur-G for example) I've assumed a simple 1% of gross propellant as a workable estimate.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 09:29 am
Here are two charts showing the Mass and PMF for the Full Stage and also PMF for just the Structure without engines of a variety of stages for comparison purposes.

The brown lines are read off the left side and show how the WBC Stage (with and without engines) grows as a result of Propellant Mass.

The PMF is plotted against the right hand side of the chart.

Shown in red is a plot of LM's WBC mass for all stage sizes through 1,600,000lb propellant in increments of 10,000lb - all assuming a configuration suitable for 2x J-2X @ 5,450lb each, suitable for human rating with features such as 1.4 Factor of Safety built in and full Weight Growth margins accounted for plus a little extra reserve.

Also Plotted are the PMF values of a number of other stages which have been either produced or proposed.

Of note, see how the External Tank plots are all well outside the WBC line.

Also note that the existing Centaur-V1 is also performs well "above" both plots, and that the two demonstrated expected performance plots for their ICES stages are considerably better than even this WBC plot.   I will draw your attention to the start of a new "curve" created by the three plot points of the existing Centaur-V1, the ICES 1.5 and the ICES 3.5.    Note that this 'ICES' curve, which LM expect is achievable with existing technology (see this paper for details (http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Atlas/Atlas_Centaur_Extensibility_to_Long-Duration_In-Space_Applications_2005-6738.pdf)), is *FAR* higher performance than the WBC plot which we are using for Jupiter.   We consider ICES as achievable too, but we are sticking with the lower WBC just to give us additional "margin" so we can be absolutely confident we can achieve our objectives.

We have full confidence that Boeing's engineering team can match WBC, if not ICES as well.   Boeing also completed a similar ACES study of their own, in parallel to the one which led Lockheed to this ICES system.   But details of their ACES stages are hard to come by so I haven't been able to include them here.

And finally, please note that Jupiter-232's EDS is slightly inside the WBC plot - this is simply because we have a little extra Reserves & Residuals than the WBC baseline assumes.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/11/2008 11:22 am
Ross,

Just assuming NASA's pmf figures are correct for the DIRECT EDS, can you rebut the final TLI figure they derived from it or is their analysis flawed even starting from this disputed assumption ? Would be interesting to hear your TLI figure starting from NASA's pmf number.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/11/2008 12:49 pm

• Centaur was developed after the upper stage designers were fired by NASA post-Saturn, by the companies that hired the fired NASA engineers.

Not true. The first Centaur flew in 1962, well before the S-IV, S-IVB and S-II were developed. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/atlrlv3c.htm The development of Centaur started 50 years ago in 1958, not 42 years ago. Centaur has been flying for 46 years.

Hmmm. I stand corrected on the chronology. You are correct that Centaur development began before the S-V upper stages. I checked with a friend, now retired (who corrected me), who was part of the exodus from NASA , and he told me he was welcomed to Centaur in ’71-’72, during the Apollo 14-16 timeframe. He told me that the handwriting was on the wall very clearly then and several started making plans for the move. But most remained until NASA fired them, and the majority of those also ended up in industry. That original group is now retired, but their protégés continue in what is now Lockheed Martin and Boeing. That’s where the cryo upper stage expertise now resides, not at NASA.

He told me that NASA did try to rehire him, but he refused, and isn't aware of any of the US designers he knew who ever went back.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: buzz123 on 07/11/2008 02:46 pm
Hi everyone!

Been lurking since the very first day your initial "DIRECT Goes Live" thread started and I just wanted to say how interesting it has been watching DIRECT mature over that time!  DIRECT has certainly come along way since those early days and you should all be proud of what you have accomplished!   As others have mentioned, I think the fact that NASA has taken the time to produce a report about DIRECT shows how concerned they are that DIRECT might just be a credible threat to Ares.  I'm not a rocket scientist so I can not comment on the details of the analysis they performed.  However, I am a software engineer so I have some understanding of fundamental engineering principles.  One of the most important lessons I have learned over the past 20 years is that no one person has all the answers, especially myself.  Whenever I start a new project, I always seek the advice of others that have been in similar projects.  If I did not do this, but instead tried to re-invent the wheel every time myself, I would get nowhere fast.  It sounds like NASA needs to take a similar approach and consult those that have been involved in similar projects (i.e., LM's WBC) before they try to go it alone.  That's just good engineering.

As far as the 5-seg, I can definitely see the pros and cons of doing it either way.  One thing you may want to consider.  If memory serves me correctly, doesn't Scott Horowitz have some kind of ties to ATK?  If those ties are strong enough, anything you try, may have no effect.  Consequently, you may be taking away some of the beneficial aspects of DIRECT and getting nothing in return from ATK.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jimvela on 07/11/2008 03:02 pm
If memory serves me correctly, doesn't Scott Horowitz have some kind of ties to ATK? 

You might say that.  He went to work there.

I still think the best thing for ATK is to fly only Direct vehicles...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/11/2008 03:05 pm
If memory serves me correctly, doesn't Scott Horowitz have some kind of ties to ATK? 

You might say that.  He went to work there.

I still think the best thing for ATK is to fly only Direct vehicles...

He came from there.  He is only a consultant now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacecase on 07/11/2008 03:44 pm
On the subject of 5 segment SRB:

If the J-232 goes to 5 segment SRB, the majority of objections to the EDS should disappear.

But I assume that the plan would be to have J-120 flights (4 segment SRBs) concurrent with the moon program for ISS support. There are significant differences between manufacturing of the 4 seg motor and the 5 seg motor (grain, star pattern, nozzle, etc).

My question would be: How much of the 4 seg/5 seg motors can be done using the same equipment and how much requires parallel paths for similar components? I don't think ATK would be all that happy if they would have to run two lines in parallel, especially if CxP promises they will have only one motor.


On the CxP study of Direct:

I believe the splitting hairs on pmf and other mathematical differences are good to look at and resolve, but you seem to be missing a major problem CxP seems to be violently afraid of: the moving of the Orion/Altair stack to the EDS in LEO.

I know it is an issue that you have 5 years to resolve, but it introduces a level of complexity and additional risk that needs to be addressed. Overlooking this would be a grave strategic error.

(And yes, I know that LOR was an extreemly risky move with the Apollo program, but that group HAD to take measured risks to achieve their goals.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JLF on 07/11/2008 03:49 pm
"What If"...We planned to use 5-seg SRB's on Jupiter-232 for the Lunar program.

If you're looking at using other then 4Seg boosters you open up other possibilities.  Dr. Griffin is not opposed to block upgrades, so you could certainly do the 4 segment initially and then make modifications later.  A development sequence might run like

J120 Core (4 seg, 2 RS68) - close the gap to LEO
J232 US - "lightweight" lunar missions
J232 Core (4 seg, 3 RS68) - "lightweight" lunar missions
Block upgrade Core Stretch (5 Seg, X RS68) - "heavyweight" lunar missions
J120 Core shrink (3 seg, 2RS68) - "lightweight" LEO

You could address the one point of contention that J120 overperforms for ISS by looking at the concept that came out of KSC that was called "Stumpy" with the 3 segment boosters.  This could be done as a follow on block upgrade (downgrade?).

Then with a collection of 3, 4 and 5 segment boosters, and flying with/without an upper stage you'd probably have an almost continuous range of capability.  All the pads would be the same, though the towers and VAB might have to be a little creative to accomodate all the different vehicle heights.

I'll add that one of my problems from day one with Ares V has been the dual use of the EDS as both an upper stage and a TLI stage.  I know S-IVB did that, but it didn't have to loiter for days (months in the original requirement) and was a lot closer to full for the TLI burn then the Ares V EDS.  The EDS is also woefully underpowered for its size with a single J2.  What would happen to performance if J232 had a dedicated US (maybe with 3 or 4 J2s), and a dedicated, smaller, TLI stage?  The smaller TLI stage would help with MMOD, boiloff, and PMF.

I've also seen discussion of the slow pace of government procurements, which is very true.  But most of Direct could be done with contract mods which don't take nearly as long.  Mod the ET contract for the J120 core, mod the Boeing US contracts to the redesigned thrust structure and forward skirt, mod the ML contract to meet the new vehicle stack.  Thiokol keeps doing the booster work and preparing the 5 segment for the block upgrade.  Then you bid for the EDS, which is in the plan anyhow.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 07/11/2008 04:13 pm

I believe the splitting hairs on pmf and other mathematical differences are good to look at and resolve, but you seem to be missing a major problem CxP seems to be violently afraid of: the moving of the Orion/Altair stack to the EDS in LEO.

I've raised this question with the Direct guys several times. They don't consider it a problem, but they haven't run sims on it either -- at least that's the impression I get from their brief responses.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/11/2008 04:20 pm
A development sequence might run like

J120 Core (4 seg, 2 RS68) - close the gap to LEO
J232 US - "lightweight" lunar missions
J232 Core (4 seg, 3 RS68) - "lightweight" lunar missions
Block upgrade Core Stretch (5 Seg, X RS68) - "heavyweight" lunar missions
J120 Core shrink (3 seg, 2RS68) - "lightweight" LEO

Yes, block upgrades have benefits, but they cost a LOT more because they don't allow you to shut the DDT&E phase down.  If you don't stop developing the Ares xx series, you can't afford to go on to develop the fun stuff like rovers and outposts.

Well, from the numbers I've seen, you can't even do it WITHOUT block upgrades, but that is a different post. And a very salient point DIRECT is making whether their system is the answer or not.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 07/11/2008 04:27 pm
What would happen to performance if J232 had a dedicated US (maybe with 3 or 4 J2s), and a dedicated, smaller, TLI stage? 

Another option to consider would be a stage and half aproach. Where the EDS starts with three J2Xs and dumps 2 of them once in orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/11/2008 04:32 pm
Quote
Quote
    That means that the volume/surface area ratio is 2.47 times higher in a Jupiter EDS.


I believe that propellant tank mass scales by volume, not by area. You can see this in the graph Ross showed for the EDS.
[/quote]

Yes, it does.   My statement of 3.72% assumed (as stated) no change in wall thickness since I didn't feel like doing all of the back of the napkin calculations for rudimentary analysis at the time.  Now let me include the increased wall thickness.  I will calculate this for the wall only, but I believe I can apply it to both the wall and the domes due to the fact that the maximum pressure and moment arm ratios are the same in both.  Wall strength (not material strength, obviously) scales as a square with tankwall thickness, and hoop stress goes up linearly with both pressure and diameter and down with wall thickness.  If the Atlas V Centaur stage was scaled up directly as I did previously, then it would be 24.7 ft in diameter,  and I calculate it would have a pmf (less engines) of about 5.8%.

But the stage isn't scaled directly, so it's a little harder to calculate.  I'll try, but a real tank engineer could feel free to mock or nicely correct me... you know, maybe.  The Jupiter EDS would be 33 ft in diameter, so, using a simplified assumption of perfect cylindricity for the sake of wall scaling, the EDS tanks would only need to be (100%/((33/24.7)^2)) = 56% as tall as the scaled Centaur while the diameter would need to be (100%*33/24.7) = 133% as wide.
 
For the hoop stress to remain the same, then, thickness would be need to change simply by a factor of (pressure ratio * radius ratio) = .56 * 1.33 = .67.  Since I'm not scaling directly, though, I can't just multiply .67 by 5.8%.  The area portion of the domes relative to the area portion of the cylinders is different.  So, let's figure out the total surface area ratio (Jupiter EDS/Scaled Centaur), and then we can apply that and the wall thickness ratio (which when multiplied together equal the wall/dome material volume ratio) to find the pmf.

Minus the engine, the Atlas V centaur is about 34 ft long and is 10 ft in diameter.  So, in this analysis, the Jupiter conformally tanked EDS  less engines would be 34ft * 2.47 * .56 = 47 ft long total, and still 10 ft * 2.47 * 1.33 = 33 ft in diameter.  The surface area ratio (Jupiter EDS/Scaled Centaur) is then (33 * 47 + 3 * (33/2)^2) / (24.7 * 84 + (12.35/2)^2), pi's canceled, 0.94.

So, after accounting for the change in length, diameter, and wall thickness, the Jupiter EDS pmf comes out to 5.8% * .67 * .94 = 3.7%.  Even without the reduced tank wall thickness scaling that was made possible by using a more efficient geometry, the pmf would still be 5.6%.  But that's all just off the top of my head.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 05:57 pm
Ross,

Just assuming NASA's pmf figures are correct for the DIRECT EDS, can you rebut the final TLI figure they derived from it or is their analysis flawed even starting from this disputed assumption ? Would be interesting to hear your TLI figure starting from NASA's pmf number.

If we use NASA's numbers for everything, and run their version of DIRECT through our tools we can confirm that their LEO performance is within 1.5% of the figure we also get for Gross Payload Performance.   TLI is similarly close.

But it is the assumptions which generated the input figures in the first place which we're questioning most.   We believe NASA has put approximately 25mT of 'thumb on the scales' to reduce DIRECT's performance to LEO, and that reduces performance through TLI by a similar amount again.   That skews the figures MASSIVELY.

But more details on this will have to wait for our rebuttal.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 06:00 pm
What would happen to performance if J232 had a dedicated US (maybe with 3 or 4 J2s), and a dedicated, smaller, TLI stage? 

Another option to consider would be a stage and half approach. Where the EDS starts with three J2Xs and dumps 2 of them once in orbit.

It was briefly considered but introduced a major development program which costs and pushes out the Lunar schedule quite a lot.   It also reduced LOC/LOM by quite a bit too so we don't really want to include it.

Compared to that, even a separate third stage dedicated just for the TLI seems to result in better LOM/LOC numbers and lower costs, but we're trying to avoid that additional cost too - although that approach does offer excellent scaling opportunities because you can design the dedicated 3rd stage EDS to perform all the TLI, LOI and even part of the Descent burn.   This would allow for a *huge* amount of flexibility in payload capacity without changing the design of the final Lander.   This in itself could prove to be an option worthwhile the added development work.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 06:45 pm

I believe the splitting hairs on pmf and other mathematical differences are good to look at and resolve, but you seem to be missing a major problem CxP seems to be violently afraid of: the moving of the Orion/Altair stack to the EDS in LEO.

I've raised this question with the Direct guys several times. They don't consider it a problem, but they haven't run sims on it either -- at least that's the impression I get from their brief responses.

There are a number of options for that arrangement such as a strongback truss between the LSAM DS and the CEV SM allowing the arrangement to do TLI without the transition, but the key thing is that DIRECT does not plan that this will be the full mission arrangement anyway.

We would only do it purely for a handful of missions until the full Propellant Depot architecture is ready to roll out.   And for that we simply don't dock the CEV/LSAM together until after the TLI anyway so this is ultimately a completely moot point.   That's the arrangement you *MUST* do with Ares because of the 1.5 launch infrastructure.   You're tied into that arrangement and no others.   But DIRECT is all about opening up new alternatives.

Our real baseline is actually "how big an LSAM do you want?"   45mT? 50mT? 70mT? 300mT?  DIRECT can actually support *all* of those as 1-launch mission solutions for as long as partner nations continue to fill the Depot outside of US funding.

A lander in the 55-60mT range is quite an economically viable target to aim for with such an architecture.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/11/2008 07:06 pm
we simply don't dock the CEV/LSAM together until after the TLI anyway

There is an extra risk there because if you have any problems you are not in the relative safety of LEO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 07:12 pm
marsavian,
This is the method which Apollo used - transition after TLI.

There's pro's and con's with both - as with all things :)

Con's are that a transition & docking may not work and the crew has to abandon the LSAM and take a free return trajectory home.   But they'd still have to abandon the LSAM if the failed docking takes place in LEO too - and 4-day maximum loiter due to boiloff will prevent any other attempts at re-using it.   Result: Loss of Mission, crew comes home either way.   One way they can come home immediately, the other they might get a 6-day joyride around the moon first.

But the Pro's include full abort capability all the way through the TLI burn.

There's a lot of extra risk included during TLI if you're docked face towards the LSAM and something goes wrong with the TLI - the CEV is facing completely the wrong way for any abort and the LSAM's Ascent engine is the only real option because the LSAM DS structure acts as a shield between the crew and the 'problematic' EDS.

The LSAM AS Engine won't have very good performance when pushing both its mass and the fully fueled CEV too.   So having an "abort off the top" capability is a worthwhile thing to retain thru TLI if you can.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/11/2008 07:13 pm
we simply don't dock the CEV/LSAM together until after the TLI anyway

There is an extra risk there because if you have any problems you are not in the relative safety of LEO.

So what? That's the way Apollo did it. Making that kind of elementary maneuver is relatively simple. It is probably the safest maneuver of all the ones that will be required of the mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: yinzer on 07/11/2008 08:41 pm
Ignoring those effects and then claiming that the WBC numbers are bogus because they are better than the existing Centaur numbers is not valid reasoning.

I never claimed the WBC numbers are bogus. As I have not seen any WBC mass data, I can not make any conclusion about what the WBC can do. What I do see is that the Jupiter EDS is way below the current experience base, including that of the S-II which currently has the second best mass fraction (excluding engines) of any cryogenic stage at 7.05% (the Ariane V H173 at 6.86% has a slight better value). The Jupiter EDS is claiming 4.62%. This is just so far below the experience base that I do not trust this value.

I could tell you that the lowest without-engine dry mass fraction for LH2 stages smaller than 30 tons is .108 for the Delta IV-H second stage, a new clean sheet design.  The ESC-A comes in around 0.118, while the H-2 second stage is less efficient at 0.144.  The still-unbuilt ESC-B is aiming for 0.113, the out of service Ariane 4 upper stage hit 0.116.  There are some LH2 stages that are 200 tons and up and have better mass fraction numbers, but increased size almost always gives you better structural efficiency, so we'll ignore them for now.

If someone proposed to build a new 25-ton LH2 stage that would have a mass fraction 25% better than any existing comparable stage, would you say that it's so far below the experience base that you didn't trust their numbers?  Or would you try to understand how their design was supposed to give them such a good mass fraction?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/11/2008 08:56 pm

I believe the splitting hairs on pmf and other mathematical differences are good to look at and resolve, but you seem to be missing a major problem CxP seems to be violently afraid of: the moving of the Orion/Altair stack to the EDS in LEO.

I've raised this question with the Direct guys several times. They don't consider it a problem, but they haven't run sims on it either -- at least that's the impression I get from their brief responses.



A lander in the 55-60mT range is quite an economically viable target to aim for with such an architecture.

Ross.

LIDS cannot take the loads between the LSAM and CEV, which is where this comment started.  There is no way that mission safety rules would have the two systems meeting up after TLI, especially for non free return trajectories.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 07/11/2008 09:21 pm

I could tell you that the lowest without-engine dry mass fraction for LH2 stages smaller than 30 tons is .108 for the Delta IV-H second stage, a new clean sheet design.  The ESC-A comes in around 0.118, while the H-2 second stage is less efficient at 0.144.  The still-unbuilt ESC-B is aiming for 0.113, the out of service Ariane 4 upper stage hit 0.116.  There are some LH2 stages that are 200 tons and up and have better mass fraction numbers, but increased size almost always gives you better structural efficiency, so we'll ignore them for now.

And how many of those had any sort of MMOD shielding or thermal control sufficient for a 14 day loiter? Assuming that these things don't matter got the ESAS EDS in trouble, and Direct looks to be making the exact same mistake...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 10:35 pm
Correction: *Current* LIDS cannot take the loads.   A redesign of the LIDS is a long way from being impossible.

Also a jettisonable strongback structure could support the actual mass of the CEV and transmit it down into the DS or even into the structure below the LSAM entirely if really required.

But all this originates simply due to the fact that we're trying to fit into the pre-decided 'box' which NASA has defined specifically for the Ares arrangement simply because Ares can not actually support any other arrangements but this one.

We really need to step outside of that explicitly Ares-limited 'box' in the first place.    Re-specifying the requirements to better-suit a 2-launch architecture is far more sensible than creating backward compatibility to what would then be an obsolete Ares architecture which only results in a sub-optimal new arrangement anyway.   It would be far better to redefine it.

The *only* reason to really proposed a close 'match' to Ares is simply to make people feel fluffy and warm about changing.   That's all.

There is no actual technical advantage, only a perceived one.   And there is a performance *penalty* which is incurred by trying to make another architecture match Ares as closely as possible.   But making people feel comfortable about change *is* important enough that we decided we needed to make the effort of trying to make the change a more "gradual process".

Docking CEV to LSAM before TLI just "because that's how it had to be done for Ares" is actually not a particularly good solution when you get right down to it.   It actually costs performance and some safety.   Other, better, alternatives are actually available thru a 1-vehicle, 2-launch architecture which just aren't possible with Ares.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/11/2008 10:42 pm
There is no way that mission safety rules would have the two systems meeting up after TLI, especially for non free return trajectories.

If you really believe that, Dennis, then I don't see how you can imagine getting to the reusable lunar utilization scenarios you favor so much.

Eventually the crew has to go to the Moon on a CEV-like vehicle alone.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/11/2008 11:01 pm
And how many of those had any sort of MMOD shielding or thermal control sufficient for a 14 day loiter? Assuming that these things don't matter got the ESAS EDS in trouble, and Direct looks to be making the exact same mistake...

Sorry, not correct.   The ideal mission profile for DIRECT has the CEV & LSAM launch with an EDS to the Depot.   Spend a few hours there (still in launch configuration) transferring propellant and then within a few orbits, proceed to boost through TLI.   Less than 24 hours in LEO is the full expectation.   Standard MMOD protection which *is* included for the stages should be sufficient for short duration stays such as this.

The Depot, while based on a Jupiter Upper Stage, would certainly be designed for long-duration many-year stay in LEO with such things as additional MMOD shielding, sun-shield, solar arrays for powering active cooling systems etc.

In the interim, between the first return to the moon flight and the Depot going online, we have only about 6 Lunar missions which would have a stage loiter for a maximum of 4 days each - a total 'exposure to MMOD danger' threat of 24 days.   The weight penalty and additional cost for *additional* non-standard MMOD protection for so few missions will have to be traded before it can be answered for certain.   We as a team don't believe its a worthwhile option for only the handful of missions which it would affect, but NASA's mileage may differ.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/12/2008 03:22 am
We would only do it purely for a handful of missions until the full Propellant Depot architecture is ready to roll out.   And for that we simply don't dock the CEV/LSAM together until after the TLI anyway so this is ultimately a completely moot point.   That's the arrangement you *MUST* do with Ares because of the 1.5 launch infrastructure.   You're tied into that arrangement and no others.   But DIRECT is all about opening up new alternatives.

If you have spacecraft performing long stays there will also be boil off from the fuel cells, so they will need refuelling.  Batteries may need recharging.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/12/2008 03:46 am
A_M_Swallow,
Which spacecraft?   CEV is using solar arrays and doesn't have any fuel cells.

The LSAM might have some, but that's already being designed specifically for the length of duration stays which it will need to support.   And the Outpost will have some solar arrays & batteries landed early in its evolution to provide primary power, so fuel cells won't really feature there except possibly on the handful of 7-day sortie missions planned before Outpost construction is due to begin.

The Depot doesn't need fuel cells for its active cooling systems either because a nice large solar array can double as a really useful sunshield which will assist in keeping the propellants cold to reduce boiloff.

I'm sure there will be some missions which will utilize fuel cells, but the primary elements of the Exploration program don't seem to need many, if any.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/12/2008 04:00 am
What's the point of having a depot and the need to dock to it if you have to launch another Jupiter simply to fill it up?  Doesn't seem like you're doing anything except complicating your mission plan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/12/2008 04:40 am
A_M_Swallow,
Which spacecraft?   CEV is using solar arrays and doesn't have any fuel cells.

CEV, LSAM and EDS could all be on long stay.  Particularly if they are at EML2 waiting for the Mars Transfer Vehicle to return.

They can perform double duty by acting as lunar rescue vehicles.  A simple way of recovering from say a faulty engine or fuel leak in a lunar ascent stage is to fuel a replacement LSAM.  A back up ascent stage at the south poll outpost is limited to the range of the rover where as a LSAM at EML2 covers the entire Moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/12/2008 06:15 am
What's the point of having a depot and the need to dock to it if you have to launch another Jupiter simply to fill it up?  Doesn't seem like you're doing anything except complicating your mission plan.

Removes schedule pressue  - plus can be filled up by commercial providers using other cheaper vehicles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/12/2008 01:20 pm
What's the point of having a depot and the need to dock to it if you have to launch another Jupiter simply to fill it up?  Doesn't seem like you're doing anything except complicating your mission plan.

Removes schedule pressue  - plus can be filled up by commercial providers using other cheaper vehicles.

That's an article of faith that no mission planner can rely on.  If the depot's not full, you have no mission.  You can't wait around for "cheap commercial providers" to fill it up, so you do it yourself, on another HLV launch.  So why launch a depot and an empty EDS?  Just launch the CEV and LSAM on their own EDS's and have them rendezvous at L2.

The earth-orbit rendezvous, despite the veneer of safety, is the most limiting maneuver of the whole mission because of how it constrains TLI.

Rather than a depot in LEO, you need something more like a MXER tether, that actually generates the orbital energy you'll need to go to the Moon rather than sits around and waits to get filled up.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/12/2008 01:30 pm
What's the point of having a depot and the need to dock to it if you have to launch another Jupiter simply to fill it up?  Doesn't seem like you're doing anything except complicating your mission plan.

The point is doing a full-up lunar mission with a *SINGLE* Jupiter launch. NASA does NOT launch 2 Jupiters; only one!

The whole idea behind the depot-based architecture is that NASA never fills the depot at all, with a Jupiter, or anything else. Keeping the propellant depot full is a commercial operation for industry *AND* a way for other nations to participate in long duration missions, such as lunar and NEO’s. By supplying propellant for the mission, via the depot, they buy a seat on the spacecraft, or something along that line. If there is no international partner for a mission, NASA purchases the propellant from the commercial supplier, just as if it had purchased it from a commercial supplier on the ground. Yes it would be more expensive than ground-purchased, but it would still be much, much less than launching it ourselves. The commercial provider makes a tidy profit, and NASA goes to the moon with a *SINGLE* NASA-launched lunar stack – one single Jupiter-232 launched into LEO with all the elements aboard, for much less cost than a 2-launch architecture, because one entire Jupiter launch has been eliminated. Rendezvous with the depot, tank up and go. Not much different (except the scale) than getting in your family van for a trip. You pack everything you are going to need, except the fuel, and leave home. Before you hit the open road, you stop at the gas station, fill the tank, and then off you go.

Whether it’s international partners or commercial providers, the lunar mission would be done the same way – a single Jupiter-232 launch, gas up in orbit and go.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/12/2008 01:37 pm
Somebody's gotta fill up the depot, that's all I'm sayin...

If I was the mission planner, and the plan included the depot, then it would be absolutely critical for me to make sure it was full, so critical in fact that I'd probably go ahead and just do it myself.  Since nobody else has wanted a LEO propellant depot for the last forty years (bad enough to build one, that is).

If it's cheaper to launch all that propellant on other rockets than on the Jupiter, which rockets would those be?  (these rockets that will deliver propellant to LEO cheaper than the HLV, so much cheaper in fact that the launch providers will make a "tidy profit" and NASA will still get it for "much, much less than launching it ourselves")
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 07/12/2008 01:42 pm
Guru,
What can people discuss here to help?

Well, firstly I'd appreciate some additional eyes going through the NASA documents guru.

We're all extremely busy tearing it apart already, but we're still fairly small in number and it is taking a looooong time.   The more eyes on this, the more we can extract from it - quicker.   Some folk here are just as familiar with DIRECT as us members of the Team are, and eyes picking out additional points (beyond the obvious pmf contentions) would be very welcome - to make sure we don't miss anything.


Other than that, I'd like to put a second idea "out there" for discussion.   Purely as a "what if".   No plans to use it in the baseline yet, but maybe worthwhile talking about.

"What If"...We planned to use 5-seg SRB's on Jupiter-232 for the Lunar program.   The move is more to address the concern of ATK as a corporate body digging its heels in against DIRECT ebcause we would cancel their lucrative $1.8bn development contract rather than for the additional performance.   We are toying with the idea of trying to get ATK on our side by keeping the 5-seg development.   That way they get that contract still, but also get to produce ~400 additional SRB segments between now and 2020 compared to Ares-I + V.

That sort of profit might encourage them to take a second look at DIRECT themselves given that Ares is causing so many difficulties and that the writing seems to be appearing on the wall for that program already.   DIRECT would be a more profitable alternative "Plan B" for them to consider and they wouldn't lose any of their currently planned profits.

Bringing ATK's lobbying power over from the 'dark side' would be one helluva coup for us if we can do it.

Thoughts for the community???

Ross.

Ross, adopting the 5-seg SRB for Direct just for the sake of pleasing ATK without changing your architecture is not a good idea as it will only make your mission more expensive and less safe. However, it could be a good idea if it allows you to simplify your architecture or add new capabilities not possible with the current Direct 2.0. Here are examples of potential architecture simplifications which could theoretically be made possible with the 5-seg SRBs higher thrust:

-Unmanned moon cargo mission using only one J-232 rocket instead of two;
-Manned moon mission using J-120 + J-232 rockets instead of 2 J-232 rockets; or
-EDS using only one J-2X instead of two.

Examples of potential capability improvements with 5-seg SRBs:

-J-120 + Delta IV US Apollo 8 mission going to LLO instead of just fly-by;
-Manned moon mission able to transport and land 6 astronauts on the moon once a lunar base has been established; or
-Combined ISS and moon missions done with 2 J-232 rockets (2 CEVs + LSAM + EDS launched to 51.6 degrees inclination)

I am not sure if using the 5-seg SRBs would add enough payload capacity for some of the suggestions above (stretching the core stage may also be required) but the idea here is that the extra cost/complexity of using the 5-seg SRB should give you something new/positive in return or otherwise it is not worthed.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/12/2008 01:45 pm

The earth-orbit rendezvous, despite the veneer of safety, is the most limiting maneuver of the whole mission because of how it constrains TLI.

That is a true statement, but by going directly to L2 *at this time*, we cut out commercial and national entities that could otherwise participate, because they can't get there. They CAN get to LEO. Part of what we hope to do is to jumpstart commercial participation and get spaceflight out of the realm of being something that is exclusive to governments, the biggest waster of taxpayer dollars. Once they can operate in LEO, they'll be able to extend to L2 as well, which is where I also prefer to go, just like you. But I want to bring others along at the same time.

If the leader of the wagon train moves faster than the slowest wagon, that wagon, and everyone in it, will be lost. The vision is for us all to get there, not just the most capable.
We all want to get there as rapidly as we can. But we want everyone to get there with us. That means taking a route that everyone can travel, and perhaps going a little slower than we are capable of, to make sure that happens.

We have to select a route that will include the most players. That means going thru LEO for now, for the majority of the missions. But that doesn’t mean that some of our own missions won’t go directly to L2. In fact I can just about guarantee that they will. That’s how everyone ends up moving there, by following the leader. But we need people in the game first, otherwise there will be no one to follow us.

Rather than a depot in LEO, you need something more like a MXER tether, that actually generates the orbital energy you'll need to go to the Moon rather than sits around and waits to get filled up.

All that will come. We need to first establish the justification for it, which is enough nations and commercial entities that want to get there that there is critical mass to develop and deploy them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/12/2008 01:50 pm
Somebody's gotta fill up the depot, that's all I'm sayin...
If there is a demonstarted need for propellant in orbit and a profit to be made by supplying it, there will be commercial entities there to supply the propellant and make the profit, just as surely as night follows day.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 07/12/2008 02:25 pm
If I was the mission planner, and the plan included the depot, then it would be absolutely critical for me to make sure it was full, so critical in fact that I'd probably go ahead and just do it myself.

Then have two depots, one can be kept full via NASA and the other via cheaper methods.

Only use the NASA one if you have too to save the mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/12/2008 02:43 pm
If I was the mission planner, and the plan included the depot, then it would be absolutely critical for me to make sure it was full, so critical in fact that I'd probably go ahead and just do it myself.

Then have two depots, one can be kept full via NASA and the other via cheaper methods.

Only use the NASA one if you have too to save the mission.

Cmon guys, it's statements like this that get NASA to laugh when you talk about the propellant depot option.

What's the launch vehicle(s) that's going to put propellant in LEO for less than the HLV?  Unless this is quantified, it's just a statement of faith, like saying "I think there's life on Mars".

You can't plan a mission around it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/12/2008 02:53 pm
Another thing about the depot rendezvous--

I tend to agree with NASA that the "tail-first" rendezvous between the CEV-LSAM and the EDS in earth orbit in DIRECT is a bit iffy, but it looks positively doable compared to a CEV-LSAM-empty-EDS rendezvous (sideways?) to some putative propellant depot.

Better to send the elements independently to EML2, shed their EDS's, and make a straightforward nose-to-nose rendezvous there.

As for launch vehicles not being able to get to EML2, that's just not true.  Any LV with a high-energy upper stage can send something to EML2, albeit less than an HLV can send.  Look, the whole purpose of a rocket is to convert chemical energy into orbital energy--by aggregating propellent in LEO you're just delaying what you'll do with that propellant eventually--turn it into orbital energy.

You could launch a Delta 4H or an Atlas V and use their high-energy upper stages to send propellant to an EML2 propellant depot just as straightforwardly and with probably better efficacy than sending that propellant to LEO, because now you haven't let much of it boil-off before doing TLI.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/12/2008 03:24 pm
Another thing about the depot rendezvous--

I tend to agree with NASA that the "tail-first" rendezvous between the CEV-LSAM and the EDS in earth orbit in DIRECT is a bit iffy, but it looks positively doable compared to a CEV-LSAM-empty-EDS rendezvous (sideways?) to some putative propellant depot.

[snip]

You could launch a Delta 4H or an Atlas V and use their high-energy upper stages to send propellant to an EML2 propellant depot just as straightforwardly and with probably better efficacy than sending that propellant to LEO, because now you haven't let much of it boil-off before doing TLI.

The tail first rendezvous would only be used until the depot was online. There would be no need for it after that because the stack would be launched in TLI configuration on a single Jupiter-232 which would then rendezvous with the depot to fill the EDS.

As for the mating configuration at a depot in either LEO or at EML2, they would likely be identical, so whatever is done in LEO would also be done at EML2.

Better to send the elements independently to EML2, shed their EDS's, and make a straightforward nose-to-nose rendezvous there.

That would be the preferred architecture for a 2-launch EML2 approach.

As for launch vehicles not being able to get to EML2, that's just not true.  Any LV with a high-energy upper stage can send something to EML2, albeit less than an HLV can send.  Look, the whole purpose of a rocket is to convert chemical energy into orbital energy--by aggregating propellant in LEO you're just delaying what you'll do with that propellant eventually--turn it into orbital energy.

Russia can field a high energy upper stage and China may be able to field a high energy upper stage, but what about countries like Brazil and India for example? Both nations would like to have a seat at the table but the lack of the high energy upper stage would keep them out of the ball game for years. The same can be said for any number of commercial entities around the world that may well be able to afford to put dumb, inexpensive boosters into LEO but can’t afford the expense of the high energy upper stage. Mass produce the cheap LEO launchers and launch them, and who cares if you loose a few? Propellant itself is cheap. But the high energy upper stage is very, very expensive, and if you loose a load of really cheap propellant because a very expensive upper stage malfunctioned, that could well end any further participation by that company if the depot was at EML2. Their cheap LEO booster can deliver cheap propellant to LEO, but EML2 would be beyond them – for quite a while.

The trick is to use the presence of the LEO depot to bootstrap the entire industry, because more players can get to it. Once the industry is in place and profitable, expansion to EML2 becomes a natural next step.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/12/2008 03:40 pm
I'm sorry, but the "United Nations to the Moon" is not remotely in the mission plan or a concern of those in charge.  For once, I agree with them.  I'm not a bit worried how much Brazil or India get to participate in the Moon mission.

(for what it's worth, India DOES have a high-energy launch vehicle, the GSLV, that could deliver prop to EML2.  Just sayin...)

These "mass-produced, cheap" LEO launchers, again, what are they?  How is launching scores of tanks of LH2/LOX instead of one big tank of LH2/LOX somehow cheaper or safer?  Cryogens, especially deep cryogens like hydrogen, don't like to be in small containers that have a high surface to volume ratio.  Good way to lose it to boiloff.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/12/2008 04:45 pm
I'm sorry, but the "United Nations to the Moon" is not remotely in the mission plan or a concern of those in charge.  For once, I agree with them.  I'm not a bit worried how much Brazil or India get to participate in the Moon mission.

With any luck, and with all due respect, hopefully “those in charge” will not be “in charge” for much longer. IMHO, and in the opinion of many others, their current plans are driving the American manned space program rapidly toward the brink of disaster. A change in direction is needed, and that begins with new leadership.

As for the “United Nations to the Moon”, the thought is to get other countries (and NGO’s and commercial companies) to pay for part of the lunar effort. That does not mean that we put their technology into the critical path, a mistake made with the ISS. It would still be an American effort, that others can contribute to, for consideration of some kind. Every dollar they pay is a dollar we don’t, that we can put back into a more robust program. Those dollars can be used to early up things like the LSAM development, surface infrastructure development, high density power generation equipment, or to address space-based technologies that can be applied to mitigate the effects of global warming for example. There are potential candidates for Administrator out there who would be clearly interested in things like that. Having a lunar program in place that actually generates the ability to address those issues can only be a plus.

(for what it's worth, India DOES have a high-energy launch vehicle, the GSLV, that could deliver prop to EML2.  Just sayin...)

Launched 5 times in 8 years, with 4 successes. Their own cryo upper stage is still being developed and hasn’t yet seen its first “operational” test flight. It has been test fired on the ground, but not in flight, currently scheduled for 2008 Q3 or 4. In any case it’s very expensive and not well suited to delivering a few mT of LOX that costs less than 1/20th the value of the stage itself. It would not be cost effective for them for many years. Their launcher still uses hypergolic for the second stage main propulsion. They can make a reasonable ROI by contributing to a LEO depot, but not one at EML2. Not yet.

India is further along than Brazil, but both nations could participate in a LEO depot, and therefore help pay for the lunar missions, but neither one could do that if the depot were at EML2. We’d have to pay for it ourselves.

These "mass-produced, cheap" LEO launchers, again, what are they?  How is launching scores of tanks of LH2/LOX instead of one big tank of LH2/LOX somehow cheaper or safer?  Cryogens, especially deep cryogens like hydrogen, don't like to be in small containers that have a high surface to volume ratio.  Good way to lose it to boiloff.

At least for the time being, I think the “propellant” delivered would be LOX, not LH2. The efficient cryogen storage of super cold things like LH2 requires more sophisticated technology than what can be fielded in the near term. Approximately 80% of the mass of the lunar stack is just the LOX, and not having to drag that alone up the gravity well with the lunar stack is what enables the single-launch Jupiter-232 lunar mission. LH2 is extremely light, on the order of balsa wood. We can do without the LH2 depot for a while, while we get this whole thing underway. It’ll come eventually as well, but we simply don’t need it for a while. Just making the LOX available on orbit is the deal-maker.

The mass-produced, cheap LEO launchers could be designed, built and fielded in very short order. They do not exist yet, but they are not difficult to make. The avionics and everything else needed already exist. Their sole mission would be to lift a few mT of LOX to LEO and take rendezvous commands from the waiting depot. The “tanker” doesn’t need to know where it’s going once in orbit. The depot would control it.

The trick to keeping the launch cost low is to remember that the payload is exceptionally inexpensive, so the rocket can be much lower “quality” than what we are used to seeing fly. Our current launchers are so expensive because the payloads are so expensive. We can’t afford to loose many of them, especially if the “payload” is a human crew. But a few tons of LOX is dirt cheap, so make the launchers that way also. If we loose a few on the way up, so what? Go to the warehouse and roll out another one. Fill the LOX tank and fire it. Operations like this are not cheap, but they are orders of magnitude less expensive that what we do today. It would almost be like firing an artillery shell into space. Only in this case, the shell is a LOX tank that the receiving depot itself would lock onto and guide in. The costs of an operation like this are well within the capabilities of many nations, and even an awful lot of corporations and other NGO's. Whether they do it for profit, or for a seat at the table, the end result is that the cost to the American taxpayer for the same mission goes down significantly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Marsman on 07/12/2008 06:26 pm
Guys, vanilla has a point. NASA is laughing at the idea of a propellant depot for the very reason of a mission planning nightmare. Yes it works theoretically, but in the real world things will never work out.

Let's say India is scheduled to get a seat on Orion in return for two propellant to LEO launches. Monsoon season forces a month long delay in one of the flights, and now is taking up Russia's launch window to the depot. You're just going to get a domino effect, especially with 6 flights per year.

Just baseline L2 or L1 on two Jupiter flights. You might even get away with a J120/DIVUS flight for Orion and a 232 (possibly with 5 segs) for the LSAM.

For the 5 segment boosters, I’d just include it as an optional upgrade. “We don’t need it, but if the contract situation requires it, sure!”

BTW, what is the performance of a Jupiter with an EDS built to Ares V/NASA specs?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 07/12/2008 09:03 pm

Ross, adopting the 5-seg SRB for Direct just for the sake of pleasing ATK without changing your architecture is not a good idea as it will only make your mission more expensive and less safe. However, it could be a good idea if it allows you to simplify your architecture or add new capabilities not possible with the current Direct 2.0. Here are examples of potential architecture simplifications which could theoretically be made possible with the 5-seg SRBs higher thrust:

-Unmanned moon cargo mission using only one J-232 rocket instead of two;
-Manned moon mission using J-120 + J-232 rockets instead of 2 J-232 rockets; or
-EDS using only one J-2X instead of two.

Examples of potential capability improvements with 5-seg SRBs:

-J-120 + Delta IV US Apollo 8 mission going to LLO instead of just fly-by;
-Manned moon mission able to transport and land 6 astronauts on the moon once a lunar base has been established; or
-Combined ISS and moon missions done with 2 J-232 rockets (2 CEVs + LSAM + EDS launched to 51.6 degrees inclination)

I am not sure if using the 5-seg SRBs would add enough payload capacity for some of the suggestions above (stretching the core stage may also be required) but the idea here is that the extra cost/complexity of using the 5-seg SRB should give you something new/positive in return or otherwise it is not worthed.

PaulL


To have five segment SRB:s from day one withouth stretching the core stage seems silly. I do not understand what is inherently complex with stretching the barrel sections. The SRB mounts and thrust structure is complex and need uprating and you need to do engine mounts and interstage but when you do the hard parts why neglect the easy ones?

Regarding this an intresting optimization could be a common optimization of the LH2 ammount, aft LH2 dome and thrust structure trading thrust structure for more tankage and fuel.

Stretching the core ought to be golden for saving fuel before TLI in the second stage and thus lowering burn out mass. Perfect for cargo only missions to the moons surface and LOR + LOR.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 07/12/2008 09:12 pm
Guys, vanilla has a point. NASA is laughing at the idea of a propellant depot for the very reason of a mission planning nightmare. Yes it works theoretically, but in the real world things will never work out.

You need to build a fuel depot with a generous ammount of overcapacity and build up the storage levels before drawing on the stores for your missions. If you do that you get the missions fairly independant of the fuel carriers and can accept having one of severral fuel carrier systems out of operation for a long time or your only system inoperable for a full cycle of fault fixing.

You only invite disaster or require 99.9% reliability if you run the fuel depot just-in-time. Dont do that, its dumb and makes it unreasonable to use cheap fuel carriers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 07/12/2008 10:08 pm
"What If"...We planned to use 5-seg SRB's on Jupiter-232 for the Lunar program.

Thoughts for the community???
I think this is an extraordinarily bad idea. The Direct mantra has been "use what you have". Changing that now for political expediency makes the whole concept open to criticism. The 4 segment solid is as proven a component as exists in the US space program today. Keeping it exactly as it's always been is a key cost and risk reduction point in the Direct story and it would be folly to change that at this point.

No, keep the 4 segment solids. If, by the time Direct is ever mandated, the 5 segment solid has been test flown and fully developed, then adopt it as an upgrade, but even then I'd only do it after the 4 segment configuration of a J120 had flown a number of times.

Sooner, safer, cheaper.

Keep the faith. That's the entire strength of the proposal.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/12/2008 11:52 pm
Somebody's gotta fill up the depot, that's all I'm sayin...

If I was the mission planner, and the plan included the depot, then it would be absolutely critical for me to make sure it was full, so critical in fact that I'd probably go ahead and just do it myself.  Since nobody else has wanted a LEO propellant depot for the last forty years (bad enough to build one, that is).

Then the mission planners had better give the operators of the depot(s) accurate figures for the fuel required 6 months to a year in advance.  The figures can go into the contract and press release.  An estimated refuelling manifest may be available several years in advance.

Quote
If it's cheaper to launch all that propellant on other rockets than on the Jupiter, which rockets would those be?  (these rockets that will deliver propellant to LEO cheaper than the HLV, so much cheaper in fact that the launch providers will make a "tidy profit" and NASA will still get it for "much, much less than launching it ourselves")

HLV are unlikely to be as cheap as the $/kg figures suggest.  Ground infrastructure limits the number of launches to about 12 a year (probably less).  Beyond that any additional launches require additional launch pads to be build with additional VAB, additional crawlers, additional people and additional ....
The Ares V development estimates contain price estimates for replace infrastructure, the additional cost of the infrastructure is likely to be similar amount.

At 2 launchers per mission 12 launches per year limits NASA to about 6 missions per year.  Getting someone else to launch the propellant doubles the possible number of missions without quadrupling NASA's budget.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2008 12:15 am

Ground infrastructure limits the number of launches to about 12 a year (probably less).  Beyond that any additional launches require additional launch pads to be build with additional VAB, additional crawlers, additional people and additional .


Incorrect, the infrastructure can support higher launch rates than 12 per year.   It was the orbiter that limited the shuttle rates

For Ares V, budget is the limiting factor. No money for those large payloads
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/13/2008 05:15 am
There is no way that mission safety rules would have the two systems meeting up after TLI, especially for non free return trajectories.

If you really believe that, Dennis, then I don't see how you can imagine getting to the reusable lunar utilization scenarios you favor so much.

Eventually the crew has to go to the Moon on a CEV-like vehicle alone.

There is a huge difference between doing that after TLI and in Earth or Lunar orbit.  Much easier doing it there.  I don't think that it is impossible by any means but I was talking about current NASA mission rules.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/13/2008 10:55 am
"What If"...We planned to use 5-seg SRB's on Jupiter-232 for the Lunar program.

Thoughts for the community???
I think this is an extraordinarily bad idea. The Direct mantra has been "use what you have". Changing that now for political expediency makes the whole concept open to criticism. The 4 segment solid is as proven a component as exists in the US space program today. Keeping it exactly as it's always been is a key cost and risk reduction point in the Direct story and it would be folly to change that at this point.

No, keep the 4 segment solids. If, by the time Direct is ever mandated, the 5 segment solid has been test flown and fully developed, then adopt it as an upgrade, but even then I'd only do it after the 4 segment configuration of a J120 had flown a number of times.

Sooner, safer, cheaper.

Keep the faith. That's the entire strength of the proposal.

Paul

I agree, once you accept one change from this basic tenet you are on the slippery expensive road to Ares V Max where 'if only we had this next mod' ;). Forget trying to specifically appease ATK as they will benefit either way as long as some sort of SDLV is chosen, sure Ares I is their preferred option but they would swing behind DIRECT fast enough your head would spin if the other choice becomes EELV. Just keep answering genuine criticisms of DIRECT and all its weak points vs 1.5 and it can always be out there in the background as a solid SDLV Plan B ready to rescue it if it falls and can't get back up . It's been a great exercise and some interesting Exploration discussions have taken place as a result which maybe of some value in the long run considering the connected reader base here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 07/13/2008 01:56 pm

To have five segment SRB:s from day one withouth stretching the core stage seems silly. I do not understand what is inherently complex with stretching the barrel sections. The SRB mounts and thrust structure is complex and need uprating and you need to do engine mounts and interstage but when you do the hard parts why neglect the easy ones?


A possible advantage of not streching the core stage is that it could allow for the development of a 3 stages "EDS + propellant only" rocket which would still fit inside the VAB doors. That could be very useful eventually for mars missions if the propellant depot idea does not work. 

For example, if you put the Ares I US on top of a J-232 with 5-seg SRBs, I estimate that you would end up with about 10 mT of extra propellant (113 mT) compared to the Direct 2.0 "EDS + propellant only" flight on a stage 7 mT lighter and only 5.5 m in diameter.  This smaller diameter would also probably allow to put two of these stages in parallel to a 10 m diameter payload, resulting in over 100 mT of TMI payload launched with only 3 rockets!

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/13/2008 10:47 pm

That's an article of faith that no mission planner can rely on.  If the depot's not full, you have no mission. 

I often asked myself if the orbital propellant depot could be compromised by contamination. If "cheap" supplier "X" was negligent ... you have no mission.

Quote
You can't wait around for "cheap commercial providers" to fill it up, so you do it yourself, on another HLV launch.  So why launch a depot and an empty EDS?  Just launch the CEV and LSAM on their own EDS's and have them rendezvous at L2.

Objections:

1/ CEV and LSAM of equal mass ? or customized EDS's ? none makes much sense !

2/ The pure cargo mission ... L2 rendezvous for cargo ?!

Quote
The earth-orbit rendezvous, despite the veneer of safety, is the most limiting maneuver of the whole mission because of how it constrains TLI.

Agreed. That's why ESAS 1.5 is what it is. No EOR, no TLI constraint for the lunar "Progress" equivalent. The Achilles' heel of any 2-launch-1-vehicle proposal.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/13/2008 10:53 pm

The tail first rendezvous would only be used until the depot was online.

Like any nominal pregnancy - it must still deliver the perfect product, even if used a limited number of times.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/14/2008 12:22 am
2/ The pure cargo mission ... L2 rendezvous for cargo ?!

No, you simply capture straight into lunar orbit and descend on the cargo mission.  That's even simpler in the L2R scenario than ESAS because the LSAM isn't trying to do LOI for the CEV on its back.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kfsorensen on 07/14/2008 12:23 am
Agreed. That's why ESAS 1.5 is what it is. No EOR, no TLI constraint for the lunar "Progress" equivalent. The Achilles' heel of any 2-launch-1-vehicle proposal.

Only if you do EOR.  If you do L2R, the lunar cargo mission is even easier.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/14/2008 07:22 am
If someone proposed to build a new 25-ton LH2 stage that would have a mass fraction 25% better than any existing comparable stage, would you say that it's so far below the experience base that you didn't trust their numbers?

The best existing stage is the Ariane-5 H-173 with 0.0639 without-engine dry mass fraction. Jupiter EDS is 0.0436. This is a reduction of 32%. I estimate that given equal propellant loads, the reduction would be 27%, close to the 25% stated. Together with all the information I have gathered on other stages, my view of the situation is that a 27% reduction is too great to trust. In fact, the fraction I would use for the Jupiter EDS would be more conservative at 0.0654 (m_s/m_p = 7%). I have every confidence that this value can be met, while there is potential risk in choosing the much lower value.

Quote
Or would you try to understand how their design was supposed to give them such a good mass fraction?

I read the LM ICES paper on the weekend and have tried to understand what they have done different that would make their stage look so good. All I saw was a pmf value of 0.94 (without-engine dry mass fraction value of 0.0514 assuming four RL-10B-2 engines) for 73 t of propellant that was a "Goal". I did not see anything to convince me that this value is achievable. If you have a reference with better information, I would be glad to read it.

Russia can field a high energy upper stage and China may be able to field a high energy upper stage, but what about countries like Brazil and India for example?

India already has an O2/H2 upper stage on the GSLV. Brazil only has a small launch vehicle capable of only launching microsatellites. Countries/unions with an O2/H2 upper stage are Europe, China, Japan, India, and the US. The only major country that does not have an O2/H2 upper stage is Russia, although they could make one if they wanted to.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 07/14/2008 09:14 am
Would five segment SRB:s allow enough core tankage stretching and thus enough increase in booster and core impulse to lower the required second stage thrust?

A single engine second stage / EDS stage would give a significantly lower burn out mass and it would trade a set of complex J2X machinery for more tankage and fuel.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2008 12:00 pm
Would five segment SRB:s allow enough core tankage stretching and thus enough increase in booster and core impulse to lower the required second stage thrust?

A single engine second stage / EDS stage would give a significantly lower burn out mass and it would trade a set of complex J2X machinery for more tankage and fuel.

Stretching the core in order to accomplish what you are suggesting is exactly the mistake that the Ares-V design has made. The result is that the core stage passes the point where gravity losses begin to subtract from what the vehicle is gaining during the powered flight because of the increasing non-contributing mass of the still emptying stage structure and tankage. When a multi stage launch vehicle reaches this point in its powered ascent, it should stage to avoid those gravity losses, and continue the powered ascent with a new stage.

That is exactly what the Jupiter-232 does, and the Ares-V does not.

At just about the point where the mass of the emptying core stage begins to create a gravity loss on the powered ascent, the Jupiter drops the stage and ignites the upper stage. The Ares-V on the other hand, while still accelerating, continues to drag the mass of the still emptying core with it. That increasing negative mass holds the launch vehicle back from what it could otherwise achieve. It robs the launch vehicle of deltaV that, just like interest in a bank, could be compounded later thru TLI.

This is a point I have made over and over again; it’s rocket science 101. The solution to the Ares-V problems is not to make the first stage bigger; it’s to make the first stage smaller and the upper stage bigger. Ares-V needs to stage sooner, not later, and shed that non-contributing mass. Then it would keep the deltaV that it looses because of not staging sooner.

It they did that to the Ares-V it would become a lot more efficient and would close the TLI shortfall it currently has. But instead the Ares-V design management insists that bigger is better, that gravity losses can be overcome with more propellant and more engines, all of which add more mass to the launch vehicle. That actually is true, and at some point they WILL succeed with this approach, but the vehicle will be monstrous in size and will not be affordable. We will have wasted years of effort and billions of dollars on a rocket that even the United States cannot afford to fly all because the one person driving this specific launch vehicle design ignored basic rocket science; namely that power density and efficiency are what should drive the design, not size.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 07/14/2008 12:52 pm
Quote from: clongton link=topic=12379.msg297705#msg297705
Stretching the core in order to accomplish what you are suggesting is exactly the mistake that the Ares-V design has made. The result is that the core stage passes the point where gravity losses begin to subtract from what the vehicle is gaining during the powered flight because of the increasing non-contributing mass of the still emptying stage structure and tankage. When a multi stage launch vehicle reaches this point in its powered ascent, it should stage to avoid those gravity losses, and continue the powered ascent with a new stage.

This ought to be the same thing as your stage having too weak engines and not burning the fuel load fast enough?
Gravity losses versus engine mass is beyond my intuition and I do not know the role of gravity losses while getting into a trans lunar trajectory.

My line of thinking were to use the additional SRB impulse to trade losses from the second stage to the core stage to lower the second stages burn out mass and make that into payload.

Unfortunately I am only a wanna be engineer. ;-)

I like Direct since it could give a heavy lift capability before peak oil sucks most of the security consious touch labour, generalistic engineers  and security consious managers into the rebirth of the nuclear industry. The need for electricity is a lot larger then the need for Nasa and heavy launchers wich means that Nasa has to become a lot more efficient and prove its place as a way to motivate kids to learn tough engineering. The situation is a lot like the 70:s oil crisis and the bid for the space shuttle but this time I doubt a cludge will fly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2008 12:58 pm
You keep making the point over again but it doesn't mean it was right the first time. When the SRBs are let go on Ares V the weight of the stack is about 3.3 mlb which gives a T/W ratio of 1.27/1.44 using the SL/Vacuum thrust of six RS-68A so there are *NO* gravity losses due to the core stage.

The only gravity losses are on the EDS upper stage which weighs over 1mlb at staging. You would need 4-5 J2-Xs to completely avoid gravity losses on the upper stage, like Saturn V ;), but that would be suboptimal for TLI and anyway LIDS can't handle more than 1 J2-X in that regard currently. I suppose the ideal config is a 3 stage Saturn V one with 5 J2-Xs on the middle stage and 1 on the upper but there's no real room to do that in the VAB if you use the hydrogen RS-68 so we are stuck with Ares V Max whatever that turns out to be.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 07/14/2008 01:13 pm
You keep making the point over again but it doesn't mean it was right the first time. When the SRBs are let go on Ares V the weight of the stack is about 3.3 mlb which gives a T/W ratio of 1.27/1.44 using the SL/Vacuum thrust of six RS-68A so there are *NO* gravity losses due to the core stage.

I am not a rocket scientist, so please educate me here. I thought that gravity losses are always present, and they get smaller with increased T/W. As one extreme, if T/W = 1 at launch, gravity losses are 100%, because the rocket is not moving. If T/W = 2, gravity losses are 50% - half of thrust is used to compensate 1g of downward acceleration due to Earth gravity. (Of course, in flight T/W changes dynamically and so gravity losses change too). Another extreme is T/W = +infinity - no gravity losses.

Am I mistaken?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2008 01:21 pm
You keep making the point over again but it doesn't mean it was right the first time. When the SRBs are let go on Ares V the weight of the stack is about 3.3 mlb which gives a T/W ratio of 1.27/1.44 using the SL/Vacuum thrust of six RS-68A so there are *NO* gravity losses due to the core stage.

The only gravity losses are on the EDS upper stage which weighs over 1mlb at staging. You would need 4-5 J2-Xs to completely avoid gravity losses on the upper stage, like Saturn V ;), but that would be suboptimal for TLI and anyway LIDS can't handle more than 1 J2-X in that regard currently. I suppose the ideal config is a 3 stage Saturn V one with 5 J2-Xs on the middle stage and 1 on the upper but there's no real room to do that in the VAB if you use the hydrogen RS-68 so we are stuck with Ares V Max whatever that turns out to be.

The mistake being made is thinking about the core stage on its own. Instead they should be looking at the entire stack all the way to orbit, and considering the core stage as only one part of the equation. T/W dynamically changes as the core stage burns, but there comes a point, *roughly* half way, more or less, between SRB separation and MECO where the overall deltaV of the *STACK* would be higher, or the EDS would enter LEO with more propellant remaining, if the core stage were dropped (empty) at that point. Run the numbers on the stack, not just the core.

This is what the Jupiter does. It stages at that point, and uses 2xJ2X for the upper stage. The overall efficiency of work done by the Jupiter per kilogram of propellent consumed is higher that the Ares because of this.

Sticking to a single engine on the EDS and massively increasing the size of the core stage is at the heart of what is hurting the performance of the Ares-V. Like I said, it will eventually get there going this route, but it will be massive and extremely expensive to field and operate.

2xJupiter-232 will put more mass thru TLI than 1xAres-I plus 1xAres-V.
2XAres-V will put more mass thru TLI than 2xJupiter-232, but the cost will be mind boggling.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2008 01:45 pm
You keep making the point over again but it doesn't mean it was right the first time. When the SRBs are let go on Ares V the weight of the stack is about 3.3 mlb which gives a T/W ratio of 1.27/1.44 using the SL/Vacuum thrust of six RS-68A so there are *NO* gravity losses due to the core stage.

I am not a rocket scientist, so please educate me here. I thought that gravity losses are always present, and they get smaller with increased T/W. As one extreme, if T/W = 1 at launch, gravity losses are 100%, because the rocket is not moving. If T/W = 2, gravity losses are 50% - half of thrust is used to compensate 1g of downward acceleration due to Earth gravity. (Of course, in flight T/W changes dynamically and so gravity losses change too). Another extreme is T/W = +infinity - no gravity losses.

Am I mistaken?

You are not mistaken and I should have been more precise in my statements, apologies, but I had to counter this FUD where the Ares V core stage was being portrayed as unable to accelerate its own weight at any time !
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2008 02:27 pm
You keep making the point over again but it doesn't mean it was right the first time. When the SRBs are let go on Ares V the weight of the stack is about 3.3 mlb which gives a T/W ratio of 1.27/1.44 using the SL/Vacuum thrust of six RS-68A so there are *NO* gravity losses due to the core stage.

I am not a rocket scientist, so please educate me here. I thought that gravity losses are always present, and they get smaller with increased T/W. As one extreme, if T/W = 1 at launch, gravity losses are 100%, because the rocket is not moving. If T/W = 2, gravity losses are 50% - half of thrust is used to compensate 1g of downward acceleration due to Earth gravity. (Of course, in flight T/W changes dynamically and so gravity losses change too). Another extreme is T/W = +infinity - no gravity losses.

Am I mistaken?

You are not mistaken and I should have been more precise in my statements, apologies, but I had to counter this FUD where the Ares V core stage was being portrayed as unable to accelerate its own weight at any time !

I did not say it wasn't accelerating its own weight. If you read what I said it is clear that it *IS* still accelerating, but at a lower rate than it should because it's dragging too much empty tank mass. There is so much empty tank mass still attached that the T/W ratio is suffering an efficiency loss. The stack *as a whole* looses performance it could otherwise enjoy. That's why it is so important to look at this from the point of view of the entire stack, not just at the core stage itself.

Yes, it is still accelerating, and the T/W ratio is still getting better, but it could be so much better still if it staged at that point and used dual engines on the upper stage. The smaller vehicle ( 5xRS-68’s, not 6) would put more mass into LEO, like a larger percentage of propellant still remaining in the EDS for use on the TLI.

This is *SO* basic. No FUD here.

As for any argument that the LIDS couldn't handle the thrust of 2x J-2x thru TLI, run the 2x J-2X at reduced power, longer. Problem solved; oh by the way with engine-out redundancy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Marsman on 07/14/2008 05:08 pm
IIRC, the J2-X doesn't have throttle capability. This is why NASA is so adamant about the single J2-X upper stage.

Edit: According to L2 sources the J2-X does have two power levels, but does not throttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/14/2008 05:09 pm
Two engines on the EDS is better than one for LEO performance and probably a wash for TLI but only for the same core stage. All versions of Ares 5 lift more than J-232 so the proof is in the pudding about what the overall effect of each element is. Now it maybe that stretching the core, adding fuel and leaving the number of engines the same could reduce T/W ratio over too long a period so that performance starts to suffer but the current Ares V has added another RS-68 engine and extra half segment to compensate and its T/W ratio is greater over the whole burn than the original 5 engine Ares V. They can continue making the core stage bigger without loss of efficiency as long as they keep giving it more thrust to compensate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/14/2008 05:09 pm
Quote
As for any argument that the LIDS couldn't handle the thrust of 2x J-2x thru TLI, run the 2x J-2X at reduced power, longer. Problem solved; oh by the way with engine-out redundancy.

I was under the impression that J-2X was being designed with two power levels: 82% and 100%.  Is it difficult to change those level settings?  Does a low throttle (41%) position adversely affect engine performance (e.g. Isp)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/14/2008 05:20 pm
Two engines on the EDS is better than one for LEO performance and probably a wash for TLI but only for the same core stage. All versions of Ares 5 lift more than J-232 so the proof is in the pudding about what the overall effect is.

Exactly!  Heavier rocket, more expensive rocket, heavier payload.  60% heavier rocket, 100% more expensive rocket, 25% more payload.  Wait a minute...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/14/2008 06:25 pm
Regarding the DIRECT schedules found in

http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/Manifest_DIRECT_1600.jpg

What is the rationale for a Jupiter test flight in May of 2009 and a human-rated RS-68 ready for a test flight in August of 2009 given that no (current NASA or contractor team) work has been done on design or contracting?  For ELVs you usually have to pay 2 years ahead.

Not just the RS-68 itself but the cost to integrate it on a Delta IV?  Where does the Delta IV hardware come from?  New software?  Inflight health monitoring for the test?

Assuming you can get the paperwork done, the design done, buy the hardware, get it moved to KSC and integrated, the contractors let you "pay as you go" (just in time), and the budget of Ares I is about $1B in 2009 ... How can the budget afford $300-$400M for the two test flights while still developing the designs and preparing for the 2010 and 2011 test flights (which costs money in 2009)?  Pls note the difference between design (as in a conceptual plan used by engineers) and design (as in plan used by technicians to cut and assemble parts).

In short, do you have a year-by-year, element-by-element expenditure plan that shows that DIRECT is affordable within the available budget not in a total sense, but year-by-year in order to achieve the 2012 IOC date?

If so, I'd like to see it.

Finally (for now), given that Orion is having problems of its own, what is the effect of Orion possibly not being ready until 2014 or 2015 (or later)?  What is the "standing army cost" of having Jupiter up and flying but not having a CEV to integrate with?  What data did you use to expect that Orion (SM, CM, LAS) would be available in November 2010 for a test flight, when the Orion (as well as Ares I) IOC are moving to the right along with contracts?

Assuming the 2010 date is possible (assuming you can document why to some degree) for a CEV test flight, where does the budget (2009, 2010) for accelerating CEV come from?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 07/14/2008 06:35 pm
Regarding the DIRECT schedules found in

http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/Manifest_DIRECT_1600.jpg

What is the rationale for a Jupiter test flight in May of 2009 and a human-rated RS-68 ready for a test flight in August of 2009
If I understand correctly, it's not a test flight in may 2009, but a "test article" i.e. a mockup (for pad footprint and crawler test i guess).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/14/2008 06:36 pm
good catch on that one.  What would that cost?  $100M?  Plus the RS-68 improvements plus the Delta IV flight.  Not that I know the answers, but I know that Cx is as much budget limited as they are schedule limited in the early years.  Also, the Delta IV flight seems to have an "Orion I" which also costs something ($50M, $100M?) and would need to be built in less than 12 months.  The current abort test isn't funded until 2012, so that would be both accelerated budget and schedule for Orion.

Oh, and the presentation "DIRECT Presentation" (page 18) shows the human-rated RS-68 not ready until Q1 2012 ... how does it fly in 2009 on a Delta IV then?  Why rush to do a $100M+ test flight if you don't have the engine done and what hardware do you use?

Regarding the DIRECT schedules found in

http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/Manifest_DIRECT_1600.jpg

What is the rationale for a Jupiter test flight in May of 2009 and a human-rated RS-68 ready for a test flight in August of 2009
If I understand correctly, it's not a test flight in may 2009, but a "test article" i.e. a mockup (for pad footprint and crawler test i guess).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2008 06:58 pm

I was under the impression that J-2X was being designed with two power levels: 82% and 100%.  Is it difficult to change those level settings?  Does a low throttle (41%) position adversely affect engine performance (e.g. Isp)?

There are no real physical changes to the engine. The power levels are those that the customer has asked to be certifierd by the engine manufacturer. The customer could just as easily ask for certification of 40%, 50%, 60%, or whatever the customer is willing to pay for. It's not so much a matter of engine design as it is a matter of cost. Each power level costs a certain amount of money. Each power level requires purchasing and running the engine at that power level for a minimum amount of time, several times. Half a dozen or more engines could easily be consumed by the certification testing for a single power level, all of which the customer must pay for.

It's not difficult. But it is expensive. Depending on what power levels the customer would like to run the enine at, those are the levels requested for certification.

Having said that, there will definately be differences in performance at the different levels. Whether or not those are acceptable is a matter for the customer to decide. But the engine manufacturer will give the customer whatever the customer will pay for.

Of course if a problem is uncovered during the testing, which is always possible, everything changes. But that is unlikely. Usually an engine will work just as well at almost any power setting (within reason) as at any other power setting, with the resultant differences in thrust and isp.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 07/14/2008 08:08 pm
Hmmm.....a simple little AP article, in a fairly high-profile publication:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/146135

(NASA engineers work on alternative moon rocket)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/14/2008 08:20 pm
Hmmm.....a simple little AP article, in a fairly high-profile publication:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/146135

(NASA engineers work on alternative moon rocket)

Nice article. thanks!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/14/2008 08:24 pm
AP article shows up in a another location..

http://www.physorg.com/news135269357.html

Also top "breaking news" story on their homepage

http://www.physorg.com/

This seems like the kind of thing Popular Science or Popular Mechanics would eat up, if you could get them interested.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: waf102 on 07/14/2008 08:36 pm
MSNBC: NASA engineers design maverick moon rocket

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25678645/

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/14/2008 09:50 pm
Same deal:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,382261,00.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Alpha Control on 07/14/2008 10:08 pm
The Foxnews article is the first of this group of articles to show an image of the Jupiter rockets.

Intriguing. What's driving this "explosion" of mainstream coverage? Glad to see it, personally, if it helps lead to a call for an independent review.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: daver on 07/14/2008 10:09 pm
This is a good opportunity for the Direct team.   Most of these articles allow comments.  Time to sell your rocket.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 07/14/2008 10:57 pm
Was also in Compuserve news and Ross was mentioned by name and quoted.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/14/2008 11:11 pm
Was also in Compuserve news and Ross was mentioned by name and quoted.

Mike,
Ross is a near neighbor of yours. Drop by and tell him.
Chuck
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/14/2008 11:26 pm
The Foxnews article is the first of this group of articles to show an image of the Jupiter rockets.

Intriguing. What's driving this "explosion" of mainstream coverage? Glad to see it, personally, if it helps lead to a call for an independent review.

Full release of the FOIA-ed documents (the entire ESAS Report and supporting papers) and an independent review is what should be sought. IMHO

I am a freaking history major and have no clue whether DIRECT 2.0 adds up or not. But when the ESAS people say, "Forget DIRECT, it doesn't work. But no we won't reveal the math that supports that conclusion" I get suspicious.

Besides a gap until 2015 or 2016 is simply not acceptable to me, as a taxpayer and a voter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 07/14/2008 11:42 pm
Looks like a little AP article can get a fair bit of exposure....nice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_sc/sci_alternative_moon_rocket

http://io9.com/5025129/the-moon-rocket-project-nasa-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about

As daver suggested above, Direct team (and well behaved amazing peoples too) have a great opportunity to make your opinions known far and wide.....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 07/14/2008 11:58 pm
Was also in Compuserve news and Ross was mentioned by name and quoted.

We met once when he came to the US and sadly, events and work schedules (I work in Orlando, but live on Merritt Island) conspire against us getting together.  :(

Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Waterfalldescender on 07/15/2008 01:42 am
 I think more emphasis was placed on the NASA Engineers working on the Direct Project in "off-time" rather than the respective merits of the Direct proposal in the articles submitted.
 There are ethical standards in the workplace. If you don't believe in what you're doing, quit/resign with some dignity...
 You stand by what you believe in.  If they fear job security, they probably shouldn't be working on Direct at all.
 
 IMO.

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2008 01:47 am
No need to link everyone ;) AP syndication is around 500 sites! It's the big prize for being mentioned given so many mass media sites simply use AP feed......which is why we all cry when Marcia Dunn goes negative, as it'll be appearing nearly everywhere.


Anyhoo, no need to publish every link to where the same story is being syndicated.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/15/2008 01:48 am

 If you don't believe in what you're doing, quit/resign with some dignity...


It happens all the time.  not everyone can do it, it is either put up or shut up.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Launch Fan on 07/15/2008 01:57 am
No need to link everyone ;) AP syndication is around 500 sites! It's the big prize for being mentioned given so many mass media sites simply use AP feed......which is why we all cry when Marcia Dunn goes negative, as it'll be appearing nearly everywhere.


Anyhoo, no need to publish every link to where the same story is being syndicated.

Is AP the biggest?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2008 02:01 am
No need to link everyone ;) AP syndication is around 500 sites! It's the big prize for being mentioned given so many mass media sites simply use AP feed......which is why we all cry when Marcia Dunn goes negative, as it'll be appearing nearly everywhere.


Anyhoo, no need to publish every link to where the same story is being syndicated.

Is AP the biggest?

Yes, because it's syndicated nearly everywhere in the mass media. AP is a media monster.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/15/2008 03:03 pm
Yeah, I woke up this morning and it was in my newspaper. However back to questions.

Is it possible to lift Altair to LEO with a Jupiter-120? Can an Altair on Jupiter with an active LIDS dock with station?  I ask because I would like to see an Apollo 9 Direct style mission staged from station. That way you can leave the lander up on station for long duration to see how it survives in a vacuum for a long time,and it allows you to accelerate testing of Altair while simultaneously certifying the EDS on Jupiter-232 on another flight or even later if problems arise.  Also you save on an Orion flight since you will use an Expedition crew rather than a different one.

Edit:  Here is an image of the newspaper, The Virginian-Pilot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 07/15/2008 03:20 pm
EDITED

Oops, I misunderstood you!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/15/2008 03:29 pm
J-120 can, in theory, put ~43mT in a 51.6deg orbit (CEPE estimate).

Page 14 of the v2.0.2 summary suggests a "46.8mT LSAM" and a "20.2mT Orion".

So you would need to strip ~4mT (fuel?) from Altair to make this an option.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: John Duncan on 07/15/2008 04:57 pm
Wow, I saw the story on foxnews and was amazed.  I guess NASA opened Pandora's box.

Let's hope it gets a fair, unbiased review.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2008 05:44 pm
These are all branches off the original AP Wire story. There are going to be literally hundreds of such "repeats" over the next day, possibly two, before something else gets the AP's attention. Like Chris said, there's no need to repost every link. But thanks to everyone for showing how widespread the story is becoming. Maybe one of you, if you wish, can take a private project of collecting the links they can find and then in a few days, do a single post with them. That way everyone here can see the links, if the want to, and we don't fill the thread up with individual link postings. If someone want to step up to the plate and do that for a couple of days, maybe everyone else can just send the links in to that person, either by their email or by PM. That would be cool!

Some of you have asked how you can help. Don't be shy about commenting at the linked story's websites about the DIRECT architecture and the Jupiter launch vehicle. It's important to continually stress that DIRECT reduces the gap to 2 years or less, from the projected 6 year minimum caused by Ares. Not only can we return American astronauts to space on an American rocket within 2 years of Shuttle retirement, but we can actually send American astronauts around the moon before Ares-I would fly its first crew to LEO. And we do it for a whole hell of a lot less money than Ares asks for. Those are the kind of things to stress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 07/15/2008 05:57 pm
Wow, it's everywhere. Good opportunity for Direct team to present your position.

Just do it well folks, without NASA bashing. Push positive points of Direct and don't talk too much about Ares shortcomings. Also the point that Direct is essentially a NASA project (NLS) is worth mentioning at every opportunity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 07/15/2008 06:28 pm
I'm seeing three possible paths that lead to Americans on the moon (paths that don't are simply failures):

1) Ares I and Ares V are both built and fly. Still very possible, though the recent size increase of Ares V lowers the plausibility.

2) Ares I and V are canceled before they fly, and are replaced by the Direct system. Though the design plausibility is high, the political possibility is still relatively low (though it could increase quickly).

3) Ares I flies to ISS, but rather than a super-large Ares V, a vehicle closer to a Jupiter 232 is built, allowing 2-launch lunar missions (while Ares I is phased out). I'd give this moderate plausibility, but about equal possibility to the current baseline.

Is this fair?

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2008 06:37 pm
I'd say that's reasonably fair Simon, but I'd question the likelihood of anything being affordable after Ares-I, be it Ares-V or Jupiter.   

Political support for DIRECT would sure increase rapidly if an independent review commissioned by Congress were to validate it - as we believe it would.

All we want is for Congress to simply order an independent review of Ares and compare its costs (GAO), schedule & performance (RAND or other suitable agent) with DIRECT.   At that point the results would be clear and definitive for all to see and Congress would have real data to base its decisions upon, devoid of mere 'claims' from either side of this argument.

Congress:   Don't simply trust us.   Don't simply trust NASA either.   Get independent answers for yourselves and get to the truth.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Temmu on 07/15/2008 07:02 pm
greetings.

i ran across the direct site via one of the repeat stories (as mentioned above), and from there, here.

i'm not an engineer, so... please excuse this question:

if we assume there is a need to be on our moon, why not use something cheap and already flight-proven?  the vehicle that got us there the first time?

why not the saturn - the original test site (stennis) already has the test stands... kerosene is cheap...  and cheap to handle...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2008 07:06 pm
Temmu,
Welcome to the site!

The Saturn-V hasn't been in production since the start of the 1970's.   None of the tooling exists, none of the experts who built it are still in the program.   Everything has been replaced over the years (for Shuttle) and building a new Saturn-V would essentially be a 'start it all afresh' option - with all the associated costs involved in that.

Also a single Saturn-V can only do the size of mission which it did 40 years ago - a 15mT Lander.   We are planning something much larger today - about triple the size with a 45mT Lander.  So Saturn-V wouldn't actually be enough any more.

To do a single-rocket-mission the size that we want to do, you'd need something with almost twice the raw performance of the Saturn-V.

If Apollo had continued for another ~5 years, we would have started to see 2-launch Saturn-V mission architecture fairly similar to what we're proposing here in DIRECT.   But funding was pulled before they ever got to that point because the program simply cost too much - a problem we're going to have to make a concerted effort this time around to make sure we don't repeat again - and the key red-flag problem with building two new vehicles (Ares-I and Ares-V) to do the job instead of one - the high development costs and operations costs are essentially doubled.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2008 07:25 pm
greetings.

i ran across the direct site via one of the repeat stories (as mentioned above), and from there, here.

i'm not an engineer, so... please excuse this question:

if we assume there is a need to be on our moon, why not use something cheap and already flight-proven?  the vehicle that got us there the first time?

why not the saturn - the original test site (stennis) already has the test stands... kerosene is cheap...  and cheap to handle...


Welcome to the forum Temmu;

The Saturn-V, my personal favorite rocket of all time, no longer exists. It was cancelled because it was just too expensive to use. Consequently we no longer have the capability to go to the moon with a manned vehicle. In addition to that, the entire vendor industrial complex that built the Saturn no longer exists and the parts that these companies made are out of production. The Saturn-V cannot be resurrected.

Getting to the moon, under the very best of circumstances is not cheap. There is no existing, nor cheap way to do it. We must start over from the bottom.

The engineering skills needed to create a Saturn replacement exist in many, many places around the country, but the experience base is almost non existent. They have all long sense retired. The design engineering staff at NASA and its contractors are having to rebuild this experience base, and that takes time and money.

NASA has selected an architecture based on the Ares rocket design, that looked good in the beginning, but quickly morphed into something gigantic, and even more unaffordable than the Saturn-V. Many believe that bringing this to full flight will bankrupt the manned spaceflight program because of its enormous cost. The tenets of its design violate, in almost every way possible, the clear direction provided to NASA by the Congress. In addition to that, it is still, as of this point in time, unable to accomplish the missions assigned to it.

The DIRECT architecture, based on the design of the Jupiter launch vehicle, follows the direction of Congress and is capable of actually accomplishing all the missions originally assigned to the Ares, at a much reduced cost and doing it much sooner than the Ares. But NASA is heavily invested in the Ares, both financially and emotionally, and they (the top leadership) are not interested in considering this alternate design. They want what they want and that’s what they want, and they are pursuing a policy designed to get it. Some of us would describe their efforts as almost a scorched earth policy, because they are taking steps, as rapidly as possible to eliminate any possible consideration of any alternative, by destroying the infrastructure that any alternative would need.

The DIRECT team, after over 2 years of effort and having gone thru 2 peer reviews here and on the L2 site, together with consultation with some people in Washington, Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Alabama are attempting to get the Ares and Jupiter launch vehicles analyzed and compared by an independent, outside agency, such as the Rand corporation, under the oversight of the GAO. In that way the Congressional oversight committees in the Congress will have the unfettered data they need, completely free from any rhetoric from either side, including us. They will be able to make a clear choice based on independently verified facts. That’s our goal.

For detailed information go to www.directlauncher.com

Welcome to our world!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Temmu on 07/15/2008 07:26 pm
ok.  i didn't realize there was such a vast lift difference - i'd thought the saturn to be huge (having seen it launch many times when i lived in orlando...)

(thanks for the welcome!)

so... direct uses lox/h2.
h2 is cold:  requires staying cold.  why not kerosene?  it's cheap and no need to keep cool.

is it that there are no kerosene engines today?  and the idea of direct is to re-use existing in-production items? (good idea...)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2008 07:32 pm
ok.  i didn't realize there was such a vast lift difference - i'd thought the saturn to be huge (having seen it launch many times when i lived in orlando...)

(thanks for the welcome!)

so... direct uses lox/h2.
h2 is cold:  requires staying cold.  why not kerosene?  it's cheap and no need to keep cool.

is it that there are no kerosene engines today?  and the idea of direct is to re-use existing in-production items? (good idea...)

Yes, the clear direction from the Congress was to reuse, to the maximum extent possible, the existing hardware, infrastructure and personnel from the Shuttle program.

The Ares does not do that at all, replacing everything except the color of the foam on the tank.

The Jupiter is based around reusing almost everything from Shuttle, with the least amound of rework as possible, to field a launch vehicle capable of accomplishing the missions that the Congress has authorized.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2008 07:33 pm
The only Kero engine in the right performance range is a Russian one and behind the scenes the brakes were put on that option a while back.

Assuming it could be licensed, or one of the domestic US-derived Kero engines could be put into production (costly), it would require a radically different configuration for the Core Stage.

While Ares-V is already a radical departure from Shuttle, DIRECT has very deliberately chosen to retain as much commonality back to Shuttle's External Tank in order to speed development and reduce development costs as much as possible.

There's a fair bit of performance benefit theoretically possible to switching to an RP-1/LOX Core Stage - but the development cost and political issues are the worse problems.

DIRECT's goal is not to sacrifice everything for the altar of ultimate performance, but to make a vehicle which is capable of performing the mission for the lowest cost.   That's all that really matters in the end.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Peter NASA on 07/15/2008 07:46 pm
I believe Steve Cook was misquoted, misrepresented by the AP.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2008 07:54 pm
I believe Steve Cook was misquoted, misrepresented by the AP.

He was, but that's water under the bridge at this point.
I would have preferred for an accurate quoting and representation, and then pressing the case for the independent review. But at this point, press is press. All the exposure we can get is good for the program.

I would suggest that if anyone actually has the opportunity to correct the misquotes that they take advantage of that. DIRECT doesn't need to stand on misquotes or misrepresentations. We are confident in the work we have done and are willing to stand by it as it is analyzed by an independent vetting agency.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/15/2008 08:07 pm
Questions on the DIRECT schedules found in

http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/Manifest_DIRECT_1600.jpg

What is the rationale for a human-rated RS-68 ready for a test flight in August of 2009 given that no (current NASA or contractor team) work has been done on design or contracting?  For ELVs you usually have to plan and pay 2 years ahead.  What about having a mock-up of the DIRECT vehicle by May of 2009?  How much does that cost?

Not just the RS-68 itself but the cost to integrate it on a Delta IV?  Where does the Delta IV hardware come from?  New software?  Inflight health monitoring for the test?

Assuming that the paperwork gets done, the design done, buy the hardware, get it moved to KSC and integrated, the contractors let us "pay as you go" (just in time), and the budget of Ares I is about $1B in 2009 ... How can the budget afford $200-$300M for the test flight/mock up while still developing the designs and preparing for the 2010 and 2011 test flights (which will cost another $300-$400M of unplanned for demo dollars in 2009-2010)?  I'm differeniating between design (as in a conceptual plan used by engineers) and design (as in plan used by technicians to cut and assemble parts).

In short, is there a year-by-year, element-by-element expenditure plan (sand chart) that shows that DIRECT is affordable within the available budget not in a total sense, but annually in order to achieve the 2012 IOC date?  If I understand correctly, Cx is budget (not schedule) limited in the years before shuttle retires.  Something like this

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/esas.report.12.13.jpg

Finally, given that Orion is having problems of its own, what is the effect of Orion possibly not being ready until 2014 or 2015 (or later)?  What is the "standing army cost" of having Jupiter up and flying but not having a CEV to integrate with?  What data were used to predict that Orion (SM, CM, LAS) would be available in November 2010 for a test flight, when the Orion (as well as Ares I) IOC are moving to the right along with contracts?

Assuming the 2010 date is possible for a CEV test flight, where does the budget (2009, 2010) for accelerating CEV, ground ops, mission ops, and EVA (for later flights) come from?

(yes, this is an updated repost.  the large number of posts of the AP story made me feel like this had been missed.  if anyone has answers, please respond!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jawilke on 07/15/2008 08:20 pm
Yes, the clear direction from the Congress was to reuse, to the maximum extent possible, the existing hardware, infrastructure and personnel from the Shuttle program.

The Ares does not do that at all, replacing everything except the color of the foam on the tank.

I too am new here as of today, and found this site and forum via a link on Yahoo.

I read many posts on this forum with some concern. I really like what the Direct 2.0 project is about, and having not read ALL the hundreds of posts on this site, I read enough to see that there is a legitimate concern about which system will actuall go forward. According to your comment above which has been repeated over and over in this thread (good) the proposed Area system will not match Congress' directive, except perhaps that longer SRBs will be implemented.

The news on this site and what you all are doing is important to me becuse I was contacted by the HRIS office of a subcontractor working on the Ares I project to see if I am interested in leaving my present position to join the MSFC team.

After reading this thread, I'm not sure I should get involved. Any words of wisdom at this point that I should consider? I really don't want to leave a stable career of 25 years for a space program that looks like it could be supplanted by a better program ... Direct 2.0

Being an outsider at such an important juncture is a bit unnerving. All thoughts would be very welcome at this point.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/15/2008 08:24 pm
so... direct uses lox/h2.
h2 is cold:  requires staying cold.  why not kerosene?  it's cheap and no need to keep cool.

is it that there are no kerosene engines today?  and the idea of direct is to re-use existing in-production items? (good idea...)

There are kerosene (RP-1) engines available, but they are either not of American origin (Atlas 5 engines), are no longer in production (Saturn V engines), or are still on the drawing board (RS-84 / TR-107).

In addition, the LC39 complex no longer can support RP-1 fuel.  Replacing that infrastructure would cost $ (no idea how much though).

What DIRECT proposes is to stay closer to Congress's "STS-derived" mandate, while Ares continues to stray farther away... Change as little from the STS-stack as you can to develop an inline heavy-launch system.

While you likely can get a more optimal system if you start from a cleaner sheet of paper, Congress wants a STS-derived vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/15/2008 08:35 pm
ok.  i didn't realize there was such a vast lift difference - i'd thought the saturn to be huge (having seen it launch many times when i lived in orlando...)

(thanks for the welcome!)

so... direct uses lox/h2.
h2 is cold:  requires staying cold.  why not kerosene?  it's cheap and no need to keep cool.

is it that there are no kerosene engines today?  and the idea of direct is to re-use existing in-production items? (good idea...)


The Jupiter is based around reusing almost everything from Shuttle, with the least amound of rework as possible, to field a launch vehicle capable of accomplishing the missions that the Congress has authorized.
A
Actually, this is incorrect.  The ET will be completely different as the load paths are no where near the same and the pad modifications are along the same order as for Ares 1, maybe somewhat less.

There is a system that is 90% Shuttle systems, but that is another thread.  However, to say that DIRECT requires the least amount of rework as possible is simply incorrect.

If you want to debate me on this Chuck I would be more than happy to on your recent Newsvine post.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/15/2008 08:37 pm
These are all branches off the original AP Wire story. There are going to be literally hundreds of such "repeats" over the next day, possibly two, before something else gets the AP's attention. Like Chris said, there's no need to repost every link. But thanks to everyone for showing how widespread the story is becoming. Maybe one of you, if you wish, can take a private project of collecting the links they can find and then in a few days, do a single post with them. That way everyone here can see the links, if the want to, and we don't fill the thread up with individual link postings. If someone want to step up to the plate and do that for a couple of days, maybe everyone else can just send the links in to that person, either by their email or by PM. That would be cool!

Some of you have asked how you can help. Don't be shy about commenting at the linked story's websites about the DIRECT architecture and the Jupiter launch vehicle. It's important to continually stress that DIRECT reduces the gap to 2 years or less, from the projected 6 year minimum caused by Ares. Not only can we return American astronauts to space on an American rocket within 2 years of Shuttle retirement, but we can actually send American astronauts around the moon before Ares-I would fly its first crew to LEO. And we do it for a whole hell of a lot less money than Ares asks for. Those are the kind of things to stress.


Yep, and you are going to end up getting people fired by doing this.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/15/2008 08:38 pm

DIRECT's goal is not to sacrifice everything for the altar of ultimate performance, but to make a vehicle which is capable of performing the mission for the lowest cost.   That's all that really matters in the end.

Ross.

There is no possible way of doing this without sacrificing a lot of jobs in Florida and at least Mike Griffin has the groombas to say it.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/15/2008 08:52 pm

The news on this site and what you all are doing is important to me becuse I was contacted by the HRIS office of a subcontractor working on the Ares I project to see if I am interested in leaving my present position to join the MSFC team.

After reading this thread, I'm not sure I should get involved. Any words of wisdom at this point that I should consider? I really don't want to leave a stable career of 25 years for a space program that looks like it could be supplanted by a better program ... Direct 2.0

Being an outsider at such an important juncture is a bit unnerving. All thoughts would be very welcome at this point.

It could be that Ares I and this version of the space program would be fine but it's not absolutely certain considering the Thrust Oscillation problems of Ares I and the potential for Orion to be heavier now because of its heat shield. As long as technical problems can be solved it should be ok as both presidential candidates have expressed support for the Ares I/Orion combination. Direct would only be used by NASA for technical reasons or if directed by future politicians/administrator for cost/schedule/jobs reasons. Personally if I was in your position I would wait 6 months to see how Ares I PDR goes and what President is elected and see what their Space program actually is but then I'm naturally cautious when it comes to my employment, ultimately it's your choice and your decision and something you must be totally comfortable with and responsible for as none of us can fortell the future or tell you what to do with absolute certainty of success.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DaveJes1979 on 07/15/2008 08:57 pm
How are you guys generating all of the numbers for DIRECT?  Are you guys running the full POST program, or using less rigorous equations and estimations for generating performance numbers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 07/15/2008 08:59 pm
Ice:

I'm glad to see some good, honest, critical thought about Direct in this thread. Sometimes that's lacking between the pro and anti Direct crowds that visit here.

A 20 year budget summary graphic equivalent to the ESAS report link was included in the v 1.0 Direct plan and can be found in the Direct 1.0 thread here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5016.645

While a little out of date and in need of an update, this is largely still correct for Direct 2.0 (with a bit of a move to the right).

Direct does not require the costs of developing 5-seg SRBs, a new upper stage, and a new J-2X engine for the J-120 crew launch vehicle. These cost savings are used to accelerate development of the Orion and to fund modifying the ET into the Jupiter Core. Additionally, because the J-120 has a fair bit of extra lift margins (unlike Ares I), the  pressures on Orion to reduce weight and eliminate safety and backup systems will simply not exist.

RS-68 upgrades for human rating and reduced helium usage are already underway, being jointly paid for by the DoD and NASA. The official plan is to have one engine production line for both Delta IV and Ares V, not two separate versions of the engine. Whether any of that can be done by 2009 is perhaps a tad optimistic.

A Direct J-120-X test flight could be easily done as a replacement for the Ares I-X "admiral's test". A "fitment test article/test flight article" could be built using the Arex I-X Orion boilerplate mockup, 2 SRB's, and one of the spare ET's currently sitting in the Michoud Assembly Facility (there are at least two to three that won't be flown by the shuttle program). The ET could either be a "dummy" stage filled with ballast (like the Ares I-X US), or be fitted with a real thrust structure and two off-the-shelf RS-68s. This launch would test and verify flight dynamics of the vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Rogue109 on 07/15/2008 09:01 pm
DIRECT's goal is not to sacrifice everything for the altar of ultimate performance, but to make a vehicle which is capable of performing the mission for the lowest cost.   That's all that really matters in the end.

And, along the way, if there are some articles published around the nation where you tell a reporter that NASA has engineers cowering and afraid to publicly support DIRECT for fear of losing their jobs combined with "misquotes" from others who accuse NASA of a coverup, it's all for the better good, right? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2008 09:03 pm

After reading this thread, I'm not sure I should get involved. Any words of wisdom at this point that I should consider? I really don't want to leave a stable career of 25 years for a space program that looks like it could be supplanted by a better program ... Direct 2.0

Being an outsider at such an important juncture is a bit unnerving. All thoughts would be very welcome at this point.

25 years in a stable spot is not something to be discarded lightly, and is worth far more than one would think until they start getting a little older. In the end, it has to be your choice, and yours alone. None of us here are in a position to make a recommendation to you. We don't know your circumstances, needs and life's ambitions, all of which play into things.

I would gather as much information as I could about the job, its future potential, how it fits with where you want your life to go, and compare all that with how your current job is or is not taking you down the path you want to live on. Don't worry so much about the current difficulties with Ares vs. DIRECT. In the end NASA will build and fly - something. It may be Ares, it may be DIRECT, it may be something entirely different. But they will build and fly something; they have to. Make your choice, not on this, but on how the job fits with you, your family and your life's direction, not on Ares vs. DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/15/2008 09:12 pm
DIRECT's goal is not to sacrifice everything for the altar of ultimate performance, but to make a vehicle which is capable of performing the mission for the lowest cost.   That's all that really matters in the end.

And, along the way, if there are some articles published around the nation where you tell a reporter that NASA has engineers cowering and afraid to publicly support DIRECT for fear of losing their jobs combined with "misquotes" from others who accuse NASA of a coverup, it's all for the better good, right? 

That is low an uncalled for.  All DIRECT is asking for is an independent review, so if Ares really is the best it would be shown to be so.  Bullying and cheap tactics would be seen through.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2008 09:20 pm
How are you guys generating all of the numbers for DIRECT?  Are you guys running the full POST program, or using less rigorous equations and estimations for generating performance numbers?

We use two methods to work out performance.

For "quick n dirty" calculations we have a spreadsheet which will get us first-order estimates of any given changes in a matter of a few minutes.   It has proven to be within +/-2% accurate so is good enough to iron out major issues for this sort of preliminary work.   We use this tool a lot to hone-down the various configurations in a reasonable period of time without going to the laborious lengths of using POST for everything.

Then, when we have a configuration which we believe is reasonably solid, then we will run a full POST workup.   A battery of POST runs are performed on it in the various configurations flying to different destinations (CLV or CaLV, Lunar or ISS etc).   The results are reviewed carefully, and if everyone's numbers are fairly well aligned after this, we will go ahead and publish them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2008 09:21 pm
DIRECT's goal is not to sacrifice everything for the altar of ultimate performance, but to make a vehicle which is capable of performing the mission for the lowest cost.   That's all that really matters in the end.

And, along the way, if there are some articles published around the nation where you tell a reporter that NASA has engineers cowering and afraid to publicly support DIRECT for fear of losing their jobs combined with "misquotes" from others who accuse NASA of a coverup, it's all for the better good, right? 

We did not write the story and were not the reporter's only source. The stuff about being afraid of job losses did not come from us, but from others, some of whom actually did loose their jobs or personally knew of specific individuals who had. Reporters do not rely on sole source information. They independently verify everything or they don't publish; at least the reputable ones do. Our comments to the press were limited primarily to the technical aspects of the Jupiter and how it compares to the Ares. We had made a conscious decision to limit our remarks that way. But we were not the only people that were interviewed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Tim S on 07/15/2008 09:42 pm
DIRECT's goal is not to sacrifice everything for the altar of ultimate performance, but to make a vehicle which is capable of performing the mission for the lowest cost.   That's all that really matters in the end.

And, along the way, if there are some articles published around the nation where you tell a reporter that NASA has engineers cowering and afraid to publicly support DIRECT for fear of losing their jobs combined with "misquotes" from others who accuse NASA of a coverup, it's all for the better good, right? 

Rouge, that is annoying. It's not true that engineers are cowering and afraid, when it's the opposite. A lot of people have written e-mails and spoken in person with their concerns and there recommendations on various issues, such as specific with the vehicle, and not specific to the vehicle. It's a very open process.

The cowering comment annoyed me, as, for instance, if I or another, had a concern or a suggestion, we'd take it to the supervisor, the line manager, the middle manager and there's even the ability to take it to an upper manager. It's what you do, it's part of your job. It's ENCOURAGED.

For those on L2, look at the e-mail chain when one guy at a contractor said he had a disagreement over a procedure on a recent shuttle mission. It took something like seven hours for him to be on a plane and in front of the MMT. He was wrong, but you can be sure he was thanked for not keeping quiet.

I don't support Direct, but if I did, I'd have no reservations saying why I feel it's a better way to upper management, and I'd have no problem with anyone in my team saying so either.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/15/2008 09:43 pm
DIRECT's goal is not to sacrifice everything for the altar of ultimate performance, but to make a vehicle which is capable of performing the mission for the lowest cost.   That's all that really matters in the end.

And, along the way, if there are some articles published around the nation where you tell a reporter that NASA has engineers cowering and afraid to publicly support DIRECT for fear of losing their jobs combined with "misquotes" from others who accuse NASA of a coverup, it's all for the better good, right? 

Its the truth.

While the topic of workers being suppressed is not actually my own personal priority, it does seem to be for some of the press articles.   As one who has been carefully studying the American Democratic & Capitalist system over the last four years, correct em if I'm wrong, but isn't the press there specifically as one of the key "checks & balances" to make sure that such things are in fact revealed to the public when officials behave in this manner?

Now, don't get me wrong, for the most part the system works exactly as Tim S says above.   On topics of how to tackle engineering problems within the context of the Ares and Orion framework as dictated from above, the system seems to be working as it should.

But on the subject of any concepts or proposals which get in the way of Griffin getting his giant Ares-V rocket by which he will be remembered, there has been a completely different reaction in every single case when someone has been daring enough to bring that topic up.   Complete, unreserved hostility has been the result from Griffin's office and the offices of a few of his closest colleagues.   Anything which risks Ares-V (and that means including Ares-I) has become a taboo subject within the agency staff.

Should everyone affected just cover such things up simply because its not pretty?

If this is going on, is it not better to say so than to ignore it?

Will the agency actually end up better or worse for revealing this and changing current practices because of it?

Worse still, was the issue of management not listening to its engineering staff not one of the key causes identified by both the Rogers Commission Report on Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/table-of-contents.html) and also of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (http://caib.nasa.gov/)?

Does not *every* person who is aware of any such actions not have a duty and an obligation to make it known.   And if necessary, to do so outside of the regular chain of command if that chain is what has actually broken?   If management is the problem, and management won't listen, then other means become necessary.   And the press is one such fallback available.

The problem is that people inside the program have tried to speak out and have been severely punished for doing so - and everyone around them has witnessed this and isn't going to risk their own futures by doing so themselves.   Worse still, they actually have no voice.   We tried to arrange a few to come to us to Washington DC back in March, but we were informed that employees of the Federal Government are prevented from such activities and that it is the Administrator of their specific agency who must present their problems to members of Congress!

That's right, only Griffin is allowed to make their case to Congress, but Griffin is right at the center of the problem.   It's a real Catch 22 situation for everyone - especially as most of them are extremely passionate about the new Vision and NASA as an agency itself.

The *only* other option is for them to enter the federal whistleblower protection program and I ask you: Who is going to do that knowing their career is essentially over on that day?

But I digress.   This is not the correct thread for such a topic of discussion.   Please feel free to start a new thread to continue this discussion, it is a worthwhile topic all of its own.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Flightstar on 07/15/2008 09:52 pm

For those on L2, look at the e-mail chain when one guy at a contractor said he had a disagreement over a procedure on a recent shuttle mission. It took something like seven hours for him to be on a plane and in front of the MMT. He was wrong, but you can be sure he was thanked for not keeping quiet.

Chris made an article out of it.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5205
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/15/2008 09:59 pm
Thanks for the reply.  While I'll get to the rest of it when I have more of a chance, I wanted to point out that the part below is simply not true.  The upgrades the Air Force is pursuing are not related to human rating and the human rating of the RS-68 is a post 2010 activity (possibly to be deferred until needed).  Human rating an RS-68 (or RL-10) is a 3-5 year process at a minimum based on prior NASA studies.  That's why I asked.

I think there are a lot of "gotchas" in the DIRECT proposal like this.  Assuming a mid-2009 start and 4 years for a HR RS-68 means you don't fly humans until 2014 (6-12 more months to integrate and test fly).

How would you propose to speed up human rating the RS-68?


RS-68 upgrades for human rating and reduced helium usage are already underway, being jointly paid for by the DoD and NASA. The official plan is to have one engine production line for both Delta IV and Ares V, not two separate versions of the engine. Whether any of that can be done by 2009 is perhaps a tad optimistic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 07/15/2008 10:19 pm
Ice:

I stand corrected. A quick google shows that the 11 objectives of the NRO-funded RS-68A program and NASA/DoD RS-68B program do not included human rating. NASA plans to human rate the RS-68 for Ares v are not part of these programs.

(http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070032980_2007031295.pdf)

 I'll leave it to someone with better knowledge about the subject to answer your question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/15/2008 10:20 pm

DIRECT's goal is not to sacrifice everything for the altar of ultimate performance, but to make a vehicle which is capable of performing the mission for the lowest cost.   That's all that really matters in the end.

Ross.

There is no possible way of doing this without sacrificing a lot of jobs in Florida and at least Mike Griffin has the groombas to say it.




Yet somehow by getting rid of all of those jobs, NASA will be funding a system that will still cost more to operate than the shuttle.  Firing lots of people should reduce costs, but that isn't what will actually happen with the implementation of Ares.  The benchmark is (not that it should be, but is) the annual cost of shuttle operations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/15/2008 10:26 pm
Way to find data!

That link shows 5 years to DCR (which can be post test flight) from ATP for RS-68B.  The problem is that RS-68B is both not human rated (as you pointed out) and assumes that the RS-68A upgrades are accomplished. 

A DIRECT-like development would need to find a way of getting those 5 (or more) years down and doing them in parallel with RS-68A, which I bet would not be popular with the DoD.

Hoping to get a good answer on how 2012 is possible in that sort of schedule, technical, and programmatic environment and how 2012 was arrived at ...

Ice:

I stand corrected. A quick google shows that the 11 objectives of the NRO-funded RS-68A program and NASA/DoD RS-68B program do not included human rating. NASA plans to human rate the RS-68 for Ares v are not part of these programs.

(http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070032980_2007031295.pdf)

 I'll leave it to someone with better knowledge about the subject to answer your question.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simonbp on 07/15/2008 11:34 pm
Possibly some resources from J-2X being redirected could help with that, but that's a darn good point that RS-68 may become the long tentpole to J-120 that J-2X is to Ares I...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: icewiz on 07/15/2008 11:51 pm
Not sure it is a resource limitation.  The document he found showed a 5 year schedule in the post-Shuttle era for the not-HR-RS-68B.  Rule of thumb is 9-10 years for a clean-sheet engine, 7-8 years to reconsititute an engine (like the J-2), and 5-6 years for major mods (like performance upgrades or human rating).  The NASA data confirms this and is on the low side. 

The 4-to-5 segment mod is also 5 years, and that is easier than the engine upgrades due to the prior work that has been done and the nature of segmented boosters.  Testing is still a while though.

Human rating will also likely take more test firings than the RS-68B which can really lengthen a schedule.

I'm not seeing how adding money will help the schedule for rocket engine development. 

Possibly some resources from J-2X being redirected could help with that, but that's a darn good point that RS-68 may become the long tentpole to J-120 that J-2X is to Ares I...

Simon ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 07/16/2008 12:08 am
...but that's a darn good point that RS-68 may become the long tentpole to J-120 that J-2X is to Ares I...

That's a very good point... hadn't really seen that problem addressed....

is it possible to use SSME's until the HR RS-68's are finished?  more expensive, true... but might be better than throwing more money at something that can't be sped up anyway.... (supposing that's the case)

just a thought...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kanarkusmaximus on 07/16/2008 12:08 am
Hi,

I have a simple question that comes from engineering field. Since nothing in engineering is perfect ( ;) ) I would like to ask you if found any potential drawbacks of DIRECT design.
 
For example - separation procedure between first and second stage or a little 'black spot' in early ascent which would make rescue little bit more risky. Or - a need to use very expensive material for something or a little bit too small margin of work of one of onboard systems.

Have you made any such studies? As far as I know, such studies are essential to any new/proposed design - and a lot of effort is dedicated to minimise their potential impact. Knowledge of such 'flaws' gives a chance to speed up the work in next phases of design.

Thanks in advance! 

(Greetings to all! I am a fan of this site and forum, where a lot of interesting people discuss the 'cosmic thing'. :) it's one of my primary sources of information. :) And - It's nice to see so much people interested in space exploration! )
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/16/2008 12:24 am
Possibly some resources from J-2X being redirected could help with that, but that's a darn good point that RS-68 may become the long tentpole to J-120 that J-2X is to Ares I...

Simon ;)

Without minimizing the work to be done (it is a significant task), man-rating the engine is not anticipated to be the huge undertaking that is being depicted here. It essentially boils down to adding appropriate health monitoring and then running the engine with these in place to recertify them for the throttle levels previously certified to. We have estimates from the P&WR engineers for what this is anticipated to take. I'll see if I can find them and report back. But it's not as long as has been discussed here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 07/16/2008 12:33 am
i'm sure this is addressed somewhere in the hundreds of pages of Direct stuff... but is cost the main factor in not using the SSME's?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 12:57 am
I'd still like to see specific answers to the funding phasing and RS-68A to HR transition questions that were asked earlier.  These are the sorts of issues on which real programs hang.

An individual engineer at P&W may tell you one thing, but that may not be in context with other corporate commitments (DoD) and what NASA's understanding of HR (they are the customer, of course) is.   

Are you suggesting that the HR mods are more or less substantial than the upgrades for RS-68A (which will take a bit less than 5 years) or RS-68B (which the NASA document says take 5 years)?

Regarding the phasing, where can I find Direct 1.0 for the "sand charts"?  Its really important because if Direct 1.0 was using ESAS budgets, if my math is correct NASA budgets 2006-2010 have been slashed by something like $4B since then and that needs to be factored into DIRECT as well.

Looking forward to seeing the data.

Possibly some resources from J-2X being redirected could help with that, but that's a darn good point that RS-68 may become the long tentpole to J-120 that J-2X is to Ares I...

Simon ;)

Without minimizing the work to be done (it is a significant task), man-rating the engine is not anticipated to be the huge undertaking that is being depicted here. It essentially boils down to adding appropriate health monitoring and then running the engine with these in place to recertify them for the throttle levels previously certified to. We have estimates from the P&WR engineers for what this is anticipated to take. I'll see if I can find them and report back. But it's not as long as has been discussed here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 12:59 am
i'm sure this is addressed somewhere in the hundreds of pages of Direct stuff... but is cost the main factor in not using the SSME's?

Yes, both non-recurring (to make an expendable version), sustainment (NASA is the only user vs. RS-68 has DoD), and recurring (cost per engine after making it expendable).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Capt. Nemo on 07/16/2008 01:02 am
It seems to me that regardless of which approach you like (Ares, Direct, EELV derivatives) that having the engines to pull it off is critical. To the best of my knowledge, the Von Braun team set goals of building a 1.5 million pound @s.l. thrust class engine (the F-1), and an approximately 200,000 pound vacuum thrust class engine (the J-2). Having powerful engines which were incrementally improved allowed them to not only send men to the moon but to launch greater payloads with each mission.
   Perhaps NASA should have an 'Advanced Rocket Engine Research, Development and Design Team' to 1) build a better RS-68, 2) build an RD-180 copy, 3)build a J-2 copy, 4)build a J-2X, 5) Re-build the F-1? , etc. etc.
    { Is this already being done by Pratt&Whitney/Rocketdyne? }
I think that if you have the engines with enough power, than you can pull off the other stuff.                    Am I right? Am I wrong?   Comments please. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2008 03:17 am
mars.is.wet (and others) have asked a good question regarding what's involved.   In the simplest terms, a new controller box is required which will monitor the engine in-flight in more detail than the existing systems do.   A whole bunch of new sensors will feed into this box a lot more details on the health of the engine at all portions of the flight and will provide early indications of engine failure/loss of performance to the other onboard systems.   In addition some additional redundancy will need to be designed into some systems such as actuators and some valves to provide additional redundancy for safe crew use.   And then its all about testing, testing, testing and testing again just for good measure.

The engines are already in production and are already flight-certified.   This gets them a long way through the testing program already, but NASA will want a whole lot more testing on top of what has already been done before they will certify the engine for use with a crew.

A number of trades still need to be done before this though.

One is whether to human-rate the existing RS-68 or whether to plan to human-rate the new RS-68B which USAF is planning to field on Delta-IV around 2012.

While its extremely likely to come to fruition, the RS-68B is still a development engine.   The reality is that no small number of those have been canceled over recent years (RS-83, RS-84, XRS-2200, RS-2200) before becoming operational - so while I'm personally confident that the engine will probably go into production (USAF do want it for some planned payloads) there are no actual hard & fast guarantees yet.   So the (slim) risk remains that if we baseline RS-68B into the Jupiter's critical path it sure would cause lots of problems if USAF pulled the plug on their efforts for any reason.   Is this a worthwhile risk to take?   Possibly, but it needs to be very carefully quantified, calibrated and compared to all the other alternatives to get the right answer.

The current RS-68 therefore has the real advantage that units are available on the shelf right now.   Because of the Delta-IV stand-down after discovering cavitation in the fuel-lines of the first Heavy flight, and the subsequent machinists-strike slowing the number of flown RS-68's right down, there are currently more than a dozen RS-68's completed and ready for flight, sitting in storage today.   We understand that between three and five of these $12m engines would be necessary for a human-rating qualification program.

But qualifying RS-68 would create a partially-divergent production line where USAF switches to RS-68B and NASA continues to utilize RS-68 (although there will still be some commonality to be had).   So the obvious question this raises is would we need to upgrade to the RS-68B later and re-do most of the testing?   Perhaps.   Whether a separate production line or a second testing phase would be more expensive is a question only PWR can really answer at this time, but indications are that over a ten year operational period it would sure be 'close'.

The key issue with the RS-68B is how quickly NASA would be able to get hold of production parts to get their necessary testing completed *WITHOUT* disturbing the USAF schedule - something which will take precedence.

PWR are confident it can certainly *be* done - essentially they'd manufacture two of everything for testing instead of just one and conduct two parallel testing programs, one for USAF and the other for NASA.   But they are not confident that NASA would get sufficient parts soon enough to avoid schedule impacts because that engine has only just recently gone through its CDR and is still quite a way from full-scale testing still (sub-scale is ongoing at present).

This is a trade which still needs to be completed more rigorously than our small team can do on our own IMHO, but early indications are leaning towards keeping RS-68 for the early Jupiter-120 flights and phasing-in the RS-68B at a later date - probably around the time the Jupiter-232 goes into production ~2017.   That would reduce the schedule impacts to a minimum and allow the upgrade to be included as part of another certification program which will already be required (cheaper cost).


Either way, we have confirmed that a human-rating certification program for an RS-68 would take 30 to 36 months from getting the green-light to delivering the final flight-set of engines suitable to place a crew on top.   Total cost would be in the region of $300m given production versions of either RS-68 (available now) or RS-68B (not for a number of years) are readily available on day 1.   This means that given the green-light in mid-2009, we could comfortably fly a crew in 2012 using the RS-68 initially.   If we want to wait for RS-68B, I would say up to another year would be required.


DIRECT has allocated a total of $1bn to this element in order to ensure that we never exceed our cost margins.   Any surplus could be utilized to help expedite the process if possible or to cover costs for qualifying RS-68 first and then having to also qualify RS-68B at some later time.

DIRECT has also made the suggestion that as three current RS-68's have already been operated up to the maximum duration of the Test Stand (approx 4,000s) without engine failure, that at least three more engines should be operated to this same high level to gain the maximum confidence that the engines are as robust and reliable as possible.   PWR are welcome to use or ignore this suggestion as they see fit.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/16/2008 04:08 am
Suppose Congress directed an EELV route to replace ESAS. (President McCain names Craig Steidle as new Administrator, for example)

Would the RS-68 / RS-68B issue be the same under that scenario? Or different? Could Delta IV be human rated faster than Jupiter?

And what about human-rating the Atlas V engines?

In any event, if the RS-68 exists today, and since a fully operational 5 segment RSRM does not (Ares 1-X has a dummy 5th segment, correct?) nor does the J-2X the exact dates do not seem to me to be the critical pieces of information.

Jupiter  120 can be flown with crew significantly sooner than Ares 1.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 04:56 am
A few points

1.  The Air Force is working on the RS-68A, a less ambitious change than the B from the NASA document that was posted earlier.  The RS-68A is due to be completed in 2011 (see http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/ULA/ISS%20Cargo%20RFI%20Final%2009062007.pdf) after a 5 year development program (started in 2006) with a follow-on NASA/USAF program (B) starting in 2012 to be completed in 2017 (see http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070032980_2007031295.pdf).  Both are about 4-5 year developments.

2.  Are you suggesting the modifications for human rating (software, increasing margins to a factor of safety of 1.4, doubly redundant, IVHM, additional testing, helium restriction, etc.) are less stringent than either the RS-68A or RS-68B by a factor of 40%?  I can't think of a 30-36 month major engine upgrade program.  Most major SSME upgrades took 4-6 years, and it was already human rated.

3.  As pointed out by someone above, assuming you do all of these trades AND it is only a 4 year development (plus 6-12 months of integration and test) and you start in FY09, it will be FY14 at the earliest.  If it is a 5 year development then you have FY15.

4. Do you have even a strawman PW development schedule (back of the napkin sort of thing) that would allow anyone else to see how 30-36 months is possible including testing?  I would particularly be interested in how the test schedule for the RS-68A will interact with the "parallel" development of the RS-68HR (if separate) and how you will accomplish anything earlier than 2015 for IOC if you wait for RS-68A as you suggested was an option (RS-68A plus 4 years).  Do you have any precedents that would allow you to believe this schedule by analogue (RL-10 perhaps?)?

I do not believe it is as "simple" as you laid out, but I guess we will need to differ.  At least one thing I can think of is a complete overhaul of the manufacturing process as HR requires that materials and processes be tracked much more carefully than for non-HR engines.  That is not a small bit of paperwork, and not to be underestimated!  Another one is increasing the factors of safety to 1.4

5.  Bottom line is, without generalities, could you explain how DIRECT gets a first flight of a human rated RS-68 in 2009?  The launchcomplexmodels site has a "Delta IV/Orion I Man Rated RS-68 Flight Test" in August of 2009.  There is another in August of 2010.  Even if the schedule of 30-36 months is accepted as-is (which I am having trouble with based on historical data), how do you achieve a test flight 12 months from now and then 24 months later?  Do you allow any time for vehicle integration and testing, which NASA calls out as 6-12 months for its vehicles?

6.  The same schedule has a "CEV unmanned" flying on a Jupiter in Nov 2010 and another in Oct 2011.  How is this accomplished given the CEV won't have its DCR until 2013 at the earliest?  http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5419

Most of all, how do all of these dates allow Jupiter to achieve its claim of an IOC of 2012, or am I missing something?

many thanks for specifics on this fascinating topic!


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2008 04:59 am
Bill,
Human Rating of the RS-68 would be exactly the same for EELV as it would be for Jupiter.   Exactly.   Although in that scenario (abandon VSE, just use Delta-IV Heavy to go to ISS and nowhere else) I would probably expect them to accept the slight additional delay and just HR the full RS-68B variant to keep costs down.   This option would allow Obama to cut about $4bn from NASA's annual budget - not something I can support.


HR of the Russian designed and manufactured RD-180 is a whole other ballgame.   If it were in production here in the US it would be easier, but getting the HR systems integrated at the Russian end - to NASA's specifications - would probably be an "interesting" exercise to say the least.   Just as long as enough greenbacks change hands though, it would be at least theoretically possible.


And you're quite right to point out that the 5-seg SRB and J-2X must be designed and developed first before they can go through similar levels of rigorous testing to get human-rated, the RS-68 as it stands today is starting a long way up the slope towards the goal already.   A very long way.

So much so that the engine is no longer the long-pole in the Jupiter-120 schedule - its the aft Thrust Structure which is the long-pole item for us - and compared to engine developments of any type, a Thrust Structure is a significantly less demanding element.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2008 05:04 am
A few points

...

I'm not suggesting anything.   PWR suggested that to us.   I'm just reciting what I've been told.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 05:04 am
Would the RS-68 / RS-68B issue be the same under that scenario? Or different? Could Delta IV be human rated faster than Jupiter?

And what about human-rating the Atlas V engines?

In any event, if the RS-68 exists today, and since a fully operational 5 segment RSRM does not (Ares 1-X has a dummy 5th segment, correct?) nor does the J-2X the exact dates do not seem to me to be the critical pieces of information.

Jupiter  120 can be flown with crew significantly sooner than Ares 1.

Data to back this up please?  Yes, an EELV would have the same bottleneck.  At this point Ares I has a 3 year headstart, which will be 4 by the time President Obama gets Steidle back on board. :)

Either EELV would also need a human rated RL-10 or other upper stage engine (J-2X?)  That's two engine developments (yikes!) on the critical path.

The Atlas V RD-180 has two strikes:  Not human rated and not made in the USA.  Would likely need to move production to the US to satisfy NASA requirements, but I'm no expert.

The 5 segment SRB was tested by ATK in 2003

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSPXSjQ5b-U
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060906_lockheed_orion.html

I can't stand unequivocal but unsubstantiated statements of fact!!! :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/16/2008 05:12 am
mars_is_wet, a question . . .

Where am I wrong here:

The RS-68 (insert variant) HR time frame is identical for Delta IV and for Jupiter 120. It shall be whatever it shall be depending upon funding.

Atlas V? Russian engine. Who knows?

Ares 1? The J-2X does not exist. Therefore whatever hypothetical delays you suggest for the RS-68 variants are only amplified if we use the J-2X in Ares 1, instead. It seems to me to be profoundly unfair to hypothesize delays in RS-68 HR and then compare that delayed schedule with an HR J-2X delivered consistent with NASA's most favorable estimates.

There can be NO doubt (IMHO) that a human rated RS-68 can be made available far sooner and for less money than a human rated J-2X.

Is there any basis to dispute this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 05:12 am
A few points

...

I'm not suggesting anything.   PWR suggested that to us.   I'm just reciting what I've been told.

Ross.

ah ...  they "suggested it".   I'm sorry, but this sounds more like a game of password rather than engineering.  Especially for a fact so critical to the story of 2012 (sooner!!).   Did they show you anything????  And was it someone that has any understanding of human rating requirements?  Most RS-68 engineers (the ones qualified to do RS-68 estimates) would not know anything about NASA HR requirements.  Hopefully one will speak up.

As Reagan said, "trust but verify".  If anyone can show me an equally complex engine upgrade that took less than 4 years to implement, I'll buy you a beer! 

Even with 30 months + 6 months for system integration you have 3 years which puts you at 2012 for the earliest test flight ... and 2014 if you wait for RS-68A, which I suspect you will want to do ... remember the fireball!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b7QjKTEl6Y
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/16/2008 05:15 am
Would the RS-68 / RS-68B issue be the same under that scenario? Or different? Could Delta IV be human rated faster than Jupiter?

And what about human-rating the Atlas V engines?

In any event, if the RS-68 exists today, and since a fully operational 5 segment RSRM does not (Ares 1-X has a dummy 5th segment, correct?) nor does the J-2X the exact dates do not seem to me to be the critical pieces of information.

Jupiter  120 can be flown with crew significantly sooner than Ares 1.

Data to back this up please?  Yes, an EELV would have the same bottleneck.  At this point Ares I has a 3 year headstart, which will be 4 by the time President Obama gets Steidle back on board. :)

Either EELV would also need a human rated RL-10 or other upper stage engine (J-2X?)  That's two engine developments (yikes!) on the critical path.

The Atlas V RD-180 has two strikes:  Not human rated and not made in the USA.  Would likely need to move production to the US to satisfy NASA requirements, but I'm no expert.

The 5 segment SRB was tested by ATK in 2003

* * *

I can't stand unequivocal but unsubstantiated statements of fact!!! :)



Then why not fly Ares 1-X with 5 live segments?

But even setting aside the 5 segment 1st stage (assume Ares 1-X does use an genuine 5 segment RSRM) do you believe J-2X can be human rated before the RS-68?

Of course, if the 5 segment is already as far along as you say, add those to the Jupiter 120.

Quote
As Reagan said, "trust but verify".  If anyone can show me an equally complex engine upgrade that took less than 4 years to implement, I'll buy you a beer!

Even with 30 months + 6 months for system integration you have 3 years which puts you at 2012 for the earliest test flight ... and 2014 if you wait for RS-68A, which I suspect you will want to do ... remember the fireball!!!

Perhaps but if we apply the same level of skepticism to J-2X what is the worst case there? 2018?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 05:31 am
mars_is_wet, a question . . .

Where am I wrong here:

The RS-68 (insert variant) HR time frame is identical for Delta IV and for Jupiter 120. It shall be whatever it shall be depending upon funding.

Atlas V? Russian engine. Who knows?

Ares 1? The J-2X does not exist. Therefore whatever hypothetical delays you suggest for the RS-68 variants are only amplified if we use the J-2X in Ares 1, instead. It seems to me to be profoundly unfair to hypothesize delays in RS-68 HR and then compare that delayed schedule with an HR J-2X delivered consistent with NASA's most favorable estimates.

There can be NO doubt (IMHO) that a human rated RS-68 can be made available far sooner and for less money than a human rated J-2X.

Is there any basis to dispute this?

First, you have to contend with the RS-68A upgrade schedule.  There are test stand conflict, national priorities, etc.  The RS-68A will not be done until 2011, possibly 2012 (ok, you didn't hear it from me).

Second, J2-X has a 3 year headstart.  It will be a 6 year development (1-2 years longer than the RS-68).  http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/182032main_MPIM-rev-2007-07-10-01.pdf

J-2 testing has already started http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5420
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/187393main_j-2x_fact_sheet.pdf  Much of its schedule is dominated by A-3 test stand modifications, if I recall.

I'm no NASA hugger and have no love lost for the "stick".  However, the level of misleading schedules, inconsistencies, and promises for "sooner" just got me thinking. 

Sorry if I'm crossing some sort of line by asking ... but I'm not getting any sort of technical answers with data and links like I'm providing.  I am getting a lot of "it's better because we say it is".  I'm sure you guys are honorable and have the data ... I just can't continue to see dates like 2009 for a test flight and 2012 for IOC when those are clearly wrong on so many levels ... right???  I've got nobody confirming or denying specifics with data, just lots of chaffe so far.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 05:36 am
Perhaps but if we apply the same level of skepticism to J-2X what is the worst case there? 2018?

A 6-8 year development for J2-X is fully consistent with historical data (starting in 2006 with the SRR) and consistent with a first flight in 2015.

How do you get 2018 in any way that is empiracle rather than emotional?  I'm trying to do real math here ... I know the smoke coming out of my ears is acrid, but please try to help a feller out with more signal than noise! :) :)

The 5-segment still needs a 5 year development program DESPITE the head start of having a test firing.  Rockets take time to develop, just ask Elon Musk (OK, that was a cheap shot) ...



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/16/2008 05:39 am
DIRECT's goal is not to sacrifice everything for the altar of ultimate performance, but to make a vehicle which is capable of performing the mission for the lowest cost.   That's all that really matters in the end.

And, along the way, if there are some articles published around the nation where you tell a reporter that NASA has engineers cowering and afraid to publicly support DIRECT for fear of losing their jobs combined with "misquotes" from others who accuse NASA of a coverup, it's all for the better good, right? 

Rouge, that is annoying. It's not true that engineers are cowering and afraid, when it's the opposite. A lot of people have written e-mails and spoken in person with their concerns and there recommendations on various issues, such as specific with the vehicle, and not specific to the vehicle. It's a very open process.

The cowering comment annoyed me, as, for instance, if I or another, had a concern or a suggestion, we'd take it to the supervisor, the line manager, the middle manager and there's even the ability to take it to an upper manager. It's what you do, it's part of your job. It's ENCOURAGED.

For those on L2, look at the e-mail chain when one guy at a contractor said he had a disagreement over a procedure on a recent shuttle mission. It took something like seven hours for him to be on a plane and in front of the MMT. He was wrong, but you can be sure he was thanked for not keeping quiet.

I don't support Direct, but if I did, I'd have no reservations saying why I feel it's a better way to upper management, and I'd have no problem with anyone in my team saying so either.

This is one of the things that really annoys me about this AP article.  I simply don't believe the 57 engineers and line managers bit at all.  That indicates a major failure in the system and while I do think that the architecture is broken, the people working on it are doing the best that they can to make lemonaide out of a very big lemon and would not be spending that amount of time on the side undermining what they are trying their best to do during the day.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/16/2008 05:45 am
I'm completely on the outside here -- a fellow who reads the internet from Chicago.

But as a taxpayer and a voter I want my tax dollars spent doing an even-handed and equally rigorous review of both systems.

The DIRECT people do not have full access to NASA's resources. And that is WHY I shall remain skeptical of any assertions made either by ESAS or DIRECT until a neutral 3rd party such as GAO and Rand examines both proposals using identical analytical tools and benchmarks.

Actually I am a lawyer with an undergraduate degree in American History.

But when NASA refuses to release FOIA-ed documents that allegedly prove the superiority of Ares, my radar starts pinging. Even if I know nothing of engineering.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/16/2008 05:47 am
Dennis

Why do you oppose calls for Congress to step in and subject BOTH proposals to an equally rigorous and independent review? Or do you?

Toss in EELV systems and shuttle C if you like. That would be even better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/16/2008 05:48 am
i'm sure this is addressed somewhere in the hundreds of pages of Direct stuff... but is cost the main factor in not using the SSME's?

Hi lewis886,

You're correct, it is. Using SSME's would involve using an almost entirely different aft thrust structure, ascent profile and so on. Also, the SSME's are thrown away on each flight so there is no recovery and refurbishment to amortise costs >EDIT< as mars.is.wet says. There's also the issue he/she mentioned of two production lines... if the RS-68 were used exclusively then NASA would benefit from economy-of-scale production because of the RS-68s being used in Delta IV launches. Could bring current prices down quite a bit, especially as Direct 2.0 chows more RS-68s per year than Ares V for the same budget.

SSME's would be nice because they would increase TLI mass as opposed to RS-68s, but they would probably increase per kg TLI costs by a good 10-25% as quick a guess. There's some argument in keeping around the engines we already have, but why bother when it's easier to man-rate the RS-68?

There are other issues like keeping production lines open, retaining skilled employees and so on that guys like mars.is.wet, Ross and Chuck are better equipped to address, but you get the basic picture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 05:50 am
I'm completely on the outside here -- a fellow who reads the internet from Chicago.

But as a taxpayer and a voter I want my tax dollars spent doing an even-handed and equally rigorous review of both systems.

The DIRECT people do not have full access to NASA's resources. And that is WHY I shall remain skeptical of any assertions made either by ESAS or DIRECT until a neutral 3rd party such as GAO and Rand examines both proposals using identical analytical tools and benchmarks.

Actually I am a lawyer with an undergraduate degree in American History.

But when NASA refuses to release FOIA-ed documents that allegedly prove the superiority of Ares, my radar starts pinging. Even if I know nothing of engineering.


Good point Bill.  But don't expect either to be ready before 2014.  And every month that goes by doing the review improves the current plan while hurting the DIRECT plan. 

Remember that DIRECT still needs a CEV to go on top, ground ops, mission ops, and EVA.

And the clock is ticking ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2008 05:59 am
A few points

...

1.  The RS-68A is closer in spec to the currently planned variant PWR have actually been contracted to build for Delta-IV.   But the designation keeps changing depending on who you talk to.   Some say A, some say B, but all are these days referring to the same 108% MPL variant with an ablative nozzle, fixed H2 injector temperature issue, reduced He usage and modifications to reduce the ignition flame-ball - amongst other mods.   NASA is calling it the RS-68B for now.   We're using their designation, right or wrong, simply just because its a pre-existing line drawn in the sand which NASA folk are already familiar with :)

2.  RS-68 essentially meets most of the critical requirements already for human-rating including the 1.4 FS.   The changes which are necessary are not fundamental changes to the design of the engine.   They are not comparable in any way to the changes which had to be done to convert the SSME Block-I to Block-II or in the same way as the work needed to develop the J-2 into the J-2X.   Those projects are an order of magnitude more work involved involving major redesign to the entire powerpack, nozzle and all ancillary systems.   The difference here is that the basic performance and hardware of the engine will *not* be changed.   The changes consist of having a few redundant systems added and adding a package of new instrumentation.   But even there most of the systems actually already exist courtesy of the original testing program.   The instrumentation systems are not all flown, but a flight-suitable set or sub-set of the ones utilized during testing are what are required for the health monitoring package.   Software is most certainly the long-pole on this effort though.   No argument from me there.   But PWR tell us 30-36 months.   I can only tell you the same.

3.  If it's a 4 year development, then it would be 2013 BTW and if its 5 years it would be 2014.   You forgot to count 2010 :)   But PWR still say 3 years and nobody else has anything but assumptions against that.

4.  PWR have one.   We have not seen it yet.   I suspect they haven't sent it to us just in case we decided to publish it - that would bring down the wrath of "The Griffin" down upon them for clearly offering us assistance.

5.  The 2009 vehicle would be a test fit article, not a flight article.   It would be designed to allow engineers on the ground to make sure all the mating locations for the umbilical connections line up correctly on the newly modified MLP at Kennedy well ahead of the flight articles starting to arrive on the dock.

If we really *must* have a politically motivated demonstration flight in 2009, its theoretically possible to just launch a standard ET with a boilerplate "top" added above it to resemble the Jupiter's shape.   Fill the tanks with Water for ballast and blast it off the Pad using just the SRB's and no Core propulsion at all.   It'll fly.   It'll even stage.   It'll be just as impressive as Ares-I-X, if not more-so for having two SRB's.   And it'll also be just as irrelevant to the development program as the Ares-I-X flight will be too.   I think its a waste, but there might be a political advantage to be had by such a demonstration just as the new President gets settled-in to the oval office.

The 2010 vehicle is *not* using a fully human-rated engine.   It would be using standard RS-68's one or both modified with a prototype of the Health Monitoring Package designed purely to get early flight data and to get readings for later analysis of some or all of the instrumentation.   If the engines can be modified in time to include some of the redundancy hardware as well, that's all to the good, but is not essential.

The 2011 flight a year later would use a more advanced and mature version of the Health Monitoring Package to again provide valid flight data for that design to that point.   It would be best IMHO if most of the redundancy systems could have been integrated by now, and this would be a useful practical test for them in a flight environment.

And we currently have a full-spec crew-capable launch penciled-in for early- to mid-2012 flying unmanned as a precursor "shakedown" to the first manned flight approximately 6 months later.

6.  2009 doesn't fly.   Test Fit Article.

2010 uses a Boilerplate CEV only.

2011 flight could fly with a reasonably mature but still early-generation CEV CM, maybe SM as well otherwise boilerplate SM.   We could possibly test a full-scale abort on that flight if we wanted to.

Early 2012 uses a full flight-spec Orion, just unmanned.

Quote
Most of all, how do all of these dates allow Jupiter to achieve its claim of an IOC of 2012, or am I missing something?

Firstly by removing the requirement to develop new 5-seg SRB's and removing the requirement for the development of the new J-2X and by not requiring all-new manufacturing and launch processing facilities throughout the country as well, DIRECT would save $5bn compared to Ares-I development.   This allows some of that 'spare' money to be pushed into other things which need expediting to meet that date - such as the Orion development program.   Without getting into proprietary details, a $2bn 'shot in the arm' would accelerate the Orion by ~3 years.   And we'd have $3bn left over for other things - like maybe some missions!

Couple this with the fact that human-rating an existing flight-certified engine (RS-68) is a much quicker and less costly alternative to first developing and then still having to human-rate a brand-new engine (J-2X - and also 5-seg SRB don't forget, which must be developed and human-rated as well).

Further couple this to the fact that modifying an existing stage (Shuttle External Tank) with all of its manufacturing and launch processing facilities already in place and fully functioning today is a far easier and lower cost proposition than developing a brand-new stage which currently has no manufacturing or launch processing facilities at all, but will have to have new ones created from scratch.


Together these factors add up to:-

1) Less development work needs to be done *overall* to get the first Orion crew off the ground,
2) Less expenditure in testing, development, manufacturing and infrastructure
3) More time and money can then be spent accelerating the new 'long pole item' - the Orion spacecraft
4) The remainder of the money can then *also* be utilized to pay for additional work designed to preserve the workforce.

And we haven't even started to factor in the additional costs for Ares-5/6/7 on top of all this as well.


Quote
many thanks for specifics on this fascinating topic!

Glad to be of assistance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/16/2008 06:00 am
It seems to me that regardless of which approach you like (Ares, Direct, EELV derivatives) that having the engines to pull it off is critical. To the best of my knowledge, the Von Braun team set goals of building a 1.5 million pound @s.l. thrust class engine (the F-1), and an approximately 200,000 pound vacuum thrust class engine (the J-2). Having powerful engines which were incrementally improved allowed them to not only send men to the moon but to launch greater payloads with each mission.
   Perhaps NASA should have an 'Advanced Rocket Engine Research, Development and Design Team' to 1) build a better RS-68, 2) build an RD-180 copy, 3)build a J-2 copy, 4)build a J-2X, 5) Re-build the F-1? , etc. etc.
    { Is this already being done by Pratt&Whitney/Rocketdyne? }
I think that if you have the engines with enough power, than you can pull off the other stuff.                    Am I right? Am I wrong?   Comments please. :)

Von Braun did not initiate the development of the F1, it was a USAF project with the first test firing two years before the Kennedy speech.

The J-2 was a new design but a lot of lessons learned in manufacturing of the RL-10 were factored in.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 06:23 am

1.  The RS-68A is closer in spec to the currently planned variant PWR have actually been contracted to build for Delta-IV.   But the designation keeps changing depending on who you talk to.   Some say A, some say B, but all are these days referring to the same 108% MPL variant with an ablative nozzle, fixed H2 injector temperature issue, reduced He usage and modifications to reduce the ignition flameball - amongst other mods.   NASA is calling it the RS-68B for now.   We're using their designation, right or wrong, simply just because its a pre-existing line drawn in the sand :)


This is obfuscating with technical detail.  The RS-68A in the ULA reference above will be done in 2011.  It is contracted and being built.  The RS-68B (Ares V version, with the changes NASA wants) will be a 5 year development starting in 2012 (per the NASA document above).  The NASA document describes which upgrades go in which block.  Neither is human rated.

2.  Software is most certainly the long-pole on this effort though.   No argument from me there.   But PWR tell us 30-36 months.   I can only tell you the same.

Again, would love to see any historical precedent.  The road to hell is paved with contractor good intentions.  You must have some understanding of that fact?

3.  If it's a 4 year development, then it would be 2013 BTW and if its 5 years it would be 2014.   You forgot to count 2010 :)   But PWR still say 3 years and nobody else has anything but assumptions against that.

If it is a 4 year development, you have 6-12 months of integration and test with the main vehicle after the paperwork is delivered by PW.  You don't walk up and plug the engine in.  If it is 4 years you get 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 plus 6-12 months.  That puts you in FY2014 (given a mid-FY09 start), and still not 2012.

Again, you are basing your entire prediction of "soon" on what could be optimistic contractor assumptions, and you still haven't identified if those folks know anything about NASA HR requirements.   

4.  PWR have one.   We have not seen it yet.   I suspect they haven't sent it to us just in case we decided to publish it - that would bring down the wrath of "The Griffin" down upon them for clearly offering us assistance.

and if these sources are wrong or misguided?

5.  If we really *must* have a politically motivated demonstration flight in 2009, its theoretically possible to just launch a standard ET with a boilerplate "top" added above it to resemble the Jupiter's shape.   Fill the tanks with Water for ballast and blast it off the Pad using just the SRB's and no Core propulsion at all.   It'll fly.   It'll even stage.   It'll be just as impressive as Ares-I-X.   And it'll also be just as irrelevant to the development program as the Ares-I-X flight will be too.   I think its a waste, but there might be a poltical advantage to be had by such a demonstration just as the new President gets settled-in to the oval office.

The 2010 vehicle is *not* using a fully human-rated engine.   It would be using standard RS-68's one or both modified with a prototype of the Health Monitoring Package designed purely to get early flight data and to get readings for later analysis of some or all of the instrumentation.   If the engines can be modified in time to include some of the redundancy hardware as well, that's all to the good, but is not essential.

The 2011 flight a year later would use a more advanced and mature version of the Health Monitoring Package to again provide valid flight data for that design to that point.   It would be best IMHO if most of the redundancy systems could have been integrated by now, and this would be a useful practical test for them in a flight environment.

And we currenty have a full-spec crew-capable launch pencilled in for early to mid 2012 flying unmanned as a precursor to the first manned flight approximately 6 months later.


I still don't understand.  You have a Delta IV test flight in 2009 with a Man-Rated RS-68.  That is $120M but you don't have an engine (that is 6 months after theoretical ATP). 

2010 uses a Boilerplate CEV only.

2011 flight could fly with a reasonably mature but still early-generation CEV CM, maybe SM as well otherwise boilerplate SM.   We could possibly test a full-scale abort on that flight if we wanted to.

Early 2012 uses a full flight-spec Orion, just unmanned.


where do you get an Orion in Early 2012???

this is not a plan.  there is no identification of requirements satisfaction, how tests play into development (remember, a test that doesn't have time to effect design is a show, or a potential show-stopper), no systems engineering. 


By removing the requirement to develope new 5-seg SRB's and removing the requirement for the development of the new J-2X and by not requiring all-new manufacturing and launch processing facilities throughout the country as well, DIRECT would save $5bn compared to Ares-I development.   This allows some of that 'spare' money to be pushed into expediting the Orion CEV program.   Without getting into proprietary details, a $2bn 'shot in the arm' would accelerate the Orion by ~3 years.   And we'd have $3bn left over for other things - like maybe some missions!

You have a by-year sand chart for this, including how much you spend on each?  I haven't seen it.


Couple this with the fact that human-rating an existing flight-certified engine (RS-68) is a much quicker and less costly alternative to first developing and then still having to human-rate a brand-new engine (J-2X).

3 year head start at minimum.

Further couple this to the fact that modifying an existing stage (Shuttle External Tank) with all of its manufacturing and launch processing facilities already in place and fully functioning today is a far easier proposition than developing a brand-new stage which currently has no manufacturing or launch processing facilities at all.

That's another thing.  The ET is NOT a stage, it is a tank.  Pardon my ignorance, but how do you carry veritical loads in a tank that was never meant to carry them?  Maybe there is a strongback where the orbiter connects?  You saying it is the same design as the ET, but with stuff sitting on top?  Seems weird.


Together these factors add up to:-

1) Less work needing to be done overall to get the first Orion crew off the ground,
2) Less expenditure in testing, development, manufacturing and infrastructure
3) More time and money can then be spent accelerating the new 'long pole item' - the Orion spacecraft
4) The remainder of the money can then *also* be utilized to pay for additional work designed to preserve the workforce.


still haven't seen data to back these statements up.  I have seen totals, but nothing at a lower level. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2008 06:46 am
I don't know where you're getting "our" schedules from but they are *NOT* current.

If you want to see our current schedule take a look at the one on page 5 of our "UPDATE" document (v2.0.2) on our website.   Anything else is out of date.

It's 2:30am where I am and I'm about to call it a night here.

I'll leave tonight by reminding everyone that the current RS-68 was designed, developed, tested and fully certified - from start to finish - in just 4 years 9 months.

Development Testing took just 26 months from the installation of the very first prototype engine, including 3 months for certification.

And it cost just $500m to do *ALL* of that.

The RS-68 engine wasn't built buy your grandfather.   It was built using modern tools and modern practices which are no longer comparable to the 1970's SSME processes.   It would be foolish to make the mistake of assuming anything is comparable to SSME any longer.   RS-68 completely redefined this area.

When Rocketdyne came in on-budget and on-schedule with RS-68 development, I have no doubts that when they say it'll take 30-36 months to human rate, that they know exactly what they're talking about on this issue.

Believe them or don't.   I don't care :)   I'm off to sleep.   G'Nite.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mihai_sarb on 07/16/2008 10:45 am
Hi there,

I'm a newbie here, and I try to see as objective as possible (if it is possible at all) both paths: Ares I vs Direct.

As a mechanical engineer (automotive industry) I have one remark regarding the human-rating of RS-68: although it may seem easier to human-rate one existing design, it may later prove to be more practical to make a new design from scratch with the human-rating in mind.

That is because you already have the design (for RS-68) and that gives you very strong constraints for this operation. It is not possible to make all the modifications you may want to have to human-rate it, and if you have to make some extensive modifications to the existing design, it may prove more costly than making a completely new design (with the knowledge that you have already gained by creating the old one).
In automotive industry, it happens many times that it is easier to make a completely new system from scratch (using the gained experience with the old systems) rather than modifying the existing designs (both from cost-wise and time-wise points of view).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/16/2008 10:50 am
increasing margins to a factor of safety of 1.4, doubly redundant,

Those aren't manrating requirements anymore
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/16/2008 10:51 am


Either EELV would also need a human rated RL-10 or other upper stage engine (J-2X?)  That's two engine developments (yikes!) on the critical path.



No, OSP was going to use them as is
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/16/2008 10:53 am

The 5 segment SRB was tested by ATK in 2003

I can't stand unequivocal but unsubstantiated statements of fact!!! :)


That wasn't an Ares first stage SRB.  They basically just added a 5th segment unlike for Ares has to have different propellant shape and new fwd fustrum
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/16/2008 02:39 pm
OK, here's my "not a rocket scientist" showing again...

Ross, I understand your contention that a human-rated RS-68 should be, in the grand scheme of things, not difficult.

Let's say that it is harder than initially planned.

Could the Jupiter core be designed to accept SSMEs or RS-68s?  I'm making several (perhaps unreasonable) assumptions here:

1. There are enough existing SSMEs that could be reused one more time and then expended (I realize they can't build more), while the HR-RS-68 is finished

2. Making the thrust structure be able to accomodate an SSME or an RS-68 doesn't complicate things excessively (engine control systems, fuel systems, etc. etc.)

CEPE suggests that a J-120 using SSMEs is actually able to push more mass uphill than one with RS-68s... ~50mT to ISS orbit. 

Not so with J-232, the RS-68s perform better there, which makes sense as the RS-68 is higher-thrust / lower-ISP (i.e. a better 1st stage engine).

NASA is already calling J-120 "too much for ISS" so this is probably even farther down that road.  But if the different engines doesn't complicate the thrust structure / instrumentation excessively, it might take a "longer pole" out of the tent for J-120, and let the human rated RS-68 work remain focused on the later J-232.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MrTim on 07/16/2008 03:00 pm
(snip) But on the subject of any concepts or proposals which get in the way of Griffin getting his giant Ares-V rocket by which he will be remembered, there has been a completely different reaction in every single case when someone has been daring enough to bring that topic up.
Ross, your entire post stands well on its own, without these continuing assertions of motive; You may believe this to be Griffin's motive and you may even have evidence, but it does not make you or your project look good to cite it. If you think you have the winning argument, then you need to not push these buttons; you'll appear more magnanimous.

Complete, unreserved hostility has been the result from Griffin's office and the offices of a few of his closest colleagues.   Anything which risks Ares-V (and that means including Ares-I) has become a taboo subject within the agency staff.
A simple explanation which does not automatically presume knowledge of somebody's motives is that, from the perspective of a NASA administrator, like Griffin, Direct looks like FUD that causes a continual distraction controversy and questions from congress etc which could endanger NASA's post-shuttle project. I AM NOT SAYING that Direct IS FUD, just that a man in Griffin's position could reasonably see it as such, so his reaction to it is understandable even without presuming/asserting motives. Again, you guys would look better and more professional if you could resist the temptations to swerve into the personal. You may think the guy is evil, incompetent, etc... you may even have proof of it... but going there does not actually harm him, it just makes you guys look unprofessional.

(snip)Does not *every* person who is aware of any such actions not have a duty and an obligation to make it known.   And if necessary, to do so outside of the regular chain of command if that chain is what has actually broken?   If management is the problem, and management won't listen, then other means become necessary.   And the press is one such fallback available.
Funny, some were annoyed when I made that point. Congress and the press are both alternate paths, but congress ought to be tried first because it is a proper path, within the system (with proper procedures, legal authority, power to act and change policy, etc), as designed by the founders of the country. The press route can achieve results, but it is an indirect play with no specific legal means to affect the actual changes; the press route is used to get the congressional route or the normal executive route to function.

(snip) We tried to arrange a few to come to us to Washington DC back in March, but we were informed that employees of the Federal Government are prevented from such activities and that it is the Administrator of their specific agency who must present their problems to members of Congress!

That's right, only Griffin is allowed to make their case to Congress, but Griffin is right at the center of the problem.   It's a real Catch 22 situation for everyone - especially as most of them are extremely passionate about the new Vision and NASA as an agency itself.

The *only* other option is for them to enter the federal whistleblower protection program and I ask you: Who is going to do that knowing their career is essentially over on that day?
Ross,
You were mis-lead/mis-informed.
Congress has oversight responsibilities and authority with regard to NASA (and to other agencies of the executive branch); congress has subpoena powers as part of this equation. Members of congress can bring people up to the hill to testify under oath about anything they want to and without any concern for chain of command in the executive. James Hansen has testified on capitol hill a number of times even though the administration may have not preferred it. Air traffic controllers have been called-up to testify even when the FAA management would have preferred otherwise. The congressional record is littered with examples of this happening over and over again through the history of the country and involving nearly every executive agency. It may, indeed, be a problem for a bunch of NASA employees to go off on their own to engage in partisan political activity while in the workplace, or claiming to speak for the agency, but as individuals they may engage in political activity (see the Hatch act, among others). The best alternative in the situation you outlined was to get a member of congress on the appropriate oversight committee (somebody you have persuaded) to call the needed people (from a list of people you provide) up to the hill to testify; in this way, all the ducks are in a row (congress is the active entity, the testimony is in the oversight mode, the chain of command has no idea of whether a particular speaker volunteered or not, etc). In this way, the individuals are properly pulled-up to the hill under the authority of congress, rather than being a "gaggle of lowly employees" storming the hill for some partisan political campaigning (which might be what the person who advised you had in mind). You probably approached the problem backward, and got a narrowly-defined answer, well-tailored to the question asked, rather than good advice about how to achieve your goal (engineers should be familiar with that syndrome) ;)

Keep in mind that in the world of politics there is a Right Way and there is a Wrong Way even though the goals and even much of the substance may be the same. Technical folks often do not get the finer points of that strange world, and it's a world to which we cannot send unmanned probes  :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MrTim on 07/16/2008 03:08 pm
The 5 segment SRB was tested by ATK in 2003 (snip)
That wasn't an Ares first stage SRB.  They basically just added a 5th segment unlike for Ares has to have different propellant shape and new fwd fustrum
Jim, I have asked this before but have never seen any answers:

At the time of that test, ATK bragged that the 5 seg SRB was rigged with hundreds of sensors; does anybody know if ATK and/or NASA has gone back to look at and reprocess the data from that test to see if it can provide any insight into the Ares I TO issue?  ( I KNOW there will be differences between the two 5 seg boosters, but SOME related data might be superior to no data )

Have you heard anything on this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 07/16/2008 03:23 pm
Wow... this is why it takes decades to get stuff done at NASA...

Take the 3 SSMEs and put them on the bottom of the main tank.
You then get to put a large portion of the shuttle mass (minus SSME related mass) on the top of the tank (in the form of orion, cargo, etc.).

You could probably fly something like that in about 2 years from date you decided to do it...

How much savings do you really get over unchanged SSMEs vs man-rating the rs-68?

Then, you can man-rate the rs-68 at your leisure while still flying ISS missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/16/2008 05:08 pm
Wow... this is why it takes decades to get stuff done at NASA...

Take the 3 SSMEs and put them on the bottom of the main tank.
You then get to put a large portion of the shuttle mass (minus SSME related mass) on the top of the tank (in the form of orion, cargo, etc.).

You could probably fly something like that in about 2 years from date you decided to do it...

How much savings do you really get over unchanged SSMEs vs man-rating the rs-68?

Then, you can man-rate the rs-68 at your leisure while still flying ISS missions.

SSME production line has been virtually shut down.  It would be extremely expensive to throw away three SSME's after every mission.  RS-68 is already out there and will not take much time to get ready for manned flights.  Lockheed was confident with using the Atlas V as a manned booster for manned launches for Bigelow, and something tells me that a five-to six year man-rating process for the RD-180 would not lead to such confidence.  Then again being a kerosene engine and not being subjugated to NASA's higher standard might lead to a large difference, but I doubt it. Mercury-Redstone, Mercury-Atlas, Gemini-Titan II show that NASA has used conventional ICBMs modified as launchers before for manned spaceflight, so I don't see too much effort needed for a purpose-built launcher engine already in existence.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/16/2008 05:15 pm

1. Could the Jupiter core be designed to accept SSMEs or RS-68s?  I'm making several (perhaps unreasonable) assumptions here:

2. Making the thrust structure be able to accomodate an SSME or an RS-68 doesn't complicate things excessively (engine control systems, fuel systems, etc. etc.)


1.  No

2.  It does.

The SSME and RS-68 has different feedline diameters and positions.  The RS-68 supplies it's own hydraulic pressure and the SSME needs APU's.  Both would have different avionics and wouldn't talk the same "language" with the guidance system.  Both need vastly different services from the pad.

The analogy would be like trying to make a car compatible with a truck engine and its regular engine.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/16/2008 05:17 pm
Wow... this is why it takes decades to get stuff done at NASA...

Take the 3 SSMEs and put them on the bottom of the main tank.
You then get to put a large portion of the shuttle mass (minus SSME related mass) on the top of the tank (in the form of orion, cargo, etc.).

You could probably fly something like that in about 2 years from date you decided to do it...

How much savings do you really get over unchanged SSMEs vs man-rating the rs-68?

Then, you can man-rate the rs-68 at your leisure while still flying ISS missions.

Not feasible, see the above post
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 05:34 pm
Mercury-Redstone, Mercury-Atlas, Gemini-Titan II show that NASA has used conventional ICBMs modified as launchers before for manned spaceflight, so I don't see too much effort needed for a purpose-built launcher engine already in existence.

This is one of the fundamental misunderstandings of the difference between Cx requirements and Apollo requiremens.

LOC for the first lunar mission was estimated at 1:18.  LOC for the shuttle is between 1:80 and 1:200 depending on who you ask.  The risk of losing a crew was one of the biggest (but not the biggest) reason for cancelling Apollo.  It was not a sustainable architecture.

NASA is trying for a factor of 5 improvement in each of these, and that brings much higher costs.  This theoretical improvement in safety will make decades of operations possible (the LOC for a lunar mission will be certainly be HIGHER than the LOC for a shuttle flight today -- believe it or not) with only one or two failures at 2 flights per year. More flight, more failures.  Safety is not free, and you "waste" a LOT of money doing it in order to bound the unknown.

The point is that you can't simply slap some rockets together and fly in 2 years and expect to bring your crew back safely.  I'm all for risking crew at an appropriate level of risk (1:50 sounds about right), but not at 1:100 for launch and 1:18 for the mission.  That's Apollo. 

Even though launch isn't the biggest factor, Crew Launch is trying for LOC > 1:1000 (actually, minimizing LOC, which is not a great practice) which will mean crews will not be lost on the way up, but on the way out, down, up (most likely) and back.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 07/16/2008 05:47 pm
Not feasible

sigh... This is why we landed on the moon almost 30 years ago but are struggling to come up with something to replace the shuttle...

For crying out loud, you have 3 perfectly good SSMEs on 3 remaining shuttles. That buys you at least 3 Jupiter flights (not necessarily all manned). And if they fail? Who cares, you were going to retire the shuttles anyway... Now you buy time to tweak the main tank and man-rate your rs-68s all while attempting to launch ISS components that would simply go unused!

My faith in 'rocket scientists' is failing... Too much thinking and not enough doing...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Temmu on 07/16/2008 06:04 pm
1.  thanks bogomips, clongton, kraisee, windgod for the welcome and response! (i guess no kerosene engine in my future...)  ;D

2.  a couple of pages ago, someone said the cost of aries  or direct should be compared to the existing shuttle : well... it was old on its first launch and would not have succeeded as a program w/o our air force funding 50% of it for its own missions...  so let the costs of aries or direct compare against each other...

3.  mars.is.wet and perhaps others ask my next question:
the external tank has mounting points for the shuttle and the srb's.
direct uses the exact same srbs, no mods there.

i noticed in the dwgs at the direct site that there is a skirt + motors,
also there is a skirt on top for the payload.

wouldn't the existing external tank tend to crumple like an acordion as the load shifted from "where the shuttle was" to "where the engines are" and "where the new payload is"?

4.  as to the "people being fired" to accommodate direct, why?  you still need people to man the program...

5.  as to people being intimidated for standing up for their beliefs, even tho one responded they encourage such in their group, it is still a workplace, and their job.  personally, i'll express a view contrary to prevailing thinking, but i'm not going to loose my job by pressing a point, no matter how valid i think it is.

6.  wow!  there is a vast amount of reading here!

ps - edited to correct the spelling of a user name...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dcpowell on 07/16/2008 06:08 pm
Hi -

I am a reporter for a major science magazine, and I'm having a bit of difficulty getting in contact with you DIRECT folks. I've been following the discussions here with interest, so I'm appealing for assistance here.

Please shoot me an email at [email protected] with contact info.

Thanks!
--Devin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 06:14 pm
Update to my LOC/LOM speculation from earlier.  From

  http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28633

The factor of 5-10 improvement in safety requirements is one of the primary causes of higher cost and schedules longer than previously expected, IMO.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/16/2008 06:17 pm
Not feasible

For crying out loud, you have 3 perfectly good SSMEs on 3 remaining shuttles. That buys you at least 3 Jupiter flights (not necessarily all manned). .


No it doesn't.  Read the reasons.  Engines are NOT interchangeable. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 07/16/2008 06:41 pm
No it doesn't.  Read the reasons.  Engines are NOT interchangeable. 

I've read the reasons. Nothing you have said convinces me that you couldn't build an 3xSSME engine pack and a 2/3xRS-68 engine pack that plugs into the bottom of the main tank.

For crying out loud the Jupiter core can handle either a 2xRS-68 configuration or a 3xRS-68 configuration why not a 3xSSME configuration?

Oh, that's right, you said it wasn't feasible, so it must be so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/16/2008 07:05 pm
Dennis

Why do you oppose calls for Congress to step in and subject BOTH proposals to an equally rigorous and independent review? Or do you?

Toss in EELV systems and shuttle C if you like. That would be even better.

If there is going to be a review, it has to be done at the architecture level, not at the rocket level.  A rocket is only part of an architecture and this is why to me DIRECT is no more than Ares lite as it does not address the fundamental flaws of the ESAS architecture. 


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 07:06 pm
Oh, that's right, you said it wasn't feasible, so it must be so.

The car and truck engine analogy was appropo, but insufficient I gather.

How about this:  Different loads, different vibration, different mixture ratios, different thermal environments, different software, different control systems, different interfaces, different altitude performance, different tails shock aerodynamics, different control profiles.

Sorry, despite many statements on this forum this is not tinker toy engineering (unless you simply want to "let 'er rip").  I'm sure it would be a nice explosion.  This not a lack of "can do attitude", it is the experience of 60 years in space. 

And yes, it is rocket science.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/16/2008 07:07 pm
If there is going to be a review, it has to be done at the architecture level, not at the rocket level.  A rocket is only part of an architecture and this is why to me DIRECT is no more than Ares lite as it does not address the fundamental flaws of the ESAS architecture. 

Agree 100% wingod. Well said!  "fixing" the rocket does not fix the disconnect between available budget and stated goals and requirements.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 07/16/2008 07:19 pm
Agree 100% wingod. Well said!  "fixing" the rocket does not fix the disconnect between available budget and stated goals and requirements.

Of course, if "fixing" the LV architecture choice closes the gap between NASA's budget and the budget requirements needed to carry out ESAS, that just might help a little bit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 07/16/2008 07:21 pm
No it doesn't.  Read the reasons.  Engines are NOT interchangeable. 

I've read the reasons. Nothing you have said convinces me that you couldn't build an 3xSSME engine pack and a 2/3xRS-68 engine pack that plugs into the bottom of the main tank.

For crying out loud the Jupiter core can handle either a 2xRS-68 configuration or a 3xRS-68 configuration why not a 3xSSME configuration?

Oh, that's right, you said it wasn't feasible, so it must be so.

Just about anything is possible given enough time and money ... but just because its possible doesn't mean its feasible.  Using 2 RS-68s on a Jupiter cores means capping some pipes and changing guidance/control software.  Using SSME instead of RS-68s means replacing all the pipes and engine mounting points and guidance electronics and etc ...

Why waste a $billion on a SSME based Jupiter core for 3 or 5 flights when you would be taking the $ and engineers away from the RS-68 based Jupiter core that you really want.  As Jim said ... its just not feasible ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 07/16/2008 07:25 pm
The car and truck engine analogy was appropo, but insufficient I gather.

Oh you mean how I can't get my car with several different types of engines? Each with different weight, power, vibration, etc... Oh, wait...

How about this:  Different loads, different vibration, different mixture ratios, different thermal environments, different software, different control systems, different interfaces, different altitude performance, different tails shock aerodynamics, different control profiles.

Sorry, despite many statements on this forum this is not tinker toy engineering (unless you simply want to "let 'er rip").  I'm sure it would be a nice explosion.  This not a lack of "can do attitude", it is the experience of 60 years in space. 

And yes, it is rocket science.

Please, spare me the 'by golly, only a rocket scientist can understand this' BS...

Anyone with half a brain could figure out that if you take the big-ass plane off the tank you will have less drag. And if you somehow (here is where rocket science comes in) take the engines off that big-ass plane and put it on the bottom you should be able to get similar performance between the 2 vehicles.

As to the other 'differences' couldn't those all be contained within the engine pack? Tell me how the main tank would change in any major way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/16/2008 07:35 pm
Dennis

Why do you oppose calls for Congress to step in and subject BOTH proposals to an equally rigorous and independent review? Or do you?

Toss in EELV systems and shuttle C if you like. That would be even better.

If there is going to be a review, it has to be done at the architecture level, not at the rocket level.  A rocket is only part of an architecture and this is why to me DIRECT is no more than Ares lite as it does not address the fundamental flaws of the ESAS architecture.

I am entirely in favor of an architecture review in the manner you suggest. A candid discussion as to why America needs a human spaceflight program is very long overdue.

I am not an engineer however the aphorism "Form follows function" is where I believe any analysis must begin. We cannot evaluate architecture options (let alone specific rockets) unless we know why we are spending tax dollars to build those rockets.

And because we are spending tax dollars to do this, the reasons must be articulated in a form ordinary folks can understand. Arguments based on "I'm the expert" are not acceptable in a democracy, IMHO.

DIRECT 2.0 (IMHO) made a huge leap forward when they added EML architectures to their proposal. Essentially, DIRECT 2.0 is now a super-sized version of what Boeing originally proposed as their CEV architecture during O'Keefe's final months at NASA (EML rendezvous & depots & reusable lunar landers & so on).

ESAS of course is plainly Mars-forward.

I would be thrilled to see the larger review you propose but from my personal Bob Uecker seat (last row of the upper deck) DIRECT 2.0 would do rather well balancing ISS / Moon / Mars and beyond.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Firehawk153 on 07/16/2008 08:03 pm
The car and truck engine analogy was appropo, but insufficient I gather.

Oh you mean how I can't get my car with several different types of engines? Each with different weight, power, vibration, etc... Oh, wait...

How about this:  Different loads, different vibration, different mixture ratios, different thermal environments, different software, different control systems, different interfaces, different altitude performance, different tails shock aerodynamics, different control profiles.

Sorry, despite many statements on this forum this is not tinker toy engineering (unless you simply want to "let 'er rip").  I'm sure it would be a nice explosion.  This not a lack of "can do attitude", it is the experience of 60 years in space. 

And yes, it is rocket science.

Please, spare me the 'by golly, only a rocket scientist can understand this' BS...

Anyone with half a brain could figure out that if you take the big-ass plane off the tank you will have less drag. And if you somehow (here is where rocket science comes in) take the engines off that big-ass plane and put it on the bottom you should be able to get similar performance between the 2 vehicles.

As to the other 'differences' couldn't those all be contained within the engine pack? Tell me how the main tank would change in any major way.

With all respect mnewcomb, these guys know what they are talking about...especially Jim.  Arguing with Jim about spaceflight is the closest you can come to arguing with God about spaceflight.

And I think you are confusing possibility with practicality.  Is it possible to configure a version of Jupiter that uses SSME's and then configure a second variant that uses RS-68?  No doubt it could be done; its simply not a wise investment of taxpayer dollars.  You would spending billions of dollars for little return.  This is one of things that I have learned by coming to this discussion board for nearly a year now is that how I THINK something should work in rocketry is often not the way it DOES work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/16/2008 08:06 pm

1.  Oh you mean how I can't get my car with several different types of engines? Each with different weight, power, vibration, etc... Oh, wait...

Anyone with half a brain could figure out that if you take the big-ass plane off the tank you will have less drag. And if you somehow (here is where rocket science comes in) take the engines off that big-ass plane and put it on the bottom you should be able to get similar performance between the 2 vehicles.

3.  As to the other 'differences' couldn't those all be contained within the engine pack? Tell me how the main tank would change in any major way.

1.  No, you can't get a semi truck engine for your car

2.  Anybody with a half a brain would figure out that it is not the issue.

3 No, the engine pack  is not a interchangeable item.  If you want it to be, then cough up a 1 billion dollars.    That is why it is not feasible.  Never said it was impossible.

Again, it is:

The SSME and RS-68 has different feedline diameters and positions.  The RS-68 supplies it's own hydraulic pressure and the SSME needs APU's.  Both would have different avionics and wouldn't talk the same "language" with the guidance system.  Both need vastly different services from the pad.

and from

Quote from: mars.is.wet on Today at 03:06 PM

 Different loads, different vibration, different mixture ratios, different thermal environments, ..... different altitude performance, different tails shock aerodynamics, different control profile, different throttling capability,

That is basic rocket science, knowing what are the differences and how it affects the big picture
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/16/2008 08:09 pm
Dennis

Why do you oppose calls for Congress to step in and subject BOTH proposals to an equally rigorous and independent review? Or do you?

Toss in EELV systems and shuttle C if you like. That would be even better.

If there is going to be a review, it has to be done at the architecture level, not at the rocket level.  A rocket is only part of an architecture and this is why to me DIRECT is no more than Ares lite as it does not address the fundamental flaws of the ESAS architecture.

I am entirely in favor of an architecture review in the manner you suggest. A candid discussion as to why America needs a human spaceflight program is very long overdue.

I am not an engineer however the aphorism "Form follows function" is where I believe any analysis must begin. We cannot evaluate architecture options (let alone specific rockets) unless we know why we are spending tax dollars to build those rockets.

And because we are spending tax dollars to do this, the reasons must be articulated in a form ordinary folks can understand. Arguments based on "I'm the expert" are not acceptable in a democracy, IMHO.

DIRECT 2.0 (IMHO) made a huge leap forward when they added EML architectures to their proposal. Essentially, DIRECT 2.0 is now a super-sized version of what Boeing originally proposed as their CEV architecture during O'Keefe's final months at NASA (EML rendezvous & depots & reusable lunar landers & so on).

ESAS of course is plainly Mars-forward.

I would be thrilled to see the larger review you propose but from my personal Bob Uecker seat (last row of the upper deck) DIRECT 2.0 would do rather well balancing ISS / Moon / Mars and beyond.

As I have said many times, both the president and John Marburger said the exact right things, and put the policies in place to support the economic development of the solar system.  NASA did not listen, and consumed with a fever to go to Mars (I agree that ESAS is Mars forward) they yet again are in danger of killing the entire program. 

We will get to Mars, but building a big rocket to do so is probably the worst possible way of doing it.  We have an AIAA paper coming out this year that will go into some of the desirable features of such an architecture.

This is why the whole DIRECT argument is moot.  DIRECT is just another flavor of big rocket that will become obsolete as soon as we get lunar ISRU up and running on a large scale.  Lunar ISRU and industrialization drives the earth launch vehicle toward being an RLV, which just continues to spin the virtuous circle faster and faster.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/16/2008 09:34 pm

With all respect mnewcomb, these guys know what they are talking about...especially Jim.  Arguing with Jim about spaceflight is the closest you can come to arguing with God about spaceflight.



I wouldn't go that far, Jim is more like a demi-god.
 ;) ;D

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/16/2008 09:45 pm
Hi Ross,
Do you have any preliminary rebutal to NASA's claim that milling the ET walls thicker would not lead to the necessary structural strength?
Out of all the peices on the NASA FUD this one is the most concerning.
If wall milling changes are not going to be the answer - are there any alternatives?

Nathan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 07/16/2008 09:46 pm

1. Could the Jupiter core be designed to accept SSMEs or RS-68s?  I'm making several (perhaps unreasonable) assumptions here:

2. Making the thrust structure be able to accomodate an SSME or an RS-68 doesn't complicate things excessively (engine control systems, fuel systems, etc. etc.)


The SSME and RS-68 has different feedline diameters and positions.  The RS-68 supplies it's own hydraulic pressure and the SSME needs APU's.  Both would have different avionics and wouldn't talk the same "language" with the guidance system.  Both need vastly different services from the pad.

The analogy would be like trying to make a car compatible with a truck engine and its regular engine.

I suspected the differences between the two engines would make this pretty painful, so I'm not totally surprised by this answer.  I had totally forgotten about the APUs as well. 

I guess you would have to develop two completely different thrust structures (and probably prop plumbing) solutions, and at that point, you aren't doing "1-vehicle, 2-configs" anymore.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/16/2008 10:21 pm

1. Could the Jupiter core be designed to accept SSMEs or RS-68s?  I'm making several (perhaps unreasonable) assumptions here:

2. Making the thrust structure be able to accomodate an SSME or an RS-68 doesn't complicate things excessively (engine control systems, fuel systems, etc. etc.)


1.  No

2.  It does.

The SSME and RS-68 has different feedline diameters and positions.  The RS-68 supplies it's own hydraulic pressure and the SSME needs APU's.  Both would have different avionics and wouldn't talk the same "language" with the guidance system.  Both need vastly different services from the pad.

The analogy would be like trying to make a car compatible with a truck engine and its regular engine.


The only way SSME's would be viable would be if they were integrated into a reusable flyback module such as that proposed by Robert Zubrin in his Ares rocket for Mars Direct. If we can't reuse them then they are too expensive.

I did like Zubrin's rocket though...
Nathan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2008 10:32 pm
Hi Ross,
Do you have any preliminary rebutal to NASA's claim that milling the ET walls thicker would not lead to the necessary structural strength?
Out of all the peices on the NASA FUD this one is the most concerning.
If wall milling changes are not going to be the answer - are there any alternatives?

Nathan.

Nathan, without going into the rebuttal, this point in the analysis is a ridiculous one.

They're going to *have* to change these details to build Ares-I Upper Stages and Ares-V Core too.   The current Shuttle specification would not be suitable for either application, and while the current Shuttle specification is also not quite suitable for all of Jupiter either, it is *FAR* closer - close enough that the difference is within the "tolerance" capabilities of the existing tooling at Michoud.   That's the key issue here.

I'm deliberately going to be 'vague' in this message to avoid posting any proprietary data about the current specifications of ET, but let me start to explain what's needed...


The strength of the tanking comes partially from mechanical strength, but mostly from the pressurization of the tanking.   Think of a pressurized Coke can.   Once opened, you can easily crush the can with your hands.   But before its has been opened - while still pressurized - you'll have a really hard time doing much to it just with your bare hands!

The tanking pressure is the real factor which determines the total strength of the structure (Interstage is unpressurized so must be mechanically strong enough on its own), and the tanking is largely just to contain the necessary pressure.   Inside the LH2 tank today is an orthoganol "waffle panel".   The wall thickness (the "membrane") is one part which needs changing in order to increase the pressure.

You can see some visual examples of such structures on this thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8776.msg160656#msg160656).   And I have attached a cutaway drawing of the ET to see them in the context of the current ET.

Currently the thickness of the membrane area in the LH2 tank is in the order of 1/8" (yes, being deliberately vague), and varies slightly in different locations up and down the tank. An increase in thickness of just 10% would allow pressures to be increased significantly - well beyond the strength requirements we need for Jupiter.

The "blade" size on those machined panels would also be changed to suit, again from a similar 1/8" thickness by a similar amount again (yes, still being deliberately vague).

Both of these are factors - the membrane and blade stiffeners are created by a CNC milling system which essentially mills out all the unneeded materials.   These machines can be quite simply re-programmed to "mill less material away".

The weldments are the next factor and the existing tooling is capable of handling the thicker weldments which would also be required.


Now, NASA is trying very hard to obfuscate the fact that the ET tooling at Michoud right now is capable of handling a decent amount of variance in specifications.   Michoud is *NOT* locked into just making ET-specification parts - there is some variance possible on all the tooling.   Some pieces of manufacturing equipment have a small amount of variance possible, others have quite a lot (relatively speaking), but none are 100% locked into what they're doing.


In point of fact, to address another point which was raised here earlier, an analysis into placing three RS-68's under the standard Space Shuttle ET was examined in detail by NASA as recently as 2003 including such things as loads analysis, performance, trajectory and FEM's.

The conclusion of that analysis was that the current LH2 tanking is strong enough right now to handle the loads which this would create.   The Intertank needs some strengthening, but with just one extra ring-frame (5 instead of 4) and a thicker wall structure, it can easily handle the loads of a heavy Upper Stage and payload above it.

As some have mentioned, the existing Ogive (teardrop) shaped LOX Tank isn't suitable for DIRECT.   It never was going to be.   Anyone who has seen our animation knows that we're replacing it anyway.

The NASA analysis confirmed that the LH2 barrel section tooling (using different CNC milling settings) can be re-used (no new tooling) to build the barrel sections of the new LOX Tank and this would then be quite strong enough to support the loads.

Finally the existing Tank Dome Gores can be utilized to manufacture a fourth Dome in addition to the three they already produce.   Thicker material would be required for the higher pressures of course.

I'm simplifying the details, obviously, but the underlying principle is that NASA has studies already showing that the existing tooling for SLWT only requires minimal changes to be able to produce what we will need for a Jupiter Core.

NASA does not want to acknowledge this?   Wow.   I'm shocked.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 07/16/2008 10:45 pm
Hi Ross,
Do you have any preliminary rebutal to NASA's claim that milling the ET walls thinner would not lead to the necessary structural strength?
Out of all the peices on the NASA FUD this one is the most concerning.
If wall milling changes are not going to be the answer - are there any alternatives?

Nathan.

Somehow I see this one as being of very little concern. NASA is trying to tell us that they can build an ET-derived 10m Ares V core stage without any problems, but building an ET-derived 8.4m core stage is too difficult.  Yeah, somehow I'm not buying it. Claims like that and the obvious FUD on the EDS show me that the released study was written with the predetermined conclusion first, and supporting arguments created afterward.

Finite element analysis of the structural and aerodynamic loads of an Al-Li tube is pretty mainstream aerospace engineering. Given the long history of engineering changes on the ET (SWT, LWT, SLWT) and the engineering work done for NLS and Ares V, I'm sure LM can figure out what gauge of Al 2195 to use for the core, whether there's any need to add back any of the additional stringers or stiffener rings that were part of the older, heavier tanks, and whether any other changes are required for the core to support the EDS and Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/16/2008 11:22 pm
NASA does not want to acknowledge this?   Wow.   I'm shocked.

Just remember Ross, it is not NASA on the attack here, it is the little man behind the curtain  ;)  Seems to me a lot of NASA is secretly in the DIRECT camp, however they have to do what they are told to do.  Plus the silver lining here is that as the management continues to show its hand, it only makes DIRECT stronger.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2008 11:36 pm
Yes, true Ron.

I haven't got any problems or issues with 99.999% of the agency.   Must try to stop using that acronym when I specifically mean Griffin & his inner circle.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/16/2008 11:47 pm
If there is going to be a review, it has to be done at the architecture level, not at the rocket level.  A rocket is only part of an architecture and this is why to me DIRECT is no more than Ares lite as it does not address the fundamental flaws of the ESAS architecture. 

Agree 100% wingod. Well said!  "fixing" the rocket does not fix the disconnect between available budget and stated goals and requirements.

I'm not part of the industry, just an interested observer, and I don't fully understand this thinking.

It seems to me that rockets are built to roughly match the perceived future market, and once they are, the missions and payloads are built to match the available rockets.  Apollo was the exception, designed specifically for a single mission purpose.  But everything since seems to have been designed more generically, and then missions were adapted to the available capabilities.  For example, the ISS modules were designed for the rocket that was to launch them - STS.  The same is true for things like JWST, MER, Phoenix, etc., or so it seems.

So what would be wrong with building a rocket to match missions that are yet to be designed, but with capabilities we expect might be necessary, combined with some flexibility?

For example, it seems the global market is flooded with launchers capable of launching payloads of all shapes and sizes below 25 metric tons and 5-ish meters in diameter.  Building two new launchers with 50T and 100T capacities capable of handling 8 to 12-ish meter payloads seems to allow the flexibility to design missions in a great many forms to meet many future needs (as-yet unknown) that would otherwise be difficult with the current launch systems.

What's wrong with doing that?  What's wrong with designing launchers for only generally-understood needs (heavier lift, larger diameter) while including some flexibility instead of designing the entire mission architecture first and then designing the launcher just for that specific mission?  I can see the advantage of the Apollo approach if only one mission type is planned, but it seems to me that sacrificing some efficiency in that regard in exchange for the ability to handle many more undetermined mission architectures for a launch system that has to last many decades might be the more appropriate way to go.  Why should a launcher design be penalized for not pre-designing all missions it will have to undertake over perhaps a 30 year period?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 07/16/2008 11:58 pm
LOC for the first lunar mission was estimated at 1:18.  LOC for the shuttle is between 1:80 and 1:200 depending on who you ask.  The risk of losing a crew was one of the biggest (but not the biggest) reason for cancelling Apollo.  It was not a sustainable architecture.

NASA is trying for a factor of 5 improvement in each of these, and that brings much higher costs.

First off, the ESAS numbers IIRC put the overall lunar mission LOC numbers at around 1:50-1:60.  That's only 2.5-3x better than Apollo.  Of that almost all of the risk is not in the launch itself, but in the lunar ops.  Even if the launcher was only as reliable as the EELV options evaluated (most were in the 1:900-1:1000 range), it would only modify the odds of losing a crew by a small percentage (ie from about 1:60 to 1:56).  They would've been much better off accepting a good-enough launcher and focusing more of their development on picking an architecture that could reduce the risk of the high-risk portion of the lunar mission.  Spending tens of billions on something that isn't even the main constraint to mission safety is retarded.

Second off, do you really believe the Ares I claims that a brand new rocket that's using all new engines, a new upper stage, etc designed by a team that hasn't designed a new rocket in my lifetime is somehow going to be 8x more reliable than any other rocket that has ever flown?  I sure as heck don't believe they'll get anywhere near 1:400 LOM.  I'd really be impressed if they did much better than the current average (which is about 1:98).  The kind of reliability assessment they made to get that 1:400 number is the same type of assessment SpaceX used to claim that Falcon-I was going to be the most reliable commercial rocket ever.

If you actually believe those assessments, I have some beach front property here in Mojave that's looking for a buyer...

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/17/2008 12:17 am

NASA is already calling J-120 "too much for ISS" so this is probably even farther down that road.  But if the different engines doesn't complicate the thrust structure / instrumentation excessively, it might take a "longer pole" out of the tent for J-120, and let the human rated RS-68 work remain focused on the later J-232.

J-120 being "too much for ISS" is NOT A PROBLEM.

It is in the same category of criticism as saying that family cars should not have back seats because they are not needed by a man commuting to work.  He may not use the seats Monday to Friday but the seats are needed when taking the children to the beach for the weekend.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/17/2008 12:55 am
Please, spare me the 'by golly, only a rocket scientist can understand this' BS...

Anyone with half a brain could figure out that if you take the big-ass plane off the tank you will have less drag. And if you somehow (here is where rocket science comes in) take the engines off that big-ass plane and put it on the bottom you should be able to get similar performance between the 2 vehicles.

As to the other 'differences' couldn't those all be contained within the engine pack? Tell me how the main tank would change in any major way.

I guess you haven't hung around places like this to know about stuff like Pogo. Just changing the length of a piece of pipe can cause a rocket to flame out or a fuel pipe to burst causing the engine to run oxidiser rich, and basically explode, taking out the rocket. The Russians lost an N-1 to pogo in 1972.

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

That's just ONE thing that can go wrong, and it depends on the length of a piece of *pipe.* Any of the others; load paths, vibration environment, software, valves, fuel cut-off sensors, etc. can result in loss of mission.

Not only that but a new rocket requires things like trajectory modelling. Changing any one variable (even the length of a pipe) causes a ripple of feedback effects that impacts the *entire* system. The system is absolute bleeding-edge performance and has almost zero margin for error. This is why rockets are designed by armies of engineers for billions of dollars. If this were not the case you would be seeing manned capsules being built and launched by farmers in their backyards.

It does not require a rocket scientist to understand. Many people here are not rocket scientists (such as yours truly) but have a grasp of the issues after having asked sensible questions and read up on the subject. NSF is the best place for any ordinary bloke to learn about rockets.

Why not pay for an L2 subscription? I hear it's mighty sweet. HD tours of the VAB...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2008 04:09 am
Lampyridae makes a good point.

There have been cases where such things as changing the shape of a single bracket somewhere on a stage has created a violent vibration during testing.   A small, relatively inconsequential change like that can result in changing the resonant frequency of a sub-system or even the whole unit by a sufficient amount to bring what was working into a new zone where the standing wave vibrations actually reinforce each other to dangerous levels.

In fact this is one of the many different concerns involved in the Ares-I TO issue - that the Upper Stage may have the same, or similar, frequency as the First Stage TO oscillations.   If such a thing were to happen it would make the whole problem a whole lot worse so they're working very hard to make sure the two elements have divergent frequencies.

This is one of those things which FEM goes a long way towards solving in the design phase, and which sufficiently exhaustive testing will usually turn up allowing resolutions and mitigations to be included.

It's rare for such issues to make it through that process, but the cavitation in the fuel line issue which the first Delta-IV Heavy flight encountered isn't a bad example of such an issue still creeping through the cracks.

Lots of computer modeling and lots and lots of testing is the routine order of the day for any new rocket no matter what its background.   Testing is ultimately the only real way to build any real confidence.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/17/2008 05:01 am
Hi Ross,
Do you have any preliminary rebutal to NASA's claim that milling the ET walls thicker would not lead to the necessary structural strength?
Out of all the peices on the NASA FUD this one is the most concerning.
If wall milling changes are not going to be the answer - are there any alternatives?

Nathan.

Nathan, without going into the rebuttal, this point in the analysis is a ridiculous one.

They're going to *have* to change these details to build Ares-I Upper Stages and Ares-V Core too.   The current Shuttle specification would not be suitable for either application, and while the current Shuttle specification is also not quite suitable for all of Jupiter either, it is *FAR* closer - close enough that the difference is within the "tolerance" capabilities of the existing tooling at Michoud.   That's the key issue here.

I'm deliberately going to be 'vague' in this message to avoid posting any proprietary data about the current specifications of ET, but let me start to explain what's needed...


The strength of the tanking comes partially from mechanical strength, but mostly from the pressurization of the tanking.   Think of a pressurized Coke can.   Once opened, you can easily crush the can with your hands.   But before its has been opened - while still pressurized - you'll have a really hard time doing much to it just with your bare hands!

The tanking pressure is the real factor which determines the total strength of the structure (Interstage is unpressurized so must be mechanically strong enough on its own), and the tanking is largely just to contain the necessary pressure.   Inside the LH2 tank today is an orthoganol "waffle panel".   The wall thickness (the "membrane") is one part which needs changing in order to increase the pressure.

You can see some visual examples of such structures on this thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8776.msg160656#msg160656).   And I have attached a cutaway drawing of the ET to see them in the context of the current ET.

Currently the thickness of the membrane area in the LH2 tank is in the order of 1/8" (yes, being deliberately vague), and varies slightly in different locations up and down the tank. An increase in thickness of just 10% would allow pressures to be increased significantly - well beyond the strength requirements we need for Jupiter.

The "blade" size on those machined panels would also be changed to suit, again from a similar 1/8" thickness by a similar amount again (yes, still being deliberately vague).

Both of these are factors - the membrane and blade stiffeners are created by a CNC milling system which essentially mills out all the unneeded materials.   These machines can be quite simply re-programmed to "mill less material away".

The weldments are the next factor and the existing tooling is capable of handling the thicker weldments which would also be required.


Now, NASA is trying very hard to obfuscate the fact that the ET tooling at Michoud right now is capable of handling a decent amount of variance in specifications.   Michoud is *NOT* locked into just making ET-specification parts - there is some variance possible on all the tooling.   Some pieces of manufacturing equipment have a small amount of variance possible, others have quite a lot (relatively speaking), but none are 100% locked into what they're doing.


In point of fact, to address another point which was raised here earlier, an analysis into placing three RS-68's under the standard Space Shuttle ET was examined in detail by NASA as recently as 2003 including such things as loads analysis, performance, trajectory and FEM's.

The conclusion of that analysis was that the current LH2 tanking is strong enough right now to handle the loads which this would create.   The Intertank needs some strengthening, but with just one extra ring-frame (5 instead of 4) and a thicker wall structure, it can easily handle the loads of a heavy Upper Stage and payload above it.

As some have mentioned, the existing Ogive (teardrop) shaped LOX Tank isn't suitable for DIRECT.   It never was going to be.   Anyone who has seen our animation knows that we're replacing it anyway.

The NASA analysis confirmed that the LH2 barrel section tooling (using different CNC milling settings) can be re-used (no new tooling) to build the barrel sections of the new LOX Tank and this would then be quite strong enough to support the loads.

Finally the existing Tank Dome Gores can be utilized to manufacture a fourth Dome in addition to the three they already produce.   Thicker material would be required for the higher pressures of course.

I'm simplifying the details, obviously, but the underlying principle is that NASA has studies already showing that the existing tooling for SLWT only requires minimal changes to be able to produce what we will need for a Jupiter Core.

NASA does not want to acknowledge this?   Wow.   I'm shocked.

Ross.

NASA is 100% correct, as has everyone that has ever looked at this issue that the only thing reused from the current ET design is the tooling.  There is no possible way, with changing the load paths in the manner that any in line system requires means less than a bottom up redesign of the ET.  It cost over $750 million dollars just to change the ET material to the Aluminum Lithium tank.  It was going to cost over half a billion for the aft cargo carrier.  It is going to cost a heck of a lot of money to start over with a stage design, not a tank design.

This is yet another reason why we push an alternative that requires none of this to happen.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/17/2008 05:09 am
If there is going to be a review, it has to be done at the architecture level, not at the rocket level.  A rocket is only part of an architecture and this is why to me DIRECT is no more than Ares lite as it does not address the fundamental flaws of the ESAS architecture. 

Agree 100% wingod. Well said!  "fixing" the rocket does not fix the disconnect between available budget and stated goals and requirements.

I'm not part of the industry, just an interested observer, and I don't fully understand this thinking.

It seems to me that rockets are built to roughly match the perceived future market, and once they are, the missions and payloads are built to match the available rockets.  Apollo was the exception, designed specifically for a single mission purpose.  But everything since seems to have been designed more generically, and then missions were adapted to the available capabilities.  For example, the ISS modules were designed for the rocket that was to launch them - STS.  The same is true for things like JWST, MER, Phoenix, etc., or so it seems.

So what would be wrong with building a rocket to match missions that are yet to be designed, but with capabilities we expect might be necessary, combined with some flexibility?

For example, it seems the global market is flooded with launchers capable of launching payloads of all shapes and sizes below 25 metric tons and 5-ish meters in diameter.  Building two new launchers with 50T and 100T capacities capable of handling 8 to 12-ish meter payloads seems to allow the flexibility to design missions in a great many forms to meet many future needs (as-yet unknown) that would otherwise be difficult with the current launch systems.

What's wrong with doing that?  What's wrong with designing launchers for only generally-understood needs (heavier lift, larger diameter) while including some flexibility instead of designing the entire mission architecture first and then designing the launcher just for that specific mission?  I can see the advantage of the Apollo approach if only one mission type is planned, but it seems to me that sacrificing some efficiency in that regard in exchange for the ability to handle many more undetermined mission architectures for a launch system that has to last many decades might be the more appropriate way to go.  Why should a launcher design be penalized for not pre-designing all missions it will have to undertake over perhaps a 30 year period?

if you don't know what you are going to be doing how can you build an architecture to service it?  There is a dramatic difference in architecture  implementation when you use In Situ Resources.  The more things that you do locally, the less supplies you need from the Earth and the nature of the supplies change, from large modules, rovers, and other things, to smaller pieces, motors, computers, and advanced technology equipment that cannot be made In Situ. 

If you have the capability on the Moon to make structures, rover frames, and other large heavy objects you no longer need a big rocket to carry everything.  The total number of heavy cargo flights needed is no more than five at the most.  If this is true, the you flight rate goes down and it becomes more economical to use smaller launchers like EELV, Ariane, Proton, H2, Falcon 9, and Sea Launch. 

In one fell swoop and one change in what you do on the Moon, you completely change the complexion of the architecture AND in the process open the door to commercial providers.  Indeed with traffic to ISS and traffic to the Moon, the point will come to where it becomes viable to build an RLV, which is where we want to go anyway.  At  that time we would have this huge, expensive DIRECT or other heavy lift architecture with few or no customers, and a huge overhead.  Or we can be flying lots of other rockets for a plethora of reasons and have a real Cislunar space architecture.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/17/2008 06:28 am
Hi Ross,
Do you have any preliminary rebutal to NASA's claim that milling the ET walls thicker would not lead to the necessary structural strength?
Out of all the peices on the NASA FUD this one is the most concerning.
If wall milling changes are not going to be the answer - are there any alternatives?

Nathan.


Nathan, without going into the rebuttal, this point in the analysis is a ridiculous one.

[snip}
Currently the thickness of the membrane area in the LH2 tank is in the order of 1/8" (yes, being deliberately vague), and varies slightly in different locations up and down the tank. An increase in thickness of just 10% would allow pressures to be increased significantly - well beyond the strength requirements we need for Jupiter.

{snip}

You are going to have to publish a mathematical rebuttal as well as a verbal one.  The politicians may not be able to read it but the automotive and civil engineers can.

The thickness of an 8.4m diameter tank make from Al 2195 required to support the know maximum mass of itself, upper-stage and payload at max Q is ?.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2008 07:30 am

NASA is 100% correct, as has everyone that has ever looked at this issue that the only thing reused from the current ET design is the tooling.  There is no possible way, with changing the load paths in the manner that any in line system requires means less than a bottom up redesign of the ET.  It cost over $750 million dollars just to change the ET material to the Aluminum Lithium tank.  It was going to cost over half a billion for the aft cargo carrier.  It is going to cost a heck of a lot of money to start over with a stage design, not a tank design.

Let me start by just informing the gentle readers that Dennis has crossed swords with us in the past because he favors a different alternative.   His posts here are therefore not entirely benevolent.

He has his own agenda which he has been trying hard to promote consisting of Shuttle-B and EELV, but with Shuttle-B being phased out after a while.

I will ask the moderators to make sure that this thread is not hijacked for the purpose of just casting aspersions on your 'competition' just to justify your position because we appear to be getting the lions share of the attention at the moment.

Dennis, you're free to start your own thread of course, where we can all discuss that option including the loadpaths inherent in the design of Shuttle-B, but I don't want any reader here to make the mistake that Dennis Wingo is attempting to critique DIRECT from a neutral stance.   He has an agenda and is in competition with us.   I just want everyone to please just keep that in mind.


Anyway, on to your post.

You don't seem to acknowledge that the 1983 change from SWT to LWT and then the 1998 change from LWT to SLWT WAS a complete re-design of the entire ET structure, from the ground up.   Both times.   If the total cost for that was actually under a billion (a figure I'm dubious of), then DIRECT would actually be a LOT cheaper than we're saying at present.

BTW, as an interesting (for some) aside, there are still some parts of the SLWT ET which still use Al 2219 - the Intertank Thrust Panels for example - because there was very little performance benefit to be had compared to the cost of developing new Al-Li 2195 ones.   And they are even using some parts of Al-Li 2090, Al 7075 and Titanium too - amongst other materials.

You are wrong to assume we have ever said anything about Jupiter not being a major re-design.   Of course it is, I don't believe we've ever said it won't be.   Certainly our cost estimate of $9.5bn for Jupiter-120 (with no new SRB's and no new engine development programs and a lot less infrastructure changes, remember) seems to be a pretty solid figure.   I thought that clearly indicates a pretty sizable effort myself, no?

But the key point is that any such design can be done in one of two completely different ways:-

1) Clean sheet, no restrictions.

2) Restrictions are put in place and the design is put together within the bounding-box of those restrictions.


In the case of Ares-I and Ares-V, they started out trying to utilize 'option 2', but have changed so radically that both vehicles have now completely divorced themselves from the fundamental "Shuttle Footprint" that they are now firmly an 'option 1'.   Of course they are also now going to have to pay for that because, by definition, they're making the conscious choice to throw all the existing infrastructure away and must thus plan to replace it all as part of the process.

In the case of Jupiter, one of the critical restrictions we have defined from the very start has been that:

"As much as possible, existing tooling and existing fundamental dimensions are to be retained wherever possible in order to explicitly reduce development costs and schedule impacts".

You *design* the tank for the loads, doing otherwise would be stupid.   But you can also choose in the design phase to design the Core to be built in the same way and on the same tooling that already exists at Michoud right now.   That is a fundamental and massive difference in approach.

You begin your design efforts by starting (the Point of Departure) with the existing ET specifications.   Having carefully calculated the new loads and environments it will need to operate in, then the ET is modified wherever required until it can do what you need it to do.   And you do that all while keeping an eye on what the tooling is capable of supporting too.

This exact approach was done previously for NLS in 1993.   At the time NASA were able to prove the approach would take full advantage of the cost benefits and could even be done while Shuttle ET's continued to be produced!

Theoretically, NLS gives us a "proof of concept" that Jupiter vehicles could be designed and built while Shuttle continued to fly.   It would take sufficient money from Congress to do both in parallel, but if Congress so wished, there could be a zero-year gap through this approach and even a period where both are flying together - at least theoretically.   Though, note that we are not recommending such an option though - a short gap of 2-4 years is quite acceptable and would be considerably lower cost and less complex than trying to do both at the same time.


Anyway, I digress.   Back to altering Shuttle ET's into Jupiter Cores...

There will be some instances where your ET tooling just won't be able to cope with the necessary changes to make Cores.   Some will need modification or even replacement (such as the TPS closeout facilities for the LOX Tank), but just so long as you do the design work with the conscious effort of reducing these changes to the minimum, you can reduce the impact in terms of both cost & schedule to the smallest possible extent.

Every single examination of the in-line SDLV concepts previously performed has utilized this fundamental approach.   It's the *ONLY* sensible way to proceed if you wish to keep your costs down.   Every one of the previous analysis seems to have confirmed that the LH2 Tanking structure is already strong enough to support the loads of even more powerful engines than Shuttle utilizes.   This is because of the way Shuttle imparts its loads into the tank.   Shuttle does this in a particularly in-efficient and stressful manner, transmitting all of its SSME loads directly into the sides of the LH2 tank wall via just two locations - the port and starboard aft Orbiter Mountings.

These Mountings transmit the loads not just linearly, but also laterally into the tank wall in a very complex manner.   They impart both axial - and also very unusual latteral loads - into the structure which a regular in-line design would never do.   The four barrel sections of the LH2 tank is currently more than 30% stronger than it would actually need to be if the same three SSME's were mounted below the tank and the forces were transmitted in a uniform fashion up into the joint where the tank walls, tank dome and aft skirt all meet, and from there up into the rest of the structure - as a regular in-line design would.   In point of fact, NLS determined that the LH2 Tanking could remain essentially unchanged from ET and would be strong enough to support the loads produced by 4 x STME engines underneath - each of which was an RS-68 class 650,000lb thrust engine.

I can not locate a high resolution drawing of the loadpaths right now (I'm not at home), so I've whipped-up an approximation drawing (attached) just to show differences in axial loads between the two structures.   I'll try to get a better picture when I can.

You will clearly note the radically different axial load pattern on the LH2 tank barrel between ET and Jupiter.   Jupiter transmits all of its loads into the thrust structure, the purpose of which is to spread and transmit all of its loads in a uniform manner up into the LH2 tank cylinder.

You will also notice the loads around the SRB attachments aren't changing significantly.

The Ogive LOX tank walls on ET have very little axial stresses indeed.   But Jupiter doesn't use that tanking anyway, so its really an irrelevant point.   Jupiter would essentially re-use the same manufacturing equipment which currently produces the LH2 barrel sections to make the new LOX tank barrel sections.

Similarly, the same tooling which manufactures the Intertank would also be re-used, with minimal changes, to make the Fwd Skirt above the LOX Tank and also the Aft Skirt below the LH2 Tank and above the Thrust Structure/Engine Compartment.

And the tooling currently used to manufacture the three tank domes currently can be utilized to make a fourth as well, again, with only minor changes.

I'm really "brushing over" a huge amount of the details even given the length of this post, and I'm just not going to engage in any discussion of the specifications of the nuts and bolts in a public forum.   But the nuts and bolts of Shuttle are extremely well understood and clearly form the backbone of the effort for getting Jupiter into production.   I would venture to say that many parts of Jupiter's Core will not be 100% identical to the current Shuttle specification, but that almost every single part of it can be produced using existing Shuttle tooling and procedures.   Evolving the existing design, utilizing the 125+ flight knowledgebase as the Point of Departure, and deliberately choosing to retain the maximum amount of tooling possible at the design stage, the Jupiter is still years ahead of either Ares vehicle in terms of maturity, production and processing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 07/17/2008 08:14 am
Also, IIRC, you have still allocated a large budget for making the ET to Core changes? Just to err on the side of caution?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 07/17/2008 08:21 am
Clearly a clean sheet / propellant depot / ISRU solution would be ideal.
But given the political necessity of STS-derived, Direct just looks much more sensible than Ares I / V.

Shuttle-C only ever made any sense as an add-on to an operating Shuttle program. As a stand alone, sustainable launch vehicle, it's just silly.

If NASA really want an almost completely new heavy launcher, they should bite the bullet and develop a big new LOX/RP-1 engine, ( F-1X anyone?), and drop the SRB's.  Otherwise they're just spending 2 or 3 times more than they might, for no real gain.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2008 08:27 am

You are going to have to publish a mathematical rebuttal as well as a verbal one.  The politicians may not be able to read it but the automotive and civil engineers can.

The thickness of an 8.4m diameter tank make from Al 2195 required to support the know maximum mass of itself, upper-stage and payload at max Q is ?.

We're probably going to publish a comparable set of data to what's in NASA's documentation.

But we won't be discussing any proprietary data.   NASA couldn't because of export issues.   We won't either.   For precisely the same reason.

What we are considering though, is the fact that NASA complained that we didn't show sufficient cost data.   Well, we've been refraining from that because they keep all their cost data secret.   If they want to call us on that issue, we're really tempted to reveal all of our cost data.   But to have a reference point we'd also have to reveal of theirs too.   I think NASA's Administration would get really upset if we did that, because it isn't at all pretty.   We're still considering the full ramifications of doing that though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2008 08:32 am
Also, IIRC, you have still allocated a large budget for making the ET to Core changes? Just to err on the side of caution?


Yes.   We have allocated approximately double the budget of the Ares-I US to that effort - more than $2bn.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2008 08:42 am
If NASA really want an almost completely new heavy launcher, they should bite the bullet and develop a big new LOX/RP-1 engine, ( F-1X anyone?), and drop the SRB's.  Otherwise they're just spending 2 or 3 times more than they might, for no real gain.

That's the thing.   They don't want *completely* new.   They want to retain the ATK/Boeing/Lockheed political lobby intact.

That industrial complex has managed to breath strong political life into the Shuttle and the ISS for quarter of a century now.   That's quite an achievement given that Shuttle never performed the way we had hoped and that ISS has cost many multiples of what it was supposed to.

NASA *really* wants to retain as much of that proven political muscle and fighting for their new program now.   And I can't blame them for wanting that.  If these guys have managed to keep Shuttle and ISS funded through all the issues they've had, they're a solid team to have in your corner.

And you really would not believe just how much lobbying power ATK has in its corner at the moment.   They've got their act together - and some.   While Lockheed & Boeing have impressive lobbyist groups too, ATK's is currently, for whatever reason, having far more sway in this arena than both of them put together.   I really do not think anyone could successfully extract them from this business without a lot of political fallout occurring in the process.

We sure didn't realize it when we started out, but keeping ATK in a strong central position by keeping the SRB's may actually end up being the smartest thing we did in the whole DIRECT effort.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/17/2008 01:22 pm
if you don't know what you are going to be doing how can you build an architecture to service it?

My point is, we don't know what we are going to be doing for the next 20-40 years.  You don't know if ISRU is feasible and practical or not and neither does anyone else.  You don't know what challenges will come up or what political winds will blow.  Will we be going to the moon, or NEOs?  Will we be building bases or ships?  Will we be building a radio telescope on the moon, or a geological base on Mars?  Remember, we're talking about decades here, and no one can predict the future over such a long period of time with any certainty whatsoever.  That's not a flaw of any one project proposal, that's a flaw of all of them, and so I don't think any of them should be penalized for not predicting the future with certainty.  In fact, I think they should be rewarded for flexibility.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2008 01:26 pm
Can we please take this ISRU topic to a different thread.

While its a fascinating subject in its own right, it has very little to do with DIRECT.

As for will we be going to NEO's etc?   I really doubt it if Ares ends up sucking down 65% of NASA's entire annual budget every year.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 07/17/2008 01:28 pm
If NASA really want an almost completely new heavy launcher, they should bite the bullet and develop a big new LOX/RP-1 engine, ( F-1X anyone?), and drop the SRB's.  Otherwise they're just spending 2 or 3 times more than they might, for no real gain.

That's the thing.   They don't want *completely* new.   They want to retain the ATK/Boeing/Lockheed political lobby intact.

That industrial complex has managed to breath strong political life into the Shuttle and the ISS for quarter of a century now.   That's quite an achievement given that Shuttle never performed the way we had hoped and that ISS has cost many multiples of what it was supposed to.

NASA *really* wants to retain as much of that proven political muscle and fighting for their new program now.   And I can't blame them for wanting that.  If these guys have managed to keep Shuttle and ISS funded through all the issues they've had, they're a solid team to have in your corner.

And you really would not believe just how much lobbying power ATK has in its corner at the moment.   They've got their act together - and some.   While Lockheed & Boeing have impressive lobbyist groups too, ATK's is currently, for whatever reason, having far more sway in this arena than both of them put together.   I really do not think anyone could successfully extract them from this business without a lot of political fallout occurring in the process.

We sure didn't realize it when we started out, but keeping ATK in a strong central position by keeping the SRB's may actually end up being the smartest thing we did in the whole DIRECT effort.

Ross.

Didn't Eisenhower warn us about this kind of thing 50 years ago?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2008 01:30 pm
I think Benjamin Franklin also mentioned a few things in that vein also.

But as long as we continue to elect the officials we do, its what we are consciously choosing - for better or for worse.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/17/2008 01:36 pm
Also, IIRC, you have still allocated a large budget for making the ET to Core changes? Just to err on the side of caution?


Any chance we can see an element by element, year by year breakdown of your budget?  (a sand chart?)  One that is up to date so we don't have the "old information" problem? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 07/17/2008 01:44 pm
...
Will we be going to the moon, or NEOs?  Will we be building bases or ships?  Will we be building a radio telescope on the moon, or a geological base on Mars? ...

Yes please to all the above!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2008 01:46 pm
mars, "not sure" is the only answer I can give so far.   Maybe.   But no promises.

Here's the 'by element' sandchart to tide you over until we decide.   That's all we're willing to show at this point.

Ross.

[Edited: Said 'center', meant 'element']
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/17/2008 02:07 pm
One charts shows green at the top, the other shows bright red near the top.  Are those both the same NASA center just represented....

Edit:  Nevermind.  The blown up versions cut off the side so I couldn't see the legend.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 07/17/2008 02:27 pm

Here's the 'by element' sandchart to tide you over until we decide.   That's all we're willing to show at this point.

Ross.

Visibly, that is a huge cost savings by not having to develop Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 07/17/2008 02:32 pm
I think Jupiter 232 would make a satisfactory heavy booster.  We will just have to modify the missions to conform to the booster.  Again I'm sure someone has presented these options before but just in case... 
  Establish orbital transfer stations around Earth, moon, and Mars and assemble pure spacecraft in Earth orbit for the trip to the moon and Mars.  Landing and launch vehicles can be sent on ahead to the tranfer stations to be used when the crew gets there.  These pure spacecraft can be left in orbit and used for whatever missions they are needed for, staying docked at these transfer stations.  These transfer stations can be assembled using multiple modules launched on multiple missions like we did with ISS except they will be unmanned Jupiter 232 launches.  We just adapt the payload to the booster like we did with Skylab.  The booster was already built, we just adapted the Skylab design to be compatible with it.       
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/17/2008 02:50 pm
mars, "not sure" is the only answer I can give so far.   Maybe.   But no promises.

Here's the 'by element' sandchart to tide you over until we decide.   That's all we're willing to show at this point.

Ross.

[Edited: Said 'center', meant 'element']

I could do a bunch of analysis here, but I won't until I get more detail.  Let's just say that, from my experience, this is a VERY aggressive budget layout.  It is also less useful without understanding the system element (RS-68, J2, etc) development costs and schedules.

I hope we get something better so we can have an open debate about the proposed costs.  They look "contractor" aggressive in many places.  I'll even say that the ops costs look very low.

Sorry I can't do more, but without data, I won't speculate at the risk of making the mistakes I try to catch ...



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2008 02:59 pm
The scary thing in the Ares chart is that since we put that together from the numbers used to make the FY09 Budget Request a few months ago, we're hearing a much higher figure for the cost of the Ares from the NASA finance guys. The total figure in that chart for Ares-V (inc. EDS) is in the region of $3bn per year, but the numbers we're currently getting are actually in the $5.5bn region. And Ares-I might be as high as $2.5bn to $3bn as well.

We've had separate word that Ares-V's will each cost $1400m, which seems to tally very closely with the total figure there - assuming the baseline 4 flights per year.

That would seriously bump the chart up, but we haven't worked a cost profile including those numbers so far because we haven't got all of the details behind that new analysis yet.

We want all the details before we will directly compare the new figures though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2008 03:02 pm
mars,
If you can get NASA to show you theirs, we'll show you ours!  ;D

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/17/2008 03:10 pm

This is yet another reason why we push an alternative that requires none of this to happen.


The alternative requires an expensive cargo element that basically replicates the aft and fuselage of an orbiter, which will constrain the payload shape,  Additionally,for large payloads, just like Direct, can't use the existing RSS/PCR. 

The difference between shuttle-C and Direct is where you want to spend the money.  On ground or flight hardware. 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/17/2008 05:58 pm
mars,
If you can get NASA to show you theirs, we'll show you ours!  ;D

Ross.

No comment. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/17/2008 06:07 pm
a neutral 3rd party such as GAO and Rand examines both proposals using identical analytical tools and benchmarks.

Here's a proposal for an absolute independent arbiter - a high court made of the IPs (the ISS International Partners) representatives:

+ 10 judges from Roscosmos (Russia)
+ 6 from the 11 ESA country members
+ 4 from JAXA (Japan)
+ 3 from CSA (Canada)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/17/2008 06:09 pm
Second off, do you really believe the Ares I claims that a brand new rocket that's using all new engines, a new upper stage, etc designed by a team that hasn't designed a new rocket in my lifetime is somehow going to be 8x more reliable than any other rocket that has ever flown?  I sure as heck don't believe they'll get anywhere near 1:400 LOM.  I'd really be impressed if they did much better than the current average (which is about 1:98).  The kind of reliability assessment they made to get that 1:400 number is the same type of assessment SpaceX used to claim that Falcon-I was going to be the most reliable commercial rocket ever.

Jon, there is a difference between "demonstrated reliability" and "safety".

To take an extreme example, if I take parts of a GMC gremlin and put them in different configuration, I can improve safety but only so much.

If I redesign and improve a car, as Volvo does, I have a chance of radically improving safety, both through NEW design and iteration.  Note I said a chance, and not a certainty.

It is not impossible for me to believe that a vehicle with 3 nozzles (1 SRB, 1 J-2, 1 SM) and 2 separation events with a solid first stage (reduces near-pad explosions) would be TWICE as safe as a vehicle with 5 nozzles (2 SRB, 2 RS-68, SM), 3 separation events, and the possibility of a near-pad explosion (RS-68 fireball video anyone).  I'm not saying it is ... I'm just saying that it is not hard for me to imagine the math working out.

The lack of civility, discourse, and analysis with references and examples is driving me off of these boards by the way. 
 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/17/2008 06:12 pm
a neutral 3rd party such as GAO and Rand examines both proposals using identical analytical tools and benchmarks.

Here's a proposal for an absolute independent arbiter - a high court made of the IPs (the ISS International Partners) representatives:

+ 10 judges from Roscosmos (Russia)
+ 6 from the 11 ESA country members
+ 4 from JAXA (Japan)
+ 3 from CSA (Canada)



WHAT!?!?!?!

I hope this was a joke?   Let a panel of foreign "experts" unilaterally determine the launch architecture (sure, why not the whole architecture) and the future of the U.S. path in space?  Let them determine how we spend our $100B through 2020?

I can bet it will be Progress flights, Ariane resupply, and ISS operations as far as the eye can see.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/17/2008 06:15 pm

This is yet another reason why we push an alternative that requires none of this to happen.


The alternative requires an expensive cargo element that basically replicates the aft and fuselage of an orbiter, which will constrain the payload shape,  Additionally,for large payloads, just like Direct, can't use the existing RSS/PCR. 

The difference between shuttle-C and Direct is where you want to spend the money.  On ground or flight hardware. 

Shuttle-C only made sense in any pragmatic way when there was an orbiter as a compliment.  With the orbiter retirement, it really does not have much of a leg to stand on.  With shuttle-C you will get much higher operational costs than the development and infrastructure costs for the Jupiter series, and not to mention the payload capacity penalty.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/17/2008 06:29 pm
[…snip…] and the possibility of a near-pad explosion (RS-68 fireball video anyone).  I'm not saying it is ... I'm just saying that it is not hard for me to imagine the math working out.

Won't say it can't happen, but the possibility is remote at best. In over 35 years of flying this configuration (Shuttle), there has been a single accident, Challenger, and that was caused by criminally negligent management, management that was so bad that ATK had to go back and redesign the joints to be (management) idiot proof. Come-on mars; that's exactly the kind of disingenuous comment you are lamenting at the end of your post.

Quote
The lack of civility, discourse, and analysis with references and examples is driving me off of these boards by the way.

I will admit it does exist, but it is far less here than other forums I have checked out and here there are moderators who actually pay attention to the alert button. That's priceless.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/17/2008 06:34 pm
the possibility of a near-pad explosion (RS-68 fireball video anyone).

That is not a problem or has an effect on LOM/LOC or reliability numbers
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/17/2008 06:45 pm
a neutral 3rd party such as GAO and Rand examines both proposals using identical analytical tools and benchmarks.

Here's a proposal for an absolute independent arbiter - a high court made of the IPs (the ISS International Partners) representatives:

+ 10 judges from Roscosmos (Russia)
+ 6 from the 11 ESA country members
+ 4 from JAXA (Japan)
+ 3 from CSA (Canada)



WHAT!?!?!?!

I hope this was a joke?
Half joke.

Quote
  Let a panel of foreign "experts"
They do have experts. And quality info to work from.

Quote
  unilaterally determine the launch architecture (sure, why not the whole architecture) and the future of the U.S. path in space?  Let them determine how we spend our $100B through 2020?

I can bet it will be Progress flights, Ariane resupply, and ISS operations as far as the eye can see.
No, no, no... just an independent opinion to Congress and POTUS. Limited to the frame of STS-derived ... you know, this debate here.

There should be a majority.pdf and a minority.pdf... "can't wait to read !"

International involvement with the USA VSE is a hot topic these days...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 07/17/2008 07:37 pm
However it turns out in the end, DIRECT is going to make a great civics lesson one day. Even more interesting if it should happen to win out. Either way, I suspect books will be written about. Btw, the next issue of Asimov's will have a story in it that mentions the Jupiter 232 LV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/17/2008 08:14 pm
the possibility of a near-pad explosion (RS-68 fireball video anyone).

That is not a problem or has an effect on LOM/LOC or reliability numbers

OK, too cheeky.  I realize that it is not a significant issue for crew safety.  I just meant that liquid propellants are in general less managable than solids.  Sorry for the unnecessary hyperbole with the fireball comment.  I just love that video!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 07/17/2008 08:37 pm

The lack of civility, discourse, and analysis with references and examples is driving me off of these boards by the way.
 

Nonsense, if people are correcting you, that is not a lack of civility. I'm reviewing this thread very carefully, and there's the back up of the alert function.

I suggest you use the appropiate avenues should you feel that again. We are BY FAR the least tolerate to lack of civility here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bdshort on 07/18/2008 07:40 am
New member here, and new to the DIRECT plan, as I only heard about it a couple of days ago.  I downloaded the high res .pdf document from the directlauncher.com site, but when I go to open it, it tells me the file is damaged.  This is though both Preview and Adobe Reader 8 on the latest version of OS X Leopard.  Anyone have a link to a working copy of the high res file? (I already have the low res one).

BTW, this looks like a great forum, I'm glad I found it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/18/2008 07:46 am
if you don't know what you are going to be doing how can you build an architecture to service it?

My point is, we don't know what we are going to be doing for the next 20-40 years.  You don't know if ISRU is feasible and practical or not and neither does anyone else.  You don't know what challenges will come up or what political winds will blow.  Will we be going to the moon, or NEOs?  Will we be building bases or ships?  Will we be building a radio telescope on the moon, or a geological base on Mars?  Remember, we're talking about decades here, and no one can predict the future over such a long period of time with any certainty whatsoever.  That's not a flaw of any one project proposal, that's a flaw of all of them, and so I don't think any of them should be penalized for not predicting the future with certainty.  In fact, I think they should be rewarded for flexibility.

Actually we do know that ISRU is feasible.  The Apollo samples have given plenty of real material to work with in order to work out the processes for basically the worst material there....  Apparati have been built and tested with a multiplicity of process applications types.  There is engineering to be done on production level systems but feasibility has been demonstrated.

Google NASA SP-509 and read it through, then Google, "The Resources of Near Earth Space" from the University of Arizona.  Good reading.

That is another thread if you want to go to the ISRU thread.

The point of bringing it up is that if you just build a slightly less costly system to help a bad architecture, you are not really solving the problem.  This has always been the problem, being fascinated with the rocket and not with how the system is put together to actually do what the political guys said we were going to do.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/18/2008 07:51 am

NASA is 100% correct, as has everyone that has ever looked at this issue that the only thing reused from the current ET design is the tooling.  There is no possible way, with changing the load paths in the manner that any in line system requires means less than a bottom up redesign of the ET.  It cost over $750 million dollars just to change the ET material to the Aluminum Lithium tank.  It was going to cost over half a billion for the aft cargo carrier.  It is going to cost a heck of a lot of money to start over with a stage design, not a tank design.

Let me start by just informing the gentle readers that Dennis has crossed swords with us in the past because he favors a different alternative.   His posts here are therefore not entirely benevolent.

He has his own agenda which he has been trying hard to promote consisting of Shuttle-B and EELV, but with Shuttle-B being phased out after a while.

I will ask the moderators to make sure that this thread is not hijacked for the purpose of just casting aspersions on your 'competition' just to justify your position because we appear to be getting the lions share of the attention at the moment.

Dennis, you're free to start your own thread of course, where we can all discuss that option including the loadpaths inherent in the design of Shuttle-B, but I don't want any reader here to make the mistake that Dennis Wingo is attempting to critique DIRECT from a neutral stance.   He has an agenda and is in competition with us.   I just want everyone to please just keep that in mind.
Ross.

I am making a legitimate statement about your glossing over the requirements related to the design of your system.  You make a statement that it is a trivial matter and it is just a redesign of the existing hardware.  Well guess what, I have all of the drawings, and it is not.  It is a complete redesign from the ground up.  That is required.  The shape may be similar and you can use some of the production tooling but it is a new design.  The rule of thumb in aerospace is that if you make more than 35% change, it is a new design, period.

That will require new bids for the development work.  That process alone will take nine months to a year.  There is no possible way for DIRECT to have an Initial Operating date in CY 2012.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Achilles on 07/18/2008 08:05 am
Well guess what, I have all of the drawings, and it is not.

Do hope you've been working on your own time
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/18/2008 04:16 pm
if you don't know what you are going to be doing how can you build an architecture to service it?

My point is, we don't know what we are going to be doing for the next 20-40 years.  You don't know if ISRU is feasible and practical or not and neither does anyone else.  You don't know what challenges will come up or what political winds will blow.  Will we be going to the moon, or NEOs?  Will we be building bases or ships?  Will we be building a radio telescope on the moon, or a geological base on Mars?  Remember, we're talking about decades here, and no one can predict the future over such a long period of time with any certainty whatsoever.  That's not a flaw of any one project proposal, that's a flaw of all of them, and so I don't think any of them should be penalized for not predicting the future with certainty.  In fact, I think they should be rewarded for flexibility.

Actually we do know that ISRU is feasible.  The Apollo samples have given plenty of real material to work with in order to work out the processes for basically the worst material there....  Apparati have been built and tested with a multiplicity of process applications types.  There is engineering to be done on production level systems but feasibility has been demonstrated.

Google NASA SP-509 and read it through, then Google, "The Resources of Near Earth Space" from the University of Arizona.  Good reading.

That is another thread if you want to go to the ISRU thread.

The point of bringing it up is that if you just build a slightly less costly system to help a bad architecture, you are not really solving the problem.  This has always been the problem, being fascinated with the rocket and not with how the system is put together to actually do what the political guys said we were going to do.

I do not see Jupiter launch vehicles as being incompatible with ISRU or EML rendezvous or fuel depots or fully reusable LSAMs.

The DIRECT 2.0 architecture is more than the Jupiter series of launch vehicles and as I recall includes a concrete proposal to incorporate the EML points for LSAM - Orion rendezvous.

Even if you dislike Jupiter,  DIRECT 2.0 is MORE than Jupiter, it also revises the ESAS lunar return architecture.

However, with Jupiter 232 (particularly if leveraged with pre-deployed LOX) larger pieces of equipment and larger more capable LSAMs can be delivered to the EML points for dropping onto the surface. Perhaps spacecraft can be assembled Lego like on orbit but wouldn't bulldozers (and robotic LOX extraction equipment) be better built if they are assembled on Earth, fully tested and then launched with minimal disassembly. It also seems to me that the larger Bigelow habs would do better launched in one piece.

All that said, I am entirely supportive of a comprehensive, independent external and fully transparent review of EELV, shuttle C, ESAS and  DIRECT to evaluate the comparative long term costs of putting mass on the lunar surface and on Mars.

= = =

Back in WW2 we needed Landing Craft Infantry (LCI) and Landing Ship Infantry (LSI) as well as Landing Craft Tank (LCT) and Landing Ship Tank (LST) as well as Higgins boats.

Going all EELV doesn't seem to offer sufficient payload mass or volume and RLV payloads will be tiny compared to Jupiter.

An RLV to ferry tourists to a LEO space hotel? I can foresee that as being possible before too long. An RLV that can loft a big bulldozer? Or a large volume Bigelow hab? I'm sorry, I do not foresee that any time soon.

Also, more crassly, an all EELV approach aimed at rapid transition to RLVs (if feasible) also sticks a fork in the eye of ATK which may be why O'Keefe and Steidle's vision for VSE implementation sank like a stone without a whisper of protest from Congress.

= = =

A question for the moderators -- is this thread about the Jupiter proposal or all of DIRECT 2.0 which actually is more than Jupiter itself.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 07/18/2008 05:56 pm
I downloaded the high res .pdf document from the directlauncher.com site, but when I go to open it, it tells me the file is damaged.  This is though both Preview and Adobe Reader 8 on the latest version of OS X Leopard.  Anyone have a link to a working copy of the high res file? (I already have the low res one).
Hello.
I think "hi-res" and "low-res" presentation are the same, they just differ by the resolution.
BTW these presentations (from AIAA 2007 Space conference) are a bit outdated, you'd better look at the updated presentation (click on "Update" red button).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Capt. Nemo on 07/18/2008 08:25 pm
Not feasible

For crying out loud, you have 3 perfectly good SSMEs on 3 remaining shuttles. That buys you at least 3 Jupiter flights (not necessarily all manned). And if they fail? Who cares, you were going to retire the shuttles anyway... Now you buy time to tweak the main tank and man-rate your rs-68s all while attempting to launch ISS components that would simply go unused!

My faith in 'rocket scientists' is failing... Too much thinking and not enough doing...

Caring about the rocket blowing up and killing the crew does not mean that the engineers or management are being wimpy.

-Comment about this site-  I've posted a few times with my amateur ideas on building rockets  and at first I thought the other posters were being dicks about their replies. But, as I've read more and more of these threads and  some about the engines, systems, and architectures being debated (including a lot of very informative stuff at Encyclopedia Astronautica) I've realized how little I really know about all this stuff. I made the same mistake as you newcomb, thinking of these rockets and engines as kind of a 'Plug'n'play' thing. But as I've learned from my readings and from people on this site. it's much more complicated than that. ---- One intersting tidbit I came across was learning that the SSME's cost way more money to build than the RS-68 and are more complicated to build also. That's why they don't use them. (As far as I know.  :P )   ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/18/2008 10:17 pm
There's a news story buzzing around about SAIC being given $45 million to conduct independant cost & technical analysis of NASA programs. Wonder if they will look at Ares program vs direct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/18/2008 10:22 pm
.... is this thread about the Jupiter proposal or all of DIRECT 2.0 which actually is more than Jupiter itself.

It's about the architecture, of which the Jupiter launch vehicle is an enabling part. It's not just about the launch vehicle. There is a LOT more to this than just the rocket, a lot more.

The DIRECT architecture takes us to LEO, Moon, Mars and beyond, in accordance with policy. It is definitely designed to take us out into the solar system. It is VSE, not ESAS. It is Mars-forward. We haven't talked much about that but I am currently writing up something comprehensive which will lay out some of our current thinking about architecture options and the different ways we can get from here to there, as well as what we do along the way, and who gets to play and profit. Stay tuned.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 07/18/2008 11:01 pm
There's a news story buzzing around about SAIC being given $45 million to conduct independant cost & technical analysis of NASA programs. Wonder if they will look at Ares program vs direct?

It looks like the contract is tied to Langley, don't know if that tells us anything or not.  Also I don't know if they know rockets, but it appears they fired a 5" shell 85 miles ... Crikey!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 07/19/2008 01:38 am
There's a news story buzzing around about SAIC being given $45 million to conduct independant cost & technical analysis of NASA programs. Wonder if they will look at Ares program vs direct?

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/200807171605PR_NEWS_USPR_____NETH093.htm

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2008 05:45 am

and the possibility of a near-pad explosion (RS-68 fireball video anyone).

Oh, c'mon!

That's just silly.   Just take a look at Saturn-V start-ups - the flameball it produced only "looks" smaller than Delta-IV Heavy's because the Saturn-V is so damn big in comparison.   The burst was actually about the same size.   But it looks 'cool' on Saturn, but 'deadly' on Delta?   They were both designed to handle it.

If you think the 5 seconds of flame around the Delta ignition is impressive, just take a close look at the attached picture of Apollo 11 and work out for yourself just how much of the S-IC stage is consumed by Plume Impingement there.

Shuttle suffers from exactly the same effect on the back of the Orbiter (think about all the black closeout tiles around the base of the SSME's and you'll quickly figure out why they're there) and also on the aft of the ET.   Check the attached picture to see how scorched the aft dome gets because of this effect - and remember its located a lot further forward than the engines.

Flames and/or serious heating up around the sides of rocket stages are *nothing* new - just Delta-IV's look a bit more spectacular than we've become used to seeing on TV.  That's all.

Every rocket ever flown to orbit has to deal with it in some way or another.   That's one of the reasons why Thermal Protection Systems are there in the first place.

I'd bet you knew that even before you wrote that. You've had good questions in the past, but that's just scare-mongering for the sake of it.   Keep the good questions coming - they actually help us double-check our assumptions and we welcome those :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2008 06:03 am
There's a news story buzzing around about SAIC being given $45 million to conduct independant cost & technical analysis of NASA programs. Wonder if they will look at Ares program vs direct?


I don't think this has anything to do with us, but I will point everyone to the SAIC document currently on ATK's Safe Simple Soon website regarding the Ares-I:-

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/assets/documents/Reliability+CrewSafety.pdf


I really don't know the corporation myself, but they do seem to have at least some ties to Ares already.

I would prefer an independent review between Ares and DIRECT to be performed by people and/or companies with no such previous ties.

No offense meant to SAIC, but such a comparison would have to be  completely independent or there will always be doubters - us in particular.

Ross.

PS - As a complete aside, it is interesting to note that page 24 is the only reference to possible 'SRB vibration': "ATK Thiokol has initiated a load analyses program. The preliminary results have indicated no problem in this area. The initial results and the planned future effort is described in Appendix IV" - which is not included.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2008 06:18 am
A question for the moderators -- is this thread about the Jupiter proposal or all of DIRECT 2.0 which actually is more than Jupiter itself.

I'm actually going to field that question myself - because I started the thread.

This thread is about the whole architecture - not just the Jupiter launchers.

We could have a separate thread just about them, but they're such an integral part of the architecture (they define the largest bits you can lift at a time, and define a significant chunk of the costs for the whole program) its pretty difficult to really separate them.

So this thread is for discussion of not just the Jupiter launchers, but also the spacecraft they're likely to launch, the missions they'll support and the various other parts, which together will make up the greater DIRECT v2.0 architecture.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2008 06:32 am
New member here, and new to the DIRECT plan, as I only heard about it a couple of days ago.  I downloaded the high res .pdf document from the directlauncher.com site, but when I go to open it, it tells me the file is damaged.  This is though both Preview and Adobe Reader 8 on the latest version of OS X Leopard.  Anyone have a link to a working copy of the high res file? (I already have the low res one).

BTW, this looks like a great forum, I'm glad I found it.

Welcome to the site.   You've found the best space discussion site anywhere around IMHO.

Sorry you're having problems with the file (not sure why, it's working for me), but there is another copy available here:

http://www.teamvisioninc.com/downloads/AIAA-2007-6231-HighRes.pdf

And as Stephan has mentioned already, the low-res version is identical in content, except that the images are lower resolution.

He also correctly pointed you towards the UPDATE file - which has the revised and latest baseline information in a much shorter document.   Read the AIAA paper with those changes to hand ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2008 06:36 am
a neutral 3rd party such as GAO and Rand examines both proposals using identical analytical tools and benchmarks.

Here's a proposal for an absolute independent arbiter - a high court made of the IPs (the ISS International Partners) representatives:

+ 10 judges from Roscosmos (Russia)
+ 6 from the 11 ESA country members
+ 4 from JAXA (Japan)
+ 3 from CSA (Canada)

I can only imagine the ITAR problems of such a panel.   I think the idea of a panel is an excellent one, but I think they're going to have to be US citizens.

I just can't see how any foreigners would be granted the access to all the necessary data they're going to need in order to perform such a comprehensive and detailed review as this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2008 06:41 am
Btw, the next issue of Asimov's will have a story in it that mentions the Jupiter 232 LV.

How cool is that! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/19/2008 11:13 am
There's a news story buzzing around about SAIC being given $45 million to conduct independant cost & technical analysis of NASA programs. Wonder if they will look at Ares program vs direct?

It looks like the contract is tied to Langley, don't know if that tells us anything or not.  Also I don't know if they know rockets, but it appears they fired a 5" shell 85 miles ... Crikey!

They know rockets, and it looks like they know about any thing there is to know.

First, two examples of SAIC mastering the rocket science, related to Ares-I :

1/
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070038372_2007037045.pdf
Rapid Contingency Simulation Modeling of the NASA Crew Launch Vehicle
bd Systems, a Subsidiary of SAIC, Huntsville, AL.


I used this one in a parody (another thread), it's impossibly technical, but the audacity to read through the finish is rewarded with a preview of flight control problems for Ares-I's first stage ascent - one of the main reasons for the Ares-I-X test, IMO.

2/
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070018751_2007018905.pdf
Preliminary Analysis of Ares I Alternate Launch Abort System (ALAS) Configurations Tested in the Boeing Polysonic Wind Tunnel
SAIC


This one was removed from ntrs - I checked today and it's gone.
The paper apeared at ntrs in June 2007 out of  nowhere - the first description of the ALAS(-1, -2 and -3), and IIRC ALAS-11 is currently baselined for Ares-I/Orion.
To me - it was a surprise to find something like this at ntrs long before the ALAS story hit the news.

And finaly, for the "plot" inclined - google "Washington's $8 Billion Shadow" for the vanityfair story back in 03.2007 (I would not recommend this type of discussion here)


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 07/19/2008 03:22 pm
But please be patient. It will take us about a week more or less to put together a reasonable response that will address the points made in the study in a satisfactory manner. Piecemealing the answers will only make the final response take longer. Have patience.
Ross, Chuck, I know it's a lot of work, but do you have an approximate date for the release of your answer to NASA analysis ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 07/19/2008 04:18 pm
There's a news story buzzing around about SAIC being given $45 million to conduct independant cost & technical analysis of NASA programs. Wonder if they will look at Ares program vs direct?


I don't think this has anything to do with us, but I will point everyone to the SAIC document currently on ATK's Safe Simple Soon website regarding the Ares-I:-

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/assets/documents/Reliability+CrewSafety.pdf


I really don't know the corporation myself, but they do seem to have at least some ties to Ares already.

I would prefer an independent review between Ares and DIRECT to be performed by people and/or companies with no such previous ties.

No offense meant to SAIC, but such a comparison would have to be  completely independent or there will always be doubters - us in particular.

Ross.

PS - As a complete aside, it is interesting to note that page 24 is the only reference to possible 'SRB vibration': "ATK Thiokol has initiated a load analyses program. The preliminary results have indicated no problem in this area. The initial results and the planned future effort is described in Appendix IV" - which is not included.

That's a very interesting document. They managed to numerically evaluate the safety & reliability of an SRB/J-2S CLV without even knowing the mass of the proposed upper stage, or noticing that a 4-seg SRB and a J-2S upper stage can't put 50,000+ lbs into LEO? Surely that would hurt the LOM numbers a bit? :)  Ares I is struggling with 5-seg and the more powerful, more efficient, J-2X.

I think you might want someone else to do the analysis...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/19/2008 08:29 pm
Ross, Chuck, I know it's a lot of work, but do you have an approximate date for the release of your answer to NASA analysis ?

Not sure Stephan.   We're working on it as fast as we can, but it isn't the only thing we've got on the burner.

Debunking NASA's assumptions is no longer actually the #1 priority for us right now - surprising as that may be :)

All this press has brought us a lot more opportunities and the NASA study seems to be seen by most of the people who have made recent contact with us for what we believe it is - an effort to just discredit the competition - without us even responding yet!

Anyhow, as a result of all this attention, we've found ourselves even more busy preparing other things completely unrelated to the rebuttal.

An independent group who came to us, has actually validated our findings completely on their own.   We can't really talk about any details just yet (wait, all will be revealed sooner or later!), other than I'll say its from an impressive source.

We'll release the rebuttal as soon as we possibly can.   We want it out by the end of the month at the latest, one way or the other, because we just don't want NASA's analysis to just be left 'hanging' unchallenged.   But the truth is that with this independent validation, it is already a moot report anyway.   What has really shocked me, is that I don't actually think it is affecting anything anyway.   From where I'm sitting nobody seems to be believing that NASA won't have put their finger on the scales and their 'faith' is already pretty slim WRT such a report.

And believe me, I'm as shocked about that realization as anyone!   I thought some people might actually buy into it just because it was official.   Apparently not though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/19/2008 08:53 pm
Ross, Chuck, I know it's a lot of work, but do you have an approximate date for the release of your answer to NASA analysis ?

Not sure Stephan.   We're working on it as fast as we can, but it isn't the only thing we've got on the burner.

Debunking NASA's assumptions is no longer actually the #1 priority for us right now - surprising as that may be :)

All this press has brought us a lot more opportunities and the NASA study seems to be seen by most of the people who have made recent contact with us for what we believe it is - an effort to just discredit the competition - without us even responding yet!

Anyhow, as a result of all this attention, we've found ourselves even more busy preparing other things completely unrelated to the rebuttal.

An independent group who came to us, has actually validated our findings completely on their own.   We can't really talk about any details just yet (wait, all will be revealed sooner or later!), other than I'll say its from an impressive source.

We'll release the rebuttal as soon as we possibly can.   We want it out by the end of the month at the latest, one way or the other, because we just don't want NASA's analysis to just be left 'hanging' unchallenged.   But the truth is that with this independent validation, it is already a moot report anyway.   What has really shocked me, is that I don't actually think it is affecting anything anyway.   From where I'm sitting nobody seems to be believing that NASA won't have put their finger on the scales and their 'faith' is already pretty slim WRT such a report.

And believe me, I'm as shocked about that realization as anyone!   I thought some people might actually buy into it just because it was official.   Apparently not though.

Ross.

Alright, you have intrigued me.  When will we see this other group, or are you guys keeping it as the Ace in your sleeve?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/19/2008 10:45 pm
There's a news story buzzing around about SAIC being given $45 million to conduct independant cost & technical analysis of NASA programs. Wonder if they will look at Ares program vs direct?


I don't think this has anything to do with us, but I will point everyone to the SAIC document currently on ATK's Safe Simple Soon website regarding the Ares-I:-

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/assets/documents/Reliability+CrewSafety.pdf


I really don't know the corporation myself, but they do seem to have at least some ties to Ares already.

I would prefer an independent review between Ares and DIRECT to be performed by people and/or companies with no such previous ties.

No offense meant to SAIC, but such a comparison would have to be  completely independent or there will always be doubters - us in particular.

Ross.

PS - As a complete aside, it is interesting to note that page 24 is the only reference to possible 'SRB vibration': "ATK Thiokol has initiated a load analyses program. The preliminary results have indicated no problem in this area. The initial results and the planned future effort is described in Appendix IV" - which is not included.

I remember when that paper came out! It actually analysed a four segment SRB version with single J-2S upper stage. It was purely focused on failure analysis rather than performance analysis. They have also assumed in the analysis that vibrational loads fall within shuttle limits. The report was a top down analysis rather than a bottom up analysis. I think that SAIC could be relyed upon to perform an honest analysis assuming the focus of the analysis is clearly defined. If they were asked to produce the same report for Direct they would come up with similar conclusions as in this report with the addition of extra failure modes for the second SRB. If they were asked to review the current Ares-1 under the same assumptions they would note the uncertainties surrounding the addition of the fifth segment. They wouldn't do a vibrational analysis - that's a rather major peice of analysis that is related to a bottom-up approach.

I don't see any bias here. If NASA will use SAIC for Direct analysis then I'd be happy. Wish we had more info though on what specifics were to be studied by them as part of this contract.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/20/2008 05:39 am
Alright, you have intrigued me.  When will we see this other group, or are you guys keeping it as the Ace in your sleeve?

I really don't know.   It could be a few months, it could be quite a bit longer.   For now, things must happen entirely behind the scenes on this.   We have a very long way to go on this before I can say any more.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 07/20/2008 03:23 pm
You have intrigued me too, I hope we will have some info soon but it seems it will take some time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/20/2008 08:21 pm
I don't see any bias here. If NASA will use SAIC for Direct analysis then I'd be happy. Wish we had more info though on what specifics were to be studied by them as part of this contract.

I don't believe we could be happy with any study initiated by NASA, no matter who actually performs it.

We believe they have deliberately massaged our numbers twice already , and I for one could never have faith that they wouldn't use the value of their contract(s) as a lever to bend such a study's results to their will.

That is why a company like SAIC - which is already making money from Ares studies - could not be guaranteed to be 100% independent.


The *only* way to have a truly independent study, IMHO, is for Congress to authorize this comparison study.

Further, their agents would need to be either 100% controlled by Congress (GAO for example) or for them to disclose any-and-all ties to either DIRECT or Ares.   If those connections are found to be considerable, say via multi-million dollar contracts in-place or being competed-for with one and not the other, those agents should automatically be recused from participating just as any member of a legal investigation would have to be.

That's the only way to get an independent study from where I'm sitting.   Anything else opens the door to unfair bias and the results would then always be suspect.

There are plenty of other companies capable of doing this sort of study who do not currently have any contracts with NASA and aren't currently competing for new ones.   Any one of those would clearly be more independent than any current contractor.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Regolith on 07/20/2008 08:38 pm
I don't see any bias here. If NASA will use SAIC for Direct analysis then I'd be happy.

snip

That is why a company like SAIC - which is already making money from Ares studies - could not be guaranteed to be 100% independent.

snip

There are plenty of other companies capable of doing this sort of study who do not currently have any contracts with NASA and aren't currently competing for new ones.   Any one of those would clearly be more independent than any current contractor.

Ross.

Please name a few of the <plenty> that would NOT already have an organizational conflict of interest.

Of course, a not for profit, organization such as "The Aerospace Corporation" has the intellectual horsepower to do the study;   http://www.aero.org/

Regolith
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/21/2008 04:58 am
A question for the moderators -- is this thread about the Jupiter proposal or all of DIRECT 2.0 which actually is more than Jupiter itself.

I'm actually going to field that question myself - because I started the thread.

This thread is about the whole architecture - not just the Jupiter launchers.

We could have a separate thread just about them, but they're such an integral part of the architecture (they define the largest bits you can lift at a time, and define a significant chunk of the costs for the whole program) its pretty difficult to really separate them.

So this thread is for discussion of not just the Jupiter launchers, but also the spacecraft they're likely to launch, the missions they'll support and the various other parts, which together will make up the greater DIRECT v2.0 architecture.

Ross.

Then you cannot disallow a discussion of ISRU as it relates to the complete architecture. 


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/21/2008 05:37 am
I think that they want ISRU.  If they out it too much on the critical path, guess what NASA is going to say?  Your proposal has is out of left field, too many new technologies, etc.  Even with depot for fuels, that is too far for todays NASA's.  ISRU opens up the whole solar system, but first you have to get to the moon.  Direct will allow bigger chunks of hardware to sent to the moon than with ELLV's. 

I understand that you do not support Direct, that's fine.  What do you support, that keeps shuttle people working during the gap--Ares, ELLV's? 

Please provide a space framework that everyone can see, look at, and help improve.  Ares was a good start, but now I think that it has go.  Safe, Simple, Soon-soon 2016 and then we have to afford and build another rocket. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Capt. Nemo on 07/21/2008 05:52 am
Would it be possible to have an 'upper stage' on the Jupiter launcher that is similar to the upper stage of the now planned Ares1, i.e. one powered by a J-2 engine? Could such a configuration reach higher orbits if necessary?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Rogue109 on 07/21/2008 01:33 pm
I don't believe we could be happy with any study initiated by NASA, no matter who actually performs it.

We believe they have deliberately massaged our numbers twice already , and I for one could never have faith that they wouldn't use the value of their contract(s) as a lever to bend such a study's results to their will.

Ross:  "massaged"?  You mean you believe NASA deliberately falsified their report with erroneous information, don't you?  Don't beat around the bush...just come out and say it! 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Rogue109 on 07/21/2008 01:40 pm
An independent group who came to us, has actually validated our findings completely on their own.   We can't really talk about any details just yet (wait, all will be revealed sooner or later!), other than I'll say its from an impressive source.

Ross:  Please forgive me because I don't understand something.  You have an independent group which has verified your position.  You will be "revealing" this information later.  But, for some reason, you "can't really talk about any details yet"? 

Is there some sort of journalistic embargo on this information?  Did this independent group ask you not to release it?  If it's so good, and time is running short, why wait?  Why the secrecy?  Isn't that what you indirectly accuse NASA of?

Be bold: please release it now!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/21/2008 02:01 pm
I don't believe we could be happy with any study initiated by NASA, no matter who actually performs it.

We believe they have deliberately massaged our numbers twice already , and I for one could never have faith that they wouldn't use the value of their contract(s) as a lever to bend such a study's results to their will.

Ross:  "massaged"?  You mean you believe NASA deliberately falsified their report with erroneous information, don't you?  Don't beat around the bush...just come out and say it! 

Falsified isn't really the correct word, I'd say using old and out of date information.

It would be like reviewing a new video game, but using the beta version for the review, when a newer, less-buggy version already exists.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/21/2008 02:35 pm

Falsified isn't really the correct word, I'd say using old and out of date information.

It would be like reviewing a new video game, but using the beta version for the review, when a newer, less-buggy version already exists.

For example, ignoring the fact that we had documentation to verify some of our base assumptions, and inserting their own base assumptions instead, and then performing the analysis based on those skewed numbers. Stuff like that. I would call that a thumb on the scale.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/21/2008 05:57 pm
A question for the moderators -- is this thread about the Jupiter proposal or all of DIRECT 2.0 which actually is more than Jupiter itself.

I'm actually going to field that question myself - because I started the thread.

This thread is about the whole architecture - not just the Jupiter launchers.

We could have a separate thread just about them, but they're such an integral part of the architecture (they define the largest bits you can lift at a time, and define a significant chunk of the costs for the whole program) its pretty difficult to really separate them.

So this thread is for discussion of not just the Jupiter launchers, but also the spacecraft they're likely to launch, the missions they'll support and the various other parts, which together will make up the greater DIRECT v2.0 architecture.

Ross.

Then you cannot disallow a discussion of ISRU as it relates to the complete architecture.

This is a fascinating passage from the recent joint NASA-ESA lunar architecture assessment (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28640):

Quote
Orbital Infrastructures: A low lunar orbiting station as analyzed within the ESA transportation architecture studies and that can be utilized by NASA has the potential to enhance mission safety and performance, and could enable different mission profiles. To fully understand the benefits of this station would require further dialogue. Other ESA orbital infrastructure concepts (LEO, Lagrange points) do not have synergy with NASA's architecture.

DIRECT 2.0 expressly proposes LaGrange point rendezvous for Orion & the LSAM and advocates consideration of fuel depots. Thus, it would appear that DIRECT 2.0 offers greater "synergy" with ESA concepts.

ISRU? Lunar LOX would seem the easiest lunar ISRU to deploy but that makes little sense to do unless paired with a reusable single stage LSAM.

If someone did deploy a reusable single stage LSAM where would it "park" between missions other than EML-1 or EML-2?

Low lunar orbit is unstable (due to the lumpy lunar gravity) and therefore EML-1 or EML-2 seem the "closest" safe place to park.

Thus . . .

DIRECT 2.0 strikes me as being about as ISRU-forward as can be expressly planned for in 2008 and DIRECT 2.0 has the potential to incorporate ISRU LOX into its architecture as soon as that capability comes on-line. Further negotiations / collaboration with ESA could accelerate this result.

As for adequate funding for lunar LOX extraction? That will depend on the next NASA Administrator but going with DIRECT 2.0 would seem to allow some budget room for that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 07/21/2008 07:48 pm
Not sure if this is a rehash of the AP story, if it is sorry, but DIRECT hits New Scientist.

Moonlighting engineers design alternative NASA rocket (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14364-moonlighting-engineers-design-alternative-nasa-rocket.html?feedId=online-news_rss20)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 07/21/2008 07:56 pm
Not sure if this is a rehash of the AP story, if it is sorry, but DIRECT hits New Scientist.

Moonlighting engineers design alternative NASA rocket (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14364-moonlighting-engineers-design-alternative-nasa-rocket.html?feedId=online-news_rss20)

Doesn't look like the AP feed. Nice of them to link us (which is so rare for sites to link other sites nowadays, and usually based on attempting not to highlight their shortcomings). So well done to NS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Shuttle Scapegoat on 07/21/2008 09:23 pm
Does Jupiter have any problems with Thrust Oscillation, or is it the same as Shuttle? I ask as the crew at on top, not the side, of the vehicle.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5474
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2008 10:09 pm
The SRB > ET/Core forces are handled on Jupiter in precisely the same way as they are on Shuttle and is designed to absorb the worst of the forces so that they are not transmitted any further.

With the large quantity of propellant still remaining on-board throughout SRB flight, the dampening effect of that substantial mass further reduces the effects for both Shuttle and Jupiter in the exact same way too.

The payload (Shuttle / Orion) are then connected to the ET/Core through a separate connection system which transmits a portion of the remaining forces to the spacecraft.    Orbiters are connected via the Orbiter mounts, Orion's via the PLF.

Preliminary analysis indicate that a range within +/- 10% of the current Shuttle environment would be experienced by the Orion without any additional isolators - which remains well within NASA's current limits.

Acoustic environment within the PLF would be slightly lower than Shuttle Payload Bay and will be a *LOT* lower than the Ares-I - about 12dB to 18dB lower!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/22/2008 12:29 am
I think that they want ISRU.  If they out it too much on the critical path, guess what NASA is going to say?  Your proposal has is out of left field, too many new technologies, etc.  Even with depot for fuels, that is too far for todays NASA's.  ISRU opens up the whole solar system, but first you have to get to the moon.  Direct will allow bigger chunks of hardware to sent to the moon than with ELLV's. 

I understand that you do not support Direct, that's fine.  What do you support, that keeps shuttle people working during the gap--Ares, ELLV's? 

Please provide a space framework that everyone can see, look at, and help improve.  Ares was a good start, but now I think that it has go.  Safe, Simple, Soon-soon 2016 and then we have to afford and build another rocket. 

What is the requirement for bigger chunks of hardware?  At the proposed flight rates bigger hardware chunks are meaningless as they are not needed.  Why do we want to spend tens of billions of dollars in DDT&E, only slightly lower cost than Ares, on a single use system, with no other customers, to do a mission for NASA that will render them obsolete within a couple of years of establishing the industrial infrastructure for ISRU?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 07/22/2008 12:42 am
I dunno about all this fudging, falsification, changing numbers and such.  When you look at the timing, what is obvious is NASA used current information at the time, completed the anlysis, and forgot about it.

Direct 2.0 was released on 10 May 2007.
NASA's first analysis was done in May 2007.  Clearly this evaluation was triggered by the release fo the 2.0 information.
Direct then released the Horizons article in August 2007
Direct then was presented at the AIAA conference in Septemeber 2007.
NASA's next analysis was done in October, again. clearly using the September data.

The NASA document has three shortfalls so far as I can see:

1.  A lack of footnotes specifiying where the data came from and what information release (May, august, or September 2007)
2.  It was not updated between the conclusion of the analysis in October and subsequent public release this summer.
3.  They did not coordinate with the Direct Team after the analysis was completed.

Giving NASA the benefit of the doubt, given their conclusions and apparent data lapses in the Direct documentation, i suspect no one thought that it was worthwhile going back and doing the evaluation again.  It also takes a certain amount of time, baring a leak or external pressure to get these things approved for public release.

So, to me, merely looking at the timeing, it does not appear that NASA was deliberately trying to shoot down Direct (though you can certainly believe that if you wish), but that they used the most current evaluation at the time.

Having said that, the document should recieve a rebuttal and it should be couched in the most professional of language, acknowledge lapses where they occured, presenting the updated documentation (appropriately cross referenced to the NASA presentations), and all talk of deliberbate se of old data and prejudice should be left out.

Your mileage may vary.

{edit}  I wish to state that I like the Direct campaign plan and the launch vehicle.  It makes common sense to me (a simulation system engineer) and I would like it to succeed.  I just think the rhetoric needs to be turned down.

{another edit} for over 5 years I reviewed software for game magazines.  I always stated what version of a game I was reviewing (pre-alpha, alpha, pre-beta, beta, and final release.  I frequently, but not always coordinated with the game developers to clarify any points that I had doubts about, especially on production games, and my average rating was --- average --- for all games I reviewed.  Very few, but some, ultimately got 'not recommended'  from me and even fewer got "superior, go buy it right now and forget about eating for a week".


Mike

I don't believe we could be happy with any study initiated by NASA, no matter who actually performs it.

We believe they have deliberately massaged our numbers twice already , and I for one could never have faith that they wouldn't use the value of their contract(s) as a lever to bend such a study's results to their will.

Ross:  "massaged"?  You mean you believe NASA deliberately falsified their report with erroneous information, don't you?  Don't beat around the bush...just come out and say it! 

Falsified isn't really the correct word, I'd say using old and out of date information.

It would be like reviewing a new video game, but using the beta version for the review, when a newer, less-buggy version already exists.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: madscientist197 on 07/22/2008 01:56 am
Well I just read the AP article in the New Zealand Herald over the weekend, so it's definitely getting around.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/22/2008 04:35 pm
Supposedly, NASA is working on an "Ares V MAX" configuration, or the biggest LV they can possibly build.
What is the largest possible configuration possible with Jupiter...sticking with ET diameter core and the 4 seg boosters. What would a Jupiter-MAX look like?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/22/2008 05:43 pm
Isn't it a J-244 ?

btw this one's for Chuck ;)

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/07/if-you-want-to-repeat-apollo-do-it.html


The Apollo programme of the 1960s had some weight problems too; in particular, the lunar lander needed some fairly drastic weight-reduction work. But the rockets didn't see any of this: their development went forward pretty much in a straight line, hewing closely to the original designs. Why?

The key difference was Wernher von Braun, director of the Marshall Space Flight Center (then as now, NASA's rocket-development centre). Early in Apollo, he met with the crew capsule people to get their final decision on how much the Apollo spacecraft was going to weigh. They told him that the final number, including all margins, was 75,000 pounds (34 tonnes). The Apollo spacecraft definitely would weigh no more than that.

And he quietly decided that he simply didn't believe them.

He'd seen their weight estimates growing by the month, and he simply didn't believe that this one wouldn't grow too. So he went back to Marshall and told his team that the real requirement was 85,000 pounds (39 tonnes). He later raised that number still further. As it finally turned out, the Apollo 11 spacecraft weighed roughly 100,000 pounds (45 tonnes). The only reason that Apollo flew on schedule was that von Braun had been so cautious.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/22/2008 06:04 pm
Not sure if this is a rehash of the AP story, if it is sorry, but DIRECT hits New Scientist.

Moonlighting engineers design alternative NASA rocket (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14364-moonlighting-engineers-design-alternative-nasa-rocket.html?feedId=online-news_rss20)

Not sure this got wider attention due to the cross-posting of the AP article, but this one definitely had new content.

--

Mark Udall, chairman of a congressional subcommittee on space and aeronautics. "We need to ... actually field a system – not engage in more paper studies and reviews," Udall told New Scientist. "At this point, I am not seeing any significant interest in this [DIRECT] alternative within the halls of Congress."

--

Projects like DIRECT are providing an outlet for parallel approaches – forums where frustrated people can sketch out alternative ideas. When NASA pursues a singe line of development, "people on the outside pull out pens and pencils", McCurdy told New Scientist.

--

"We looked at a similar ... system, and it's true that it would be cheaper for going to the Moon," Stanley told New Scientist. "But it's expensive to use these big rockets to go to the space station."

--

"I do half of the engineering," Metschan told New Scientist. The others fill in the rest – crunching the numbers and trouble-shooting aspects of the design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/22/2008 07:06 pm
Isn't it a J-244?

Forget Mars. We're going to Titan. ;-)

(Just Kidding)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 07/22/2008 07:47 pm
"We looked at a similar ... system, and it's true that it would be cheaper for going to the Moon," Stanley told New Scientist. "But it's expensive to use these big rockets to go to the space station."


The problem with this quote is ISS is not the long term goal.  Anyone who will sacrafice the long term viability for a short term goal that has questionable value when it may be possible to do this commercially, does not belong in senior managment guiding policy. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/22/2008 07:59 pm
Great point!

However, I imagine that Griffin was told to protect the option of flying to ISS longer (beyond 2016) as a real possibility.  Protecting the options of future leaders may not be popular, but it is good stewardship.

It is a much easier game when you can be focused.  Too bad we had to go to the ISS at all (and that darn 135MT 'requirement') ... DIRECT would likely have been chosen (based on Stanley's statements).

"We looked at a similar ... system, and it's true that it would be cheaper for going to the Moon," Stanley told New Scientist. "But it's expensive to use these big rockets to go to the space station."


The problem with this quote is ISS is not the long term goal.  Anyone who will sacrafice the long term viability for a short term goal that has questionable value when it may be possible to do this commercially, does not belong in senior managment guiding policy. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/22/2008 08:07 pm

The problem with this quote is ISS is not the long term goal.  Anyone who will sacrafice the long term viability for a short term goal that has questionable value when it may be possible to do this commercially, does not belong in senior managment guiding policy. 

Agreed.
The goal is “Moon, Mars and Beyond”, NOT “ISS, Moon, Mars and Beyond”.

From the very beginning, the plan was to skip the ISS and leave crew rotation and resupply to the international partners and to COTS. The direction from the President to NASA was to go back to the Moon. That’s what the system is designed for, and Dr Griffin has repeatedly stated as much. He has said that the mission of the ESAS architecture and the Ares launch vehicles is to go to the Moon and on to Mars. He has said over and over again that the Ares/Orion MOON spacecraft would step in temporarily, if necessary, to take care of the ISS if COTS were delayed, but that the entire system was being designed for the Moon, not the ISS. He has repeatedly stated that people should not be thinking of the CxP launchers in terms of the ISS.

And yet, they repeatedly use the excuse that the Jupiter is too big for the ISS as a reason why we should not build it. That’s two-faced and self-serving.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/22/2008 09:44 pm
I dunno about all this fudging, falsification, changing numbers and such.  When you look at the timing, what is obvious is NASA used current information at the time, completed the anlysis, and forgot about it.

Direct 2.0 was released on 10 May 2007.
NASA's first analysis was done in May 2007.  Clearly this evaluation was triggered by the release fo the 2.0 information.
Direct then released the Horizons article in August 2007
Direct then was presented at the AIAA conference in Septemeber 2007.
NASA's next analysis was done in October, again. clearly using the September data.

The NASA document has three shortfalls so far as I can see:

1.  A lack of footnotes specifiying where the data came from and what information release (May, august, or September 2007)
2.  It was not updated between the conclusion of the analysis in October and subsequent public release this summer.
3.  They did not coordinate with the Direct Team after the analysis was completed.

Giving NASA the benefit of the doubt, given their conclusions and apparent data lapses in the Direct documentation, i suspect no one thought that it was worthwhile going back and doing the evaluation again.  It also takes a certain amount of time, baring a leak or external pressure to get these things approved for public release.

So, to me, merely looking at the timeing, it does not appear that NASA was deliberately trying to shoot down Direct (though you can certainly believe that if you wish), but that they used the most current evaluation at the time.

Having said that, the document should recieve a rebuttal and it should be couched in the most professional of language, acknowledge lapses where they occured, presenting the updated documentation (appropriately cross referenced to the NASA presentations), and all talk of deliberbate se of old data and prejudice should be left out.

Your mileage may vary.


I agree with the point about the timing of the NASA documents. But if you look at the AIAA paper it clearly shows a common bulkhead on the Upper stage, which NASA has not used in it's analysis. Hence the thumb on the scales.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 07/22/2008 09:46 pm

The problem with this quote is ISS is not the long term goal.  Anyone who will sacrafice the long term viability for a short term goal that has questionable value when it may be possible to do this commercially, does not belong in senior managment guiding policy. 

Agreed.
The goal is “Moon, Mars and Beyond”, NOT “ISS, Moon, Mars and Beyond”.

From the very beginning, the plan was to skip the ISS and leave crew rotation and resupply to the international partners and to COTS. The direction from the President to NASA was to go back to the Moon. That’s what the system is designed for, and Dr Griffin has repeatedly stated as much. He has said that the mission of the ESAS architecture and the Ares launch vehicles is to go to the Moon and on to Mars. He has said over and over again that the Ares/Orion MOON spacecraft would step in temporarily, if necessary, to take care of the ISS if COTS were delayed, but that the entire system was being designed for the Moon, not the ISS. He has repeatedly stated that people should not be thinking of the CxP launchers in terms of the ISS.

And yet, they repeatedly use the excuse that the Jupiter is too big for the ISS as a reason why we should not build it. That’s two-faced and self-serving.


That one quote from Stanley proves the NLS/Direct case.

Chris or any other reporter on here could make a story out of that one quote.  If you factor in long term costs of this Program, then the taxpayers - all of us - are not getting our money's worth.

If anyone on here who works with Congress (51D, etc) should seriously look into this with OMB.  Congressman Udall says we need to field a system and I agree but I want one that is robust and inexpensive enough that it does not consume the whole budget so we can actually do something sustainable beyond LEO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/22/2008 09:53 pm
That one quote from Stanley proves the NLS/Direct case.

Chris or any other reporter on here could make a story out of that one quote.  If you factor in long term costs of this Program, then the taxpayers - all of us - are not getting our money's worth.

They would simply argue the crew safety part of the equation.  Hard to say that a five-nozzle, three sep-event rocket with a large liquid lower stage is not considerably less safe than a three-nozzle, two sep-event rocket with a solid lower stage no matter how you do your math.

And yes, I agree that the NASA methodology favors solids ... but the number of nozzles, separation events, and chances of a near-pad explosion are a pretty good indicator of safety.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/22/2008 10:05 pm
Ross,
I recall talk of an 8 week internal NASA study that showed Direct was best. Also there was mention of NASA working on an Integrated Master Schedule. Did this all turn out to be false info? Or is that info available somewhere for all to see?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/22/2008 10:13 pm
That one quote from Stanley proves the NLS/Direct case.

Chris or any other reporter on here could make a story out of that one quote.  If you factor in long term costs of this Program, then the taxpayers - all of us - are not getting our money's worth.

They would simply argue the crew safety part of the equation.  Hard to say that a five-nozzle, three sep-event rocket with a large liquid lower stage is not considerably less safe than a three-nozzle, two sep-event rocket with a solid lower stage no matter how you do your math.

With Ares-I currently killing the crew on the way up, and one of the preferred solutions having a critical set of 4 liquids, the math looks to be changing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/22/2008 10:22 pm
With Ares-I currently killing the crew on the way up, and one of the preferred solutions having a critical set of 4 liquids, the math looks to be changing.

Good point, and I agree.  Will be interesting to see how they sort that out by PDR.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/22/2008 11:35 pm

There are claims of intentionally deleted ESAS concepts (my research says they don't exist) and sweetheart deals for ATK, Boeing, and LM to keep quiet.


There were no sweetheart deals, Boeing, and LM were just told. 

Have many sources for that outside of Direct.  This is the EELV sub.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/22/2008 11:38 pm

And yes, I agree that the NASA methodology favors solids ... but the number of nozzles, separation events, and chances of a near-pad explosion are a pretty good indicator of safety.

Incorrect.  It only favors using a flight proven motor.  That argument went by the wayside with the 5 segment SRB.  Momentum is only keeping it going, not safety.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/23/2008 06:26 am

There are claims of intentionally deleted ESAS concepts (my research says they don't exist) and sweetheart deals for ATK, Boeing, and LM to keep quiet.


There were no sweetheart deals, Boeing, and LM were just told. 

Have many sources for that outside of Direct.  This is the EELV sub.

The only thing in the appendices that was not published is proprietary cost data from the existing contractor base.  If you were really good, the entire ESAS report was available online for about a day and a half, if you knew where to look.

This is why the FOIA was futile.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 07/23/2008 07:52 am
leaving John Q. Public reading fancy articles from the AP and thinking that NASA is a waste of money.  And, I'm sure almost everyone would agree, no one wants that.

Please count me as someone who is not sure whether NASA is not a waste of money. Had it been mostly buying LVs from businesses, I would support it. The string of big and small failures of varying degrees - STS, ISS, X33, SEI, you name it - made me skeptical.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/23/2008 11:33 am

The only thing in the appendices that was not published is proprietary cost data from the existing contractor base.  If you were really good, the entire ESAS report was available online for about a day and a half, if you knew where to look.

This is why the FOIA was futile.

Wrong. Appendix 6A-6F were not ever available.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tedcraft on 07/23/2008 02:39 pm
Ross, I saw in the baseball cards of your last document (version 2.0.2 dated 24 June 2008) that you have now adopted the RS-68B and J-2X engines for the J-232 rocket as well as increased the upper stage propellant load by over 100 mT. However, despite those improvements, your payload numbers went down instead of up. Did you add new margins or modifications in your architecture to cause that?

PaulL


Ross,

Somebody asked this  question some time ago, but I never saw the reply.  I was curious about it also.  It does seem that you are using more powerful engines and increasing the amount of propellant yet quoting less payload than V2.0.1??

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JimMcDade on 07/24/2008 01:33 am
James Webb fired Apollo program dissident Nick Golovin, a NASA systems reliability analyst, after Golovin mounted a DIRECT2.0-type rebellion. Golovin was swearing to the world that LOR (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) was unsafe and it would never get Apollo to the moon before the end of the decade of the 1960s. DIRECT 2.0 is deja vu' all over again!

In 1962, James Webb was called to the White House carpet when Brainerd Holmes went public with a report that the Apollo program was going to need an extra $400 million (about $2-3 billion in today's money) for the planned Apollo vehicles. Webb explained to Kennedy how the costs of rockets and aircraft always exceed the original competitive bid amounts. Webb told Kennedy that part of the problem is that bid competitors are forced to "look harder" at their proposal after they actually win a bid competition and that the contractors always find that "new requirements' must be added to the configuration. Webb said, "the process of defining (the spacecraft) more accurately usually adds to the cost".

The "new requirements" effect is exactly what has happened with Ares I. There is nothing unusual or unexpected occurring as Are I moves from the drawing board to the launch pad. The DIRECT 2.0 folks are either ignoring his "new requirements" effect or they are just uninformed. There simply is no show-stopper with the Ares I SRB as many seem to believe.

We need to stop wasting time with the wannabe von Brauns and James Webbs. For me, one worry is that the next American on the moon will have to pass through Chinese customs when he or she gets there. I know that possibility doesn't bother most of our elite citizens who are so "politically evolved", but it does bother me.

This unnecessary dispute over DIRECT is not helpful to the space cause. Personally, I want to see men and women working on the Moon and Mars soon. I don't care if NASA puts rocket engines on the Big Boy statue (Dr. Evil style). I just want NASA to go somewhere other than flying loops around the world. I know that you DIRECT 2.0 guys have good intentions, but so did Golovin.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/24/2008 02:42 am
Was there ever a time during the design of Apollo/Saturn that it was expected to be 5 years later than originally planned, unable to lift its required payload when it got there, and having killed the crew on the way, as is the current case with Ares-I?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 07/24/2008 03:02 am
JimMcDade:

There's no doubt that NASA can make Ares I fly, given enough time and money, just as they did with the Saturn. But if they do spend enough to make it fly, there will not be enough money left in NASA's budget for any sort of sustainable exploration program beyond the ISS. The problems are not completely unsolvable, just ludicrously expensive to solve.

So choose one of these paths for NASA to follow:
Courageously (or is it masochistically?) stay the course with the groundbreaking new solid first stage Ares I for ISS missions, and burn through all the cash that was supposed to pay for Ares V and lunar missions.
OR
Man rate existing EELVs for ISS missions and money left over to be spent at the discretion of congress and the administration. (Maybe Lunar EELV missions, maybe education, maybe deficit reduction, maybe other pork barrel programs...)
OR
J-120 + J-232 + ISS and lunar missions within the current budget envelope.

If putting engines on a Big Boy statue was the most realistic and cost effective route to the moon and mars, that would be just fine with me. It isn't, but Ares has just about the same likelihood of success.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 07/24/2008 03:17 am
We need to stop wasting time with the wannabe von Brauns and James Webbs...
This unnecessary dispute over DIRECT is not helpful to the space cause.

Yeah, let's start wasting time and money with "STS boondoggle v2.0" replay. Just don't come back moaning "why public doesn't support NASA budget increases" and "why so many believe Apollo was faked".

Quote
Personally, I want to see men and women working on the Moon and Mars soon. I don't care if NASA puts rocket engines on the Big Boy statue

I want the same thing, but therefore I do care where NASA puts rocket engines. More precisely, I care how much $$$ every kg to lunar surface would cost. That's what ultimately matter. What are current numbers for Ares I/V?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2008 06:13 am
Supposedly, NASA is working on an "Ares V MAX" configuration, or the biggest LV they can possibly build.
What is the largest possible configuration possible with Jupiter...sticking with ET diameter core and the 4 seg boosters. What would a Jupiter-MAX look like?

There are so many different configurations possible its difficult to pick one out which is the 'limit'.   One I've recently been 'toying with' might possibly be called the "Jupiter-3544 Heavy".

It consists of a 3-stage vehicle (+ 2x 5-segment boosters denoted by the "Heavy" moniker) with 5x RS-68 engines on a standard ET-sized Jupiter Core (which could even be stretched further to match the 5-seg and get more out of the Core engines), 4x J-2X engines on an Upper Stage and 4x RL-10B-2's on a smaller EDS on top.

Using ICES technology (or Boeing equivalent) the same tank manufacturing would be utilized to build both the Upper Stage and the EDS - just with differing number of barrel sections and with different Thrust Structure/Engine Interfaces.   Theoretically, they could be either 8.4m or even 10m diameter if required.   Both configurations fit comfortably inside the VAB though with the taller, 8.4m variant, standing almost 375ft tall.

The only purpose which I have come up with for such a vehicle would be to place a highly-optimized RL-10 powered EDS into 130x130nm, 29.0deg massing around 12mT (burnout) and containing about 125mT of TLI propellant.   This would then be capable of sending more than 110mT of useful payload mass through TLI.

The same EDS design could also be re-used on top of a Jupiter-120 Heavy (making it a Jupiter-224 Heavy, I suppose) which would be able to launch both the Orion spacecraft and an 85mT LSAM ideally suited to go with the EDS launched by the big vehicle.

As I say, this is purely 'toying' around with different potential configurations, nothing serious, but that is up around the top of the range.


All of these options become pointless though - once you have a Propellant Depot architecture.

Filled-up by that, a single fully fueled Jupiter Upper Stage is more than sufficient to send payloads up to 205mT thru a 4,100m/s TMI burn to Mars.   I don't foresee *any* plans to exceed that performance envelope - although I'd *love* to see what we can do with that sort of performance available on-demand.

Further, all of that fuel would ultimately be launched by the commercial sector - funded either by NASA or by foreign partner investment - which US companies can compete for.

Ross.

PS - Just FYI:   The practical limit for a 1-launch Jupiter-232 Lunar Mission, filling up at an orbital Propellant Depot, would be to launch the CLV's full payload mass (~95.9mT plus EDS plus PLF) towards the moon.   That would consist of an Orion 20.2mT, 0.9mT of ASE for the Altair and the rest would be the lander itself - about 74.8mT worth.   This would require approximately 135mT of propellant to be delivered from the Depot for the TLI burn.   If the Altair Lander were also refueled it could be anything up to a  74.8mT *DRY* Lander!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2008 06:38 am
"We looked at a similar ... system, and it's true that it would be cheaper for going to the Moon," Stanley told New Scientist. "But it's expensive to use these big rockets to go to the space station."


The problem with this quote is ISS is not the long term goal.  Anyone who will sacrafice the long term viability for a short term goal that has questionable value when it may be possible to do this commercially, does not belong in senior managment guiding policy. 

And the point is wrong anyway.

Let me try to explain.

Yes, a Jupiter-120 costs a little more than an Ares-I.   But a higher flight rate reduces the costs, no?   Well the Jupiter-120 hardware flies on all our configurations - which essentially doubles its flight rate.   The cost improvement from this brings Jupiter-120 back into line with Ares-I's costs when examined *at the expected flight rates*.

Assumptions:

Flight rate: 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo

Ares-I Fixed Costs $1bn annually
Ares-I Variable Cost $150m per flight

Jupiter-120 Fixed Costs $1bn annually
Jupiter-120 Variable Costs $200m per flight

90% Economies of Scale Rule (ESR) is in effect

Results:

Ares-I therefore flies 4 times per year (2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew).   At this flight rate Ares-I variable costs drop to $122m due to ESR.   So each flight ends up costing $372m + Orion.

Jupiter-120 flies 10 times that year though - twice in J-120 configuration to ISS, but 8 more times as part of the larger J-232 configuration.   Although the vehicle cost $200m for the first one, at this flight rate of 10 per year, that variable cost element drops to $141m each.   Combine that with the fixed costs now spread across 10 flights and a Jupiter-120 flight to ISS now costs $241m.   That's $131m *cheaper* than an Ares-I flight!


Further, DIRECT doesn't need to fork-out the $15,000m for developing the Ares-V as well.   And that LARGE amount of cash can then be utilized for a host of other things instead - like paying for additional missions, or retaining workforce.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2008 06:54 am
Ross,
I recall talk of an 8 week internal NASA study that showed Direct was best. Also there was mention of NASA working on an Integrated Master Schedule. Did this all turn out to be false info? Or is that info available somewhere for all to see?

The report was half complete when HQ ordered the group to be disbanded.   No final Report was ever published.

Our contact in this was booted out of HQ and has ended up at KSC.   He doesn't want to be connected to anything like this again.

But we showed the results in our presentation already.   And the e-mails are being FOIA'd currently.   Don't hold your breath though - I've been waiting 2 years for an FOIA already.   I don't think I'll ever see it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2008 07:46 am

Ross,

Somebody asked this  question some time ago, but I never saw the reply.  I was curious about it also.  It does seem that you are using more powerful engines and increasing the amount of propellant yet quoting less payload than V2.0.1??

I'm trying to recall what precisely changed and I *think* it was something on the EDS structure which made the most significant change there.   It was an amalgam of about a dozen small changes across lots of systems and one or two big ones.   There were alterations to some of the mass breakout of the Core as well, although that didn't alter by a great deal overall.   Together the changes put it on a difference trajectory curve and that was the best result we could get out of it.   It's a good point, and something I've been meaning to return to but haven't had time yet.   I think the trajectory might still have some more optimization possible.

It continues to be a Work in Progress - just like Ares.   We're working on series 33 currently and whenever its ready it will probably go into a 2.0.3 document.   That'll be a while though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/24/2008 11:15 am

The "new requirements" effect is exactly what has happened with Ares I. There is nothing unusual or unexpected occurring as Are I moves from the drawing board to the launch pad. The DIRECT 2.0 folks are either ignoring his "new requirements" effect or they are just uninformed. There simply is no show-stopper with the Ares I SRB as many seem to believe.



incorrect.  there are no new requirements for Ares 1.  It can't meet the basic requirements.

There is a lot of new problem popping up because the vehicle is ill suited for the task. 

There are many show stoppers for Ares 1 (red risks turning into problems)

The poster is the one that is uninformed.

Continuing with Ares will insure the US will lose its lead
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 07/24/2008 01:09 pm
There simply is no show-stopper with the Ares I SRB as many seem to believe.

Yes, there are many.  Turning the crew into jelly on the way to orbit is a biggie, as is the substantial risk of outright structural failure on the way to orbit.  Combine all that with the fact that Orion has been stripped of a good number of its initially-planned capabilities and levels of redundancy just to make it more suited to Ares I, and one might convincingly argue that NOT stopping the (Ares I) show is lunacy of the highest order, regardless of which alternative you like best.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2008 01:50 pm

The only thing in the appendices that was not published is proprietary cost data from the existing contractor base.  If you were really good, the entire ESAS report was available online for about a day and a half, if you knew where to look.

This is why the FOIA was futile.

Wrong. Appendix 6A-6F were not ever available.

Correct Chuck.   I believe Dennis has his wires crossed.   He's trying to suggest that we are after the Pre-Decisional, NASA-only, ACI Draft copy of the ESAS Report which appeared briefly on a certain website I better not name (the watermarking top & bottom of every page gives it away tho).

That pack did NOT include any of the Appendices which we are chasing.

But it did include quite a lot of interesting cost data and other facts 'deleted' from the official release.   

I have both versions of the ESAS Report - the officially released one and also that ACI Draft version - on the Public Documents section of my own website - they've both been sitting there since August 2006 (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/ESAS/), so I don't really know if I was "really good" or "really bad" by Dennis' yardstick ;)   Not that I'll ever lose sleep over it either way  ;D

I personally quite like the 'changes' made in section 6.5.2 regarding the EELV suitability and also the "Yellow" then "Red" DDT&E cost of the "5-Segment RSRB with 1 J2S+".   Lots of interesting differences like that throughout the documents.

Feel free to see and compare for yourselves - I've no reason to hold them back, these aren't for 'super secret clubs' and 'privileged' individuals as Dennis seems to imply - no, they were paid for with my Tax money just as with yours - so I *want* as many folk to see them as possible.

There are also some pictures which I've snipped out of the documents in the sub-folders too which may be of some interest.


Interestingly - for me at least - it was seeing *and understanding* what 'Table 12-16' on page 748 (45 of Section "12 Cost") represents that was actually the real nexus point for me starting the process which ultimately led to DIRECT here today.   It started with that table and the realisation that a single launcher roughly half way between those two would end up costing about half of their combined totals.   (BTW, EDS costs are additional - see 3 pages earlier). You might like to see if it does anything for you.


And my FOIA for Appendix 6A is still being ignored by NASA HQ.   27 months and counting.

Ross.

[EDIT: Am also uploading official version from nasa.gov too]
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2008 02:02 pm
We're approaching 100 pages on this thread.   I know that the first 250 page DIRECT v2.0 thread gave the old forum software a real headache, but this thread is still a long way from there and the new software seems to cope even with that beast-of-a-thread.

When would Chris & James like me to start a new thread?   100?   150?   200?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 07/24/2008 02:45 pm
The "new requirements" effect is exactly what has happened with Ares I. There is nothing unusual or unexpected occurring as Are I moves from the drawing board to the launch pad. The DIRECT 2.0 folks are either ignoring his "new requirements" effect or they are just uninformed.

This not true. The so called "new requirements" are a result of the fact that Ares I has become under powered for reasons that go beyond normal design processes.

As origonaly envisioned Ares I used an air started, expendable version of the SSME but that proved too expensive forcing it ro be replaced by the J-2X which lacks the SSME's power and ISP. The result is that Ares I be inadiquated to do the job it was designed to do. As a result Orion is being scaled back to force fit it to an underpowered LV.

Quote
There simply is no show-stopper with the Ares I SRB as many seem to believe.

I can think of a few.
1. It is the main cause of Ares I's under perfomance.
2. It's thrust ossolation problem will kill the crew if not not solved.
3. Ares-IX going horrably wrong.

So far #1 has not stopped it though it should have.
So far #2 has not stopped it though it should.
#3 might stop it, but it would not surprize me if it didn't.

The only reason why none of these might stop the Ares I SRB is needless stuberness and pride.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/24/2008 03:01 pm
We're approaching 100 pages on this thread.   I know that the first 250 page DIRECT v2.0 thread gave the old forum software a real headache, but this thread is still a long way from there and the new software seems to cope even with that beast-of-a-thread.

Ross:

One more thing I'm curious on...what's the "end game" plan? 

Let's make an assumption that Ares isn't canceled and the program continues and MSF doesn't drop dead come January, 2009.  When would you throw in the proverbial towel?  2013?  2015?  Once the Armstrong Moon Base is open for business?  Never?

What towel is there to throw in? I don't see no towel here, proverbial or otherwise.

The plans and drawings for DIRECT 2.0 shall remain on various web servers and private caches essentially forever. The potential to say "We told you so" to top NASA brass shall never expire (ever) even if the current Team Direct disbands coordinated efforts to advocate the idea.

A better question (IMHO) is how NASA leadership proposes to maintain Congressional support for a multi-billion dollar human spaceflight budget  with no NASA astronauts flying in space on Orion until 2015 or 2016. At the earliest.
 
Why shouldn't POTUS McCain or POTUS Obama raid NASA money when they will never reap any personal political benefit from staying the course with ESAS?

= = =

The personal stakes are very far from even, IMHO. If DIRECT is never implemented, what will its advocates have lost? Not much, in any personal sense.

If NASA sticks with ESAS and ESAS fails, the history books will not be kind to those involved.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 07/24/2008 03:01 pm
We want a body who are not on NASA's payroll to do this.   How that body is made up, I'm open to suggestions.   Just as long as everyone involved is INDEPENDENT from NASA (and ourselves for that matter, but we're so small that's not too difficult).   Anyone who has a vested interest in Ares needs to be recused.   It's not that hard to work out.   It's how the legal system of this country works too.

Of course!  Because ANYONE involved with Ares MUST be biased because they are in on "IT."  And we don't want them around because they can't be trusted because of their affiliation with "IT."

Its not that any one involved with Ares must be biased, but that it can not be known that they are not biased.  If they are have no affiliation with Ares I, then they have no vested interest (such as loss of job) that might bias their conclusion. It's about making sure that the process is as bias free as possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2008 03:58 pm
Its not that any one involved with Ares must be biased, but that it can not be known that they are not biased.  If they are have no affiliation with Ares I, then they have no vested interest (such as loss of job) that might bias their conclusion. It's about making sure that the process is as bias free as possible.

Exactly.

There are many different approaches possible.

One might be to get Congress to order GAO to do a review, probably sub-contracting the technical review to someone better suited like Aerospace Corp or Rand.   While some say GAO is politically biased, I've seen their recent NASA stuff over the last few years I believe it has been fairly well balanced.   They've criticized NASA over some problematic things and equally they have congratulated NASA for other achievements.   From where I sit their comments have been fair in this field in recent years.   For my part, I would be quite happy to have GAO lead a review judging Ares vs. DIRECT - assuming NASA has no objection.

Another alternative might be to institute a panel of industry experts to oversee the review.   There are plenty of retired experts in the field to call upon.   There are Grey Beards aplenty to call upon.   Experts from the aerospace education field may also be an option.   I can think of a whole department at the Smithsonian who could probably be asked.   Other than the real technical analysis nitty-gritty stuff, a lot of the panel doesn't even need to come from the space community at all. Financial experts, for example, could be sourced from almost any finance field.   The only people who really need to be 'space' people are the ones who need to understand the technical specifications and the elements that make up the detailed analysis which needs to be done to validate them.

Those are two potential avenues to consider.   But it isn't really up to me.   Just as long as its independent, I don't care how the review is done - just as long as they can do the job properly and do it in an unbiased way.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Wolverine on 07/24/2008 04:34 pm
The "new requirements" effect is exactly what has happened with Ares I. There is nothing unusual or unexpected occurring as Are I moves from the drawing board to the launch pad. The DIRECT 2.0 folks are either ignoring his "new requirements" effect or they are just uninformed.

This not true. The so called "new requirements" are a result of the fact that Ares I has become under powered for reasons that go beyond normal design processes.

As origonaly envisioned Ares I used an air started, expendable version of the SSME but that proved too expensive forcing it ro be replaced by the J-2X which lacks the SSME's power and ISP. The result is that Ares I be inadiquated to do the job it was designed to do. As a result Orion is being scaled back to force fit it to an underpowered LV.

Quote
There simply is no show-stopper with the Ares I SRB as many seem to believe.

I can think of a few.
1. It is the main cause of Ares I's under perfomance.
2. It's thrust ossolation problem will kill the crew if not not solved.
3. Ares-IX going horrably wrong.

So far #1 has not stopped it though it should have.
So far #2 has not stopped it though it should.
#3 might stop it, but it would not surprize me if it didn't.

The only reason why none of these might stop the Ares I SRB is needless stuberness and pride.

These problems have been well documented everywhere, not just this website, so I can't understand how people can behave as if they are being true to themselves and still say that there are no "show-stoppers" with Ares I.  The more I read about thrust oscillation, the more I see the reason why a liquid 1st stage is a better option. 

I'm not a Nasa employee or rocket engineer, I am just a lowly industrial designer, however there are things in play here that I find deplorable.  NASA upper management has not learned from Columbia, Challenger and Apollo 1.

Ares I is simply NOT the best way to get a CEV into LEO.  It's a waste of money that could be spent on lunar exploration.  It's a black hole that valuable resources are being dumped into. 

We have the STS infrastructure and launch system already in use, and we have an EELV program in roughly the same payload class as Orion.

If it were up to me, I'd size the Orion to fly on an EELV and use Direct as a cargo launcher for lunar exploration.  The capsule is too darned big.

I don't post here much, as I am still learning things from many folks here who work in the industry, and I enjoy reading their technical wits, however I do have a very mechanical background and I know what a dirty diaper smells like when one rears it's ugly head.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2008 05:15 pm
Sorry Dude; ain't gonna happen. BTW, there are no "Dudes" or "Dudettes" on our team. Only professional people who work for a living.

In all seriousness, Chuck, that may be part of your problem. You guys really take this very seriously. To outsiders, that does kinda give people the impression that you're a group of over-serious fanatics.

Let me ask: Is anyone in the formal Direct team under 35? Or even 25? A bunch of old engineers griping is nothing new (it's part of the job description), but it's the engineers just now coming into the workforce that will have deal with the decisions made for the rest of their careers...

Really, though, lighten up! Seriousness does not equal professionalism, but confidence does. Getting overserious and calling your opponents trolls is underconfident and unprofessional.

Simon ;)

Simon;
The trolling comment didn't come from me. I wouldn't do that.
Several members of our team are in their late 20's and early 30's, while the majority is between 35 and 45. Then there’s the management group who I’d say is between 45 and 55. Then there is a huge jump to me and a few other graybeards on our team; I'm 62 of Saturn heritage. That’s the “general” mix of our team. We all are fairly well integrated in our own loose sort of way, and play very well together. There's lots of enthusiasm and excitement that especially exudes from our younger members. If Jupiter, or something very much like it becomes a reality, the majority of our team will spend a LOT of years with it. It will be their future and their career path, and they are VERY excited about it :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2008 05:24 pm
I'm 33 if that counts :)

I'm not sure how old some of the Team actually are, haven't asked everyone!   I know that there are some who were working STS-1 and some who even did Gemini & Apollo flights.   I know there are some who just joined within the last few years, so I think we've got a fairly broad spectrum.   I'd guess the average is probably 40+ though - we have a strong backbone of folk who have been through previous programs and know the shape of things.

Yes, we're pretty serious.   Sorry, but we are not doing this for fun - we're doing it because we think NASA is making a critical mistake here at the start of the new program in what will be a $200bn program over the next 20 years involving the careers of tens of thousands of people, the lives of a few hundred astronauts and which will either become a matter of national pride or international embarrassment.   We are taking that pretty seriously, although we do enjoy the work and there is a lot of enthusiasm throughout the group.

Having said that, I would say that the deep-down motivation for most people on this effort is really quite 'young and fresh' - all most of us want is just to see a new moon landing!   The others are holding out for Mars! ;D

Some of us have never seen a human on any other planetary body except Earth in our lifetimes (me!), some of us want to work on their 7th (some of our Grey Beards).   But just about all of us are convinced that NASA's current approach is simply not going to get there.   Ares and the politics surrounding them have certainly been proving to be a source of constant consternation.    We think the direction the program is currently taking needs to be changed before its too late and we're doing everything we can to make it happen.

We have thought of some humorous things (the image of Slim Pickens riding an Ares-1 comes to mind), but usually not followed them through because we want to stay on-message and refrain from just taking 'cheap shots' at Ares.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/24/2008 05:36 pm
Thread purged back (and apologies for the delay - was a rare occasion no moderators were around for a few hours...I'll find us a few more). I'll personally deal with this, rather than leaving it to a moderator to post a warning:

This thread is about Direct and their proposed vehicles. It's a big Q&A, which means you can ask questions and guess what, one of the Direct guys will kindly answer your question.

It is not a (paraphrased) "I think it's pile of --- goodnight" thread, the same as it's not a "I love Direct, OMG Griffin, why aren't you going this way, NOW!" thread. It's a civil Q&A for those for and against it, as per how this forum works.

This cuts out the noise, it does not allow for baiting (which was the problem) and what the moderators decided, goes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 07/24/2008 05:49 pm

The only thing in the appendices that was not published is proprietary cost data from the existing contractor base.  If you were really good, the entire ESAS report was available online for about a day and a half, if you knew where to look.

This is why the FOIA was futile.

Wrong. Appendix 6A-6F were not ever available.

Correct Chuck.   I believe Dennis has his wires crossed.   He's trying to suggest that we are after the Pre-Decisional, NASA-only, ACI Draft copy of the ESAS Report which appeared briefly on a certain website I better not name (the watermarking top & bottom of every page gives it away tho).

That pack did NOT include any of the Appendices which we are chasing.

But it did include quite a lot of interesting cost data and other facts 'deleted' from the official release.   

I have both versions of the ESAS Report - the officially released one and also that ACI Draft version - on the Public Documents section of my own website - they've both been sitting there since August 2006 (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/ESAS/), so I don't really know if I was "really good" or "really bad" by Dennis' yardstick ;)   Not that I'll ever lose sleep over it either way  ;D

I personally quite like the 'changes' made in section 6.5.2 regarding the EELV suitability and also the "Yellow" then "Red" DDT&E cost of the "5-Segment RSRB with 1 J2S+".   Lots of interesting differences like that throughout the documents.

Feel free to see and compare for yourselves - I've no reason to hold them back, these aren't for 'super secret clubs' and 'privileged' individuals as Dennis seems to imply - no, they were paid for with my Tax money just as with yours - so I *want* as many folk to see them as possible.

There are also some pictures which I've snipped out of the documents in the sub-folders too which may be of some interest.


Interestingly - for me at least - it was seeing *and understanding* what 'Table 12-16' on page 748 (45 of Section "12 Cost") represents that was actually the real nexus point for me starting the process which ultimately led to DIRECT here today.   It started with that table and the realisation that a single launcher roughly half way between those two would end up costing about half of their combined totals.   (BTW, EDS costs are additional - see 3 pages earlier). You might like to see if it does anything for you.


And my FOIA for Appendix 6A is still being ignored by NASA HQ.   27 months and counting.

Ross.

[EDIT: Am also uploading official version from nasa.gov too]

Your tax dollars do not give you the right to look at confidental cost data provided by competing contractors under NDA's.  If you cannot figure this out it is not the government's problem as there are specific exemptions to the FOIA for that purpose.  I did not download the original so don't know all of the details but knew that it had been taken down because it had NDA covered data from contractors.

I have the lunar appendices but they are covered under the NDA that we have as part of the LAT 1 team.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/24/2008 06:07 pm
Dennis, you write -

Your tax dollars do not give you the right to look at confidental cost data provided by competing contractors under NDA's.

Even if that is the reason, NASA must still respond and state that is the reason for not answering the FOIA. Yes, not everything can be FOIA-ed however simply ignoring a FOIA is decidedly inappropriate (and perhaps illegal).

Reasons for a request denial need to be issued.


The only thing in the appendices that was not published is proprietary cost data from the existing contractor base.  If you were really good, the entire ESAS report was available online for about a day and a half, if you knew where to look.

This is why the FOIA was futile.

Wrong. Appendix 6A-6F were not ever available.


* * *


And my FOIA for Appendix 6A is still being ignored by NASA HQ.   27 months and counting.

Ross.

[EDIT: Am also uploading official version from nasa.gov too]

Your tax dollars do not give you the right to look at confidental cost data provided by competing contractors under NDA's.  If you cannot figure this out it is not the government's problem as there are specific exemptions to the FOIA for that purpose.  I did not download the original so don't know all of the details but knew that it had been taken down because it had NDA covered data from contractors.

I have the lunar appendices but they are covered under the NDA that we have as part of the LAT 1 team.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2008 06:10 pm

The only thing in the appendices that was not published is proprietary cost data from the existing contractor base.  If you were really good, the entire ESAS report was available online for about a day and a half, if you knew where to look.

This is why the FOIA was futile.

Wrong. Appendix 6A-6F were not ever available.

Correct Chuck.   I believe Dennis has his wires crossed.   He's trying to suggest that we are after the Pre-Decisional, NASA-only, ACI Draft copy of the ESAS Report which appeared briefly on a certain website I better not name (the watermarking top & bottom of every page gives it away tho).

That pack did NOT include any of the Appendices which we are chasing.

But it did include quite a lot of interesting cost data and other facts 'deleted' from the official release.  

I have both versions of the ESAS Report - the officially released one and also that ACI Draft version - on the Public Documents section of my own website - they've both been sitting there since August 2006 (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/ESAS/), so I don't really know if I was "really good" or "really bad" by Dennis' yardstick ;)   Not that I'll ever lose sleep over it either way  ;D

I personally quite like the 'changes' made in section 6.5.2 regarding the EELV suitability and also the "Yellow" then "Red" DDT&E cost of the "5-Segment RSRB with 1 J2S+".   Lots of interesting differences like that throughout the documents.

Feel free to see and compare for yourselves - I've no reason to hold them back, these aren't for 'super secret clubs' and 'privileged' individuals as Dennis seems to imply - no, they were paid for with my Tax money just as with yours - so I *want* as many folk to see them as possible.

There are also some pictures which I've snipped out of the documents in the sub-folders too which may be of some interest.


Interestingly - for me at least - it was seeing *and understanding* what 'Table 12-16' on page 748 (45 of Section "12 Cost") represents that was actually the real nexus point for me starting the process which ultimately led to DIRECT here today.   It started with that table and the realisation that a single launcher roughly half way between those two would end up costing about half of their combined totals.   (BTW, EDS costs are additional - see 3 pages earlier). You might like to see if it does anything for you.


And my FOIA for Appendix 6A is still being ignored by NASA HQ.   27 months and counting.

Ross.

[EDIT: Am also uploading official version from nasa.gov too]

Your tax dollars do not give you the right to look at confidental cost data provided by competing contractors under NDA's.  If you cannot figure this out it is not the government's problem as there are specific exemptions to the FOIA for that purpose.  I did not download the original so don't know all of the details but knew that it had been taken down because it had NDA covered data from contractors.

I have the lunar appendices but they are covered under the NDA that we have as part of the LAT 1 team.

There are absolutely no stamps, watermarks or any other indications on any of the sheets throughout the entire set of documents which in any way, shape or form indicate in any way that anything, absolutely anything at all, is not for public consumption. There is nothing at all in any of the published data which would indicate in any way whatsoever that there is any kind of an NDA in place. If there were an NDA in place, the document would be required by law to have some type of confidentialiality watermark or stamp of some kind on it. But there simply is nothing there at all - nothing.

The documents that have been placed up on the website are freely available to the public. If they were not, NASA would not have released them to the public domain. Our tax dollars, which paid for these documents, absolutly give anyone who wants to, to have access to these documents.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2008 06:31 pm
Your tax dollars do not give you the right to look at confidental cost data provided by competing contractors under NDA's.

You don't know what you're talking about.

To quote the leader of the ESAS Team, Dr Doug Stanley, from This Post on this website dated 4/26/2006 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=2330.msg33409#msg33409):-

Quote
On a side note...It has been 7 months since the ESAS study.  All of the tens of thousands of pages of supporting charts and materials that were not released should already be in the public domain if you or others had simply requested it through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process (which takes a couple of months).  I am surprised no one has requested it.  NASA has to release anything that is not proprietary or competition sensitive (and very little was).

No offense, but when the head of the ESAS Team says it should be available by FOIA I think he should know better than anyone else.

My April 2006 FOIA request (#06-203) was for Appendix 6A thru F (note those are the Appendices for Section 6 - Launch Vehicles, not Section 12 - Costs) and all these supporting charts and materials which Dr. Stanley suggested - in fact was explicitly submitted *because* he said this.

After a few months I sent a follow-up to find out what the status was, and got a 'its being put together' reply.   All subsequent e-mails to NASA HQ's FOIA office have gone completely unanswered ever since.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 07/24/2008 06:37 pm
For what it is worth Ross, I recommend you start several threads as this one is becoming convoluted.

1.  Jupiter Launch Vehicle Discussion
2.  Direct Architecture Discussion
3.  Source and Ethical Discussions (or something like that)
4.  Direct FAQ

I further recommend if you have "secret" information you cannot reveal in the future, you refrain from mentioning it.  It is like eating candy in front of your 3 year old daughter and telling her she can't have any.


We fully realise that you need to protect your sources, however, Chris as a journalist has a limited right to do so (which may or may not be treated differently in the US than in the UK).  Since you are not a journalist, I do not think you would be covered under a legal request to reveal your sources, so you are better off refraining from mentioning things like that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/24/2008 06:39 pm
It is like eating candy in front of your 3 year old daughter and telling her she can't have any.

That paints a very vivid mental image! :)

I will refrain from teasers in the future.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 07/24/2008 06:42 pm
For what it is worth Ross, I recommend you start several threads as this one is becoming convoluted.

1.  Jupiter Launch Vehicle Discussion
2.  Direct Architecture Discussion
3.  Source and Ethical Discussions (or something like that)
4.  Direct FAQ

I further recommend if you have "secret" information you cannot reveal in the future, you refrain from mentioning it.  It is like eating candy in front of your 3 year old daughter and telling her she can't have any.


We fully realise that you need to protect your sources, however, Chris as a journalist has a limited right to do so (which may or may not be treated differently in the US than in the UK).  Since you are not a journalist, I do not think you would be covered under a legal request to reveal your sources, so you are better off refraining from mentioning things like that.

Who in the world could possibly compel Ross to reveal his sources legally?  NASA (e.g., the U.S. government) cannot sue him to stop his inquiries or push to release information, nor can they sue him for libel or any other form of defamation in order to compel his testimony.  Now CONGRESS could issue a subpoena as part of an investigation into NASA's handling of CxP and so forth, but that's about it.  I'd say the DIRECT people would love for it to get to that level, especially if it was before Ares I-X tries to pogostick its way into pieces next year, but it's unlikely.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/24/2008 07:01 pm
For what it is worth Ross, I recommend you start several threads as this one is becoming convoluted.

1.  Jupiter Launch Vehicle Discussion
2.  Direct Architecture Discussion
3.  Source and Ethical Discussions (or something like that)
4.  Direct FAQ

I further recommend if you have "secret" information you cannot reveal in the future, you refrain from mentioning it.  It is like eating candy in front of your 3 year old daughter and telling her she can't have any.


We fully realise that you need to protect your sources, however, Chris as a journalist has a limited right to do so (which may or may not be treated differently in the US than in the UK).  Since you are not a journalist, I do not think you would be covered under a legal request to reveal your sources, so you are better off refraining from mentioning things like that.

Who in the world could possibly compel Ross to reveal his sources legally?  NASA (e.g., the U.S. government) cannot sue him to stop his inquiries or push to release information, nor can they sue him for libel or any other form of defamation in order to compel his testimony.  Now CONGRESS could issue a subpoena as part of an investigation into NASA's handling of CxP and so forth, but that's about it.  I'd say the DIRECT people would love for it to get to that level, especially if it was before Ares I-X tries to pogostick its way into pieces next year, but it's unlikely.

Oh Herb - Please don't tease us like that.
We would be estatic if that happened!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 07/25/2008 12:13 am
I'd say that was a tease, since if the analyses showed a considereable problem at lift-off or during flight, the vehicle should never be allowed to fly. That goes for any piece of space hardware engineered. I think that would fall under the board of ethics, possibly placing people in harm's way.

Note though, I'd giggle my butt off too. :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/25/2008 12:50 am
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5906199.html   Buzz Aldrin calls for independent review of Direct 2 Launcher!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: AresWatcher on 07/25/2008 01:04 am
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5906199.html   Buzz Aldrin calls for independent review of Direct 2 Launcher!!

Where does Buzz specifically mention Direct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 07/25/2008 01:09 am
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5906199.html   Buzz Aldrin calls for independent review of Direct 2 Launcher!!

Where does Buzz specifically mention Direct?

Not a direct quote but part of the article..."Aldrin said he wants the panel to look at the Direct 2.0 rocket, a relatively simple design..."

Regardless, endorsements from all sides and many respected groups to review Ares I approach. Awesome.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 07/25/2008 01:18 am
Looks like the snowball is slowly turning into an avalanche. Aldrin commands a lot more respect and gravitas than Griffin ever will, Ares I is looking more and more like political toast unless Griffin is specifically kept on by the next President. One thing we know as a cast-iron certainty, DIRECT will not suffer from TO problems, Shuttle stack has already proved the cure in its case. Another cast-iron certainty is that it can lift any Orion ever made or going to be made. In light of all the question marks over Ares I's ability to perform even this basic function safely the case for DIRECT is getting stronger by the day.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/25/2008 02:31 am
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5906199.html   Buzz Aldrin calls for independent review of Direct 2 Launcher!!

Where does Buzz specifically mention Direct?

There is this:

Quote
Concerned by reports that the Ares rockets and Orion crew capsule are beset by cost overruns, schedule delays and complex technical woes, Aldrin says he wants to create a panel of experts to make sure that Constellation is the right way to go.

"We need to stick with the mission but rethink some of the ways we implement it," said Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. "It doesn't pay to stick with a bad idea."

and this

Quote
Aldrin said he wants the panel to look at the Direct 2.0 rocket, a relatively simple design that would use the shuttle's giant external fuel tank and rocket boosters to launch the Orion capsule into space.

and this

Quote
Jake Garn, a former Republican senator from Utah and the first member of Congress to fly in space, agrees. "We are not far enough down the road that we shouldn't consider other options while we're working on the current path," he said.

Rather explicit, IMHO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: AresWatcher on 07/25/2008 02:35 am
Not really, as Buzz is not quoted as saying Direct at any point. The writer made the intimation Buzz meant Direct when calling to look at alternatives. Got to be careful when it's not "quotes".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/25/2008 02:41 am
Not really, as Buzz is not quoted as saying Direct at any point. The writer made the intimation Buzz meant Direct when calling to look at alternatives. Got to be careful when it's not "quotes".

Are you asserting the reporters fabricated the passage? The language seems rather specific that Aldrin SAID even though an exact quote was not given.

If you are correct, Aldrin will repudiate them and they are both in very hot water as journalists. I guess we need to wait and see how Aldrin clarifies his comments. ;-)

You could be right, but I doubt it.

= = =

Second edit: Chris Bergin (for example) could simply call the Orlando Sentinel. And ask the reporters to clarify whether the words Direct passed Aldrin's lips, or not.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 07/25/2008 03:18 am
Ross -

I recall you said that your (re) analyses of the J-120 and J-232
LV's using the NASA margins and assumptions matched NASA's
results to within 1.5 percent or so (correct me if I'm wrong).

Have you run the current Ares I and V LV's through your analysis
tools to predict their performance using the same NASA margins
and assumptions used on the Jupiters?  I'd be interested in seeing
how those predicted Ares payloads compare to NASA's original
numbers.

I'm guessing that application of the same NASA margins and
assumptions to the Ares LV's will result in similar hits to their
payload numbers as seen in NASA's analyses of DIRECT.  But
I could be wrong...

Cheers,
F=ma
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/25/2008 05:55 am
Quote
Aldrin said he wants the panel to look at the Direct 2.0 rocket, a relatively simple design that would use the shuttle's giant external fuel tank and rocket boosters to launch the Orion capsule into space.

Ross & co. must have gotten a hold of his cell no. and talked his ear off. But he's only one greybeard astronaut. What do the others have to say about Ares and DIRECT? Some of them were quite confident in Constellation, last I heard.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/25/2008 07:54 am
Just for the record, Buzz approached us at the ISDC conference.   He, along with a team of his own people, are the ones I previously referred to as validating our numbers independently.   He wasn't going to stick his neck out and say anything about us unless he was able to validate our numbers himself first with his people doing the analysis.   If/when he wants to release the findings of his own investigations into DIRECT are entirely up to him - For the record, we have no say in that matter *at all*.

He actually came up with his own solution - along similar lines - a number of years ago called Aquila (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/moontomars/docs/032504SlidesAldrin.pdf).

Without trying to put any words in his mouth, he has his own motivations, his own resources and his own contacts - independent of anything to do with us in the DIRECT effort.   But when he saw Steve's ISDC Presentation (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_ISDC2008.pps) he approached US to find out more, because his own thinking and ours are very similar.   A number of meetings and calls resulted after that, including some with other members of his Apollo cadre too.   Those continue.

I believe he sees the merit in what we have produced and is calling for DIRECT to be one of the options which need to be considered against the current architecture - particularly in the light that the current architecture is having some fairly serious 'troubles' at present.

We welcome and strongly support Buzz Aldrin's call for an independent review.

And we want the review to start BEFORE they start tearing up the Shuttle tooling at Michoud & Kennedy - which starts happening within the next 8 weeks.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/25/2008 09:24 am
Ross -

I recall you said that your (re) analyses of the J-120 and J-232
LV's using the NASA margins and assumptions matched NASA's
results to within 1.5 percent or so (correct me if I'm wrong).

Have you run the current Ares I and V LV's through your analysis
tools to predict their performance using the same NASA margins
and assumptions used on the Jupiters?  I'd be interested in seeing
how those predicted Ares payloads compare to NASA's original
numbers.

I'm guessing that application of the same NASA margins and
assumptions to the Ares LV's will result in similar hits to their
payload numbers as seen in NASA's analyses of DIRECT.  But
I could be wrong...

Cheers,
F=ma

You are absolutely correct.

Using our tools I get a maximum performance of 20,153kg to -11x100nm, 29.0deg insertion for Ares-I.   With our arbitrary 10% additional DIRECT margins applied above & beyond NASA GR&A's, this drops to 18,138kg.   Of particular note is that this breaches our "if your altitude is over 160km as you accelerate through 6,100/s you might encounter BlackZone problems" guidelines which we always look for.   Even with that flag, you always need to do an analysis, which I haven't, so can't be at all sure, but I'm curious.   NASA *must* be flying a different trajectory, but this does appear to be the optimal one for performance for this vehicle.

Ares-6 (LV 51.00.48 config) gets 147,831kg to 130x130nm, 29.0deg insertion, and with the additional 10% DIRECT margin that becomes 133,048kg.   While it reaches orbit, this vehicle doesn't seem to quite achieve the 'typical' velocity of >9150m/s though, it hits 8,999m/s which is a touch on the low side.   I think this may be a side-effect of being forced to target such a low orbit.   My runs indicate that if it could stretch its legs to, say, 220nm insertion, I think it can get even more performance - but that would then be incompatible with the Lunar Ares-I.   It seems to lose something by 'constraining' it to the lower orbit, which is fairly unusual.   And the acceleration profile of the Core Stage vs the Upper Stage is just bizarre.   Totally unbalanced IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Achilles on 07/25/2008 09:27 am
And we want the review to start BEFORE they start tearing up the Shuttle tooling at Michoud & Kennedy - which starts happening within the next 8 weeks.
Ross.

8 weeks! isn't it game-over then ? To gain approval for a review, determine who's going to review, undertaking the review and reporting back the findings would take more than eight week ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/25/2008 09:32 am
More charts to add to those above...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/25/2008 09:44 am
And we want the review to start BEFORE they start tearing up the Shuttle tooling at Michoud & Kennedy - which starts happening within the next 8 weeks.
Ross.

8 weeks! isn't it game-over then ? To gain approval for a review, determine who's going to review, undertaking the review and reporting back the findings would take more than eight week ?

8 weeks to the *start* would be fine.   There would be sufficient press coverage that NASA probably wouldn't risk dismantling much under such close scrutiny.

Of course, when you get right down to it, it really doesn't actually matter too much, even if they do start ripping out some of the tooling.   In the very very worst case scenario that it was all ripped out and needed to be replaced, the total cost is about half a billion.   Remember though, that Jupiter-120 costs $5bn less than Ares-I.   Even if we had to absorb that cost as well, we'd still be $4.5bn better off.   Still not bad IMHO.   And Michoud would get shiny new tooling too, which isn't so bad either.   I was hoping to update their equipment anyway, but didn't want to allow it to affect the initial implementation schedule - a more gradual replacement strategy over a number of years (somewhere in the 2015-2018 timeframe) was what I had in mind, once the system is already fully operational.

The only concern I really have is the fundamental waste of tax-payers money and the delays to the schedule it would create.

Jupiter works best if we can start to produce the first battleship test-flight tanks almost immediately after the last Shuttle Tank parts clear the various stages of the production line.

If we have to re-tool everything as well, it would set us back 12 months or so to the first flight - and cost $500m which we don't *have* to pay while the budget is so tight pre-Shuttle retirement.


What I find most annoying about all of this, is that the section of MAF being allocated to Ares-I Upper Stage seems to be in another part of the building entirely.   According to the plans I have seen, Ares-V Core Stages will be produced where ET's are made today, but work won't start on them for at least another 5 years.   There seems to be no real need to remove the Shuttle ET tooling to make way for Ares-I - unless you are trying to do a Scorched Earth policy.


More annoying still is the fact that the language to protect this infrastructure which was passed 409 to 15 in the House Authorization bill has already been nixed by someone in the Senate version!   Tell me who organized THAT!

I'm seriously p*ssed about that because there is no *ACTUAL* reason - unless you are going to implement a SCORCHED EARTH policy.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: daver on 07/25/2008 11:53 am
Ross, in the last couple of days people have challenged you and the Direct team.   Buzz Aldrin comments in the Houston Chronicle are a victory to you and the Direct team.   I'm sure others will step forward in the coming days.   I have no doubts that when the independent review is done the Direct concept will be "Safer, Simpler, and Sooner".   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 07/25/2008 12:25 pm
Not really, as Buzz is not quoted as saying Direct at any point. The writer made the intimation Buzz meant Direct when calling to look at alternatives. Got to be careful when it's not "quotes".

A good journalist only uses quotation marks if he or she has a tape recorded or written statement from the source. When I do so, I supply quoted sources with copies of the draft article and ask them to agree in writing that the quote is accurate. When I am reporting what I heard someone say, I do not use quotes, but do use the article's format, "so-and-so said blah-blah." The main purpose of that is to cover small innacuracies in wording. But I don't say so-and-so said anthing I didn't hear them say, or try to read meaning into the words. Which is not to say there isn't a nice supply of bad journalists in the world.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 07/25/2008 01:38 pm
Looks like the snowball is slowly turning into an avalanche. Aldrin commands a lot more respect and gravitas than Griffin ever will, Ares I is looking more and more like political toast unless Griffin is specifically kept on by the next President. One thing we know as a cast-iron certainty, DIRECT will not suffer from TO problems, Shuttle stack has already proved the cure in its case. Another cast-iron certainty is that it can lift any Orion ever made or going to be made. In light of all the question marks over Ares I's ability to perform even this basic function safely the case for DIRECT is getting stronger by the day.

While I respect all the former Apollo Astronauts when they offer their opinions, hearing these concerns from "Dr. Rendezvous" has more impact due to his reputation for digging into the details and developing a complete understanding of the issues.  If he approached the Direct Team and offered to perform an independent analysis, as Ross said, that is big news.  Gaining credibility with Buzz is a big win for the Direct Team.  I hope we hear of others stepping out into the limelight, too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/25/2008 01:40 pm
It is being reported that Buzz has been having conversations with some space policy advisors in the Obama campaign. I don't know about the McCain campaign though.

It is important to note that while he did specifically mention DIRECT 2, that he is not specifically championing the Jupiter. He believes we have a valid point to make and that our vehicle design can do the job. But his approach is not to endorse the Jupiter, but to get a truly independent re-evaluation of the ESAS choice of launch vehicle done, which would include the EELVs, the Jupiter, the Ares and probably Shuttle-C as well. He is making the point that this decision is going to have repercussions for the next 30 to 40 years, and that we need to take whatever time is needed to make sure that we make a good decision now, rather than paying a penalty for 40 years for making a flawed decision now. The United States cannot afford to make a critical mistake at this point in the process. We have got to get this right the first time. That is exactly the point we have been making.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 07/25/2008 01:47 pm
It is being reported that Buzz has been having conversations with some space policy advisors in the Obama campaign.

Chuck-  Any idea who Obama's space policy advisors are?  Just curious about their backgrounds and opinions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/25/2008 01:49 pm
It is being reported that Buzz has been having conversations with some space policy advisors in the Obama campaign.

Chuck-  Any idea who Obama's space policy advisors are?  Just curious about their backgrounds and opinions.

No, but I'll see if I can find out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 07/25/2008 01:52 pm
It is being reported that Buzz has been having conversations with some space policy advisors in the Obama campaign.

Chuck-  Any idea who Obama's space policy advisors are?  Just curious about their backgrounds and opinions.

No, but I'll see if I can find out.

The Economist had an article about his policy advisors a few weeks ago, but didn't drill down into details such as Space Policy.  It focused more on higher level policies, such as foreign policy, defense, economics.  Actually, a pretty knowledgable team, and not as left wing as some might think.  Pretty centrist, as I recall.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 07/25/2008 03:15 pm
It is like eating candy in front of your 3 year old daughter and telling her she can't have any.

That paints a very vivid mental image! :)

I will refrain from teasers in the future.

Ross.

Please DON'T refrain from teasers.  Those of us who are mature enough to handle waiting for Christmas morning can handle teasers.  I'd much rather have hints of the progress being made, with confirmations when appropriate, than be left totally in the dark. 

Aldrin's comments are getting noticed.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/07/25/more-criticism-more-studies/

In the Chronicle article I love one line above all others:  "It doesn't pay to stick with a bad idea."  I don't know if it was intentional, but the use of "stick" and "bad idea" in the same sentence is great given that "The Stick" is the nick-name for Ares-I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 07/25/2008 05:43 pm
For what it is worth Ross, I recommend you start several threads as this one is becoming convoluted.

1.  Jupiter Launch Vehicle Discussion
2.  Direct Architecture Discussion
3.  Source and Ethical Discussions (or something like that)
4.  Direct FAQ


Up to the Direct guys, but we can facilitate that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/25/2008 08:20 pm
One question I have to "Direct", and hold back for a long time.

I have heavy suspicions that the claimed "savings" in "Direct" lunar operations come from introducing a long delay between the two launches.

"Direct" claims that, since they have essentially only one launcher, as opposed to Ares' two different systems, the operational costs are halved.

Now, this claim could be based on having the same people process each one of the two launches - serially. One after the other. This would make sense with regard to savings. But only if "Direct" would process the two stacks one after the other.

If the two launches are processed in parallel, there are no savings to be had. 1.5-launch or 2-launch - it don't matter because you basically have the same total hardware to process (advantage edging to Ares).

It would not matter if team A has "Ares-I"- and team B has "Ares-V"-skills, or both teams only need "J-xxx"-skills. It is the total count that matters.

So, if "Direct" claims 90' appart launches like CxP, the operations' advantage is gone. Parallel processing does that.

1,5 or 2 - there are two stacks sitting on the launch pad at the same time in both cases.

A plus for CxP - 90' appart launches are required only for manned lunar missions. Not for lunar cargo.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 07/25/2008 08:32 pm
Do you consider STS-125 and LON-400 to be being processed in parallel or serial?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/25/2008 08:46 pm
Not sure what the answer is, Lee Jay. Please make your point and don't forget that in the VSE frame there are also the ISS manned missions in between lunar missions - crew or cargo lunar missions.

Edit: anyways, Lee Jay, the LON does not need to be launched next orbit.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/25/2008 08:55 pm
One question I have to "Direct", and hold back for a long time.

I have heavy suspicions that the claimed "savings" in "Direct" lunar operations come from introducing a long delay between the two launches.

"Direct" claims that, since they have essentially only one launcher, as opposed to Ares' two different systems, the operational costs are halved.

Now, this claim could be based on having the same people process each one of the two launches - serially. One after the other. This would make sense with regard to savings. But only if "Direct" would process the two stacks one after the other.

If the two launches are processed in parallel, there are no savings to be had. 1.5-launch or 2-launch - it don't mater because you basically have the same total hardware to process (advantage edging to Ares).

It would not matter if half the team has "Ares-I"- and the other half has "Ares-V"-skills, or both teams only need "J-xxx"-skills. It is the total count that matters.

So, if "Direct" claims 90' appart launches like CxP, the operations' advantage is gone. Parallel processing does that.

1,5 or 2 - there are two stacks sitting on the launch pad at the same time in both cases.

A plus for CxP - 90' appart launches are required only for manned lunar missions. Not for lunar cargo.

Renclod

DIRECT does not plan any delay at all between the launch of the two lunar Jupiter-232’s. In fact, we would like to launch the second vehicle within one orbit of the first in order to eliminate the phasing effect.

You are correct that there is the same amount of hardware on the pads for a lunar 2-launch Jupiter scenario as there is for a lunar 1.5-launch Ares scenario. The difference is that for Jupiter it’s the same rocket, while for the Ares it is two different rockets. The difference is in how they got there and that is financially profound.

Remember, we do not develop the Jupiter-120 and then develop the Jupiter-232. No. We develop the Jupiter-232 first and fly it without the upper stage and a center engine and call that stripped-down version a Jupiter-120. It makes all the difference in the world because it is much easier and less expensive to do. Everything is designed from the beginning for the more stringent requirements of the Jupiter-232.

With Jupiter, there is only one rocket development program to amortize, while with Ares there are two.

With Jupiter there is only one manufacturing and assembly complex, while with Ares there are two. With Jupiter and with proper maintenance and appropriate upgrades, the current manufacturing and assembly complex at MAF can be used as it is, while with Ares the entire complex will be dismantled, destroyed and replaced with two unique manufacturing and assembly complexes; one for Ares-I and one for Ares-V.

With Jupiter there is only one launch complex, while with Ares there are two.
With Jupiter and with proper maintenance and appropriate upgrades, the current launch complexes at KSC can be used as they are, while with Ares the entire complex will be dismantled, destroyed and replaced with two unique launch infrastructures; one for Ares-I and one for Ares-V.

I realize that there is much more to this and that the devil is in the details, but that’s the overview. Essentially, if you spend $15 billion dollars to develop Ares-I and then another $15 billion dollars to develop Ares-V, you’ve spent $30 billion dollars to develop your rockets. But with Jupiter, $13 billion dollars to develop your one rocket is all you spend. That’s a $17 billion dollar difference just to develop your rocket.

And then there’s the cost difference in upgrading existing manufacturing, assembly and launch infrastructures and using them for the Jupiter, vs. destroying all of that and then building two completely new sets of the same for the Ares; one for the Ares-I and one for the Ares-V.

The two Ares rockets cannot share anything in terms of infrastructure, while the Jupiter’s share everything in common.

The Ares has to amortize two completely different rocket development programs, two completely different manufacturing and assembly complexes and two completely different launch infrastructures.

The Jupiter’s have to amortize only one rocket development program and some infrastructure upgrades. That’s a big difference.

There’s the big savings. I hope that answers your question?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/25/2008 09:14 pm
... I hope that answers your question?


Not in the least, Mr. Longton, with all my sincere respect for your efforts.

I am questioning the operations , here and now. Not the design and fielding.

As extra: Come 2025 people would wonder why do we need two launches, and an EOR, just for sending a couple of three tanks with water, hydrazine and other stuff to that stranded lunar outpost. Why didn't they build a bigger launcher to expedite this stuff in one launch ?!

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/25/2008 09:33 pm
... I hope that answers your question?


Not in the least, Mr. Longton, with all my sincere respect for your efforts.

I am questioning the operations , here and now. Not the design and fielding.

As extra: Come 2025 people would wonder why do we need two launches, and an EOR, just for sending a couple of three tanks with water, hydrazine and other stuff to that stranded lunar outpost. Why didn't they build a bigger launcher to expedite this stuff in one launch ?!

I assume by your description that you are talking about a cargo-only, resupply flight. If that’s the case, a 2-launch scenario is not needed. The Jupiter-232 can be launched by itself with sufficient performance to make the cargo resupply flight without EOR with a second Jupiter. It will enter earth orbit, update its flight computers, and burn thru TLI on the next orbit.

For that matter, we are reasonably hopeful that a lot of those types of operations will be done, not by the Jupiter, but by the Atlas and Delta EELVs. Use the Jupiter’s to send bulky or heavy things to the lunar surface directly from launch, but use the EELVs with the appropriate sized mission stages to handle the bulk of the normal resupply efforts. Normal resupply missions don't have to deliver mega tons of stuff on each flight.

There is a sweet spot where flying smaller resupply flights on the EELVs with an increased flight rate brings the EELV-based resupply effort's cost way down to be very effective, probably less than the Jupiter. The key is to pair the the size of the mission module to the flight rate to get the right cost per ton delivered balance. Flying the Jupiter where the EELV is more cost effective is a waste. The Jupiter isn't designed for that. It's designed for lunar surface infrastruction creation. It's designed to push many tons of stuff thru TLI. It's designed to lift the elements required for the Mars missions. Remember, the Jupiter is every bit a Mars rocket as the Ares-V is supposed to be.

The Jupiter 2-launch scenario is only for manned flights. Even the Ares uses a 2-launch scenario for that. Call it a 1.5-launch if you must, but they’re still launching 2 rockets.

But for cargo or resupply flights, just a single launch will be quite sufficient. Remember, it’s a one-way flight. Nothing has to come back.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 07/25/2008 09:58 pm
Chuck, not quite so.

If you think lunar lander, size matters.

Don't tell me you could use the same lander design for a 2-launch J-232 as for a single launch J-232.

I would listen to the spin where designing and fielding and operating two widely different lunar landers is not such a big deal. Could be, but I'm sceptic.

In all fairness... this is the point that "Direct" needs to make.

If you could show that "Direct" has the lowest life cost for lunar outpost setup and operations, based on two largely different lunar landers - comprised of all launches, earth orbit rendezvous, fabrication, etc. -

- then you are heading somewhere.

For now, the CxP 1.5-launch is better suited for setting up and operating a lunar outpost - IMO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Marsman on 07/25/2008 10:38 pm
ESAS said that 20mt of dedicated cargo to the lunar surface was optimal for the cargo only flights. Ares V is hovering around 14-17mt. Jupiter 232 is 30-40% less powerful than Ares V, and you are saying that you can meet the same cargo capability with only 1 launch (no propellant depot or such)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 07/25/2008 10:38 pm
I think a better question is what is the possible max cargo down mass of a one launch Ares V and a single Direct 232 that use the manned lander instead of an "launcher" optimized cargo lander that stays on the moon.

Does Ares V come out over sized for the mission here? Do we have wasted capacity on the Ares V?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Marsman on 07/25/2008 10:44 pm
You are not going to pay for the development of two landers when one can do the job. The cargo lander for Ares is the manned lander without the ascent stage. There really isn't much optimization for cargo vs. manned at the scale that we are talking about.

My point is that the Ares V cargo lander is about 51mt after TLI. Jupiter 232 cannot send that much through TLI, therefore cannot match the Ares V cargo capacity. They need 2 launches, or at least 3 dedicated cargo missions in a year vs 2 for Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/25/2008 11:14 pm
Wait a second...

There are wires totally crossed here guys.

Lets start this topic over and make sure everyone is on the correct page.

*Initially* DIRECT proposes a 2-launch profile for *both* crew and cargo missions.   Probably for the first ~5-7 years of the operational program or so.   There will therefore be only one design of lander, just like Ares.

As soon as the Propellant Depot system becomes operational (early 2020's) all missions - crew and cargo alike - will switch to using a single Jupiter-232 for the mission launch and will be supported by 'whatever is the cheapest propellant delivery system we can find'.   The same lander will continue to be utilized, although hopefully, like Apollo, and unlike Shuttle, its design will be able to continue to evolve as we progress.

There are three categories of Propellant deliveries we envision:

1) US Domestic demand.   This may involve extra Jupiter flights, or may utilize a fleet of EELV's, or a fleet of Space-X Falcon's - the contract should be 'competed' on a regular basis (every 12, 24 or 36 months maybe?) to get the best possible value.

2) International Partners can essentially "pay for seats" by providing propellant using their own home-grown launch services.   Countries with space programs such as Russia, the nations of Europe, Japan, India or even China all have the launch capabilities to deliver their own propellant to the Depot.   They will need to partner with NASA to get the transfer technologies certified, but that's a program I think most of those will be eager to participate in.

3) International Partners can essentially "pay for seats" even without their own launch capabilities.   Countries such as Australia, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia all have sufficient financial capability to do so, but do not yet have sufficient launch capabilities.   So they can simply contract on the international market for launch services to do the job for them.   All of the US manufacturers should be encouraged to *strongly compete* for this business as it will bring significant foreign investment into the US.   There are over 185 nations in the world with no suitable launch systems.   But I wager that many of those countries would be willing to pay for the prestige of sending one of their people to the moon.


The initial architecture is only a very temporary stepping-stone to the full architecture we are planning.   And with Propellant Depot technologies in the mix, the size of the lander can be almost unlimited.   Without needing to also refuel the Lander in orbit, a 75mT Lander (~50% larger than currently planned) is fairly close to the practical limit of a single Jupiter-232's performance envelope.

If we chose to launch the Lander DS 'dry', the performance limit is dictated by how much propellant the 357mT Depot can supply.   And we could even add more modules to the Depot if we ever hit a 'ceiling' for any reason - which I personally doubt.


So, to repeat:   The first missions will all be 2-launch, both crew and automated cargo, with an LEO docking between the CEV/LSAM and the EDS and will involve no propellant transfer.

But that approach is only temporary.   The 'full' missions being planned are targeted to utilize a Propellant Depot architecture, where all the spacecraft fly on a single Jupiter-232 and all the propellant is supplied by the cheapest possible method.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/25/2008 11:49 pm
[...] Remember, we do not develop the Jupiter-120 and then develop the Jupiter-232. No. We develop the Jupiter-232 first and fly it without the upper stage and a center engine and call that stripped-down version a Jupiter-120. It makes all the difference in the world because it is much easier and less expensive to do. Everything is designed from the beginning for the more stringent requirements of the Jupiter-232.

[...]

The Jupiter’s have to amortize only one rocket development program and some infrastructure upgrades. That’s a big difference.

So, it is a little bit as for the Skykab program, the Saturn V was there, it was just launched without a US. Any idea how much did that cost?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Marsman on 07/25/2008 11:55 pm
Propellant depots are all nice and great, but NASA is anti-propellant transfer/propellant depot right now. They will not accept anything that has to do with propellant transfer at the moment. Period. So the 2x 232 missions have to be baselined.

If you are going to compare Jupiter + PD to Ares, then you also have to look at what a propellant depot does for Ares. Namely, they could use a smaller depot than DIRECT and do 1 launch manned Ares V missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/26/2008 12:01 am
[...] As soon as the Propellant Depot system becomes operational (early 2020's) all missions - crew and cargo alike - will switch to using a single Jupiter-232 for the mission launch and will be supported by 'whatever is the cheapest propellant delivery system we can find'. [...]

So you are betting that Private Industry or Lunar Hopeful Nations will field a propellant depot by 2020 or so. I just see that Private Industry couldn't field regular suborbital flights in 4 years and counting, so I am not hopeful there. If instead a Lunar Hopeful Nation will step forward, your depot will not be cheap (it's just coming to my mind the ATV program for 1.3 B$), maybe less than 17 B$ (savings going the Direct way), but expensive nevertheless.

And how do you protect from the risk that no Private Industry and no Lunar Hopeful Nation will be ready by the time you are?

So if I was NASA today, what would I bet on?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 12:26 am
One question I have to "Direct", and hold back for a long time.

I have heavy suspicions that the claimed "savings" in "Direct" lunar operations come from introducing a long delay between the two launches.

"Direct" claims that, since they have essentially only one launcher, as opposed to Ares' two different systems, the operational costs are halved.

Now, this claim could be based on having the same people process each one of the two launches - serially. One after the other. This would make sense with regard to savings. But only if "Direct" would process the two stacks one after the other.

If the two launches are processed in parallel, there are no savings to be had. 1.5-launch or 2-launch - it don't matter because you basically have the same total hardware to process (advantage edging to Ares).

It would not matter if team A has "Ares-I"- and team B has "Ares-V"-skills, or both teams only need "J-xxx"-skills. It is the total count that matters.

So, if "Direct" claims 90' appart launches like CxP, the operations' advantage is gone. Parallel processing does that.

1,5 or 2 - there are two stacks sitting on the launch pad at the same time in both cases.

A plus for CxP - 90' appart launches are required only for manned lunar missions. Not for lunar cargo.

renclod,
Having just clarified the approach above, let me now tackle this question.

The infrastructure is a very complicated aspect.   Essentially it covers everything from the sourcing of raw materials, the manufacturing of them into usable hardware, all the transportation, the inspections, assembly, integration, launch preparations, ground ops, launch ops, mission ops, recovery ops, planning, administration, management, quality control, crew support and all those other aspects which go into the program as a whole.

In the simplest terms the infrastructure to support two launch systems is always going to be higher than for one.   Some aspects, such as administration overheads and maybe common hardware elements, can be merged to get share some common costs, but it is looking more and more likely that there won't be a lot in common between the Ares-I and Ares-5/6/7 any longer.

From another angle, the Jupiter launchers will share a fair amount in common with the current Shuttle.   This means that the impact of changing a lot of the existing infrastructure can be minimized as well.

So, the cost to change from existing infrastructure to a new infrastructure is one cost to consider.   Especially if there is a second infrastructure which must also follow it as well, as will be the case for Ares-5/6/7.

Then there is the operations cost as well covering how much these systems will cost to operate each year of their operational lives - which is where your question really comes in.


To implement the changes to get from Shuttle to Ares-I is going to cost NASA in the region of $2bn covering Michoud & Kennedy alone.   Ares-V will be another $2bn on top of that and estimates I have seen say that the larger Ares-6/7 designs could add anything from $0.5bn to $1.5bn again.

Jupiter, by choosing to keep most of the existing Shuttle tooling and launch processing facilities relatively unchanged can save about 1 billion compared to Ares-I and only needs half a billion more to implement the Jupiter-232 afterward.   That is a considerable cost saving right at the start, and a major cost saving for implementing the Lunar phase later.


A similar thing happens when it comes to the operations.

The cost to build and operate any given cryo liquid stage, surprisingly,  really isn't affected much by the physical dimensions.   The infrastructure costs per year to build an Ares-I Upper Stage structure is not going to be very different from a Core Stage structure.   You need a very similar amount of tooling to do either and a similar number of staff to operate that tooling.   Both require Forward Skirts, Tank Domes and Barrel Sections for both LOX and LH2 tanks, both require an Aft Skirt and a Thrust Structure, both need avionics, feedlines, TPS and a host of other things.   Just because they are a different size does *NOT* mean you use less tooling or less staff - that's a common assumption some people mistakenly make.

When you get right down to it, the cost to build the two different stages only really varies by the raw materials cost going into the structures - and that accounts for a *very* small portion of the total.   Taking *everything* (manufacturing, launch costs, management etc) into account you can use a very general 'rule of thumb' to get first-order estimates of operational costs by using the 500/50 rule.   $500m per stage for fixed costs, $50m for each unit coming off the production line in reasonable quantities.   It will get you in the right ballpark at least.

The SRB's have a similar cost structure at present (actually about $475m fixed costs, $10m per 1.0 segment in current >40 per year quantities), but is made up in a different way due to the refurbishing operations rather than fresh-building.

The differences come primarily when you factor in the number of different stages you will be requiring.

Ares-I and Jupiter-120 are actually pretty similar from a cost perspective.   They both require one production line for SRB's, one production line for a single cryo stage and one production line for a liquid engine.   They also require a similar amount of the VAB, LCC, Pad, Crawlers and MLP to be utilized too, and over at JSC they require the same MMT and the same MCC facilities there too.   The net result of all this is that the Jupiter-120 and the Ares-I don't cost a great deal different to operate.

Both systems fixed costs are reduced by more than half compared to Shuttle - primarily because there is no complicated and high-maintenance Orbiter element any longer and there are no high-maintenance reusable engines in the cost profile either.   We're talking about $1bn in fixed costs for either Jupiter-120 or Ares-I every year compared to about $2.5bn per year in a continuing-operation year (2008 in not one of those BTW - the program is *already* scaling back).

BTW, I would suggest using FY2002 as a more accurate guide to Shuttle costs because it was pre-Columbia and also pre-VSE, so shows a program which is operating more 'routinely' than is the case today.


So there isn't much difference operationally speaking between Ares-I and Jupiter-120.   But that only supports ISS.   What about Lunar?

Well, Ares-V requires two more stages - one massive Core Stage and a new Upper Stage probably made from composite materials and having no commonality at all with anything else.   It is also looking more and more likely to require different boosters too (possibly also composite disposables), which would will add another production line on top as well.   It also requires another liquid engine production line too.   On top of a whole echelon of infrastructure changes to support it in addition to the already operating Ares-I systems.   Ares-V will be so different from Ares-I that it will be unable to utilize any of the infrastructure elements from manufacturing to launch processing to actual launch itself.   It requires almost a complete replication of resources at almost every level.

So Ares-V needs a minimum of two additional $500m infrastructure elements (covering manufacturing to launch) every year to be maintained and staffed in addition to the Ares-I facilities.   It is yet to be seen if it will require a third additional production line for the divergent SRB's too, but seems likely.


Compared to that, Jupiter requires only one Upper Stage to be added and one liquid engine and has been designed explicitly to re-use *all* of the infrastructure elements already utilized by Jupiter-120.   It supplements those with specific systems for the Upper Stage, but does not require any new infrastructure elements for either the Core Stage or the SRB elements.


The ultimate result, when worked out in fine detail, shows that Ares-I and Jupiter have pretty similar cost profiles.

But to support the Lunar phase of the program (and Mars later too) the two approaches diverge considerably.   Because of this divergence, Ares-I and Ares-V together end up costing more than a billion dollars more per year than Jupiter-120/232 do.


Because of the commonality back to Shuttle, the Jupiter costs less to implement than Ares does.   And because of the common use Core vehicle the Jupiter costs a lot less to operate each year than the two completely separate launch systems making up the Ares option.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 12:40 am
If you are going to compare Jupiter + PD to Ares, then you also have to look at what a propellant depot does for Ares. Namely, they could use a smaller depot than DIRECT and do 1 launch manned Ares V missions.

Two points.

1) Ares-V will not achieve NASA's own minimum LOC requirements for safe use with a crew.   Ares-V (5-engine baseline) was around 1:870 LOC.   Ares-6/7 are even worse.   So Ares-V should be completely excluded from such a consideration, no?

Of course the boneheaded leadership the agency has at the moment probably doesn't want to admit this uncomfortable fact.   It's another one of those "inconvenient things" which has been making them stare at their toes a lot, kinda like TO.


2) Mike Griffin has actually been a vocal proponent of Propellant Depot architectures for many years, even talking about them through to this year.

The 'problem' is not that NASA doesn't want to do it, its that NASA is going to have no budget to do it because Ares development and operations costs are going to such the budget dry.

Propellant Depot's are currently in precisely the same boat as the Prometheus efforts - they'd be fantastic, but we just don't have any $$$ to put towards them.

If we don't have to build the $15bn Ares-V and then pay $5bn+ per year to operate it, I would suggest that cash-flow situation changes quite a bit, no?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 12:46 am
[...] As soon as the Propellant Depot system becomes operational (early 2020's) all missions - crew and cargo alike - will switch to using a single Jupiter-232 for the mission launch and will be supported by 'whatever is the cheapest propellant delivery system we can find'. [...]

So you are betting that Private Industry or Lunar Hopeful Nations will field a propellant depot by 2020 or so. I just see that Private Industry couldn't field regular suborbital flights in 4 years and counting, so I am not hopeful there. If instead a Lunar Hopeful Nation will step forward, your depot will not be cheap (it's just coming to my mind the ATV program for 1.3 B$), maybe less than 17 B$ (savings going the Direct way), but expensive nevertheless.

And how do you protect from the risk that no Private Industry and no Lunar Hopeful Nation will be ready by the time you are?

So if I was NASA today, what would I bet on?

I didn't say anything about any other nation fielding a Depot.   We've always been planning that it will be based upon a modified 357mT capacity Jupiter Upper Stage, built specifically for the task.

The US would build it and operate it.   And the US would pay for any 'all American' missions, just as with Ares.

Any other nations who want to take part in the Lunar program would be welcome, and the valuable contribution they can make would be to supply fuel.   If they can't do it themselves, they can buy services that will - services the US can compete for too.

That isn't actually a lot to ask and it doesn't restrict their contributions to being simple cash to NASA - which most wouldn't be happy with.

Countries with space program of their own would be investing some into their own programs - which is a good thing for them to do apart from the national prestige aspects of being involved in such a Lunar mission.   The two factors together will be a compelling argument.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/26/2008 01:33 am
So there isn't much difference operationally speaking between Ares-I and Jupiter-120.

Eh, if NASA uses Ares1 loft Orion to LEO (either lunar or ISS) doesn't Orion face a massive diet and very tight mass margins?

How much money (and time) might be saved on Orion's total development costs if the capability exists to add say 1000 kg in mass at the last minute to solve an unexpected issue?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 07/26/2008 01:57 am

So, to repeat:   The first missions will all be 2-launch, both crew and automated cargo, with an LEO docking between the CEV/LSAM and the EDS and will involve no propellant transfer.


Ross, using two J-232s for a moon cargo mission is a rather big waste of payload capability.  Could it be possible to combine an ISS mission with a moon cargo mission in order to save an ISS J-120? That would require replacing the 4 astronauts moon CEV by a 6 astronauts ISS CEV on the equipment J-232. Also both J-232 rockets would have to be launched to a 51.6 degrees inclination and but I think that the J-232 has enough extra payload capability to handle that.

Having a manned CEV in proximity of the cargo to EDS LEO docking operation could also be very handy in case of technical issues. In case of defective automated systems, human intervention may allow to save the moon cargo mission.  On the PR side, the CEV could also make great videos of the TLI burn before it continues to the ISS.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/26/2008 02:02 am

So, to repeat:   The first missions will all be 2-launch, both crew and automated cargo, with an LEO docking between the CEV/LSAM and the EDS and will involve no propellant transfer.


Ross, using two J-232s for a moon cargo mission is a rather big waste of payload capability.  Could it be possible to combine an ISS mission with a moon cargo mission in order to save an ISS J-120? That would require replacing the 4 astronauts moon CEV by a 6 astronauts ISS CEV on the equipment J-232. Also both J-232 rockets would have to be launched to a 51.6 degrees inclination and but I think that the J-232 has enough extra payload capability to handle that.

Having a manned CEV in proximity of the cargo to EDS LEO docking operation could also be very handy in case of technical issues. In case of defective automated systems, human intervention may allow to save the moon cargo mission.  On the PR side, the CEV could also make great videos of the TLI burn before it continues to the ISS.

PaulL

Where does the $2B a year (or more with logistics) come from for the station if you are going to the Moon?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/26/2008 02:04 am
So there isn't much difference operationally speaking between Ares-I and Jupiter-120.

Eh, if NASA uses Ares1 loft Orion to LEO (either lunar or ISS) doesn't Orion face a massive diet and very tight mass margins?

How much money (and time) might be saved on Orion's total development costs if the capability exists to add say 1000 kg in mass at the last minute to solve an unexpected issue?

Well said.  That is the absolute worst feature of the current architecture.  If it weren't for the low margins (on both ends eating the middle), the technical problems on both (or all four) major elements could be overcome.

There is very little excuse for a lack of margin on any part of a system that is being designed essentially from scratch.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 03:56 am
So there isn't much difference operationally speaking between Ares-I and Jupiter-120.

Eh, if NASA uses Ares1 loft Orion to LEO (either lunar or ISS) doesn't Orion face a massive diet and very tight mass margins?

How much money (and time) might be saved on Orion's total development costs if the capability exists to add say 1000 kg in mass at the last minute to solve an unexpected issue?

That's an excellent point Bill.   One of the reasons the Orion project is over-budget right now and why the schedules keep slipping is because of the *three* separate re-designs which have been required in the last 18 months trying to get it to fit in the Ares-I performance envelope.

If we could get away from the endless cycle of Ares-I performance vs. Orion mass we could indeed get on with the system and not be wasting so much money going round and round in circles.

But renclod was asking about operational costs, and that's mostly about costs after the development phase.   The development costs issue really just sets the foundation for that discussion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 04:07 am

So, to repeat:   The first missions will all be 2-launch, both crew and automated cargo, with an LEO docking between the CEV/LSAM and the EDS and will involve no propellant transfer.


Ross, using two J-232s for a moon cargo mission is a rather big waste of payload capability.

Not really.   On the Ares plan the capability to go without the Orion allows the Lander to be packed a little heavier with a bit more cargo 45mT crew LSAM vs. 53mT cargo LSAM - both using the same Descent Stage.   In exactly the same way the DIRECT approach would allow for a heavier cargo flight using the exact same DS too.


Quote
Could it be possible to combine an ISS mission with a moon cargo mission in order to save an ISS J-120? That would require replacing the 4 astronauts moon CEV by a 6 astronauts ISS CEV on the equipment J-232. Also both J-232 rockets would have to be launched to a 51.6 degrees inclination and but I think that the J-232 has enough extra payload capability to handle that.

The point was made above that ESAS said the optimum cargo delivery mass to the moon would be around 20mT and that the current LSAM maxes out around 14mT.   Its an excellent point.   A 2-launch Jupiter cargo mission would be able to meet the original ESAS target.   So what if you have to spend an extra $240m on an extra flight - you're saving more than $3,000m per year by not having to have Ares-V!   The cost of that extra flight is pocket-change compared to that saving.

And don't forget you will always lose about 6-7% of performance if we go to ISS 51.6 degree inclination instead of 28.5 or 29 degree.   For a 210mT mission like this, that's a loss of about 15mT - which is no small loss.

It might be worth a trade study, but I suspect there won't be much real benefit to be had, with a number of penalties - not least of which are safety and performance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 04:17 am

The Economist had an article about his policy advisors a few weeks ago, but didn't drill down into details such as Space Policy.  It focused more on higher level policies, such as foreign policy, defense, economics.  Actually, a pretty knowledgable team, and not as left wing as some might think.  Pretty centrist, as I recall.

I think he's got a pretty good set of advisers, except Dr. Steve Robinson who represented Obama at the ISDC conference a few months ago.   He seemed quite disorganised, remarkably unfamiliar with many of the key issues in this field and was actually boo'd by the audience at least once.   He clearly had his own agenda and wasn't representing this community at all - IMHO.

I think Obama would be far better off replacing Robinson with Lori Garver, who easily made the best impression there.   Hell, make her the new NASA Administrator!

The original C-SPAN feed of the three Space Advisers together at ISDC does not appear to be available any more so I am uploading my copy to my website (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/ISDC%202008/).   Its a big file around 213 meg.    It should finish uploading somewhere around 1:30am Eastern Time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/26/2008 04:19 am
[...] We've always been planning that it will be based upon a modified 357mT capacity Jupiter Upper Stage, built specifically for the task.

The US would build it and operate it.   And the US would pay for any 'all American' missions, just as with Ares.
[...]

So, here's the issue. You put the depot up there with a J232. Then you launch another J232 with the lunar cargo module to be filled up. That makes a 2 launch architecture.

If the deposit is up there already, you've got to fill it with:
1) another J232 launch;
2) several EELV launches (how many)?
3) several private industry launches;
4) several lunar hopeful nations launches;

so: 1 implies it's a 2 launch architecture; 2 implies n+1 launch architecture that once costs are verified you'd drop; 3 and 4 will not be there when we need them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 04:44 am

So, here's the issue. You put the depot up there with a J232. Then you launch another J232 with the lunar cargo module to be filled up. That makes a 2 launch architecture.

If the deposit is up there already, you've got to fill it with:
1) another J232 launch;
2) several EELV launches (how many)?
3) several private industry launches;
4) several lunar hopeful nations launches;

so: 1 implies it's a 2 launch architecture; 2 implies n+1 launch architecture that once costs are verified you'd drop; 3 and 4 will not be there when we need them.

Foreign partners are going to have about 15 years to develop their end - and the difficult bit - the docking adapters will need to be NASA certified designs so they won't even have to pay to develop those.   Given that Russia, Europe, Japan, India and China all already have viable launch systems capable of doing such missions, I don't think that's at all unreasonable.   Russia, Europe and Japan all have automated docking systems either mature already (Russia) or being test flown within the next year (Europe's ATV - already flown once, Japan's HTV due in 2009).

The US 'capability' will consist of Jupiter and a variety of EELV solutions for sure.   The alt-space guys will either be gone & forgotten or should be fairly well established launch service providers 15 years from now too.   I therefore don't see the US being 'short' of capability in any way.

Even if the US has to go it 100% alone, the Propellant Depot will be ~$13bn cheaper to develop than the Ares-V will be.   And it will still be *considerably* cheaper to launch two extra J-232's per year than it will be to fly the Ares-V on top of the costs for Ares-I.

According to NASA's own numbers, 4 Ares-I's and 4 Ares-V's required to support the baseline mission plan (2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo) is going to cost somewhere in the region of $7.5bn per year - just for the launchers, not including the spacecraft.

Performing the same 6 missions per year, Jupiter will cost no more than Shuttle - around $3.6bn per year - in fact because of the large amount of commonality with Shuttle we know *very* accurately how much most elements of Jupiter will cost, even more accurately than Ares.   Even two complete extra ~$240m propellant delivery flights would not come close to touching that difference.

The bottom line is that for the same cost as the 6 Ares missions currently planned per year, the DIRECT architecture would allow for 8 additional launch vehicles, 4 extra Orion spacecraft and 4 more Altair Lunar Landers to be built every year as well.   That's right, 2 ISS, 6 Lunar Crew and 2 Lunar cargo missions per year - for the same cost as Ares.

Or we could use some of that for additional probes, R&D and Aeronautics programs instead.   I'd personally favour a mix.

And that's with zero International co-operation included at all.   If we can include that, yet more US money can be invested in building even more launchers and spacecraft.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/26/2008 04:45 am

The Economist had an article about his policy advisors a few weeks ago, but didn't drill down into details such as Space Policy.  It focused more on higher level policies, such as foreign policy, defense, economics.  Actually, a pretty knowledgable team, and not as left wing as some might think.  Pretty centrist, as I recall.

I think he's got a pretty good set of advisers, except Dr. Steve Robinson who represented Obama at the ISDC conference a few months ago.   He seemed quite disorganised, remarkably unfamiliar with many of the key issues in this field and was actually boo'd by the audience at least once.   He clearly had his own agenda and wasn't representing this community at all - IMHO.

I think Obama would be far better off replacing Robinson with Lori Garver, who easily made the best impression there.   Hell, make her the new NASA Administrator!

The original C-SPAN feed of the three Space Advisers together at ISDC does not appear to be available any more so <A HREF="">I am uploading my copy to my website[/url].   Its a big file around 213 meg.    It should finish uploading somewhere around 1:30am Eastern Time.

Ross.

IMHO, Dr. Robinson was merely a warm body for ISDC. I very much doubt he is anywhere near Obama's list for NASA Administrator.

Patricia Grace Smith could also be an Obama possibility.

You can listen to her speak in the video clips found at this blog post (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/19/162910/524/294/553973):

Quote
Space policy made a pretty decent splash at Netroots Nation.  We had an excellent panel on space policy, and an excellent platform meeting.  For those of you who don't remember, we had Andrew Hoppin moderating, and Chris Bowers, Lori Garver, Patricia Grace Smith, and George Whitesides all speaking.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/26/2008 05:06 am
Foreign partners are going to have about 15 years to develop their end - and the difficult bit - the docking adapters will need to be NASA certified designs so they won't even have to pay to develop those.   Given that Russia, Europe, Japan, India and China all already have viable launch systems capable of doing such missions, I don't think that's at all unreasonable. [...]

I think too it is reasonable to expect some advance in 15 years. Just, it seems to me that NASA is not banking on that. They're looking to support the lunar outpost with a single launch for cargo, and Direct can't do it (or can do it only with landed mass below their requirement).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 05:13 am
Where does the $2B a year (or more with logistics) come from for the station if you are going to the Moon?

That's the major problem with the current plan.   There is no current way to afford both together at the current budget level.

NASA has already stated that without additional money from Congress for FY2017, the station will could no longer be funded because its funds are required to pay for the moon missions.   NASA has already made its case that it will be a one-or-the-other choice if Congress refuses to increase the budget and NASA is making the assumption that the Lunar program will take precedence at such a fork in the road.

But if we aren't forced to spend $15bn developing Ares-V, if we aren't handing Russia $2-4bn to cover a 6-year 'gap' in human spaceflight and if we reduce launch costs by a few billion every year for the same number of missions, then there's going to be more budget available compared to the current plan.

I believe that if we replaced the two Ares vehicles with the Jupiter system we *could* then afford to pay for ISS beyond 2016 and pay for at least the baseline Lunar missions (2 crew, 2 cargo) as well - without having to increase NASA's funding levels.

Of course I only think we *should* do so if the station begins to prove its actual scientific worth before then.   If it has not proved its worth at any time in the next 8 years though, I think it would be foolish to simply extend its life just for the sake of it.   But that decision won't have to be made for at least another 5 years, so the station has time to prove itself worthwhile.

If we ever could get those increases (doubtful) DIRECT could both continue ISS and also expand beyond the baseline Lunar program.   Better still, if we can get the International Partnership program going, we can keep paying for the ISS and also increase the number of the Lunar missions at the same time.   I wouldn't mind that option at all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 05:41 am
I think too it is reasonable to expect some advance in 15 years. Just, it seems to me that NASA is not banking on that. They're looking to support the lunar outpost with a single launch for cargo, and Direct can't do it (or can do it only with landed mass below their requirement).

Jupiter-232's performance is about 75-80% of Ares-V's.   We could do single launch missions if we want and they'd end up about 80% the size of NASA's.   But because it is significantly lower cost, we have the option to *afford* to do twice as many if we want more mass landed.   2 x 80% = 160%.   Not a bad improvement for the same money.

But why not keep the exact same profile for all missions?   Whether they're cargo or crewed, if we fly the same basic approach every time we will build more experience and knowledge of the entire system - all of which factors directly into safety.


At the end of the day all of this depends on what we actually *need*.   And that's a question nobody asks often enough.   Yet it is the most important question of all - well, aside from 'can we afford it?' ;)

I have yet to hear a solid example where the Ares vehicle will be able accomplish any specific *need* that Jupiter can't achieve in a different way for lower overall cost.   Nothing.   Not for ISS, not for Lunar Crew, not for Lunar Cargo and not even for Mars and asteroid missions as well.   Jupiter is capable of supporting them all, and its cost profile is quite a bit more favorable than the Ares profile for all of those.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 07/26/2008 06:39 am
Heck the J-232 is more then powerful enough to launch a Mars direct type mission in just two launches.
Even NASA's massive 90 day Mars study the one that got nicknamed Battle Star Galactica by the press didn't use an LV larger then the J-232 and instead made use of shuttle-z and the STS to lift all parts.

I can't really justify Ares V unless you want to launch everything for a lunar mission all at once.
But even a light weight mars mission is still too heavy for even Ares V to launch in one go and once you get to breaking it into pieces you really don't need anything bigger then a little over 100 tons.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 07:36 am
Exactly.   Even NASA's DRM 3.0 effort identified that there are no single elements in the effort which need to be larger than ~90mT.

Sure, Ares-V is impressive.  But 'impressive' isn't always practical.   The "Bigfoot" 4x4 is "Impressive", but it sure isn't practical.   Howard Hughes' "Spruce Goose" was impressive, but was never going to be practical.   The Saturn-V was also impressive, but it too turned out to be impractical as well.

Ares-V is going to be bigger and a lot more expensive than any of those.   Will it be practical?   I don't believe so.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 07/26/2008 08:22 am

So you are betting that Private Industry or Lunar Hopeful Nations will field a propellant depot by 2020 or so. I just see that Private Industry couldn't field regular suborbital flights in 4 years and counting, so I am not hopeful there. If instead a Lunar Hopeful Nation will step forward, your depot will not be cheap (it's just coming to my mind the ATV program for 1.3 B$), maybe less than 17 B$ (savings going the Direct way), but expensive nevertheless.

And how do you protect from the risk that no Private Industry and no Lunar Hopeful Nation will be ready by the time you are?

So if I was NASA today, what would I bet on?

If I were NASA I would bet on building a lunar program on Direct and as a spin off from that since the main engines are the same finance an upgrade of Delta IV and man rating of Delta IV heavy and also buy more small launch services to keep the industry healthy.

The best lunar architecture with low risk seems to be a two launch  LOR+LOR and single launch cargo only missions.

Then I would design and launch at lest two fuel depots to get redundancy with the long term goal of using them for Mars missions and the short term goal of switching to single launch lunar missions. The first lunar missions to use the fuel depot would be single launch cargo only missions.

The utilization of the fuel depot will depend on the cost for filling it. It can be filled with Direct missions but EELV:s could be less expensive per ton and there are both new US launcher companies and foreign space programs. There would probably be international cooperation for a Mars program and launching fuel would be a good way to participate.

It would be important to keep the fuel depot effort open ended so that capabilities can be upgraded and more kinds of fuels added besides LOX.  It should NOT be minium mass just in time effort for a very specific kind of lunar mission built as a one off Skylab.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 07/26/2008 10:04 am
And how do you protect from the risk that no Private Industry and no Lunar Hopeful Nation will be ready by the time you are?

So if I was NASA today, what would I bet on?

It depends on what your priorities are. If your priority is to plant a flag in the Moon again by year 20XX at all costs, then yes, you cant depend on such uncertain things.

However, I think that priority should be different. I think NASA should aim at making space exploration efficient and as an ultimate goal, self-sustaining, not requiring huge infusions of tax dollars to continue. Hmm. The natural tendency of big bureaucracies for self-preservation might prevent NASA from having such an ultimate goal. NASA won't be needed then.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 10:34 am
For anyone interested, DIRECT's "MySpace" page is now live.   We've only really been online since yesterday and already got over 70 friends!

Come join us if you like!

www.myspace.com/directlauncher

Ross.

PS - Major kudos goes out to Ryan for setting the page up for us so quickly and getting it noticed already!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/26/2008 01:57 pm
[...] I can't really justify Ares V unless you want to launch everything for a lunar mission all at once.
But even a light weight mars mission is still too heavy for even Ares V to launch in one go and once you get to breaking it into pieces you really don't need anything bigger then a little over 100 tons.

Patchouli has a very good point here. When all we could launch was 20 tons at a time we were able to put together the ISS! There are always ways to maximize effectiveness of your launch capacity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/26/2008 02:02 pm
Another point that Direct can make is the following: I recall NASA has studies on what would be the effects of a Saturn V destruction on the pad. IIRC the explosion would be in the range of 3 kt, a small nuclear bomb. So, what would be the effects of an Ares V destroyed on the pad, compared to a J232? let's think at how much infrastructure would be destroyed and what we could do with what's left.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/26/2008 02:56 pm

So, here's the issue. You put the depot up there with a J232. Then you launch another J232 with the lunar cargo module to be filled up. That makes a 2 launch architecture.

If the deposit is up there already, you've got to fill it with:
1) another J232 launch;
2) several EELV launches (how many)?

sandrot
When you plan a family trip in your car, do you call it a 1-vehicle or a 2-vehicle trip? Here’s where I’m going with that question.

In order for your car to get anywhere, you first need to stop at the gas station and fill your tank. You never consider the tanker that brought the gas to the station to be part of your trip. You’re only interested in the gas. So you fill your tank, open your wallet and pay for the gas you need in your own car and then depart on your trip, in a 1-vehicle (your car) trip, not a 2-vehicle (your car and the tanker) trip. All you’re interested in is the gas. How it got to the station is of no interest to you. You’re just going to go to a conveniently located gas station, pay a retail price for the gas and be on your way.

The depot is like that conveniently located gas station. The goal is to get to the point where NASA isn’t filling the depot with its own launches at all, even though it will likely begin that way. The depot will be kept full by various international and/or commercial suppliers, using their own tankers of whatever size. All we want to do is to “stop at the gas station, purchase our gas, pay the supplier for the gas and leave”.

That’s the goal. It may very well be true that in the beginning NASA will be filling the depot itself, but that will essentially be a bootstrap operation to get the entire depot architecture underway. While we are doing that we will be negotiating with international partners and commercial entities around the world and encouraging them, perhaps with initial incentives, to get into the business. Over time enough of them will because if we are actually going to go back to the moon and stay there and also go on to Mars and beyond, there will be a sizable profit to be made by supplying propellant at a “conveniently located gas station”. Where there is money to be made with the reasonable expectation of a continual ROI, there will be people, countries and commercial entities stepping up to the plate. Count on it.

So in the beginning the depot architecture will indeed be, technically, a 2-launch architecture. But that’s just to get it going, to bootstrap the new architecture, with the goal of getting NASA’s “supply” effort completely replaced by international and commercial entities.

Once the depot architecture is underway, the 2-launch mission will become the rare exception, because a standard 1-launch mission profile will always include a quick stop at the gas station before departing.

---------------

None of this negates what I was saying earlier about the mix of Jupiter vs. EELV cargo-only deliveries. Cargo deliveries come in all shapes and sizes and it isn't always necessary to send mega tons to the lunar surface. This post deals with missions that require either mega tons of capacity or large volume capacity, plus a quick peek into the depot-based architecture. My earlier post was about the smaller needs, which can be done with 1-launch profiles using existing EELV and projected Jupiter 1-launch capacities. It’s true that it is less expensive to send a single huge load on a single flight rather than on several smaller flights, but sometimes that large capacity just isn’t needed and would be a waste if employed. Cargo supply and resupply are going to come in all shapes and sizes as the VSE gains its foothold in the solar system. Most deliveries to my house come on a UPS truck, not an 18-wheel trailer. But once in a while, I do need that 18-wheeler. Bottom line: we are going to have to get good at doing all of this. Anyone who says that one-size-fits all is just not being realistic. The VSE will define what we do in space for centuries, not decades.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/26/2008 03:36 pm
sandrot
When you plan a family trip in your car, do you call it a 1-vehicle or a 2-vehicle trip? [...]

The analogy is familiar, just the economics don't play well in my mind. That's to say, that expandability of the architecture to take advantage of propellants depots is not IMHO the strongest point that Direct has over NASA (if it is a point at all, Ares V could make use of PD's as well).

Then, there may be other variables to throw in the mix. Where would I locate the PD? Not too low, or there'd be the need of continuous reboosts. Not to high, because the launcher can place hardware to be refueled only so far. Not with a too inclined orbit, it would not be functional to exploration, and so on. And, also, orbital debris is a concern (should the beast explode on orbit... it would dwarf the recent ASAT tests).

(sorry I always end up playing the devil's advocate)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/26/2008 04:06 pm
sandrot
When you plan a family trip in your car, do you call it a 1-vehicle or a 2-vehicle trip? [...]

The analogy is familiar, just the economics don't play well in my mind. That's to say, that expandability of the architecture to take advantage of propellants depots is not IMHO the strongest point that Direct has over NASA (if it is a point at all, Ares V could make use of PD's as well).

Then, there may be other variables to throw in the mix. Where would I locate the PD? Not too low, or there'd be the need of continuous reboosts. Not to high, because the launcher can place hardware to be refueled only so far. Not with a too inclined orbit, it would not be functional to exploration, and so on. And, also, orbital debris is a concern (should the beast explode on orbit... it would dwarf the recent ASAT tests).

(sorry I always end up playing the devil's advocate)

Playing devil's advocate is fine. You'd be surprised how helpful that is at times.

My description above is only the dimmest of outlines and not meant to accurately project anything tangible beyond a "direction". Obviously, the devil's in the details, as you point out. But that's the direction we want to go.

NASA, specifically, Mike Griffin, does not want to go that direction because it completely negates the need for giant, bigger than Saturn rockets. A propellant-based architecture doesn't only make large missions possible for NASA, but even larger ones for the rest of the world. That's apparently not where Dr Griffin wants to go. The trouble is that the bigger the rocket, the less often it needs to fly, and the lower the flight rate, the more expensive it is to operate. Economically, we can do bigger missions with smaller rockets than the Ares-V, if we use a propellant-based architecture. While the ESAS-based Ares can open the Moon and Mars to NASA, a propellant-based architecture would open the solar system to the entire world.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 07/26/2008 04:09 pm
sandrot
When you plan a family trip in your car, do you call it a 1-vehicle or a 2-vehicle trip? [...]

The analogy is familiar, just the economics don't play well in my mind. That's to say, that expandability of the architecture to take advantage of propellants depots is not IMHO the strongest point that Direct has over NASA (if it is a point at all, Ares V could make use of PD's as well).

Then, there may be other variables to throw in the mix. Where would I locate the PD? Not too low, or there'd be the need of continuous reboosts. Not to high, because the launcher can place hardware to be refueled only so far. Not with a too inclined orbit, it would not be functional to exploration, and so on. And, also, orbital debris is a concern (should the beast explode on orbit... it would dwarf the recent ASAT tests).

(sorry I always end up playing the devil's advocate)

The PD is not the strongest point of Direct.  Part of the ESAS is the way that NASA does things.  The present ESAS is not the most efficient way of doing business.  The Direct team has done two things:

1.  Replaced 2 LV plan with 1 LV plan. 

    This plan saves you the development and operational cost of building and keeping another launch vicheal.  The Direct team also has to play by NASA's rules if they want intially to be heard.  This plan might save over $1 billion annually that can be used for other things.

2.   Modified the ESAS plan. 

The Direct team can use the ESAS plan, but thought why not try and go beyond it. The ESAS plan is very low risk, and only basically gets you an outpost at the end of the day.  This approach may be cancelled again just like Apollo.  If you read the proposal, a PD helps Direct/Ares put more hardware on moon or allows you to put more hardware anywhere in the solar system.  If I want to drive to SF everyweek from LA, I can take my car and my tanker with me.  It would be very expensive--that is NASA's plan.  Now, if I can just stop for gas and get a fillup, guess what---my overall costs go down.  As mentioned, as long as the gas is something that my car can take, I really do not care who brings it.  It can be EXXON, Arco, my car will run on it.  If the company/country can build and operate the gas stations and save me money..fine.  That is my bottom line.  The countries/companies can also make a little money off the operation.  How many times do you think that I/NASA can afford to bring thier own little tanker with them?  After a few years, I know I would stop.  I may "want" to go to SF/Moon but the cost would be too expensive.

I will try and make it pretty plan. 

Annual budget for trips:  $30K -$50K

Fill up/PD/Direct

Car Nissan--takes 30mpg.
Buy car: $20,000
Distance: LA-SF: 400
Gas required:  15 gallons
Gas cost: $5/gallon

Total Cost: $20000+ $75 (gas)  =$20075/trip

Ares Plan.

Car Nissan--takes 30 mpg
Buy car  $20,000
Buy tanker $20,000
Gas required: 15 gallons
Gas Cost: $5/gallon
Total cost                           =$40000+/trip

SUMMARY

How many trips do you think that I will be making to SF/moon to visit the sites and deliver cargo?  Myself--after a few of those Ares Trips, I would have to cancel or be making 1 trip every year or every 18 months.

Now the PD/fuel station.  My intial cost to build/develope it may be $5,000 or $20,000 with a 10 +/-5  years operational life span.  But after year 1 year, I am on gravey street.  The oil companies/countries are running it.  Even if I pay them, $1,000 to run it, they might actually pay me to run it. (NOTE: Maybe I/NASA rents the PD/fuel station to them(companies/countries), and they use it to fuel other vicheals besides mine).

Total cost under PD:  $21,000 it may even be less.  This cost is a lot better than the $40K+ that that I thinking of spending under ESAS.

Sure short-term--the currant ESAS plan to get back to the moon works for a few years.  But the plan assumes budget increases, and is just too expensive.  Do you want to pay over $3-5 billion+/annually 1 moon mission?  The american public will see too little returns for its investment and cancel the program. 

How inspiring is 1-2 mission to the moon/ISS annually over the long term? NOT!!!   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 06:07 pm
It took a while for me to be convinced about the PD approach initially, but I'm glad other members of the team persisted as I'm now a very strong proponent having 'seen the light' ;)

The thing I want from it, more than anything else, is to create an architecture that can't help but inspire people.   That can *only* be done by doing new things.   And doing new things so often that it constantly keeps people's ATTENTION SPAN on NASA - never allowing the public to get 'bored'.

The Stanford group raised the excellent point that the Moon efforts are looking more and more likely to soak up all of the cashflow, and the result might be that we won't be able to afford to go anywhere else (Mars, asteroids, other worlds) because we will just get totally 'bogged down' just with the first part of the VSE.

We have spent the last 30 years 'bogged down' in Low Earth Orbit and the public is totally bored with it.   The political masters are equally bored with it too.   NASA can't afford for the new Moon program to be the only thing to happen for a decade or people will get equally bored with that program too (recall how bored the public got by the time Apollo 13 launched!).

If we want strong public and political support we need a program that is constantly moving forward, never stopping for long, always looking at the next big thing.

NASA therefore needs to be focussed not on achieving one singular goal at a time, but needs to be planning multiple parallel efforts designed to achieve something impressive at least once every single election cycle - i.e. every four years.


The only way we're going to be able to do that though, is to get through each task in a reasonably quick fashion without drawing it out endlessly over decades like we have ended up doing with Shuttle & SSF/ISS.   The general public interest in that effort has been pretty low - except for the odd spectacular disaster which gets the media in a frenzy.

So that means we need an infrastructure which will allow for the highest possible *mission* rate (as opposed to flight rate) we can afford.

This is also important because the spacecraft also suffer from the same high fixed costs every year for their infrastructure, just as the launch vehicles do - and again, they have a comparatively low per-unit cost.   You only really get to the best part of the cost curve for these things when you get around 8+ units per year.   Until then each unit costs you an arm and a leg.   If we can get the spacecraft flight rate up higher by keeping the launcher costs down, we will get good value from the launchers *and* the spacecraft together.

And we will be able to perform the list of missions we are planning that much more swiftly too - allowing us to press on to the next destination sooner too.

And *that* creates a really impressive architecture which will be able to do more than one mission type all at the same time.   So, instead of spending 15-20 years doing the Lunar effort before we go to Mars, lets shorten that to more like 7-10 years.

Its possible with NASA's current budget.   But Ares is in the way.   So lets not change horses from the Space Shuttle to Ares, lets stay in the Shuttle saddle and turn it into Jupiter instead.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/26/2008 06:09 pm

[...]

I will try and make it pretty plan. 

Annual budget for trips:  $30K -$50K

Fill up/PD/Direct

Car Nissan--takes 30mpg.
Buy car: $20,000
Distance: LA-SF: 400
Gas required:  15 gallons
Gas cost: $5/gallon

Total Cost: $20000+ $75 (gas)  =$20075/trip

Ares Plan.

Car Nissan--takes 30 mpg
Buy car  $20,000
Buy tanker $20,000
Gas required: 15 gallons
Gas Cost: $5/gallon
Total cost                           =$40000+/trip

[...]


The point where the analogy fails is that you are the only one that goes to SF... and the only one on that route. So somebody has to pay for the 20000$ tanker servicing the refueling station.

Let's remember that the space business is tough. It failed so far to stimulate the market, even with abundant offer.

(then, maybe PD's will be widespread in 2050, but not in 2020)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/26/2008 06:25 pm
Agreed, the space business is very tough.

But just think of how much prestige is involved in a human moon mission.

The US is the only country to so-far have achieved that, and trust me when I say that achievement creates a degree of awe in everyone else out there.   Of course it was so long ago and more recent US foreign policy hasn't been impressive, so the Apollo achievements have been dampened over the years.

But other countries still make a *really* big deal of flying one of their own on a Shuttle flight, or to the ISS.   But the moon - that's a whole different category.   That's going to be a feather in the cap for *any* nation - something which most nations would parade very proudly.   Make no mistake, there is a *very* big market indeed for anything which creates national prestige on the world stage.

Enabling such a mission for any nation to actively take part in is going to be a wonderful tool in the arsenal of the international trade groups the US will be fielding over the next 40 years.   If the US can help other nations earn themselves that sort of national prestige, the US will itself earn a *lot* of respect, gratitude and kudos on the international stage from all of its partner nations.   And political curry with other nations is an area where the US has been losing serious ground in recent years.

As a tool for building international cooperation and good will, NASA has always shone very VERY brightly indeed.   Apollo-Soyuz was a remarkable achievement given that it occurred in the depths of the Cold War, and played a small, but significant, part in setting the stage for all the peace and disarmament talks which followed years later.

International cooperation on moon missions would be extremely popular, politically speaking, worldwide.   And the country which provides that 'service' will earn a lot of respect for doing so.

That 'provider' will either be the US or it will be China.   We have the choice to grasp it ourselves, or we can leave it to someone else to reap the benefits from if we are blind to such opportunities.

And let us not also forget that such a joint effort would certainly set the stage for even greater cooperation when we really need such combined efforts to finally get to Mars.


I want the US program to be the one at the center of such globally-uniting efforts.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 07/27/2008 01:02 am
Ross,

All of that is so very true imho, but I am beginning to get a sense that the plush days of wealth are falling by the wayside. From a DIRECT point of view, selling the national prestige is fine, but selling the dollar figure first is your greatest allie.

Looking at how overstretched ISS is on budget, with future cost worries, finding cheap alternatives that save the workforce (at the same time as keeping the technology in your back pocket) will pay the greatest dividends.

Selling Congress on the numbers is your (Direct's) advantage, so pushing for USA dominance (or better put: leading role) should be a side benefit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2008 03:17 am
Agreed Robert.   There are lean times ahead for sure.   The next five years or so are going to be pretty rough for many western countries IMHO.

But these large-scale swings in the economy usually form a greater pattern of cycling down and also up again too.   The VSE policy and the choices we make now will last throughout this entire cycle, and well into the next - a period which may encompass a 30 or 40 year period.

But the fact remains that an economically viable option suitable for implementing during lean times, is by its very nature, also a good value system when times are more prosperous too.

My own belief in DIRECT doesn't just encompass the weathering of the short-term downturn in Western global economies, but I am convinced will also be a positive boon on the upslope in years to come too.

I would hope that by the time we are landing humans back on the moon again - 2017-2020 - that the cycle has already turned upward-bound again.   It will thus be well positioned to reap the wider-range benefits whenever it does.   But the underlying system will still prove to be affordable even if that turns out to be over-optimistic.   That is a versatility which I just do not see in the more expensive Ares architecture.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 07/27/2008 06:08 am
I think Direct, or something like it, may be NASA's only hope of staying in the Launch Vehicle game.

SpaceX are planning to fly a man capable capsule late next year or early 2010. OK, even if things go well it may be 2012 before the first manned flight. ULA have been looking at flying people on an Atlas V for Bigelow by 2011. If TWO commercial, US operators are safely flying people to space in 2012, Ares I is probably dead, because there's no Gap.

Then, if at that time the economy/budget was under severe strain, Ares V and the Moon would not be a high priority, and would probably be stretched out into oblivion. Or cancelled in favour of a cheaper commercial alternative.

This would be a terrible tragedy for people working in the STS and their families, but it would make for a much more cost effective US launch capability.  One way to avoid this scenario is to make the new NASA system cost effective, and that leads to Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 07/27/2008 12:46 pm

*Initially* DIRECT proposes a 2-launch profile for *both* crew and cargo missions.   Probably for the first ~5-7 years of the operational program or so.   There will therefore be only one design of lander, just like Ares.


Ross, there may be advantages to a single launch approach:

- For establishment of a base, there will be more demand for cargo launch, where a single launch architecture might prove more flexible and cost effective. (Fresh food delivered every quarter, not just every six months).
- NASA might want to land something relatively light, e.g. a short stopover shelter
- Commercial operators might want to buy a single J232 launch to put 10? tons on the lunar surface

Have you looked at what a single J-232 could deliver to the lunar surface?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2008 12:54 pm
Have you looked at what a single J-232 could deliver to the lunar surface?

Yes, the 32 series Jupiter's are capable of landing about 10mT of useful cargo when using the same Descent Stage as the crew missions.   It's about 2mT heavier dry mass than an optimum stage would be for this mission, so that extra bit of performance is going to be unavailable, but it still works.

It can certainly be done, but we think the best performance:cost ratio actually still comes with the extra launch, which will comfortably land a little more than 22mT of useful cargo mass.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/27/2008 01:31 pm
 
Have you looked at what a single J-232 could deliver to the lunar surface?

Yes, the 32 series Jupiter's are capable of landing about 10mT of useful cargo when using the same Descent Stage as the crew missions.   It's about 2mT heavier dry mass than an optimum stage would be for this mission, so that extra bit of performance is going to be unavailable, but it still works.

It can certainly be done, but we think the best performance:cost ratio actually still comes with the extra launch, which will comfortably land a little more than 22mT of useful cargo mass.

Ross.

So send (2) separate 1-launch missions from the earth's surface directly to the lunar surface and you can land a total, with the 2 separate missions, of 20mT of supplies. Or do a SINGLE 2-launch mission and you can put 22mT on the lunar surface, 2mT more than the straight 1-launch missions. So the 2-launch mission is certainly better in terms of cost effectiveness. But is it better for the crew on the lunar surface? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There may well be times during the lunar surface buildout when for the sake of the project, they need what that 1-launch flight can bring and waiting the few months for the 2-launch would be counter productive. It's like deciding on the shipping method when you order something. Standard shipping, 7-10 days, is $X amount, but 2nd day air is $Y amount. It all depends on you and how soon you need or want what you have ordered. You will pay more to get it sooner rather than later. It will be the same with lunar surface delivery. A 2-launch delivery will cost less, but will take longer because it won't fly as often, while a 1-launch will cost more, but can be delivered sooner.

All this becomes moot once a propellant depot is operational. With the depot, a 1-launch resupply mission will deliver much more to the surface than the 2-launch mission, and cost less as well. Just on a BOTE guess, probably in the neighborhood of 75% the cost of the 2-launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 07/27/2008 01:37 pm
Ross -

Thanks for sharing your analysis results.  I don't have my Ares
baseball cards handy, so I'll assume that your performance
numbers below (20,153 kg Ares I, and 147,831 kg Ares "5") are
close to NASA's.  Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

My question was more along the lines of "what are the Ares LV's
predicted performance numbers if the same "thumb on the scales"
margins and assumptions (used by NASA in their analyses of
DIRECT) are applied to their Ares LV's?"   

Turnabout is fair play, although NASA won't think so...
Cheers,
F=ma

Ross -

I recall you said that your (re) analyses of the J-120 and J-232
LV's using the NASA margins and assumptions matched NASA's
results to within 1.5 percent or so (correct me if I'm wrong).

Have you run the current Ares I and V LV's through your analysis
tools to predict their performance using the same NASA margins
and assumptions used on the Jupiters?  I'd be interested in seeing
how those predicted Ares payloads compare to NASA's original
numbers.

I'm guessing that application of the same NASA margins and
assumptions to the Ares LV's will result in similar hits to their
payload numbers as seen in NASA's analyses of DIRECT.  But
I could be wrong...

Cheers,
F=ma

You are absolutely correct.

Using our tools I get a maximum performance of 20,153kg to -11x100nm, 29.0deg insertion for Ares-I.   With our arbitrary 10% additional DIRECT margins applied above & beyond NASA GR&A's, this drops to 18,138kg.   Of particular note is that this breaches our "if your altitude is over 160km as you accelerate through 6,100/s you might encounter BlackZone problems" guidelines which we always look for.   Even with that flag, you always need to do an analysis, which I haven't, so can't be at all sure, but I'm curious.   NASA *must* be flying a different trajectory, but this does appear to be the optimal one for performance for this vehicle.

Ares-6 (LV 51.00.48 config) gets 147,831kg to 130x130nm, 29.0deg insertion, and with the additional 10% DIRECT margin that becomes 133,048kg.   While it reaches orbit, this vehicle doesn't seem to quite achieve the 'typical' velocity of >9150m/s though, it hits 8,999m/s which is a touch on the low side.   I think this may be a side-effect of being forced to target such a low orbit.   My runs indicate that if it could stretch its legs to, say, 220nm insertion, I think it can get even more performance - but that would then be incompatible with the Lunar Ares-I.   It seems to lose something by 'constraining' it to the lower orbit, which is fairly unusual.   And the acceleration profile of the Core Stage vs the Upper Stage is just bizarre.   Totally unbalanced IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/27/2008 08:35 pm

So the 2-launch mission is certainly better in terms of cost effectiveness.

Especially as it only uses a single LSAM, not just the ~2mT difference in lunar performance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/27/2008 08:59 pm

So the 2-launch mission is certainly better in terms of cost effectiveness.

Especially as it only uses a single LSAM, not just the ~2mT difference in lunar performance.

Ross.

Correct.

I'm not arguing here for smaller launches; only making the point that there are options available by virtue of the adoption of DIRECT vs. ESAS. The Ares-based architecture could not ever economically support smaller resupply flights, even if the smaller flight was the only real need; it would forever be tied to very large payloads only. The Ares-V is a one-pony show, incapable of the flexibility required of an effectively evolving VSE. It is inflexible, while a Jupiter-based architecture provides many more potential options that are completely beyond the ability of Ares to even consider. For example, if the real need was for 8-10mT of supplies, the Ares-V would not be able to effectively address that; it would need to be filled up with "stuff" that might not be needed for some time. That isn't the best way forward. Flexibility in meeting needs is going to be required if this effort is going to remain economically viable. The Jupiter launch vehicle family provides that, while the Ares does not.

It's all about the ability to provide a range of options and choices to the mission planners, instead of locking them into a single heavy-lift corner. My thoughts regarding this are speculative and meant to stimulate the "what-if" type of thinking, something not possible with Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/28/2008 02:43 am
My question was more along the lines of "what are the Ares LV's
predicted performance numbers if the same "thumb on the scales"
margins and assumptions (used by NASA in their analyses of
DIRECT) are applied to their Ares LV's?"   

Turnabout is fair play, although NASA won't think so...
Cheers,
F=ma

That would make for a very interesting exercise.   I'm going to be extremely busy this week, but I will try to take a look at this if I can.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 07/28/2008 09:21 am
Have you looked at what a single J-232 could deliver to the lunar surface?

Yes, the 32 series Jupiter's are capable of landing about 10mT of useful cargo when using the same Descent Stage as the crew missions.   It's about 2mT heavier dry mass than an optimum stage would be for this mission, so that extra bit of performance is going to be unavailable, but it still works.

It can certainly be done, but we think the best performance:cost ratio actually still comes with the extra launch, which will comfortably land a little more than 22mT of useful cargo mass.

Ross.
Unless the new President orders a full review of options, I wouldn't change anything, but, thinking from basics:

Would it not make sense to have:

Cargo Mission:
One J-232 launches stack to land 10mT of cargo on lunar surface. Nothing comes back.

Manned Mission:
One J-232 launches stack to land 10mT on lunar surface. This consists of 4 astronauts, a small amount of cargo, and a re-ascent vehicle.
One J-232 launches CEV and equipment to place CEV in lunar orbit and return it to Earth.

Rendez-vous probably in LEO.

Hence all missions use the same lander capable to landing 10 tons. Cargo missions need one launch, manned missions need 2 launches.

8 launches per year allow 2 crew and 4 cargo missions.

(After a few years, being able to do ISRU and refuel the landers on the lunar surface would double the effectiveness of each mission)


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 07/28/2008 09:40 am
Trouble with that is that the lunar lander would have to double as the CEV for the trip out. Not what it's designed for at all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 07/28/2008 09:45 am
Trouble with that is that the lunar lander would have to double as the CEV for the trip out. Not what it's designed for at all.

It's design is hardly fixed!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 07/28/2008 09:58 am
Trouble with that is that the lunar lander would have to double as the CEV for the trip out. Not what it's designed for at all.
No, one J-232 launches the CEV with crew. It can rendez-vous with the lander in LEO, L1 or Lunar Orbit.

The only drawback is that the lander has to follow the CEV into lunar orbit, so can't do direct descent.

From lunar orbit to lunar surface the crew sit in the ascent stage, which is as light as possible, so probably quite cramped.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: John Duncan on 07/28/2008 12:56 pm
Have you looked at what a single J-232 could deliver to the lunar surface?


It can certainly be done, but we think the best performance:cost ratio actually still comes with the extra launch, which will comfortably land a little more than 22mT of useful cargo mass.

Ross.

Is that 22mT plus the weight of the lander?  The Apollo LM weight roughly 16mT, IIRC, and had little "cargo" aside from crew, their life support and a rover later on.

I guess I am trying to identify what "useful cargo" is considered to be.  We need stuff to build a moon base.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 07/28/2008 01:40 pm
For rapid response, small cargo delivery, how about using a J-120 to orbit a vehicle massing about 47 mt, powered by a single RL-10?  Basically a single engine Centaur with twice the tankage, and landing legs.

The one vehicle does TLI & direct lunar descent. Should mass about 12 mt at touchdown, of which 5 to 7 mt could be cargo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/28/2008 11:33 pm
Essentially what you're proposing is an LOR-LOR profile.

We looked at this a while back, but its performance doesn't end up as high as you'd like.

Essentially you have the same total payload mass lifted to LEO, but then you have the mass of an extra EDS (20mT+) having to be pushed through TLI as well - and that hurts your total payload mass at the Lunar end.

Yes, it can be done, but it results in a 2-launch mission only ever landing ~10mT (pure cargo or crew ascent module) at a time, when the same launchers can actually do more like 22-25mT with a different approach (even more than that with PD).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stowbridge on 07/29/2008 02:29 am
What's the next step guys?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2008 02:46 am
Most of the stuff we're doing right now is 'behind the scenes' efforts.   Meetings, meeting and more meetings, walking the corridors of power, that sort of thing.

Publicly, we've got the rebuttal to finish writing (man, that's a big job!), we have a paper coming for AIAA this year.   Our MySpace is up and running already, our Facebook should also be up within a few weeks too.

We've got lots of studies going on into not just the vehicles, but also the huge variety of architectures which they can support - to try to define the different pathways which can support the obvious Moon & Mars objectives as well as NEO's and other interesting human and robotic missions as well.   If we can show the options, then as we down-select the hardware we will know what options would still remain.   It's a big job.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 07/29/2008 03:33 am
Most of the stuff we're doing right now is 'behind the scenes' efforts.   Meetings, meeting and more meetings, walking the corridors of power, that sort of thing.


How so?  Several members of Congress have stated you don't have much traction with them.  Who are you talking with then?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2008 04:00 am
There are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate.   There are hundreds, if not thousands, of senior advisers to all of those.   There are committees, there are agencies which support Congress, and all of those have echelons of staff and advisers too.

And that's just one arm of Federal government.   We are working with all arms at present, including the two Presidential candidates.

And then there are the contractors too.   They can bring a lot of influence to bear if they choose to.   Board members, lobbyists, you name it we are contacting lots of people.

No avenue not investigated, no stone unturned has been our policy.   While we're a small group, so it can be slow going, but we are trying to cover every base.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Keermalec on 07/29/2008 12:30 pm
Hi, a dumb question from an amateur:

One of the main differences between Constellation and Direct is the Ares I launcher.

if Constellation should drop Ares I and continue only with Ares IV and V, wouldn't that be basically the same as Direct, only with higher launch capacity?

If that were done would the defenders of Direct then agree to go entirely with Constellation?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/29/2008 12:59 pm

if Constellation should drop Ares I and continue only with Ares IV and V, wouldn't that be basically the same as Direct, only with higher launch capacity?


Ares IV doesn't exist.   It also has an unnecessary upperstage from the CLV point of view
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2008 01:34 pm
Hi, a dumb question from an amateur:

One of the main differences between Constellation and Direct is the Ares I launcher.

if Constellation should drop Ares I and continue only with Ares IV and V, wouldn't that be basically the same as Direct, only with higher launch capacity?

If that were done would the defenders of Direct then agree to go entirely with Constellation?

There are few dumb questions in the world and that wasn't one of them.   Let me try to answer you fully.

A couple of things come to mind...

1) Ares-V would still never be ready before 2017-2018 at the very earliest - that's a 7-8 year "GAP" in US human spaceflight capability.   Ouch.

2) This means centers like KSC and MAF will essentially be ghost towns (as is going to happen with Ares-I anyway) as the vast majority of staff are given the boot in order to be able to pay for that vast amount of development work required.

3) Ares-V would be a $25-30bn project given all the new hardware that must be developed, now as a single budgetary line-item without Ares-I picking up half of the costs.   I suspect Congress would find that horse-pill pretty hard to swallow.

4) Ares-V does not meet NASA's minimum crew-launch safety requirements of better than 1 in 1000 Loss of Vehicle.   The old 5-engined 5.0segment SRB'd Ares-V had an LOC down around 1:870.   The current 48.00.51 configuration with 6 main engines and 5.5seg boosters will be even worse than that.

Apart from those issues, yeah, Ares-V on its own isn't too bad an option.   It was always the only Ares rocket which I thought had a real solid purpose.   While I used to think Ares-I was cool, I learned differently when I scratched beneath the Public Affairs gloss.   People here and throughout the agency have opened my eyes to the real nature of it today and boy, was I a chump for ever defending it! :)



BTW, I think its important for me to set the record straight again, it's been I while since I did this last, but your last line clearly suggests that I need to restate this:-

Please understand it's not NASA, nor is it the Constellation Program which we have an issue with.   We aren't anti-NASA.   We aren't anti-Constellation.   We are specifically and explicitly anti-waste.   And that means that we don't have a problem with the mission to the, the Orion or the Altair.   We're actually very strong proponents of all those.

But Ares-I especially, and the need for any second booster on top of a first is a desperate waste of precious and finite resources.

Let me explain a little...

The US government, in the form of both the President and the Congress, laid out an exceptionally good policy - the Vision for Space Exploration - for this country to finally pick up the Human Exploration ball again after 30 years doing laps in Low Earth Orbit.

Our space agency, NASA, was given this golden opportunity to perform this new mission for us all to be proud of.   Constellation is the Program within the agency tasked to accomplish this, and Constellation (CxP) is made up, for the most part, of very competent, skilled and enthusiastic professionals who have been awaiting such an opportunity as this.

Our key gripe is the fact that the agency was then placed into the hands of someone who had a pre-defined plan how we would get underway - a plan which proposed a specific set of launch vehicles which was rather ill conceived, a plan which had never been sufficiently studied, and a plan which had simply ignored some very serious issues which it should have been fully aware of given the source.

Our problem was that this plan was foisted upon an unsuspecting agency who had no say in the matter at all and are today unable to complain about it for fear of the impact it will have upon their individual careers.

I know many, many people within CxP and throughout the rest of the agency, and I consider them as much a victim of this situation as anyone else.   Probably even more-so because the current plans are going to call for so many of these good people to lose their jobs over the next 2-3 years as Shuttle retires.

I'm doing everything I can in my power to provide an alternative that can potentially save all of these jobs, while simultaneously providing a system which can do the job required (ISS, Lunar and Mars human missions) without breaking the bank.   At the same time, I believe we have found a solution which would also close the gap significantly through the fundamental choice to reduce the amount of development work required, by re-using an enormous amount of what we have today with the minimum of modification to make it do what we really need it to do.

I simply don't believe Ares will ever be affordable enough to build or operate and it is squandering the opportunity which the government gave us.   Ares will lead to, at best, a repetition of Apollo with a handful of flights to the moon, and Congress declaring that its too expensive to continue.   At worst, Ares-V will be declared too expensive before it ever flies and we will be stuck with yet another EELV-call launcher, albeit one which costs 5-6 times more than the others, which will be completely unable to support any Moon or Mars exploration program.

Any other solution which is affordable has my vote.   DIRECT gets my primary support because it can also save the workforce at the same time.   Atlas-V Phase 2 and 3B come in 2nd place, but can't save the same number of the workforce.

For me, Ares actually comes in behind Shuttle - and Shuttle can't even support a Lunar or a Mars effort efficiently.   But 25 years has shown that at least we can afford to keep Shuttle flying - which is a step up from what I see of the Ares plan.

Long live NASA.   Long live its workforce, both Federal and Contractors alike.   Long live the VSE.   Long live the Orion.   And Long live the Altair.   To all involved:   Make us proud, you can do it!

The Stick, you can keep.   And any second launcher won't ever be paid for, so I don't think that's actually a realistic part of the debate.   To all involved in Ares:   I'm proud of the amount of work you've put in to try to get this awful concept to work.   I wish you had been given a better concept to work upon from the start, one which is truly worthy of putting all your valuable efforts into.

And to the rest of NASA:   Thank-you for all you've done for us all.   You are mostly unsung hero's, but hero's none-the-less.   And I truly commiserate with the 2/3rds of you who will be jobless three years from now because of this farce.   I'm doing everything I can to prevent that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Keermalec on 07/29/2008 04:15 pm
I think I get it Kraisee. Direct also seems less wasteful to me but I am no expert, and neither is Congress. Ideally the GOA should review the Direct approach as fully as it did the Constellation program. We could then really compare costs and timelines based on a (presumably) neutral viewpoint. I haven't found any such report.


if Constellation should drop Ares I and continue only with Ares IV and V, wouldn't that be basically the same as Direct, only with higher launch capacity?


Ares IV doesn't exist.   It also has an unnecessary upperstage from the CLV point of view

Ares IV is actually an interesting launcher. With two SRBs it can throw the CEV on a direct translunar trajectory (according to Wikipedia...) and without SRBs it can lift the CEV to LEO, just like the Ares I or Jupiter 120. So in effect it can replace both Ares I AND Jupiter 120, and it can also launch direct to the Moon. To me that's more versatile.

Without the Ares I the Constellation program should cost close to 14 billion USD less, right? Unless that J-2X upper stage is the real costly part. I also note that the Jupiter upper stage uses the same J-2X engines as Ares, therefore cost and schedule differences are not here.

To me, getting rid of the Ares I optimizes the Ares IV/V to something very close to Direct, but with more lift capability. The problem Direct faces today is mainly with lift capability: it is only too easy to  turn it down with the argument that "it doesn't meet requirements". Were you to redesign Direct with equivalent lift capability wouldn't you end up with something eerily close to Ares IV/V?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 07/29/2008 05:00 pm
I think I get it Kraisee. Direct also seems less wasteful to me but I am no expert, and neither is Congress. Ideally the GOA should review the Direct approach as fully as it did the Constellation program. We could then really compare costs and timelines based on a (presumably) neutral viewpoint. I haven't found any such report.


if Constellation should drop Ares I and continue only with Ares IV and V, wouldn't that be basically the same as Direct, only with higher launch capacity?


Ares IV doesn't exist.   It also has an unnecessary upperstage from the CLV point of view

Ares IV is actually an interesting launcher. With two SRBs it can throw the CEV on a direct translunar trajectory (according to Wikipedia...) and without SRBs it can lift the CEV to LEO, just like the Ares I or Jupiter 120. So in effect it can replace both Ares I AND Jupiter 120, and it can also launch direct to the Moon. To me that's more versatile.

Without the Ares I the Constellation program should cost close to 14 billion USD less, right? Unless that J-2X upper stage is the real costly part. I also note that the Jupiter upper stage uses the same J-2X engines as Ares, therefore cost and schedule differences are not here.

To me, getting rid of the Ares I optimizes the Ares IV/V to something very close to Direct, but with more lift capability. The problem Direct faces today is mainly with lift capability: it is only too easy to  turn it down with the argument that "it doesn't meet requirements". Were you to redesign Direct with equivalent lift capability wouldn't you end up with something eerily close to Ares IV/V?

I have edited the wiki page to indicate that the proposed Ares IV launch vehicle is no longer being considered by NASA. The original wiki article was a snapshot in time, and today's update is also a snapshot in time. It is correct as of today, and may not be correct tomorrow.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 07/29/2008 05:04 pm
[...] Ares IV is actually an interesting launcher. With two SRBs it can throw the CEV on a direct translunar trajectory (according to Wikipedia...) and without SRBs it can lift the CEV to LEO, just like the Ares I or Jupiter 120. So in effect it can replace both Ares I AND Jupiter 120, and it can also launch direct to the Moon. To me that's more versatile. [...]

From stuck in LEO to stuck in LLO...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/29/2008 06:16 pm

Ares IV is actually an interesting launcher. With two SRBs it can throw the CEV on a direct translunar trajectory (according to Wikipedia...) and without SRBs it can lift the CEV to LEO, just like the Ares I or Jupiter 120. So in effect it can replace both Ares I AND Jupiter 120, and it can also launch direct to the Moon. To me that's more versatile.

It is a useless launcher.  There are no missions for it.  CEV on a translunar trajectory has no usefulness
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 07/29/2008 08:15 pm
If that were done would the defenders of Direct then agree to go entirely with Constellation?

I know Ross already posted a long reply to Keermalec's question, but I'd like something ... terser, more factual.

Specifically, could you compare DIRECT's costs to the following scenario? 

Scary scenario: Ares I development continues until 5.0 SRBs and J2-X are proven.  Then Ares I is canceled, in favor of a manned-rated EELV.   Ares V continues, including all infrastructure changes.

How would DIRECT's numbers stack up against EELV/Ares V?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2008 11:15 pm
Without the Ares I the Constellation program should cost close to 14 billion USD less, right? Unless that J-2X upper stage is the real costly part.

Your second guess is the correct one there.   If you aren't developing J-2X and 5-seg SRB for Ares-I, they must be paid for by Ares-V.   And those two elements *do* represent the lions share of the Ares-I's ~$14bn total cost.

Ares-V alone, is a $25-30bn rocket.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/29/2008 11:52 pm
Specifically, could you compare DIRECT's costs to the following scenario? 

Scary scenario: Ares I development continues until 5.0 SRBs and J2-X are proven.  Then Ares I is canceled, in favor of a manned-rated EELV.   Ares V continues, including all infrastructure changes.

How would DIRECT's numbers stack up against EELV/Ares V?

In that specific hypothetical scenario, DIRECT would still be a lot cheaper and sooner.

Ares-V development cost for that scenario is in the order of $30bn still, and still wouldn't be operational until 2019-20 as currently planned.   Once Ares-I has paid for the J-2X and the 5-seg fully, they will have spent >90% of their $14bn already, whether it actually becomes operational or not.    Ares-V would still require full funding to the tune of ~$15bn full-wrap.   And don't forget to add another ~$1bn to get the EELV human rated and to get the appropriate facilities modified/built.

DIRECT development costs are <$14bn to get to the Jupiter-232 in 2017.   Along the path to that (about $9.5bn along and around 2012-13) we get Jupiter-120 as a "useful early version" without having to pay much in the way of extra cost at all.   And it can go operational while we await delivery of the first flight-ready J-2X's around 2015-16.

DIRECT could afford to also qualify an EELV for human use too, and would still be ~$14-15bn cheaper than the Ares option you suggest.


Operationally, NASA's own data is indicating that each Ares-V (5-engine, 5.0seg version) is going to cost $1,400m (@ 4/per year) per flight (plus whatever spacecraft cost).   The current 6-engine stretched 5.5-seg will cost more still.

Jupiter-232's costs remain firmly in the well-known territory of existing Shuttle hardware costs along with Delta-IV engine costs, so the Jupiter-232's only unknown costs are the Upper Stage - for which we are using NASA's Ares-V US costs adjusted to suit the larger size and the extra engine.   This results in a per-flight cost (again @ 4 per year, same as Ares-V) of $750m each.

In quantities of 8 per year, those numbers would drop to $900m and $400m respectively.


So developmentally, the Jupiter's would be roughly half the cost. And operationally they are around about half the cost too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/30/2008 02:36 am
These costs must be using completely different methodologies and assumptions.  Even for inline SDLV concepts there are 4-segment solid development and test costs, and the cost of the core stage have historically been estimated to be higher than implied here. 

Does this imply that the DIRECT EDS is much cheaper than the Ares I upper stage?  If so, how is this accomplished?

How do you reconcile these costs with the (not human rated) NLS point estimate development costs of $12B (according to Astronautix) in 1989 dollars, which would be $21B today?  And they didn't need to human rate the RS-68 or develop an upper stage.

Finally, NASA costs are at 65% confidence level.  What confidence level are your costs to and can you show your S-curve?  65% confidence level (as opposed to a NAFCOM point estimate) adds many billions to NASA's costs.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 07/30/2008 03:30 am
Direct 120 doesn't use an EDS, it just launches Orion capsule into orbit.  Direct 232 does use an upper stage like Aries V.  Aries I and V must have two seperate and different upper stages developed.  One smaller one with one J2X engine for Aries I.  One large one for with one J2X for Aries V.  Direct doesn't use one just to launch the Orion capsule to the space station.  Direct only needs its 2-J2X upper stage for moon or Mars launchings.  Only one upper stage needs to be developed for Direct. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/30/2008 03:34 am
I don't know where you're getting that idea from, mars.is.wet.   That's totally wrong. :)

Last time I looked the contract value for developing the Ares-I US was $1.12bn and the J-2X is another $1.2bn, for a total cost of ~$2.3bn.

The Upper Stage for Jupiter is budgeted to be a $4bn element - that's approximately 72% greater cost envelope than Ares-I's US.   (IU is a different element and all new launchers will require one, so I'm leaving it out of this particular discussion as its an equivalent cost for all options).

As for comparing NLS with Jupiter, while there are a lot of similarities you must not forget to account for the significant differences too.  The NLS HLLV in that Astronautix page is still quite a bit different from the Jupiter.

For a start, NLS was to include the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) boosters which Thiokol tried to develop for Shuttle around 1992 to support the heavier Space Station elements which would be required.   The development spending for ASRM grew to $3.9bn (in FY1992 $) - which would be equivalent to $6.1bn today.   That effort was canceled by Congress the year after after that revelation came out, and the Shuttle switched to the much cheaper SLWT upgrade for the ET in order to deliver almost the same performance increases.   Jupiter does not plan to use ASRM's at all, only the existing 4-segment RSRB's, so this high development cost need not be applied.   5-segment FSB's are a logical future growth option if/when required, but are not in the essential "critical path" to success.

The original NLS also has a 5ft stretch to the LH2 tank (adding a 5th barrel section), and a comparable increase in capacity to the LOX tank as well).   Jupiter does not require the additional materials nor tooling to accomplish this change either, so the additional costs assumed by NLS need not be applied.

NLS also assumed an integral kick-stage would be required as well, massing around 21,000lb.   Jupiter does not require such a unit as all crewed flights would have an Orion spacecraft to extract the payload and navigate it to the final destination and the likelyhood is that any pure cargo flights will probably be heading beyond LEO anyway and will be requiring something more like an EELV Upper Stage or the Full J-232 EDS.   The NLS kick-stage development and operational costs can therefore also be deleted.

Essentially none of these elements planned for NLS are going to be required for Jupiter-120 or for Jupiter-232.

Removing them improves the cost profile for the in-line option considerably   And NLS itself was considered extremely good value at the time, although Congress was unwilling to fund it at the same time as the continuing Shuttle Program and development of SSF/ISS.   They would fund only two out of the three.


We are not using NASA's 65% costing confidence level standard because we just don't believe that is close to realistic.   We are using the same methodology as CxP uses (NAFCOM) for all *new* elements, but we utilize the 85% confidence level estimate instead.   Existing elements which have no changes (4-segment SRB for example) have an allocation for re-qualification, but do not alter (beyond inflationary growth) in the operational costing area.

We have generally decided to follow NASA methodologies in most instances in order to be able to provide a degree of "apples-to-apples" comparison.   But it should be noted that we prefer to err on the side of caution regarding margins of safety in almost all situations; performance, schedule & cost alike.

If we used NASA's 65% level, our J-120 costs would be almost a billion dollars lower than what we are claiming.   But like you say, their 65% confidence level is seriously over-optimistic to us too.   85% isn't bad in our opinion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/30/2008 03:59 am
    Last time I looked the contract value for developing the Ares-I US was
    $1.12bn and the J-2X is another $1.2bn, for a total cost of ~$2.3bn.

    The Upper Stage for Jupiter is a $4bn element.


OK, so a total of $2.3bn.  That means that the 5 segment SRB costs over $11bn?

thanks for the clarification on the NLS.

Could you show your S-Curve so that we can see how steep it is?  I'd be surprised that you could develop any space system this large at that high a level of confidence.  Seems like the realities of life always bite you (for example, the IUS development costs went up by a factor of 10 from initial estimates).

Your assumptions for the 4 segment solids do not match NASA's assumption and are not realistic for how they would execute the program.  I'm worried that while your costs may not be possible within the NASA framework.  It looks a lot more like what contractors typically call "new ways of doing business", a model that has sunk concepts from  Athena to the original X-34 ... If so, that chart is not apples-to-apples.

I guess there won't be any way of knowing unless someone does a side-by-side comparison, but don't be surprised if a completely transparent NASA, FFRDC or GAO cost estimate comes up 2-3 times higher than yours using the same methodologies that still underestimate the costs of today's space systems.

many thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 07/30/2008 04:48 am
Cost estimation 'confidence levels' are a matter of margins.   We simply have larger margins built into our cost estimates to allow us to use a higher % confidence level.   What the margin is depends on each and every element and the exact make-up of that element - and that gets into proprietary data real fast.

NASA has not shown their data on this due to this inherently proprietary nature.   I don't believe we should do so either at this time.   As I said before, get them to show us theirs first...

I'm all-for a truly open civilian space agency, but sadly that is not what we have today - mores the pity.

Given that that situation isn't likely to change any time soon, I do agree that the Ares costs should, nay, must be reviewed by some form of external (to NASA) agency in order for Congress and the American people to be able to have any faith in NASA's claims at all.

It's not like historically the agency has been very accurate on its estimates of the past.   History shows that almost all previous costs for major programs like this have been seriously underestimated, and there seems little reason to suspect this program is any different.   Shuttle, ISS and X-33 all come to mind as obvious examples of program which went considerably over-budget compared to their originally proposed cost profiles.   For Congress to ask for a review of NASA's costs would seem to me to be simple good responsibility from the agency's oversight watchdogs.

We are pushing for such a review.   Further we are pushing for it to also be a comparative review including alternatives, such as DIRECT, so we can get a final confirmation which really is the better alternative for the US tax payers and which are just blowing steam up everyone's butts.

If GAO were to perform such a review (an acceptably fair organization to the DIRECT Team) we would be willing to stand by their results, whether they validated us, or Ares or some other option as the best solution for the US Human Space Flight Program to pursue.

And it is quite possible that a report from them (or someone equivalent) would probably be able to release at least some of the data which you are asking for.

Ross.

PS - Most of that $11bn cost you mention is "Integration" related.   Essentially the costs for making the various hardware elements work with the total vehicle system which they need to.   It also includes the billions needed to replace infrastructure too and a lot of other things too, like cross-training staff, preparing new procedures etc. etc.

In the simplified costs chart above, all of those Integration & Infrastructure costs - except for the specific ones applied to the EDS alone - are included in the main "vehicle" portions of Ares-V and Jupiter.   Ares-I's US is included entirely in the "vehicle 1" block along with all the other costs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 07/30/2008 05:06 am
I'm not sure you understood my request, which concerns me.

The new method of cost estimation does use element-by-element estimates of nominal cost plus a spread of risk.  Those cost-risk triangles are converted to a PDF that gives cost confidence.  The new methodology does not speak of "margin" ... although you could convert it to that.  While inherently riskier designs need more % margin to achieve a higher confidence interval, there is no magic formula for adding margin for some improvement in confidence.  It depends on the S-curve, which is why I want to see it.

I was asking for the S-curve (or PDF) that is generated from the cost-risk analysis, not the element-by-element data.  However, your comment about the cost-risk of each element is a bit confusing as you could provide the data for each point on the triangle (best, worst, most likely) for each element ... without showing any proprietary data.  NASA's current methodology is very different, detailed, and by direction from Griffin more conservative than what has been done in the past.  If you aren't matching that methodology, you are comparing apples-to-oranges in that chart.  If you are matching their methodology, you should have an S-curve and the element PDFs handy to show without giving away any proprietary data.

NASA does not show cost data so that it is not micromanaged and to protect its available margins from the contractors.  Its cost estimates are often done before putting out an RFP.  You don't have those restrictions, but I can understand why you would not want to come under scrutiny alone.  Lots of negative things can be said about cost estimates ... everyone and nobody are experts.  Easy way to lose credibility :)

Btw, NASA's costs are independently reviewed (ICE) at PDR and major milestones.  The review process NASA has using PA&E and its contractors (SAIC mostly) is above reproach, and has done good things on the robotic side.  I would expect no less on the HSF side.  But that doesn't help if they won't review DIRECT and compare, which they likely won't at this point.   

I can't think of the last truly independent cost estimate from outside of a government Agency.  Can you?  Doesn't mean this won't be the first.

And no, if history is any guide, GAO reports are thin on details such as this.  And you don't want them doing your cost estimates ... GAO is not an organization you want to mess with for anything with detail, IMO.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: daver on 07/31/2008 02:22 pm
Hey Ross,
  Could you get Buzz Aldrin and John Glenn together?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5916363.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5906199.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 07/31/2008 06:51 pm
Hey Ross,
  Could you get Buzz Aldrin and John Glenn together?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5916363.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5906199.html

I would suggest including Senator Bill Nelson in that meeting

Space a Potential Fracture Line at Democratic Convention (http://www.examiner.com/x-504-Space-News-Examiner~y2008m7d30-Space-a-Potential-Fracture-Line-at-Democratic-National-Convention)

Extending shuttle orbiter beyond 2010 will be a tough hill to climb, however John Glenn has legitimate concerns regarding "the Gap" just as Bill Nelson has legitimate concerns about the workforce and these concerns are nicely solved by adopting Jupiter 120 as early as possible in 2009.

= = =

As an aside: A Nelson - Aldrin - Glenn meeting on NASA issues could be given the acronym: "NAG NASA"

 ;)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 08/01/2008 01:18 am
This is probably a stupid question, but why can't we just use 3 or 4 current solid rocket boosters instead of developing a new 5 segment rocket?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/01/2008 01:25 am
This is probably a stupid question, but why can't we just use 3 or 4 current solid rocket boosters instead of developing a new 5 segment rocket?

Too heavy for the MLP/ crawler.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/01/2008 01:50 am
Specifically, could you compare DIRECT's costs to the following scenario? 

Scary scenario: Ares I development continues until 5.0 SRBs and J2-X are proven.  Then Ares I is canceled, in favor of a manned-rated EELV.   Ares V continues, including all infrastructure changes.

How would DIRECT's numbers stack up against EELV/Ares V?

In that specific hypothetical scenario, DIRECT would still be a lot cheaper and sooner.

Ares-V development cost for that scenario is in the order of $30bn still, and still wouldn't be operational until 2019-20 as currently planned.   Once Ares-I has paid for the J-2X and the 5-seg fully, they will have spent >90% of their $14bn already, whether it actually becomes operational or not.    Ares-V would still require full funding to the tune of ~$15bn full-wrap.   And don't forget to add another ~$1bn to get the EELV human rated and to get the appropriate facilities modified/built.

DIRECT development costs are <$14bn to get to the Jupiter-232 in 2017.   Along the path to that (about $9.5bn along and around 2012-13) we get Jupiter-120 as a "useful early version" without having to pay much in the way of extra cost at all.   And it can go operational while we await delivery of the first flight-ready J-2X's around 2015-16.

DIRECT could afford to also qualify an EELV for human use too, and would still be ~$14-15bn cheaper than the Ares option you suggest.


Operationally, NASA's own data is indicating that each Ares-V (5-engine, 5.0seg version) is going to cost $1,400m (@ 4/per year) per flight (plus whatever spacecraft cost).   The current 6-engine stretched 5.5-seg will cost more still.

Jupiter-232's costs remain firmly in the well-known territory of existing Shuttle hardware costs along with Delta-IV engine costs, so the Jupiter-232's only unknown costs are the Upper Stage - for which we are using NASA's Ares-V US costs adjusted to suit the larger size and the extra engine.   This results in a per-flight cost (again @ 4 per year, same as Ares-V) of $750m each.

In quantities of 8 per year, those numbers would drop to $900m and $400m respectively.


So developmentally, the Jupiter's would be roughly half the cost. And operationally they are around about half the cost too.

Ross.

That pretty much shows Jupiter is the way to go and Ares is just insanity that will destroy the program.

The 32+ B figure for Ares is insane we probably could develop three RLVs for that and just pick the best of the litter.

Other things I'd like to know could the cost be reduce even farther for some variants by replacing the J2 with a cheaper upper stage engine such as three RL60s or 4 RL-10s if those would be cheaper then a J2.
I do know RL10s are really cheap relatively speaking.

Other things the J-120's reoccurring costs seem cheap enough it could find uses outside VSE or in a post VSE NASA.
Isn't it's reoccurring costs if I'm reading it right under $300 million USD for a 50T plus LV?
I figure 30M for the ET, 50M for ware and tare on the Orion " assuming 10 flights", 40M for the RS68s ,30 M for two SRBs plus what ever the SM,heat shield, and LAS plus shroud cost which can't be more then 50M?

So much extra money would be left over I wonder what kind of cool projects can be funded with the savings?
Maybe try some of those cool post Apollo proposals like the SASSTO, some advanced RLV technology demonstrators or develop a nuclear upper stage for deep space missions?

An SASSTO like SSTO RLV with an Orion CM or Dragon as it's payload would be really cool.
It may not have the Startrek and Buck Rodgers coolness of a spaceplane but would have a classic Flash Gorden kinda cool to it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/01/2008 01:56 am
This is probably a stupid question, but why can't we just use 3 or 4 current solid rocket boosters instead of developing a new 5 segment rocket?

Can't fit over the flame trench.  Also 3 is not viable
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/01/2008 02:18 am
Other things I'd like to know could the cost be reduce even farther for some variants by replacing the J2 with a cheaper upper stage engine such as three RL60s or 4 Rl-10s if those would be cheaper then a J2.
I do know Rl10s are really cheap relatively speaking.

I would love to get the RL-60's.   There's plenty of good places for those to be utilized.   A dedicated space-only (not used during ascent) EDS filled by a Depot, a larger Lander (again filled by the Depot).   All could benefit from the development of the RL-60.

But the J-2 is worth the investment IMHO.   It doesn't *have* to be the J-2X, but a J-2 derivative of some sorts is well worthwhile because it because it is an efficient engine concept.



Quote
Other things the J-120's reoccurring costs seem cheap enough it could find uses outside VSE or in a post VSE NASA.
Isn't it's reoccurring costs if I'm reading it right under $300 million USD for a 50T plus LV?
I figure 30M for the ET 50M for ware and tare on the Orion assuming 10 flights 40M for the RS68s and 30 M for two SRBs plus what ever the SM and LAS plus shroud cost which can't be more then 50M?

The numbers are a bit different, but you are in the correct ballpark.

$300m for the total cost of a Jupiter-120 is about right in the quantities needed to support the baseline of 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew and 2 Lunar Cargo missions per year.   Vary the flight rate and the costs will change.


Quote
So much extra money would be left over I wonder what kind of cool projects can be funded with the savings?

Off the top of my head...

You could pay for developing a Propellant Depot.   Prometheus nuclear engine development.   Develop the RL-60.   Develop a new million-pound Kero-Lox engine.   Better still you could put sufficient money back in to save the workforce.   Extra money for Aeronautics and Science.

And you could even fly a bunch of additional missions too - say a Hubble Servicing mission in 2014, a Lunar Flyby mission (with a human rated Delta-IV Upper Stage which could also be funded) in 2013, Fly Mars Sample Return on a single flight.   ISS logistics flights and new/additional modules can be flown too.


Quote
Maybe try some of those cool post Apollo proposals like the SASSTO, some advanced RLV technology demonstrators or develop a nuclear upper stage for deep space missions?

An SSTO with an Orion CM or Dragon as it's payload would be really cool.

NASA could sure pay for the whole of COTS D with a relatively small portion of the savings too.

There are so many different things we could be doing with that money - many of which would make Ares-V totally pointless anyway.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/01/2008 03:44 am
What about this J2 variant the J2S supposedly they actually had one running back in the 60s.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/j2s.htm
I think it's turbo pump machinery also found use in a plug nozzle engine for the SASSTO but there is a pic of a running plug nozzle engine there.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sassto.htm

I figure modern changes for the J2S would entitle channel wall construction why use the labor intensive brazed tube construction and digital controls.
Plus replacing the solid fuel cartridge based starting with something that can handle more restarts maybe a light duty gas generator using H2O2 or a big tank of helium.

I figure another thing the J-120 could do with even a small upper stage before the big upper stage for the J232 is ready might be to throw a light vehicle like a Dragon,Cygnus,Soyuz, or DC around the moon for purposes of testing TPS materials.
I don't think it really matters which one just what ever can be obtained for the purpose.
The vehicle also could carry a biological payload such as mice,frogs,plants and human stem cells to get some good data on GCR.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/01/2008 04:17 am
The great thing with Jupiter is that it allows us to extend the life of the ISS. Some of those first modules installed are going to get up there in age in a few years. Jupiter could be used to maintain or replace entire sections of the ISS.

We have spent far too much money on that station to simply throw it away once we go to the Moon.

Not to get too crazy, but is there a way to use an EDS to boost the ISS to a more Moon friendly orbit? Maybe several missions over a period of time could send the ISS to a friendlier orbit. Then a propellant depot could be attached. The ISS can then be a scientific and exploration outpost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 08/01/2008 04:39 am
The great thing with Jupiter is that it allows us to extend the life of the ISS. Some of those first modules installed are going to get up there in age in a few years. Jupiter could be used to maintain or replace entire sections of the ISS.

No, that is not possible due to the design of ISS. The oldest module, Zarya, can never be replaced. Neither can Unity, or any of the other "internal" modules.

Quote
We have spent far too much money on that station to simply throw it away once we go to the Moon.

That is not the only alternative. The existing modules can be maintained past their design lifetimes, at a gradually increasing cost. But the internal modules simply cannot be replaced.

Quote
Not to get too crazy, but is there a way to use an EDS to boost the ISS to a more Moon friendly orbit?

No, too crazy. ISS is lightly built and simply cannot handle the loads of a conventional chemical propulsion stage. The only propulsion system that could boost ISS out of LEO without ripping it to shreds is low-thrust electric. Even then, it's a silly idea because that would expose ISS to a long-duration pass through the Van Allen belts. It is not shielded for either the crew or the avionics to survive that. Its thermal control system is optimized for LEO and would likely have to be redesigned for the thermal environment of deep space. ISS also requires too much in terms of logistics for it to be viable once boosted out of LEO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/01/2008 05:02 am
I'm of the opinion that the best way to update ISS in the latter part of the next decade would be to add a big module to take over a number of critical tasks from the older ones.   New Life Support systems could be built-in (precursor systems designed to test 'modern' equipment - 2015 era - in support of both the new Lunar base and future Mars program).

Whatever new hardware is required to extend the station's life by another 10-15 years could all be integrated into a large 90mT single module.   New navigation, control gyro, low-thrust hypergolic propulsion system, power generation, heat dissipation equipment.   You name it.   The chassis should be put together by one country, and each of the other countries involved contributes one of the needed replacement sub-systems - to be negotiated.

Anything required to extend the life of station could be integrated into such a "SkyLab-II" module, with the intention of attaching it to ISS around 2016.   At that point any older systems which are past their sell-by date could then be safely switched off.

This approach doesn't require any modules to be detached or disposed of at all.   They would all remain - unless their pressurized docking seals ever become a concern.

A single Jupiter-232 could launch such a module.   And if we don't have to pay for Ares-V we might even be able to afford to do so - although extra cash from Congress to extend ISS' operational life would always be welcome.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Giovanni DS on 08/01/2008 07:46 am
Could the existing newest modules (Kibo, Columbus, etc) be moved around this new core module ?, if so the rest of the station, the old core, could be detached and deorbited.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/01/2008 11:06 am
It would sure be a lot easier if you don't have to.   But like most engineering problems, throw enough time and money at it and I'm sure anything is possible.

I'm not sure there's a real benefit to reconfiguring ISS though.   I think it will work pretty well unchanged, just upgraded with an appropriate module such as this - whenever the time is right.

BTW, If this is going to be discussed further - it really needs its own thread.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 08/01/2008 07:53 pm
Could the existing newest modules (Kibo, Columbus, etc) be moved around this new core module ?, if so the rest of the station, the old core, could be detached and deorbited.

If you have the Direct launcher and a design for a 90 ton module with everything needed to run a space station it becomes simple to build a new much better station.

Most of the value in prolonging the life of ISS ought to be in running the ongoing and already prepaired experiments adapted to the ISS facilities. A life lenght extension of ISS could be worthwile and cost effective if those can be run with a minimum of change. A deconstruction of ISS would disturb them, take a fairly long time, add risk and cost making it easier to start over with a new space station.

An odd benefit is that a new complete support module would provide a safe haven making it reasonable to run the rest of the station with increased risk for failure.  Thus you can run ISS untill it breaks and collect real life data on detoriration of such systems making ISS into a new Mir. ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/01/2008 07:57 pm
That's a damn good idea Magnus.   It would be a safe way to find the weak points by real-world testing in an accurate space environment.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gin455res on 08/01/2008 09:41 pm
What benefit would a hydrocarbon upperstage have on the development costs of the jupiter vehicle have and how much payload would you lose?



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/01/2008 10:07 pm
What benefit would a hydrocarbon upperstage have on the development costs of the jupiter vehicle have and how much payload would you lose?

There is no  hydrocarbon upperstage engine available
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/02/2008 01:00 pm
What benefit would a hydrocarbon upperstage have on the development costs of the jupiter vehicle have and how much payload would you lose?

There is no  hydrocarbon upperstage engine available

Cough ... Merlin ... Cough

Hasn't flown yet, but it "could" ...

I remember somewhere in a centaur book a quote of LH/LOX having a paper upperstage throw that is 40% more than a Kero/LOX upperstage with the same first stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 08/02/2008 01:58 pm
Ross/Chuck/DIRECT et al... Does NASA's findings regarding plume impingement on the Ares V lead to any concerns with the engine proximity on the J-23x core stage?

The J-23x arrangement seems to avoid plume impingement concerns with the SRBs. (though core stage diameter is of course smaller).  What about interactions between each of the RS-68s?  Does the central engine pose any concern in the J-23x arrangement?

J-120 seems to have sufficient clearance, but I'd like a comment regarding the J-23x arrangement.

Thanks!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/02/2008 02:04 pm
Ross/Chuck/DIRECT et al... Does NASA's findings regarding plume impingement on the Ares V lead to any concerns with the engine proximity on the J-23x core stage?

The J-23x arrangement seems to avoid plume impingement concerns with the SRBs. (though core stage diameter is of course smaller).  What about interactions between each of the RS-68s?  Does the central engine pose any concern in the J-23x arrangement?

J-120 seems to have sufficient clearance, but I'd like a comment regarding the J-23x arrangement.

Thanks!

We spent a LOT of time going over this very issue and the bottom line is that there isn't going to be a problem with the Jupiter-232 in this regards.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gin455res on 08/02/2008 02:20 pm
What benefit would a hydrocarbon upperstage have on the development costs of the jupiter vehicle have and how much payload would you lose?

There is no  hydrocarbon upperstage engine available

Hasn't the rl-10 been run on methane before? I wonder whether it would produce more or less thrust with this fuel?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/02/2008 02:27 pm
Ross/Chuck/DIRECT et al... Does NASA's findings regarding plume impingement on the Ares V lead to any concerns with the engine proximity on the J-23x core stage?

The J-23x arrangement seems to avoid plume impingement concerns with the SRBs. (though core stage diameter is of course smaller).  What about interactions between each of the RS-68s?  Does the central engine pose any concern in the J-23x arrangement?

J-120 seems to have sufficient clearance, but I'd like a comment regarding the J-23x arrangement.

Thanks!

BogoMIPS,
   The SRB plume impingement was the key reason why the Jupiter engines have been proposed all in a line as far away from the SRB's as possible.

   The RS-68 interaction is why the outer engines were relocated so their CL is inline with the tanking wall - and a fairing was placed around them.   If you look back at our v1.0 imagery you will see the engines are a lot more 'inboard'.


   Another reason we did this, a reason which has not yet been analysed on Ares-V BTW, is because of the SRB ignition shock-wave.

   We believe that the super-sonic shockwave from the SRB ignition is quite likely to cause some serious problems to the RS-68's in such close proximity on Ares-V.

   To counter the issue on Jupiter, we designed the vehicle so that a protective solid barrier can be placed between the SRB exhaust chambers and the RS-68 exhaust chamber on the MLP.   By aligning the two/three RS-68's in a line as we have, there is sufficient space between them and the SRB's that the two areas can be isolated from each other.

   The attached drawing shows the location of the engines and the MLP structure as planned for Jupiter.

   With the outer engines mounted much 'wider' on the Ares-V, the central exhaust area for the MPS can not be isolated from the SRB's in the same way.   See the drawing (sorry only older 5-engine version available right now) below which shows the approach currently being considered and note the lack of a wall in between the SRB's and the MPS - and look carefully and you will see that there isn't sufficient room to actually place one in there.   They are going to be forced to share the same exhaust chamber - and that is going to expose the MPS to far greater shocks during ignition.

   Another possibility is that this arrangement could even allow a new flame deflector to be designed which would explicitly deflect the SRB plume one way down the trench and the MPS down the other - keeping the pressure waves completely away from each other.   It's a possibility.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/02/2008 02:48 pm
BogoMIPS;
The Ignition Shock Way affect on the nozzles of the RS-68's has the potential to be as serious a problem for the Ares-V as Thrust Oscillation is for the Ares-I. It will require a total makeover of the launch pad to mitigate. You can see from Ross' drawing above how easily this affect is mitigated for the Jupiter using the existing launch pad. But this kind of mitigation for the Ares-V will require a total makeover of the entire base of the pad, a complete replacement. More $$$ down the trench!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 08/02/2008 06:35 pm


Not to get too crazy, but is there a way to use an EDS to boost the ISS to a more Moon friendly orbit? Maybe several missions over a period of time could send the ISS to a friendlier orbit. Then a propellant depot could be attached. The ISS can then be a scientific and exploration outpost.
Off topic, but this has been studied - can't remember the link.

Basically an electrodynamic tether can be used to change its orbit* over the course of about a year with no propellant expenditure.

Such a tether would also be used for reboost if powered from the station's solar cells.

*[Added for clarification] Change its orbital plane, not put it into the Van Allen belts
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/02/2008 07:22 pm


Not to get too crazy, but is there a way to use an EDS to boost the ISS to a more Moon friendly orbit? Maybe several missions over a period of time could send the ISS to a friendlier orbit. Then a propellant depot could be attached. The ISS can then be a scientific and exploration outpost.
Off topic, but this has been studied - can't remember the link.

Basically an electrodynamic tether can be used to change its orbit over the course of about a year with no propellant expenditure.

Such a tether would also be used for reboost if powered from the station's solar cells.

Station would not survive in any other orbit than where it is. It is in, space-wise, a benign environment. Just above it is the Van Allan Radiation Belt and beyond that is native space. It won't survive in either place.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/02/2008 08:14 pm


Not to get too crazy, but is there a way to use an EDS to boost the ISS to a more Moon friendly orbit? Maybe several missions over a period of time could send the ISS to a friendlier orbit. Then a propellant depot could be attached. The ISS can then be a scientific and exploration outpost.
Off topic, but this has been studied - can't remember the link.

Basically an electrodynamic tether can be used to change its orbit over the course of about a year with no propellant expenditure.

Such a tether would also be used for reboost if powered from the station's solar cells.

Station would not survive in any other orbit than where it is. It is in, space-wise, a benign environment. Just above it is the Van Allan Radiation Belt and beyond that is native space. It won't survive in either place.

It's also worth reiterating there's nothing staggeringly wrong with the orbit it's in now. The Moon is not in an equatorial orbit, and the Earth's gravitational field is a little lumpy. My recollection is, if you regard Earth/Moon as a "double planet" orbiting a common CG, then the Moon is orbiting the Sun only a degree or two off the plane of the ecliptic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 08/02/2008 11:32 pm
Barack Obama in Titusville, today. YouTube link below. Lets focus on two of the objectives he declares support for:

(1) Close the gap (do not rely on Russian lift to reach LEO); and

(2) Keep the shuttle workforce employed

Can any architecture (other than DIRECT 2.0) fulfill BOTH of these objectives? Give Obama's goals as stated today, he MUST call for the adoption of Direct 2.0 if he is to fulfill those goals. IMHO. ;-)

(In addition, he also wants to add a shuttle flight)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdvAVSNRni4
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 08/03/2008 12:42 am
Nelson got to Obama. Has Direct got to Nelson?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 08/03/2008 05:58 am
Nelson got to Obama. Has Direct got to Nelson?

IMHO? That shall depend on which of Buzz Aldrin or John Glenn better persuade Nelson.

That said, extending the orbiter program by more than a few missions, would seem very hard to persuade Washington to do. And, other than going with DIRECT, how can Nelson save Space Coast jobs in Florida?

The DIRECT team (IMHO) should also make their case to Democratic Congressional candidates in Florida and even state legislators, local mayors and county officials and then ask those people to contact Senator Nelson.

= = =

If I had Obama's ear, I'd try to persuade him to set up a meeting with Buzz Aldrin and propose that Aldrin chair a blue ribbon commission to look at everything in the first 100 days after Obama is sworn in. ("If" he wins, of course)

But another way to remove this from being "Obama's idea" would be to see if the two Florida Senators (Martinez and Nelson) can jointly propose that Buzz Aldrin chair such a commission and then ask that both Obama and McCain embrace the idea.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 08/03/2008 08:15 am
Barack Obama in Titusville, today. YouTube link below. Lets focus on two of the objectives he declares support for:

(1) Close the gap (do not rely on Russian lift to reach LEO); and

(2) Keep the shuttle workforce employed

(3) Trim the budget somewhere to pay for some education reforms.

Points to DIRECT 2.0 again.

As long as there is nothing fundamentally wrong with DIRECT, which some in NASA claim.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/03/2008 10:16 am
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-obama0308aug03,0,4547929.story

Obama had indicated he would revise his space policy. He announced last week his campaign was talking with former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who has called for a re-examination of NASA's moon plans.

In an interview with the Orlando Sentinel late Friday, Obama called President Bush's moon-Mars program "bold" but said Bush didn't follow through.

"I mean, the funding has never even come close to approaching what was promised, and so NASA's ended up cannibalizing other programs," Obama said. "We haven't, I think, thought through all the steps that we need to get there and what the funding sources are."


If he's taking to Aldrin then DIRECT has a truly great chance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/03/2008 03:14 pm
Never thought I'd see the day when a Democratic Candidate would have something promising to say about space.
But from the looks of it, Obama could prove to be very good for DIRECT. Everyone who has looked through this thread knows that a full independent evaluation of NASA and how it is going forward with the VSE needs to be done.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/03/2008 03:24 pm
We have contacts through both McCain's and Obama's campaigns.  Either would be good for DIRECT.

Obama's new stance on fully supporting the Moon, Mars and Beyond efforts of both human and robotic spaceflight are extremely encouraging indeed, especially in view of his plan to go back over the plans already out there - something we desperately need.

McCain's plans have been to continue the VSE, which is great.   But his plan to also reduce government waste is not going to be happy with what's happening regarding Ares.   That opens the doors to other possibilities which are far more efficient but can fulfill all the same requirements such as performance, cost, schedule, safety & jobs.

Either way, I believe both candidates would look at DIRECT as being an improvement compared to the Ares option - and I believe this is an area where both candidates can make their mark early and show how their leadership is stronger than the previous leadership - an important political thing for any new President to do.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 08/03/2008 08:48 pm
Never thought I'd see the day when a Democratic Candidate would have something promising to say about space.
But from the looks of it, Obama could prove to be very good for DIRECT. Everyone who has looked through this thread knows that a full independent evaluation of NASA and how it is going forward with the VSE needs to be done.


What can either candidate base their decision on? They have less technical knowledge than most people reading this, and their going to spend less time on it. And will they know whether an "independent" evaluation is just that?

So what do they know?

Personally, with the right approach (and a little good advice) you can cut through the crap at least to ask the right questions, and perhaps appoint an "expert" to answer the questions. That's something good managers of engineers do all the time.

And it also helps to have a Science / Engineering background. I can't create a specialist e-commerce site, but I can ask the right questions to specify one and manage the suppliers. Can Obama / McCain do the same with space exploration?

Though it appears both have bought in to VSE, which I think is good.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/03/2008 09:53 pm
I agree that it seems both candidates are clearly now supporting a new exploration mission for NASA.

I also agree that neither is necessarily familiar with the intricacies of the issues at hand, although both seem to know about the larger 'hot button' issues such as the impending job losses and the schedule for replacing the Shuttle.

But their advisers are the ones who know the details and the candidates are rightly relying upon them to do that sort of leg-work.

On both sides, the advisers seem to be learning a lot more about the finite details of the NASA efforts and issues as the election draws closer, which is an excellent sign all-round.   Their candidates are each talking about the exploration effort and are even signaling that its budget may well be safe from cuts and that the workforce is a serious issue.   There are even some hints from both that perhaps NASA's budget might even see attempts to expand a little, even given the financial situation of the country as a whole.   We will obviously have to wait and see whether the political indications given during an election turn into cold hard cash when one or other takes their seat in the Oval office, and nobody can really tell what will actually occur then, but they are both saying the right things at this point.

I actually think both sides are going to review the current efforts, which we welcome.   From McCains side I believe the review will be a mostly cost-oriented review, and I believe that Ares will come completely unglued at that point.   From Obama's side I think the review will be centered around where to strike the balance between Earth Science and Exploration, and again I believe Ares cost profile will be found seriously wanting there too.

In either case, I believe that the economy of the DIRECT proposal will be looked at at the same time, compared with Ares and will be recognized to be a lot better.

From where I'm sitting, listening to the candidates words, I don't think either is going to be bad for NASA and I think both are preparing for a close look and review of NASA's activities - a review which I will welcome and support very strongly indeed.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/04/2008 02:31 am
Ross, with these reviews, do you think Jupiter will come out in front? Or will some EELV for Crew / SDLV for cargo option have a shot?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2008 03:40 pm
I think both are good reviews WRT DIRECT.   Although they are both approaching the subject from different tangents, ultimately both will boil-down to the cost issues.

And as soon as people start to realize exactly how expensive Ares is promising to be, believe me they will *very* quickly start looking around for cheaper alternatives - there will simply be no choice.

No EELV-only option is going to get much traction politically.  EELV's alone are going to have a *really* hard time in the jobs argument and also in the backrooms within the beltway.   Fighting your way through the forest of issues, the Shuttle workforce retention issue and the 'spread the wealth' issue for all the current Shuttle Contractors is going to guarantee some sort of SDLV solution is part of the final outcome.

IMHO, the EELV's best opportunity comes if they partner with an SDLV Heavy Lifter - especially one which doesn't break the bank!

Also they know they would also get a massive amount of additional business from any solution planning an Orbital Propellant Depot.


But in the early part of the program, whether you pay for the EELV first (Delta-IV Heavy better because of commonality with human-rated RS-68 engine), or second will impact the schedule for the SDLV replacement - and that is the #1 factor dictating the length of the Shuttle workforce "GAP".   A billion dollars removed from the SDLV budget will delay that by ~1-2 years.

So you're options essentially boil-down to:-

a) Jupiter-120 in 2012 (2 year Shuttle workforce gap) plus Delta-IV Heavy HR in 2014.

b) Delta-IV Heavy HR in 2012 plus Jupiter-120 in 2014 (4 year Shuttle workforce gap).


The two options ultimately cost about the same, and both fly Orion at the same time, but option 1 reduces the Shuttle workforce "GAP" to just 2-years - and this would result in *far* more jobs being retained - politically, that's a winning solution.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BryanT on 08/04/2008 04:24 pm
I've been lurking and watching this Direct work for a while because I think its the way to go. My question to the Direct guys is if you actually got this, how would you deal with it? Do you want the recognition, the fame or jobs from this? Also you clearly have an issue with certain NASA managers so what do you want to happen to them? Are you out for blood too?

-BT
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2008 04:35 pm
I've been lurking and watching this Direct work for a while because I think its the way to go. My question to the Direct guys is if you actually got this, how would you deal with it? Do you want the recognition, the fame or jobs from this? Also you clearly have an issue with certain NASA managers so what do you want to happen to them? Are you out for blood too?

-BT

Bryan,
Good questions and welcome to the site!

We've actually said on our website that we don't want anything, except perhaps some VIP tickets to the first launch! Actually, that's serious. If NASA did adopt this, we would largely just step aside and let them claim it entirely for themselves.

Yes, there will probably be a few articles about NASA changing direction, but it isn't to anyone's benefit for us to try to make a big deal out of it.   That would damage the exploration effort and we don't want that.   I thin that the press regarding such a change would actually be pretty limited and I see no reason to try to change that.   I think such a change would all blow-over in a week and nobody except a few of us 'rocket geeks' (self confessed) on discussion boards like this would actually give a damn.

The general public opinion would probably be "oh, a *different* rocket?   Didn't even know they were building a new one anyway!   Huh.   Looks cool.   ...So what are Paris and Britney up to now?"


We probably aren't going to be able to avoid a few interviews from a few space-related press, but I believe we all want to take the tack of saying something like "we're very glad we were able to offer some assistance to the agency, and we're glad that NASA has chosen to upgrade Ares-I to a more powerful and versatile specification - we are quite excited to see how the agency takes the concept and really run with it, we think they can do an amazing job with this".   I think that's the right way for us to approach it.

We don't need recognition.   We aren't chasing press or fame.   We just want a program that's actually going to work - affordably - because we don't believe the current plan has the slightest chance of succefully landing a human on the Moon or Mars in our lifetimes.   We don't believe Ares is currently affordable and that the whole program will be canceled as a result.   Give us a working moon program and we will be quite happily sated.   Better still, make it affordable so we have the chance to go to Mars as well and we'll cheer!   My motivation has always been to see a moon landing in my lifetime.   I don't want to see yet another NASA program started and canceled because it just isn't affordable or sustainable - which is exactly where Ares is headed right now.

I am *NOT* after any heads-on-blocks.   I frankly don't care one little jot who does it, as long as someone does :)

Yes, I have been bitterly critical of some managers, but that's because I think Ares is a really bad plan.   If they change the plan to one which looks like it might actually be viable, I will reassess that opinion very quickly indeed.   IMHO it would actually be a sign of real guts to 'change' and that would actually earn a lot of respect from me.   My only point of contention with the current plans has been the launchers - the rest of the plans are pretty good IMHO.

After that, we'd just like to let NASA "get on with it" for themselves.   I'm personally hoping to take a well-earned vacation and return to spending my spare time on my business again.   I think the rest of us would be quite happy just letting it go (like a kid going off to Uni) and enjoying watching the program go from strength to strength just knowing we were able to help a little bit.

It sure would be nice if we could get those viewing tickets for all the team though!   I won't say no to them if anyone offers! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/04/2008 05:24 pm
I think both are good reviews WRT DIRECT.   Although they are both approaching the subject from different tangents, ultimately both will boil-down to the cost issues.

And as soon as people start to realize exactly how expensive Ares is promising to be, believe me they will *very* quickly start looking around for cheaper alternatives - there will simply be no choice.

No EELV-only option is going to get much traction politically.  EELV's alone are going to have a *really* hard time in the jobs argument and also in the backrooms within the beltway.   Fighting your way through the forest of issues, the Shuttle workforce retention issue and the 'spread the wealth' issue for all the current Shuttle Contractors is going to guarantee some sort of SDLV solution is part of the final outcome.

IMHO, the EELV's best opportunity comes if they partner with an SDLV Heavy Lifter - especially one which doesn't break the bank!

Also they know they would also get a massive amount of additional business from any solution planning an Orbital Propellant Depot.


But in the early part of the program, whether you pay for the EELV first (Delta-IV Heavy better because of commonality with human-rated RS-68 engine), or second will impact the schedule for the SDLV replacement - and that is the #1 factor dictating the length of the Shuttle workforce "GAP".   A billion dollars removed from the SDLV budget will delay that by ~1-2 years.

So you're options essentially boil-down to:-

a) Jupiter-120 in 2012 (2 year Shuttle workforce gap) plus Delta-IV Heavy HR in 2014.

b) Delta-IV Heavy HR in 2012 plus Jupiter-120 in 2014 (4 year Shuttle workforce gap).


The two options ultimately cost about the same, and both fly Orion at the same time, but option 1 reduces the Shuttle workforce "GAP" to just 2-years - and this would result in *far* more jobs being retained - politically, that's a winning solution.

Ross.

So if I read that correctly, you would be more than thrilled with a solution where we develop Jupiter 120 first to secure the Moon and exploration outside of LEO, while at the same time preparing a man-rated Delta IV to allow access to the ISS. In the beginning Jupiter can service the ISS, but once the manrated DIVH is online, it can take over.

In some ways, in this option everyone wins. The Shuttle guys keep their jobs, and the EELV guys get more business.

I know the Shuttle workforce is important, however, it always seems that the EELV guys are left out to dry. They have government contracts and satellites to launch, but how many Delta IVH launches are planned this year? They could use a little more business as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/04/2008 05:27 pm
In the beginning Jupiter can service the ISS, but once the manrated DIVH is online, it can take over.

Manned EELV wil probably be an Atlas V, or a monobody design.  Meaning no Strap-ons of any kind.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2008 05:31 pm
So if I read that correctly, you would be more than thrilled with a solution where we develop Jupiter 120 first to secure the Moon and exploration outside of LEO, while at the same time preparing a man-rated Delta IV to allow access to the ISS. In the beginning Jupiter can service the ISS, but once the manrated DIVH is online, it can take over.

In some ways, in this option everyone wins. The Shuttle guys keep their jobs, and the EELV guys get more business.

Essentially, yes.   I have said many time before now that I want three human-rated vehicle classes:   ~25mT, ~50mT and ~100mT.   That would give us the maximum flexibility and capability of all.

Quote
I know the Shuttle workforce is important, however, it always seems that the EELV guys are left out to dry. They have government contracts and satellites to launch, but how many Delta IVH launches are planned this year? They could use a little more business as well.

I don't think they are actually being 'left out to dry' - that would suggest that their jobs are at risk - which is not the case at present.

But yes, an exploration plan which can make use of EELV's in some fashion (my preference is for Propellant delivery flights - especially if those can be part-paid for by foreign partners) is a worthwhile thing we should be pursuing.

I am convinced that a robust SDLV+EELV program is going to be a more capable program than either an SDLV-only or an EELV-only program can possibly ever be.

Like happens so often in life, we are stronger together than we are apart.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/04/2008 05:31 pm
In the beginning Jupiter can service the ISS, but once the manrated DIVH is online, it can take over.

Manned EELV wil probably be an Atlas V, or a monobody design.  Meaning no Strap-ons of any kind.

That is certainly possible, I was using D4H in this case because of the commonality with Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2008 05:33 pm
Guys, this isn't the place for EELV-only discussions.   Please start a separate thread for that.

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 08/04/2008 07:24 pm
Just a quick question..... would it be cheaper and easier to do more shuttle flights if we were doing Direct?  I mean since Direct keeps so many of the shuttle infrastructure intact anyway?  would it be feasible to keep the shuttle flying until 2012 (or maybe a year or 2 later if this stretches out development a bit) when Direct flights are ready to take over?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/04/2008 11:46 pm
It is even feasible to operate both concurrently.   NLS planned to do exactly that, with a maximum of 9 Shuttle ET's and 14 NLS Cores being produced on the same tooling at the same time.

But the cost to continue flying Shuttle would mean that none of that money (about $3bn per year) can be spent on development work as currently planned.

We are planning a 2-year gap currently, taking a large portion of Shuttle's money in FY2011/12 and putting it towards the development of Jupiter.

But if you continue to fly Shuttle for an extra year, you would remove that $3bn from the development budget for the new system - and that would delay it by about 8-9 months.   So what starts as a 24 month gap would still be a 20 month gap at the end of 2011.

Is it worthwhile?   Especially as Shuttle is still pretty risky and if anything were to go wrong again now, the whole program would get into real trouble...

I would say yes, it might be worthwhile extending Shuttle a few more flights, but only if Congress decides it is worth doing so by providing extra funding to continue flying Shuttle so it does not affect the development schedule of the new system.

That would mean $3bn extra for FY2011 and FY2012 so we could then have a zero-year "gap".   But I doubt Congress will actually provide such money - I think a 2-year gap is going to be quite acceptable to the lawmakers.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 08/05/2008 12:12 am
well... so then if you kept flying the shuttle (and didn't receive extra funding) you would be ready to switch over in 2016 with no gap, right?  i'm not saying that's a good idea....  just wondering....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/05/2008 03:11 pm
For those interested in tracing the history of the Jupiter-type concept, I found another link in the long lineage...Saturn IB-D

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/s/satibd.gif

Looks rather familiar, however it used Titan-4 solids and a Saturn IB core.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/05/2008 03:17 pm
lewis,
Theoretically, yes, it would be possible to do that.

But Shuttle is fairly high risk still.   SSP said at the time of Return to Flight that there was a 1 in 20 chance of losing another Shuttle over the 18 flights planned at the time between then and the end of the program in 2010.

So, extending that logic, if Shuttle flew for 6 more years, at a rate of just 3 flights per year would match that number of flights again (18) - so that would indicate a doubling of the risk of losing another Shuttle crew to an overall 1 in 10 chance.

I, myself, would be extremely reluctant to play that round of Russian Roulette.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Analyst on 08/05/2008 03:49 pm
Theoretically, yes, it would be possible to do that.

But Shuttle is fairly high risk still.   SSP said at the time of Return to Flight that there was a 1 in 20 chance of losing another Shuttle over the 18 flights planned at the time between then and the end of the program in 2010.

These numbers are deflated and not backed up by empirical evidence. Shuttle is one of only two manned systems with enough flights for any statistical analysis: it failed twice, giving a 1 in 60 chance of failure, a little more reliable than Soyuz. 1 to 20 is way off as are inflated numbers of 1 to 500 or 1 to 2.000 or whatever for Ares/Orion (or Shuttle before Challenger).

If someone (not you in particular :) ) wants to back a decision, he comes up with useless LOC/LOM numbers.

- Shuttle has been the system of choice in the 1980ies, it could almost never fail.
- Shuttle has to be canceled in 2004, it fails in one of 20 flights.

We have empirical data and should use these.

Analyst
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Achilles on 08/05/2008 04:10 pm
Theoretically, yes, it would be possible to do that.

But Shuttle is fairly high risk still.   SSP said at the time of Return to Flight that there was a 1 in 20 chance of losing another Shuttle over the 18 flights planned at the time between then and the end of the program in 2010.

1 to 20 is way off as are inflated numbers of 1 to 500 or 1 to 2.000 or whatever for Ares/Orion (or Shuttle before Challenger).
We have empirical data and should use these.
Analyst

1 in 20 during 18 launches is 1 in 351 chance of loss during any one particular launch.  I have read Griffin quoted as stating 1 in 5 chance of lossing another shuttle during ISS construction, this is closer to 1in 60/70 to the 'empirical data' available. 

My take on this is if it's deemed worth a 1-in-5 chance of lossing a shuttle to build the station, then it should be deemed worth the risk to acutally go do the science.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 08/05/2008 04:32 pm
So, extending that logic, if Shuttle flew for 6 more years, at a rate of just 3 flights per year would match that number of flights again (18) - so that would indicate a doubling of the risk of losing another Shuttle crew to an overall 1 in 10 chance.

I, myself, would be extremely reluctant to play that round of Russian Roulette.

Ross.

I have no problem with russian roulette for astronauts as long as they know about the risks and are willing to take them as those climbing K2 are willing to take a one in three risk. I do personally consider a one in three risk for death to be idiotic but that is another issue.

The payback of flying the shuttle is small in advancing spaceflight since it is an old system that is being shut down. I hope those flying new space wehicels will be free to take the risks they find worthwile and not be limited by being national heroes.

I do not know how large the utility value of additional shuttle flights would be. If it is high enogh it would make sense to fly shuttles untill they litterally ran out due to accidents.

My guess is that it isent the risk that is the main problem but the budget and the available manpower. And the next systems could be both more secure and less expensive to operate then the shuttle and that can be worth a few years waiting.

But more secure and less expensive to operate needs a good design and a project with margins to be worth waiting for. The impression Ares I and V gives me is that it would be better to run the shuttles untill they break and hope SpaceX etc has grown enough when the last Shutte is no more.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Achilles on 08/05/2008 05:14 pm
I, myself, would be extremely reluctant to play that round of Russian Roulette.
Ross.

Ross,

If you accept the 1-in-70 flights stat, then there is today, with 10 flights left, approx 1 in 7 chance of lossing another crew between now and 2010. The trigger has already been pulled, it will just take another ten flights to see if there was a bullet in the chamber at the time the decision to finish the station was taken.

How about 1 flight a year, three crew up, three down until 2016, thats five extra shuttle flights supported by COTS-C.  Research is going to have to start into long duration zero-g sometime soon ?  How much longer would that make a DIRECT-based moon landing if shuttle funding is not released until 2016 ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 08/05/2008 05:21 pm
My guess is that it isent the risk that is the main problem but the budget and the available manpower. And the next systems could be both more secure and less expensive to operate then the shuttle and that can be worth a few years waiting.
The next systems could be the opposite, too.  The President and Congress do consider risk, and they are likely aware of these numbers, but there are other factors and numbers beyond the ones discussed here.  The shuttle is going to have a perceived risk disadvantage on Capitol Hill when compared to future crew vehicles, because the shuttle has a track record. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 08/05/2008 05:47 pm
I, myself, would be extremely reluctant to play that round of Russian Roulette.
Ross.

Ross,

If you accept the 1-in-70 flights stat, then there is today, with 10 flights left, approx 1 in 7 chance of lossing another crew between now and 2010. The trigger has already been pulled, it will just take another ten flights to see if there was a bullet in the chamber at the time the decision to finish the station was taken.

How about 1 flight a year, three crew up, three down until 2016, thats five extra shuttle flights supported by COTS-C.

That's not just expensive but crazy-expensive. The shuttle program costs roughly the same to fly whether you fly it zero times per year or eight. It makes absolutely no sense to fly the system at a deliberately reduced rate like one per year - that's over $1 billion per crewmember. Either fly it at the highest flight rate you can safely sustain or stop flying it altogether.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Achilles on 08/05/2008 05:55 pm
I, myself, would be extremely reluctant to play that round of Russian Roulette.
Ross.

Ross,

If you accept the 1-in-70 flights stat, then there is today, with 10 flights left, approx 1 in 7 chance of lossing another crew between now and 2010. The trigger has already been pulled, it will just take another ten flights to see if there was a bullet in the chamber at the time the decision to finish the station was taken.

How about 1 flight a year, three crew up, three down until 2016, thats five extra shuttle flights supported by COTS-C.

That's not just expensive but crazy-expensive. The shuttle program costs roughly the same to fly whether you fly it zero times per year or eight. It makes absolutely no sense to fly the system at a deliberately reduced rate like one per year - that's over $1 billion per crewmember. Either fly it at the highest flight rate you can safely sustain or stop flying it altogether.

Follow the thread please ! It reduces the probability of death. EVERYONE (here) knows that it makes no difference how often you flight the programme !
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/05/2008 06:18 pm
Getting this topic back on track, the President and Congress have both indicated a willingness to live with a gap up to 4 years as long as the workforce isn't decimated - so I don't believe they will be motivated to do anything at all to reduce a 2-year gap to something shorter.

And apart from anything else, I think it would actually be wise to have one or two 'clear' years in the immediate run-up to launching a new vehicle.   Doing so while operating another vehicle at the same time seems to me to be asking for unnecessary complications to creep in.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: copernicus on 08/05/2008 06:56 pm

    Want to point out the online Aviation Week article, "Final Servicing Will Leave Hubble With Full Toolbox," by Frank Morring, Jr. and dated August 3, 2008. 
    Its relevance to Direct can be found near the end of the article where it is pointed out that there is little likelihood that Orion will be used to service HST. Ed Weiler, NASA's Space Science Director, comments that Orion is designed to go to the Moon, "It's not designed to take up tons of cargo to Hubble." 
    This is where Direct comes in.  As shown previously by the Direct team, the Jupiter launch system CAN haul up tons of cargo to Hubble. 
    Direct's ability to service Hubble could be a KEY selling point to Senator Mikulski.  She is a powerful Senator who is very protective of any part of NASA that involves her state of Maryland.  When O'Keefe shut down the manned Shuttle Hubble servicing mission, she made it clear that she was not about to take that sitting down.  The next Shuttle mission, SM-4, to Hubble is flying because Senator Mikulski made it happen.  Do you think that Mike Griffin's appointment came out of the blue?  He was the director of JHU's APL in MARYLAND before he was chosen to head NASA.  Senator Mikulski obviously knew him  and knew that he would fly the Shuttle HST servicing mission.  I should add that Hubble's Science Institute is in MARYLAND. 
     NASA recently awarded the Solar Probe contract to APL, without competition. 
    If the Direct team can get Senator Mikulski onboard by showing her how the Jupiter launcher can keep Hubble alive and well, then you will have made a giant step.  NASA has no plans for a Hubble replacement and the JWST will be more of an IR telescope. 
    HAs the Direct team contacted Senator Barbara Mikulski? 






Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/05/2008 07:37 pm
One of the criticisms NASA made of Jupiter is that it is overkill for the ISS. Now we can debate whether that is truly the case, but what if pleasing NASA would be the only option and a "Jupiter-Lite" is needed.
Now obviously this "Jupiter-Lite" would be replicating existing capabilities as it would be in the same arena as the existing EELVs.
But in a world where SDLV is the only option for the ISS, could a single RS-68 Jupiter core with the standard 4-seg boosters be used for the ISS?

Again, this would be replicating existing hardware, however, isn't that what Ares I is? And if NASA is saying Jupiter is too big...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/05/2008 08:04 pm
One of the criticisms NASA made of Jupiter is that it is overkill for the ISS. Now we can debate whether that is truly the case, but what if pleasing NASA would be the only option and a "Jupiter-Lite" is needed.
Now obviously this "Jupiter-Lite" would be replicating existing capabilities as it would be in the same arena as the existing EELVs.
But in a world where SDLV is the only option for the ISS, could a single RS-68 Jupiter core with the standard 4-seg boosters be used for the ISS?

Again, this would be replicating existing hardware, however, isn't that what Ares I is? And if NASA is saying Jupiter is too big...

Mike;
Recently also mentioned at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13850.new;topicseen#new
The configuration you’re speaking of is a Jupiter-110. We vetted it early on and verified that it would indeed send a crewed Orion to the ISS. But our concern was to compliment, not compete with the EELV. But the though that it would serve to blunt NASA contention that the Jupiter is “too much” is something we didn’t actually think about then because nobody at NASA, in its entire 50 year history, has ever used the argument that a rocket worked too well as an argument against using it.  Margin has always been the holy grail of rocket design, and now that we present one with margin to spare, they claim that it is “too much”.

It may be time to reconsider the Jupiter-110, if only to demonstrate that we do have the ability to dumb the rocket down, if we have to. A Jupiter-110 will indeed send a crewed Orion to the ISS, with margin to spare. Not a lot of margin mind you, but still with margin. Savings? One (1) RS-68 engine.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/05/2008 08:04 pm

    Want to point out the online Aviation Week article, "Final Servicing Will Leave Hubble With Full Toolbox," by Frank Morring, Jr. and dated August 3, 2008. 
    Its relevance to Direct can be found near the end of the article where it is pointed out that there is little likelihood that Orion will be used to service HST. Ed Weiler, NASA's Space Science Director, comments that Orion is designed to go to the Moon, "It's not designed to take up tons of cargo to Hubble." 
    This is where Direct comes in.  As shown previously by the Direct team, the Jupiter launch system CAN haul up tons of cargo to Hubble. 
    Direct's ability to service Hubble could be a KEY selling point to Senator Mikulski.  She is a powerful Senator who is very protective of any part of NASA that involves her state of Maryland.  When O'Keefe shut down the manned Shuttle Hubble servicing mission, she made it clear that she was not about to take that sitting down.  The next Shuttle mission, SM-4, to Hubble is flying because Senator Mikulski made it happen.  Do you think that Mike Griffin's appointment came out of the blue?  He was the director of JHU's APL in MARYLAND before he was chosen to head NASA.  Senator Mikulski obviously knew him  and knew that he would fly the Shuttle HST servicing mission.  I should add that Hubble's Science Institute is in MARYLAND. 
     NASA recently awarded the Solar Probe contract to APL, without competition. 
    If the Direct team can get Senator Mikulski onboard by showing her how the Jupiter launcher can keep Hubble alive and well, then you will have made a giant step.  NASA has no plans for a Hubble replacement and the JWST will be more of an IR telescope. 
    HAs the Direct team contacted Senator Barbara Mikulski? 


Jupiter can't be sold on the basis of HST.  Also HST needs to go after it wears out after the next repair mission.  NASA doesn't' have the money for more instruments. The money is needed for other spacecraft missions
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/05/2008 08:16 pm
One of the criticisms NASA made of Jupiter is that it is overkill for the ISS. Now we can debate whether that is truly the case, but what if pleasing NASA would be the only option and a "Jupiter-Lite" is needed.
Now obviously this "Jupiter-Lite" would be replicating existing capabilities as it would be in the same arena as the existing EELVs.
But in a world where SDLV is the only option for the ISS, could a single RS-68 Jupiter core with the standard 4-seg boosters be used for the ISS?

Again, this would be replicating existing hardware, however, isn't that what Ares I is? And if NASA is saying Jupiter is too big...

Mike;
Recently also mentioned at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13850.new;topicseen#new
The configuration you’re speaking of is a Jupiter-110. We vetted it early on and verified that it would indeed send a crewed Orion to the ISS. But our concern was to compliment, not compete with the EELV. But the though that it would serve to blunt NASA contention that the Jupiter is “too much” is something we didn’t actually think about then because nobody at NASA, in its entire 50 year history, has ever used the argument that a rocket worked too well as an argument against using it.  Margin has always been the holy grail of rocket design, and now that we present one with margin to spare, they claim that it is “too much”.

It may be time to reconsider the Jupiter-110, if only to demonstrate that we do have the ability to dumb the rocket down, if we have to. A Jupiter-110 will indeed send a crewed Orion to the ISS, with margin to spare. Not a lot of margin mind you, but still with margin. Savings? One (1) RS-68 engine.


and higher LOC/LOM figures which is what a crew vehicle should be strictly about. It would be like a US version of Ariane 5 and look how reliable they are ;). J-110,-120,-232  could become the new Ares I,II and III as they all would be of use going forward for different mission profiles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/05/2008 08:17 pm
It may be time to reconsider the Jupiter-110, if only to demonstrate that we do have the ability to dumb the rocket down, if we have to. A Jupiter-110 will indeed send a crewed Orion to the ISS, with margin to spare. Not a lot of margin mind you, but still with margin. Savings? One (1) RS-68 engine.


Does going to Jupiter-110 configuration help or hurt LOC/LOM?

Does this increase burn time on the Single RS-68? Does that require nozzle updates? Does it preclude running at higher power levels to increase margin?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/05/2008 08:23 pm
The idea of a Jupiter-110 has been brought up before. It doesn't actually work though.

A single RS-68 (even a B) can't push a full ET after SRB separation, so you end up having to short-fuel the Core Stage. That makes the whole vehicle a lot lighter when those powerful SRB's blast you off the pad - the result is a pretty nasty max-Q (900+psf).

And performance ends up being insufficient to lift an Orion CEV anyway, so its unworkable. And it would also have no engine-out capability at all too.


More importantly though, I wonder why there is the perception that extra performance is a bad thing?

Isn't too little performance the thing hurting Ares-I so badly? Why would extra performance be a burden?

I'm guessing it is because there is a perception that the bigger rocket costs more? That is not actually the case when you factor in flight rate - Jupiter-120 actually ends up being quite a lot cheaper than Ares-I at the expected baseline flight rates specified by Constellation, and only improves further if the flight rate increases. And it costs $5bn less to develop anyway, so even if it did cost $50m more to launch, you would have to launch an awful lot of them to make up that difference. The 'costs more' perception simply doesn't hold any water when analyzed.

And Jupiter-120 can be launched carrying nothing but a CEV too.

You place a simple ballast tank filled with water inside the payload shroud and it would allow an Orion to fly on its own. Such a ballast tank would also act as a partial 'bullet-proof shield' if anything ever goes wrong during a launch. And Jupiter-120 provides engine-out capabilities starting from around T+45 seconds.

I just don't get why that is being perceived as a lesser solution?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/05/2008 08:32 pm
Ross;
Maybe I’ve got my wires crossed but I thought we had worked it out that a J-110 would send Orion to the ISS with about 3mT of margin? What was the LV version then? What was the spacecraft version then? I admit that the Jupiter has changed sense we did the analysis of the J-110, and that was over a year and a half ago, but I guess I just assumed that the J-110 would still work. It did then, not by a whole lot, but it did work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/05/2008 08:54 pm

I just don't get why that is being perceived as a lesser solution?

Ross.

It's not. However it would have a theoretical LOC figure that would be higher than a J-110. It's more a question of playing the game on NASA's terms like you have in duplicating their LEO mission profile and showing you can give a safer better CLV than Ares I on their LOC terms.  J-120 would still have its place for lifting cargo payloads with the CEV as well as planetary rocket missions requiring 45+ mT performances. Your opponents are just pointing at J-120 and saying it isn't as safe as Ares I and costs more per unit and it's hard to argue that looking at paper specs.
 
Convert to a J-110 and you have one ground lit liquid engine vs an air started liquid engine which is in your favor with two solids vs one solid that's in their favor. It gets a lot closer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/05/2008 09:02 pm

I just don't get why that is being perceived as a lesser solution?

Ross.

It's not. However it would have a theoretical LOC figure that would be higher than a J-110. It's more a question of playing the game on NASA's terms like you have in duplicating their LEO mission profile and showing you can give a safer better CLV than Ares I on their LOC terms.  J-120 would still have its place for lifting cargo payloads with the CEV as well as planetary rocket missions requiring 45+ mT performances. Your opponents are just pointing at J-120 and saying it isn't as safe as Ares I and costs more per unit and it's hard to argue that looking at paper specs.
 
Convert to a J-110 and you have one ground lit liquid engine vs an air started liquid engine which is in your favor with two solids vs one solid that's in their favor. It gets a lot closer.

Make that two solids that have flown many times vs. one solid that hasn't even been ground tested yet. No idea how that affects LOC/LOM numbers, but it sounds like it ought to...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/05/2008 09:03 pm
Make that two solids that have flown many times vs. one solid that hasn't even been ground tested yet. No idea how that affects LOC/LOM numbers, but it sounds like it ought to...

Yep, in J-110's favor. The other thing vs J-120 is why waste a RS-68 and the extra fuel if you absolutely don't need to ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/05/2008 09:09 pm

I just don't get why that is being perceived as a lesser solution?

Ross.

It's not. However it would have a theoretical LOC figure that would be higher than a J-110. It's more a question of playing the game on NASA's terms like you have in duplicating their LEO mission profile and showing you can give a safer better CLV than Ares I on their LOC terms.  J-120 would still have its place for lifting cargo payloads with the CEV as well as planetary rocket missions requiring 45+ mT performances. Your opponents are just pointing at J-120 and saying it isn't as safe as Ares I and costs more per unit and it's hard to argue that looking at paper specs.
 
Convert to a J-110 and you have one ground lit liquid engine vs an air started liquid engine which is in your favor with two solids vs one solid that's in their favor. It gets a lot closer.

I have to agree. No one here is giving the 120 and its extra capacity the bird...NASA is using that extra capacity as a reason to discredit Jupiter. Anyone can see that this argument is rather ridiculous, however, it is out there.

If there was a way to safely dumb down Jupiter 120, then why not do it if its going to put the critics in their place?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 08/05/2008 09:19 pm
    Its relevance to Direct can be found near the end of the article where it is pointed out that there is little likelihood that Orion will be used to service HST. Ed Weiler, NASA's Space Science Director, comments that Orion is designed to go to the Moon, "It's not designed to take up tons of cargo to Hubble." 
    This is where Direct comes in.  As shown previously by the Direct team, the Jupiter launch system CAN haul up tons of cargo to Hubble.

It could be a good idea to make an additional Hubble service mission and use up already prepaired spare parts and new instruments and the easiest way to do it is via a shuttle misison. Nasa has all the nowledge and tools for such a mission.

But Hubble is old and it has no long term future. I would rather launch a new rigid mirror telescope with Direct then design a Hubble service mission for a new launcher. Enabling the lanch of a new space telescope that can do more then Hubble enables more new sicence then a nostalgia hubble forever mission.

The only new launcher mission that I would suggest for Hubble is a booster to lift Hubble into a high long term museum orbit and leave it there for future generations to retrieve and display. It might have enough nostalgia and historic value for being used as a test mission for a space-tug.

What kind of space telescope can Direct but not Ares 1 lift?
Can you build such a telescope wth a fraction of the Direct 232 instead of Ares V savings?

Making something new and better that has a good chance of being implemented would be approved by the astronomer community.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/05/2008 09:31 pm

If there was a way to safely dumb down Jupiter 120, then why not do it if its going to put the critics in their place?


Build the J-120 first and then "save money" by cutting back to the J-110 for smaller payloads.  The margin will allow more development time.

The J-120 and J-232 first stage probably steer using the outer engines.  Steering using a single engine is likely to require software changes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/05/2008 09:43 pm
According to my latest runs, a Jupiter-110 will currently only launch 17,486kg to NASA's baseline -11x100nm, 51.6 degree insertion orbit.   This is because the Jupiter Core Stage mass increased, and so too did the RS-68 mass, since the last time we did a J-110 configuration 12-18 months ago.

It would be possible to 'dumb down' Jupiter-120 by integrating a 15,000kg ballistic shield, consisting of a water tank 8.0m in diameter, along with multiple layers of boron-carbide 'bullet proof' panels of a similar diameter.

Total performance would then allow an Orion CEV spacecraft massing up to 25,000kg to be flown to 100x220nm, 51.6deg with no other payloads.

And flying cargo only, it would still be in the >40mT class so would not compete with nor duplicate the EELV's performance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 08/06/2008 01:02 am
I, myself, would be extremely reluctant to play that round of Russian Roulette.
Ross.

Ross,

If you accept the 1-in-70 flights stat, then there is today, with 10 flights left, approx 1 in 7 chance of lossing another crew between now and 2010. The trigger has already been pulled, it will just take another ten flights to see if there was a bullet in the chamber at the time the decision to finish the station was taken.

How about 1 flight a year, three crew up, three down until 2016, thats five extra shuttle flights supported by COTS-C.

That's not just expensive but crazy-expensive. The shuttle program costs roughly the same to fly whether you fly it zero times per year or eight. It makes absolutely no sense to fly the system at a deliberately reduced rate like one per year - that's over $1 billion per crewmember. Either fly it at the highest flight rate you can safely sustain or stop flying it altogether.

Follow the thread please ! It reduces the probability of death. EVERYONE (here) knows that it makes no difference how often you flight the programme !

I have been following the thread, thank you very much. The idea still makes no sense.

If the sole objective is to "reduce the probability of death", the optimal flight rate is zero. That would not only reduce the probability to zero, it would free up $3 billion per year that could be spent developing its replacement.

It is crazy, simply crazy, to plan to fly the shuttle once per year. No, that's not strong enough. It is stupid. If the moderators don't like that statement, so be it. If you are going to fly it at all, suck up the risk and fly it at a useful flight rate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/06/2008 04:50 am
What you missed, is that it needs some hardware changes, either thrusters or a  movable gas generator exhaust for roll control

Which, thankfully, the RS-68 main engine from Delta-IV already includes :)

We are not planning to delete any existing features when we use the same engines on Jupiter.   We want the engines to be as near to "as is" as possible (given the changes which will be necessary for human-rating) - in order to share as many production costs as possible with USAF.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/06/2008 05:19 am
The idea of a Jupiter-110 has been brought up before. It doesn't actually work though.

A single RS-68 (even a B) can't push a full ET after SRB separation, so you end up having to short-fuel the Core Stage. That makes the whole vehicle a lot lighter when those powerful SRB's blast you off the pad - the result is a pretty nasty max-Q (900+psf).

And performance ends up being insufficient to lift an Orion CEV anyway, so its unworkable. And it would also have no engine-out capability at all too.


More importantly though, I wonder why there is the perception that extra performance is a bad thing?

Isn't too little performance the thing hurting Ares-I so badly? Why would extra performance be a burden?

I'm guessing it is because there is a perception that the bigger rocket costs more? That is not actually the case when you factor in flight rate - Jupiter-120 actually ends up being quite a lot cheaper than Ares-I at the expected baseline flight rates specified by Constellation, and only improves further if the flight rate increases. And it costs $5bn less to develop anyway, so even if it did cost $50m more to launch, you would have to launch an awful lot of them to make up that difference. The 'costs more' perception simply doesn't hold any water when analyzed.

And Jupiter-120 can be launched carrying nothing but a CEV too.

You place a simple ballast tank filled with water inside the payload shroud and it would allow an Orion to fly on its own. Such a ballast tank would also act as a partial 'bullet-proof shield' if anything ever goes wrong during a launch. And Jupiter-120 provides engine-out capabilities starting from around T+45 seconds.

I just don't get why that is being perceived as a lesser solution?

Ross.

I wonder if the water tank/shield could be used as a useful payload for ISS water needs or just left in LEO for any private group to take advantage of?

Just one tank would take care of ISS's water needs for a year and even allow better living conditions on ISS.

Maybe they could sale the excess water tanks to Bigelow or other private station operators.

Other uses propellant for NTR stages or solar thermo stages.
Maybe host an xprize competition for a stage that can use the ballast water for propellant.

Other uses just store it on or near ISS or Bigelow's station in a depot and use it for shielding on a NEO or Mars mission.

I see a gold mine of opportunities in this.

I'm sold on the J120 for use as the CLV because of the excess cargo and engine out capability.
It's better and safer then all the options even the EELVs.

Any good crew launch vehicle should be able to loose an engine on the way up and still complete it's mission this saved Apollo and later the Shuttle a few times.

Even private companies like Spacex and Planetspace see the importance of this feature on a crew vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/06/2008 05:21 am
According to my latest runs, a Jupiter-110 will currently only launch 17,486kg to NASA's baseline -11x100nm, 51.6 degree insertion orbit.   This is because the Jupiter Core Stage mass increased, and so too did the RS-68 mass, since the last time we did a J-110 configuration 12-18 months ago.

It would be possible to 'dumb down' Jupiter-120 by integrating a 15,000kg ballistic shield, consisting of a water tank 8.0m in diameter, along with multiple layers of boron-carbide 'bullet proof' panels of a similar diameter.

Total performance would then allow an Orion CEV spacecraft massing up to 25,000kg to be flown to 100x220nm, 51.6deg with no other payloads.

And flying cargo only, it would still be in the >40mT class so would not compete with nor duplicate the EELV's performance.

Ross.

And as you have already stated, the "overkill" argument is just plain crazy to begin with. When has NASA ever dumbed down a rocket because it works too well? The Jupiter-110 seems like a good idea when you first think about it, but in reality, it is much better to go forward with the 120, as in the long run you can get more out of it.

The smartest solution is to go with the launch vehicle that will not box you in. Ares I does this if Ares V goes belly-up. Your stuck with a rocket that can barely get Orion to orbit. Jupiter can do that and then some.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Achilles on 08/06/2008 05:28 am
I have been following the thread, thank you very much. The idea still makes no sense.

If the sole objective is to "reduce the probability of death", the optimal flight rate is zero. That would not only reduce the probability to zero, it would free up $3 billion per year that could be spent developing its replacement.
The thread of discussion I responded to, which you jumped on with rubbish concerning costing the US space programme according to cost-per-seat, was how to close the GAP to zero (without buying flights off your Russian Chums lol!). Ross had stated that a Juipter 120 would be ready in 2016 if if the shuttle programme continued (regardless of flight rate - following ?) .  His objection was that at 3 flights a year, it brings the probability of the loss of another shuttle into russian roulette figures.  FOLLOWING that thread of thought - Zero gap and 2016 swap-over to DIRECT, and remembering that Russia had previously wanted to extend the expendition length to a year, coupled with the fact that a Mars journey is going to take longer than a year, you could maintain FULL independent US access to the station with zero gap on 5-6 risk flights. Not 'stupid' not 'crazy'.   

What is crazy is to build a 100billion dollar station and not use it.  US politicians wont stand for it, and DIRECT with its true SDLV heritage, and its crew-cargo capability, is well placed to provide a solution to keeping the shuttle workforce productively employed at $3billion a year, until a lunar capable solution is available.

{EDIT} Oh! and it's not actually what I would do in fact - I've already stated that I believe that if one is willing to take the risk on completing the station, then one should be prepared to take the same risk to do the science, ie. if one can fly four times a year at no extra cost (oh yes ! I momentarily forgot! you can !), then do it.  What I come to this forum for is to listen to, and run with other people thoughts, ideas and reservations, respectful of the views of others.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 08/06/2008 05:57 am
According to my latest runs, a Jupiter-110 will currently only launch 17,486kg to NASA's baseline -11x100nm, 51.6 degree insertion orbit.
Ross,

If a Jupiter is only going to the ISS, how much does an Orion have to weigh? Surely not the full Lunar mass? Can't we squeeze an ISS trip out of a 17 1/2 ton Orion?

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/06/2008 05:58 am
The shuttle's reoccurring costs are so low you might as well fly it 6 times a year vs three.
I also don't think it's got a 1 in 70 chance of failure the SRBs and ET foam cannot be
used to calculate the failure rate since these to issues have been dealt with.

Orion also should be able to support six flights a year or more and Jupiter enables this.

Jupiter also enables lunar mission right away the delta US J120 can send an Orion around the moon and probably could put a Dragon or Dream chaser plus a light lander in orbit around the moon.
Yes I know DC isn't funded but it could be funded if NASA has extra cash left over.
 If NASA does some cool stuff it would win public support which gets NASA friendly congress men/women and Senators voted in.

Using the  Jupiter 120 to perform an Apollo 8 mission or have a robot bring back a ton of moon rocks would be great for PR.

NASA can't allow it's self to risk being stuck in LEO which is what will happen with Ares I if they don't also get Ares V.

Getting stuck with just Ares I would be the worst disaster NASA has ever faced it could even spell the death of the organization as we know it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/06/2008 06:08 am
According to my latest runs, a Jupiter-110 will currently only launch 17,486kg to NASA's baseline -11x100nm, 51.6 degree insertion orbit.
Ross,

If a Jupiter is only going to the ISS, how much does an Orion have to weigh? Surely not the full Lunar mass? Can't we squeeze an ISS trip out of a 17 1/2 ton Orion?

Paul

It's best to just go ahead and build the J120 it's safer then the 110 and
is the first stage of the lunar vehicle the J232.

RS68s are cheap enough it really doesn't matter if you use two instead of one.

The benefits of the J120 far out weigh the 20M cost of the RS68.

It's like omitting a wheel on a car that costs 40K USD to save 3K.

Besides the J-120 already is a fairly cheap vehicle for what it does .
It competes well with an EELV heavy in unit cost and beats a Zenit in cost per Kg.

If your want a Moon base and Mars missions it's the cost per ton that will make or break meeting the goals as far as the LV is concerned.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 08/06/2008 06:33 am
Make that two solids that have flown many times vs. one solid that hasn't even been ground tested yet. No idea how that affects LOC/LOM numbers, but it sounds like it ought to...

Yep, in J-110's favor. The other thing vs J-120 is why waste a RS-68 and the extra fuel if you absolutely don't need to ?

I don't see how the shuttle, with 20mT of capacity is "too much" for the ISS if/when it flies past 2010 (the AMS flight is all but certain). In the past, plenty of STS payloads under 10mT have been flown to 28.5 deg LEO even after LWT modifications. Plenty of wasted propellant. Heck, shuttle "wastes" 90mT with a "useless" orbiter.

I too wondered about a J-110 to counter NASA's weak argument against DIRECT.  But it's just not worth it. The extra 20mT of capacity is more a bonus and adds a bonus to the DIRECT case - paying less for something that does more. If the Brits get their way and get to add a couple of hab module to ISS, then Jupiter-120 could bring that up with no problem. Post-ISS it could even be used to haul up the Interim Control Module for a new MOL solution. Or with a WBC, allow an early lunar flyby, which is a pretty important political point.

Designing a rocket around 1x RS-68 and 2x 4 seg just won't work, as Ross showed. The only way I could see it flying is with short-fuelled with perhaps a Centaur upper stage. Even then that's a tricky one and I doubt it will fly. Fitting a square peg into a round hole = the Stick.

I think the DIRECT team's approach is correct, the way Von Braun's approach was correct:

"Sirty metric tonnez? Nein, zis vill not verk. Zey vill use up zeir mass allotment like zer greedy kinder. So, ve vill make our rocket big. Wery big. But not so big it vapourises ze launch pad."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/06/2008 08:07 am

The J-120 and J-232 first stage probably steer using the outer engines.  Steering using a single engine is likely to require software changes.


Duh, of course Mr  Stating the Obvious, it would would need software changes like every configuration does, which is a simple task. 

What you missed, is that it needs some hardware changes, either thrusters or a  movable gas generator exhaust for roll control



I hadn't realized that last point either. Is it always true that a single-engine rocket requires an independent roll-control system? Now that I think about it, that makes sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Achilles on 08/06/2008 08:09 am
The shuttle's reoccurring costs are so low you might as well fly it 6 times a year vs three. I also don't think it's got a 1 in 70 chance of failure the SRBs and ET foam cannot be  used to calculate the failure rate since these to issues have been dealt with.
What would you do on these 6-flights per year ? Theres no modules that arn't rusting in carparks to take up, apart from the AMS. There would be zero money to build new modules. Any MPLM/Cargo flight would kill Phase-2 COTS, and would put the crew in unnecessary danger, when Phase-2 COTS comes online, as there would be alternative.  The only current reason to fly post ISS Completion is crew rotation or another hubble service mission.

I have no idea of the current actual shuttle LOC figure. Yes the SRB joint and the external tank (somewhat) have been addressed. Rumfields "Unknown unknowns" comes to mind.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/06/2008 08:16 am
I've been thinking about Jupiter as a maximally flexible launch vehicle available in various configurations, requiring minimal hardware changes for reconfig. The irriedicible minimum is the Core tankage and 2x 4seg RSRBs. To that you would add/subtract engines and upper stages, as needed. It sounds like 2 engines is the minimum practical, both for payload and roll control requirements.

The other thought that recurred from time to time is whether it's worthwhile to think about a configuration w/o the RSRBs (say 3 RS-68s and an upper stage, possibly underfuelling the first stage). My guess is, this 0231* variant wouldn't wiork because the the Jupiter core "hangs" from the RSRBs, same as the Shuttle ET, and the solids provide the support structure for the vehicle at the pad.

* adding the fourth digit as a prefix to signify the solids. Obviously not necessary if Jupiter can't exist without them! Although if you someday wanted a 4x RSRB version... Jupiter 4254? Nah...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 08/06/2008 09:51 am

What would you do on these 6-flights per year ? Theres no modules that arn't rusting in carparks to take up, apart from the AMS. There would be zero money to build new modules. Any MPLM/Cargo flight would kill Phase-2 COTS, and would put the crew in unnecessary danger, when Phase-2 COTS comes online, as there would be alternative.
...

Same goes for Jupiter-120 crew+cargo from 2013 like "Direct" wants.

Would kill the commercial ISS resupply services (COTS II) as there would be alternative.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Achilles on 08/06/2008 10:40 am

What would you do on these 6-flights per year ? Theres no modules that arn't rusting in carparks to take up, apart from the AMS. There would be zero money to build new modules. Any MPLM/Cargo flight would kill Phase-2 COTS, and would put the crew in unnecessary danger, when Phase-2 COTS comes online, as there would be alternative.
...

Same goes for Jupiter-120 crew+cargo from 2013 like "Direct" wants.

Would kill the commercial ISS resupply services (COTS II) as there would be alternative.


Thinking aloud, maybe thats another reason why Boeing and LH are quiet on ARES, being the likely winners through ULA for the COTS launch service.

Thanks for getting this back on DIRECT btw :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Achilles on 08/06/2008 11:30 am
Mulling this over, I think the DIRECT guys would argue that switching to DIRECT saves $14billion dollars from the constellation programme.  If you believe their cost figures, then that's alot of rust remover if you're so inclined for ISS Cargo not currently on the COTS-II plate.  I leave it to Ross & Co though to state how DIRECT would co-exist with COTS-II in the 2013-2016 time frame.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wingod on 08/06/2008 03:23 pm
The shuttle's reoccurring costs are so low you might as well fly it 6 times a year vs three. I also don't think it's got a 1 in 70 chance of failure the SRBs and ET foam cannot be  used to calculate the failure rate since these to issues have been dealt with.
What would you do on these 6-flights per year ? Theres no modules that arn't rusting in carparks to take up, apart from the AMS. There would be zero money to build new modules. Any MPLM/Cargo flight would kill Phase-2 COTS, and would put the crew in unnecessary danger, when Phase-2 COTS comes online, as there would be alternative.  The only current reason to fly post ISS Completion is crew rotation or another hubble service mission.

I have no idea of the current actual shuttle LOC figure. Yes the SRB joint and the external tank (somewhat) have been addressed. Rumfields "Unknown unknowns" comes to mind.

We could get to the Moon several years faster with those launches.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 08/06/2008 04:34 pm

Any good crew launch vehicle should be able to loose an engine on the way up and still complete it's mission this saved Apollo and later the Shuttle a few times.

Sorry for a diversion from Direct, I'm a newbie, but which shuttle missions lost engines on the way up and were still able to complete their missions?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: stockman on 08/06/2008 04:41 pm

Any good crew launch vehicle should be able to loose an engine on the way up and still complete it's mission this saved Apollo and later the Shuttle a few times.

Sorry for a diversion from Direct, I'm a newbie, but which shuttle missions lost engines on the way up and were still able to complete their missions?



STS-51F - See thread here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=713.0
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 08/06/2008 05:12 pm
We could get to the Moon several years faster with those launches.

The hard part is not to get there fast, the hard part is continuing the exploration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 08/06/2008 06:21 pm
What would you do on these 6-flights per year ?

The hard part is not to get there fast, the hard part is continuing the exploration.

well, you can answer the Patchouli's question Magnus' statement....
what can we do with those other launches?  build sustainability...  how do we do that?  well, i would think the best way would be to build a fuel depot.... that builds sustainability for NASA exploration programs, AND provides missions EELV's... plus... let the COTS flights handle some of the crew rotation on the ISS while the Jupiter 120/Orion crews are constructing the fuel depot, doing an Apollo 8 type mission... and perhaps other test flights that might come up that early for moon program hardware... 

and perhaps we might be more cavalier about coming up with other useful things to do if we knew we had flights that were available for such things....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Flightstar on 08/06/2008 06:48 pm

Any good crew launch vehicle should be able to loose an engine on the way up and still complete it's mission this saved Apollo and later the Shuttle a few times.

Sorry for a diversion from Direct, I'm a newbie, but which shuttle missions lost engines on the way up and were still able to complete their missions?



STS-51F - See thread here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=713.0

STS-93 came close too:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9944.msg189521#msg189521
Click the L2STS-93.wmv link at the bottom.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 08/06/2008 07:07 pm
What would you do on these 6-flights per year ?

The hard part is not to get there fast, the hard part is continuing the exploration.

well, you can answer the Patchouli's question Magnus' statement....
what can we do with those other launches?  build sustainability...  how do we do that?  well, i would think the best way would be to build a fuel depot.... that builds sustainability for NASA exploration programs, AND provides missions EELV's... plus... let the COTS flights handle some of the crew rotation on the ISS while the Jupiter 120/Orion crews are constructing the fuel depot, doing an Apollo 8 type mission... and perhaps other test flights that might come up that early for moon program hardware... 

and perhaps we might be more cavalier about coming up with other useful things to do if we knew we had flights that were available for such things....

I was thinking extra J120 flights could go to ISS or science replicating sciences missions performed by the shuttle and sending cargo to L1 or the Lunar surface for use by a moon base.

A J-120 with a delta upper stage probably could put a BA330 or Sundancer in the lunar L1 point for example.

Plus general testing of new concepts which must be done anyway such as cryogenic fuel transfers in micro gravity.

Other uses for the excess payload a testing service for reentry vehicles for private space companies.

It also can be used to service space telescopes add an airlock module and equipment module and Orion can perform space walks just as well as the shuttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JesseD on 08/06/2008 09:33 pm
Hey, guys,

Just a quick question.  It's been several weeks since NASA came out with their DIRECT study; I recall someone from the DIRECT camp saying the rebuttal would be out in a week or so. 

How's it coming along?  I am eager to see what you come up with, because I was really surprised at the vast difference between what you are claiming DIRECT can do and what NASA assessed its capability to be. 

Thanks!
- Jesse
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2008 11:43 pm

1.  I was thinking extra J120 flights could go to ISS or science replicating sciences missions performed by the shuttle and sending cargo to L1 or the Lunar surface for use by a moon base.

2.  A J-120 with a delta upper stage probably could put a BA330 or Sundancer in the lunar L1 point for example.

3.  Plus general testing of new concepts which must be done anyway such as cryogenic fuel transfers in micro gravity.

4.  Other uses for the excess payload a testing service for reentry vehicles for private space companies.


1.  ISS has replaced the shuttle science missions.  No need to duplicate it with another vehicle.    There is nothing in NASA's plans for L1 station

2.  This is buffoonery.  Direct isn't going to be used for commercial stations and there is no need for a commercial station at L1. 

3.  Cheaper to be done on smaller LV's

4.  Again, can't be done.  There are commercial LV's for this

So in all, no help from this list
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2008 04:08 am
Sorry for a diversion from Direct, I'm a newbie, but which shuttle missions lost engines on the way up and were still able to complete their missions?

That is a relevant question still.   As stockman and Flightstar have already indicated STS-51F and STS-93 both had in-flight problems of this nature and were able to continue.

An additional factor to consider though, is the requirement for air-starting engines too.

During the Shuttle Program all of the engines are lit on the ground, which allows the main engines to be checked briefly before ever committing to a launch.   This valuable feature has allowed a total of 5 missions to be 'held' at the very last moment when engines had problems prior to launch commit.   Those flights were STS-41D, STS-51F, STS-55, STS-51 and STS-68. If those missions had continued it is debatable what might have happened, but in at least a few of those cases it would probably have caused some pretty serious problems for those crews.

You simply never get that option if all your engines are air-start.   You are already committed to the flight before you even get a chance to check those engines - if there is a problem, the first indication you get is when your crew are traveling at Mach-3 and are going through 70,000ft!   An engine problem then would always cause an automatic abort situation.

And it should also be noted that the start-sequence is much harder for an engine in-flight than it is on the ground.   On the ground you can have tons of support equipment to help get that engine started correctly - on an Upper Stage it must carry everything it needs with it and that equipment is thus greatly limited due to size and weight impacts.

Further still, the environment is another concern - the vibrations, acoustic shocks, the g-forces, the propellant sloshing, possible pogo issues and a host of other factors all make it much more difficult to start engines at altitude compared to on the ground. So the basic rate at which engines will fail to start in the air is likely to be noticeably higher than those on the ground.


While the Jupiter-120 has no air-start engine issues at all, the Jupiter-232 still needs some air-start engines, so is not completely immune from these issues.   But having a pair of engines means there is always a backup if one ever has problems.   That backup capability produces a number of additional options unavailable to a single-engine configuration.

For example, if one of the air-start engines only achieves a percentage of its nominal thrust (say 80% just for a figure), it may still prove to be sufficient to complete the mission given that you would still have 90% of your total thrust capability.   Or perhaps one engine could be shut-down early if it is exhibiting problems and the remaining engine would still be able to complete the flight by burning for longer in some situations.

The bottom-line is that losing one engine on a single-engine stage means an automatic Loss of Vehicle situation every time.   Losing one engine on a 2-engine stage often still allows for possibilities to continue the mission in some way.


Just something to consider as well.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2008 04:29 am
How's it coming along?

Its coming.   I've been doing much of the writing for the rebuttal, but my health just went south on me and its taking me a lot longer to get it written up than I'd like.

At this point I'll hedge my bets on a date by just saying "expect it when you see it" :)

The general jist of it is we are mostly sticking to our guns on our claims and we're going to attempt to show where that analysis made incorrect assumptions which resulted in fairly major distortions of the performance.

Essentially, if you change the assumptions you enter the analysis with, then the numbers align properly.   The assumptions we have problems with are mostly important points we have made in our publications which the analysis has simply ignored, such as using ACES/ICES upper stages, not MSFC ones.   Things like that.

There are a few things we actually agree with, such as the forces on the LIDS from two J-2X's, but which all seem to have obvious solutions available, such as aligning the thrust vector through the center of the LIDS so the forces are reduced to near-zero - or by using some of the spare TLI mass performance to allow for a re-designed and strengthened LIDS.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/07/2008 05:50 am
Sounds like a good plan you have going there Ross. I think the big thing you guys have going for you is that the white paper released by NASA wasn't a big bombshell. It was revealed, talked about for a few days and then it disappeared. I think more people were interested in why NASA was releasing a report on a concept that a few months ago they said they were not researching.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2008 06:39 am
While I am working on the document (and others are volunteering to help too - thanks!) I'm not actually in a major rush to get the document out just at the moment.

Some interesting things are going on at present behind closed doors and it might actually be a smarter move for us to just wait a little while and see which way the winds are blowing a week or two down the line.

We're definitely going to get the document ready to release, so we cover every possible base, but right now could possibly prove to be particularly bad timing for such a release. The phrase "Discretion Is the Better Part of Valor" comes vividly to mind.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 08/07/2008 11:59 am
The reuse of the crawler, assembly facilities, etc. seems to be a big point for DIRECT 2.0. But these are all 30 years old.  At what point do those things reach the end of their working lives and need to be replaced anyway?

mind you, this isn't quite as silly as spending billions on a new rocket with roughly the same capability as the delta IV heavy...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 08/07/2008 01:11 pm
The reuse of the crawler, assembly facilities, etc. seems to be a big point for DIRECT 2.0. But these are all 30 years old.  At what point do those things reach the end of their working lives and need to be replaced anyway?

It depends on the maintainance in a coastal climate with salt in the air.
Structures and heavy steel machinery with few working hours per year can
almost last indefinately.

Heavy and comlex machinery like papermills can last for more then 50 years of continues use in a corossive environment if maintainance is good and worn and outdated parts are replaced.

The lifelenght limit for paper machines, office buildings, nuclear owerplants etc is often not when they are worn out but if it gets to cumbersome to replace worn subsystems or if the requred upgrades for  modern running of the facilities or machins dont have room or can be handled by the structures.
 
To realy answer your question would require inside knowledge. I can only state that it is possible they are ok if Nasa has taken good care of their infrastructure. I would find it weird if Nasa let buildings etc for work where safety is priority one deteriorate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2008 01:13 pm
Lab,
The facilities inside the VAB are in pretty good shape currently.   The Crawlers and MLP's all recently had a major overhaul during the gap following the loss of STS-107, sufficient to see them through to 2020 if need be.   The service towers at the Pads are in good shape, and have regular maintenance - although that is fairly costly continual effort. The facilities and extensive tooling over at MAF are in a variety of different conditions, but all still have plenty of life in them still.

But, yes, sooner or later they will probably need a replacement or overhaul of some kind.

The DIRECT approach is to simply minimize the costs which must be absorbed during the Shuttle > Orion changeover 'gap' and to remove such costs and delays from the critical path to getting Orion flying sooner.   We pay for whatever we have to replace, but don't go any further.

Any extraneous costs during this specific period which we don't have to pay will only result in taking away extremely valuable money needed either from the development budget, or from money being used to protect the workforce.  It will only have the impact of extending the 'gap' further and/or losing jobs, so we need to be actively finding ways to reduce those to a minimum.

We would rather set aside a regular yearly budget for revitalization work, and gradually replace whatever needs replacing when it needs replacing, while the program proceeds to operate.


There are obvious exceptions of course, such as re-engineering the MLP's to suit the Jupiter's and modifying the specific Michoud tooling needed to build Core's instead of ET's.   The MLP sure isn't a small job, but it is a lot less extensive than the Ares equivalent.   The tooling is fairly straight forward and affects less than 20% of the equipment already there.   The LCC needs a considerable amount of work, but that's because no new system is going be using any of the old '486'-era equipment any more.   And the OPF [EDIT: OPF is incorrect - actually mean O&C here] still needs to be fitted-out to process the Orion's of course.   But overall, the changes to the existing infrastructure are a lot less for Jupiter.

The biggest question right now is whether, and when, we must replace the Pads or not.   At this point I just don't know about that one.   If it is needed, that is a major project with a major price tag.   Its too early to say.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/07/2008 01:24 pm

And the OPF still needs to be fitted-out to process the Orion's of course. 

Orion (or even CxP) has no use for OPF .  It will be assembled in the O&C Highbay and processed and fueled in the MPPF. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2008 01:28 pm

And the OPF still needs to be fitted-out to process the Orion's of course. 

Orion (or even CxP) has no use for OPF .  It will be assembled in the O&C Highbay and processed and fueled in the MPPF. 

Oops, meant O&C, was thinking O&C, wrote OPF.   Brain-fart moment on my end.   Thanks for the correction Jim.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 08/07/2008 01:35 pm

The biggest question right now is whether, and when, we must replace the Pads or not.   At this point I just don't know about that one.   Its too early to say.


I would recommend an analysis that starts with defining the ideal Direct and Direct upgrade pad and make a design optimised for easy use and maintainance minimising the cost for using it. And then a budget for making a fairly detailed design and legal and some physical preparations for building one.

Then you build it when you need a new kind of upgrade, when the cost for building and running a new pad is lower then refurbishing an old pad, when there is pork barrel money for a civil engineering project that lowers the long term cost for running Direct/Nasa or when a Direct blows up on a pad and you need a new one to allways have a spare pad.

My pet Shuttle upgrade has for manny years been liquid flyback boosters and if you have those it gets intresting to build a smaller launcher that uses one of them and flies from a dedicated pad that also is used for the LFBB development and debugging so it do not disturb the shuttle operations. But the Shuttle is soon gone and Direct is unlikely to fly often enough to motivate a LFBB and right now it sems unlikely to get such development money. But one or two smaller pads ought to not be completely unreasonable. I even expected that this might make sense for
Ares I.

And there might be a need for a larger pad if we in the medium term future get very large loads that can not be subdivided. My favorite example for this is launching spools of carbon nanofibre for building a space elevator. Then you might want to build an extreme launcher. Perhaps taking the Direct production line and make a redesign with
a LOx/RP1 first stage and stacking two additional SRB:s at the lauch pad.

It is unlikely that Direct and reasonable upgrades that fits on the present size of pad wont be enough but you knewer know for sure and it is fun to speculate. ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2008 03:36 pm
Apparently CxP has been expecting that some major work will be needed at the Pads after Shuttle has retired and has actually allocated some funds to that budget line already.

That's in addition to the lightening masts, the new egress system and the cost to remove the RSS/FSS here, those are assumed already for Ares.

I'm currently trying to find out how much they're already planning to set aside for this work and see what the cost delta would be like to just replace the pads (~$2bn).

As I say, its still too early to say with any confidence either way yet.



Oh, if we ever need an extreme launcher, with Jupiter we saved a packet in development money and operations too.   So if that need ever arose, I say just build the relatively low-tech 450mT-to-LEO Sea Dragon if we ever need 'extreme'.   I think it would be a lot better value and performance than Ares-V will ever be.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 08/07/2008 03:55 pm

Oh, if we ever need an extreme launcher, with Jupiter we saved a packet in development money and operations too.   So if that need ever arose, I say just build the relatively low-tech 450mT-to-LEO Sea Dragon if we ever need 'extreme'.

Ross.

Agreed. :)  How long would it take to develop it, though, in comparison to a J-232 or an Ares V?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/07/2008 04:13 pm
New engines.   Really big ones.   While they are essentially 'simple' designs, an 80million pound thrust RP1/LOX and a 13million pound LH2/LOX aren't small projects.   That's 8 years *absolute* minimum IMHO, maybe 12 years.

Y'know, if ATK wanted to get our of the solid rocket business before EPA inevitably develop sharp teeth over the perchlorate issues, something like Sea Dragon would be a pretty good direction for them to consider going.   They may need to sign a license with TRW, but that's a pretty minor thing in the grand scheme of things.   It would provide a new string to their bow.

But this discussion is off-topic for this thread.   Replies warrant their own thread please.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/07/2008 08:20 pm
Apparently CxP has been expecting that some major work will be needed at the Pads after Shuttle has retired and has actually allocated some funds to that budget line already.

That's in addition to the lightening masts, the new egress system and the cost to remove the RSS/FSS here, those are assumed already for Ares.

I'm currently trying to find out how much they're already planning to set aside for this work and see what the cost delta would be like to just replace the pads (~$2bn).

As I say, its still too early to say with any confidence either way yet.



Oh, if we ever need an extreme launcher, with Jupiter we saved a packet in development money and operations too.   So if that need ever arose, I say just build the relatively low-tech 450mT-to-LEO Sea Dragon if we ever need 'extreme'.   I think it would be a lot better value and performance than Ares-V will ever be.

Ross.

Speaking of those lightening masts, are they still needed for Jupiter?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 08/07/2008 11:38 pm
Hello All...I've been reading this and other threads and articles concerning DIRECT for some time now because I believe that it's a superior LV for the Orion.  I believe that the argument by NASA that says the J120 is over-powered for ISS missions is just them looking for things that differ from the Ares I so that they can make DIRECT seem like a waste.  But, I see that the Ares V (if it would ever be built which is doubtful at best) is a bit more powerful in a single launch configuration than the J232.  My question is, instead of just the EDS placed on top of the J23X rocket, you have another stage similar to the S-IVB stage, then the EDS on top of that.  This way, this "third" stage can place the stack with quite a heavy payload into LEO, re-ignite like the S-IVB until out of fuel, then stage through TLI, using the EDS to push the payload the rest of the way through TLI. 

While I'm not a rocket scientist or even a college graduate (NAVY ATC in case anyone was wondering), this doesn't seem to be that crazy of an idea, and Dr. Griffin could still boast that he made the largest, most powerful LV in history.  This is just an idea that I've had bouncing around in my head and I wonder if the experts can set me straight or maybe this isn't as crazy as I think and might work.  Thoughts?? 

Oh, and by the way, thanks for doing this, DIRECT Team.  I strongly believe that this is the way to go and as a taxpayer and fan of the program, I think that this uphill battle must be fought.

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 12:07 am
Speaking of those lightening masts, are they still needed for Jupiter?

They are a better way to protect any Pad and vehicle, so I would say yes.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 08/08/2008 12:53 am
Hi Tom, welcome to the forum!

I'm no rocket scientist either, but the configuration you talk about would need an extra RS-68 to push the heavier stack. This would effectively make a 3.5 stage solution, or a J-3442 maybe, which isn't all that hot because now you have 4 different staging events going on, with all the associated problems of engine restarts etc. plus a whole extra EDS to design.

The J-244 can push 150mT to LEO (with all the usual fat DIRECT margins). That's 2x 4 segs, 4x RS-68s, 4xJ-2XD. That's without all the optional extras of stretching the core and adding a spacer to the SRBs or just fielding 5-segs. However at some point J-244 starts bursting its buttons and turning into Ares V. Ares V is itself getting further and further into N-1 territory. 7 engines and 6-seg SRBs coming soon to a NASA PPT presentation near you....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 01:03 am
My question is, instead of just the EDS placed on top of the J23X rocket, you have another stage similar to the S-IVB stage, then the EDS on top of that.  This way, this "third" stage can place the stack with quite a heavy payload into LEO, re-ignite like the S-IVB until out of fuel, then stage through TLI, using the EDS to push the payload the rest of the way through TLI. 

While I'm not a rocket scientist or even a college graduate (NAVY ATC in case anyone was wondering), this doesn't seem to be that crazy of an idea, and Dr. Griffin could still boast that he made the largest, most powerful LV in history.  This is just an idea that I've had bouncing around in my head and I wonder if the experts can set me straight or maybe this isn't as crazy as I think and might work.  Thoughts?? 

Hi Tom, welcome to the site!

There is one of those 'laws of diminishing returns' in this particular situation. To add a third stage firstly means you need to add more engines to the Upper Stage (adding more to the Core is a bigger task as the Pad would need major changes too). To do that means you need to also add more propellant and tanking mass too. And you need another Interstage too.

But the Booster & Core Stage aren't increasing in performance, so that extra weight will mean staging to the Upper Stage occurs lower and at a lesser velocity - which means it has more work to do.

Optimizing such a Jupiter-233 configuration results in a vehicle able to lift only ~4mT more than the standard Jupiter-232 and that isn't nearly enough to offset the additional weight of an Upper Stage and Interstage unless it still does some of the work to complete the ascent.

What you really need in this situation is a more efficient engine package.   While it would be nice to have more efficient engines the Upper Stage, thrust is still the key component here so high-Isp engines really need to be reserved for the Third Stage above that.

If there were a way to get something like the 465s Isp RL-60 developed then you have some really interesting options open up.

I personally like the vehicle configuration J-3333 using this approach - that's 2x4-seg SRB, 3xRS-68B Core, 3xJ-2X Upper, 3xRL-60 EDS.   One nice feature is that it has engine-out capabilities on all stages except the SRB's.

That vehicle results in an EDS being inserted to 130x130nm, 29.0deg with a burnout mass of just 11.7mT, which has 465s Isp engines and a total of 104.4mT of usable propellant onboard (and this EDS has a wide range of engine-out capabilities for the TLI burn too, and also fixes all of the LIDS stress issues at the same time).

After 4 days of loitering, at 0.35% boil-off per day, that results in 102.0mT of usable TLI Propellant. This is sufficient to send 89.5mT of payload thru TLI - that's quite a bit more than NASA's current requirement for 70.1mT! :)

But the down-side to this is that you introduce another stage development program and another engine development program, both of which will increase the budget demands and therefore the schedule.

A corollary up-side to that though, is that you now have a variety of different Upper Stages which can provide a great deal of flexibility in configuration. One example: A Jupiter could fly without the Upper Stage and just utilize that RL-60 powered EDS - it would be a magnificent configuration for sending some pretty large payloads towards Mars in a single launch.


The real important thing to take away from this is that the same Jupiter Core vehicle can be configured in many different ways depending on what we actually need.   It isn't a "one-trick pony" in terms of configuration flexibility like the Ares-I is or even to a degree, like the gargantuan Ares-V is going to end up.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 08/08/2008 01:16 am
Is the Jupiter designation system conveniently available on-line somewhere?

In other words is there an easily accessed page that explains how a Jupiter 120 differs from a Jupiter 110 or a Jupiter 233 from a Jupiter 3333?

I think I grasp the gist of this however sometimes I find it hard to explain to others.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 01:26 am
Bill,
It is covered in our UPDATE Summary on the website.   In short:-

First digit: Number of cryogenic liquid stages used to get to orbit (a propulsion module which does not get used during ascent is not included, that would be considered payload).

Second digit: How many engines on the First cryo stage.

Third digit: How many engines on the Second cryo stage, or zero if not applicable (as in Jupiter-120).

Forth digit: Optional, used only if there is a third cryo stage to denote how many engines it has.   Rarely used.


In addition, the word "Heavy" indicates the use of the 5-segment SRB's instead of the regular 4-segment.   So a "Jupiter-232 Heavy" is a valid designation.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 08/08/2008 01:56 am
I personally like the vehicle configuration J-3333 using this approach - that's 2x4-seg SRB, 3xRS-68B Core, 3xJ-2X Upper, 3xRL-60 EDS.   One nice feature is that it has engine-out capabilities on all stages except the SRB's.

That vehicle results in an EDS being inserted to 130x130nm, 29.0deg with a burnout mass of just 11.7mT, which has 465s Isp engines and a total of 104.4mT of usable propellant onboard (and this EDS has a wide range of engine-out capabilities for the TLI burn too, and also fixes all of the LIDS stress issues at the same time).

After 4 days of loitering, at 0.35% boil-off per day, that results in 102.0mT of usable TLI Propellant. This is sufficient to send 89.5mT of payload thru TLI - that's quite a bit more than NASA's current requirement for 70.1mT! :)

Is this a 2-launch option (payload launched separately) or is this all in one launch?

NASA sort of uses a 3rd stage like this in the form of Altair, but those huge propellant tanks are a real pain. I wonder if they've looked at having a 2nd stage and an actual EDS that does LOI as well. Developing an RL-60B seems a lot less work than a brand new 5.5 seg SRB.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 02:12 am
Still 2-launch.

Jupiter-3333 launches the EDS.
Jupiter-232 (same US design with only two engines fitted) launches the Orion/Altair package.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 08/08/2008 02:22 am
Hello Everyone and thank you specifically to those that have clarified my misconceptions.  I definitely see where the extra mass of the extra stage as well as an additional staging is not worth the little bit extra payload lift.  I do agree with you, Ross.  Maybe with that money that NASA could save by not building the Ares V, they might be able to actually afford to develop some new technology, like better engines.  Now onto my next question for the team.  What do you think are the chances NASA will see the light and switch to the Jupiter series?  And is there anyone that us regular taxpaying citizens can talk to and ask for a GAO review of these rockets and maybe get a fair shot??  Thanks for all the work.

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 08/08/2008 02:40 am
Bill,
It is covered in our UPDATE Summary on the website.   In short:-

First digit: Number of cryogenic liquid stages used to get to orbit (a propulsion module which does not get used during ascent is not included, that would be considered payload).

Second digit: How many engines on the First cryo stage.

Third digit: How many engines on the Second cryo stage, or zero if not applicable (as in Jupiter-120).

Forth digit: Optional, used only if there is a third cryo stage to denote how many engines it has.   Rarely used.


In addition, the word "Heavy" indicates the use of the 5-segment SRB's instead of the regular 4-segment.   So a "Jupiter-232 Heavy" is a valid designation.

Ross.

Ross, does the "Heavy" versions use a stretched core tank (about 1000 mT of propellant) or the same core tank (about 730 mT of propellant) than the non-Heavy versions of jupiter?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 02:42 am
Tom,
I'm not sure what the chances are at the moment.

What I am 100% sure of is that Ares-I isn't going to work as it was hoped.   The engineers might get something to fly with enough time and money invested to get around all the short-comings, but it won't be what we actually wanted, it'll be late, it'll cost a ridiculous amount for what it does (EELV capability for 4 times as much) and the tax-payers will have been ripped-off compared to what they could have had instead.

I personally believe that Ares-I is setting NASA up for a major fall when the agency tries to then go on and make Ares-V later.   I just don't see how Congress will ever allow the agency to build a second vehicle when the first ends-up such a mess.

My own opinion is that within a year Ares-I will be declared DoA and a replacement will be actively sought.   I hope its sooner rather than later, because every month we wait means more money down the drain, more Shuttle infrastructure is scorched away and ultimately that feeds directly into exactly how many layoffs there will be.


Whenever Ares-I finally breathes its last breath, I think it's 50/50 at that point whether Congress just decides to shut VSE down as a bad idea and just use an EELV for crew rotation missions going no further than LEO, or whether they will consider the Ares-I debacle as a one-off aberration for the agency and will still allow NASA to continue developing a replacement in order to protect the jobs.

Just MHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 02:47 am
Ross, does the "Heavy" versions use a stretched core tank (about 1000 mT of propellant) or the same core tank (about 730 mT of propellant) than the non-Heavy versions of jupiter?

Probably not.   But it is an option if there ever happens to be copious amounts of spare budget lying around (yeah, I know).

The 5-seg boosters will work quite happily with a tank sized for 4-seg.   That's how they were proposed to be used with Shuttle originally.

Ross.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Capt. Nemo on 08/08/2008 06:42 am
Robert Zubrin called his plan for going to Mars  'Mars Direct'.

You guys call your plan 'Direct v2.0'.

Perhaps you could rename it 'Moon Direct' ?

(When I thought of this the other day it seemed like it had a nice symmetry to it. To have a Moon Direct plan leading into a Mars Direct plan. )
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 08/08/2008 04:04 pm
"More rumblings over Ares I; Is the stick dying?"
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/more-rumblings.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 04:13 pm
We had been hearing such things from a number of different sources since Thursday.

I don't yet know where this will go from here, but our official line is that we would be very happy to simply step aside and let the agency run with the ball if they wanted to.

We are not interested in embarrassing anyone, especially NASA.   We would actually work to help avoid such a thing.

I hope this is a sign of a change, but we are still a very long way from knowing for sure.   Don't get too excited and don't go counting chickens.   We've had eggs before and they didn't mature.   Lets all just wait and see what happens.   Feel free to cross your fingers though!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/08/2008 04:42 pm
Be careful!
Unless and until NASA makes this official (and they have NOT) it is not official! Please don’t draw any conclusions that can’t be substantiated. As of today, nothing in NASA policy has actually changed. As of today, with all due respect to Bob Block, as far as NASA is concerned, this is just so much hear-say. IF (big if) this turns out to be true, then obviously it’s a game changer. But as of today, nothing is changed. Does this story have legs? Who knows? We’ll just have to wait and see.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 08/08/2008 04:57 pm
"More rumblings over Ares I; Is the stick dying?"
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/more-rumblings.html

The article is saying  2 - 4 seg SRB's and  a core with 4  RS-68 engines. Sounds like an equivelent to a Jupiter 140. Excuse me but hasn't NASA been calling the J-120 over kill
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/08/2008 05:21 pm
Anyone run any numbers on what what a "J-140" would be able to lift?  Why do you need 4 RS-68s???  According to Griffin, Bigger is always better.. right? LOL

What about a J-241(if that's the correct nomenclature?)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 05:33 pm
The J-140 configuration has some issues with an 8.4m tank.

Max-Q is very high with four engines even throttled down (~870psf), and LOC/LOM is also a lot lower too with two additional engines, although engine-out options are greater.

4 engines used all the way to MECO would produce ~10g maximum acceleration so you must throttle them all down.

Even then, flying at 58% thrust that's still too much, producing ~6g before MECO.   So you have no choice but to shutdown two of the engines in mid-flight (two because you always want to try to balance the thrust).



In the end, you are still carrying up the additional mass of two extra 7,000kg engines all the way to orbit, and you have no extra propellant so your total impulse doesn't change - essentially you simply end up losing 14 tonnes of performance compared to the 2-engine J-120 version.   I can't yet get a 4-engine version to fly with a positive payload mass, but I haven't spent as much time on the problem as I could.


Now, with a 10m Core Tank and extra propellant, you can improve the performance with 4 engines (still lose the LOC/LOM though).   A 4-seg/10m 4xRS-68 configuration is able to lift about 30mT to LEO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 08/08/2008 05:35 pm
I was wondering if J-120 is considered overkill for ISS, why propose J-140?  What do those two extra engines buy you?

I suppose if you use a 10m core, so you have some commonality with Ares V, then maybe they make some sense.  If that's the case then someone is bound and determined to destroy a lot of commonality with the shuttle in order to "move forward".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/08/2008 05:39 pm


In the end, you are still carrying up the additional mass of two extra 7,000kg engines all the way to orbit, and you have no extra propellant so your total impulse doesn't change - essentially you simply end up losing 14 tonnes of performance compared to the 2-engine J-120 version.

Then it's no longer "overkill" because it performs worse, for more cost.

Quote from: kraisee

Now, with a 10m Core Tank and extra propellant, you can improve the performance with 4 engines (still lose the LOC/LOM though).   A 4-seg/10m 4xRS-68 configuration is able to lift about 30mT to LEO.

Ross.

At least with 10m stage it sounds like they could still say they had some commonality with Ares-V.  I'm still confused, because if my math is right "14mT less than J-120" is still more than "30mT to LEO" for the 10m Core version. Did I miss something?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Tim S on 08/08/2008 05:43 pm
"More rumblings over Ares I; Is the stick dying?"

Where's the proof, oh that's right, there is none. Always be dubious of reports that have a question mark in their headlines.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/08/2008 05:54 pm
"More rumblings over Ares I; Is the stick dying?"

Where's the proof, oh that's right, there is none. Always be dubious of reports that have a question mark in their headlines.

There are rumblings (especially with regards to the Astronaut Office - plus two others), there's a name for this "replacement" vehicle (but it's not documented). There are other tied in factors too - so it has legs.

As far as this site....I don't run articles based on rumblings, so it'll have to be documentation, such as with the previous articles we've run on Ares - including its issues. Accuracy is everything and only actual NASA etc. documentation can provide that.

We're collating our information for that point in time the documentation (thus proof) is forthcoming, then we'll run. As of right now, the 'rumblings' are not even close enough for a site like ours to run a news article. We simply don't run "rumor has it" type articles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/08/2008 05:58 pm
"More rumblings over Ares I; Is the stick dying?"

Where's the proof, oh that's right, there is none. Always be dubious of reports that have a question mark in their headlines.

Not arguing with you Tim.. As I doubt this has legs even if there are rumbles.

Does anyone at MSFC have the Marbles to tell emperor Griffin the Stick has no clothes? I hope the Astronaut Office does.. it's their's that will be on the line. 

Can you tell me how much did LOM/LOC for Stick drop with Para-absorber and those funky phased firing rockets?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 06:03 pm
At least with 10m stage it sounds like they could still say they had some commonality with Ares-V.  I'm still confused, because if my math is right "14mT less than J-120" is still more than "30mT to LEO" for the 10m Core version. Did I miss something?

I've been running some tests using the older Ares-V (5-engine, 8.4m US - see attached baseball card from 24 Oct '07) Core Stage unmodified, except fitted with two, three and four engines, not all five.   And I've been testing with both 4-seg boosters (inc. a spacer stage) and 5.0seg.   Haven't tried any 5.5seg tests yet.

None of the two engine variants are workable because the Core Stage is a monster massing >150mT (compared to Jupiter's 33-series current 87.4mT 2-engine Core) and that extra mass being dragged to orbit is just too much dead mass for any of the two-engine configurations.

4-segment/3 engine performance is around 25mT.

5-segment/4 engine performance is around 30mT.


These are only very preliminary results so far and I have not yet had any time to fine-tune them.   There may be a little more performance possible there.   Either way, that seems like a lot of rocket for not much result.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/08/2008 06:18 pm
The J-140 configuration has some issues with an 8.4m tank.

Max-Q is very high with four engines even throttled down (~870psf), and LOC/LOM is also a lot lower too with two additional engines, although engine-out options are greater.

4 engines used all the way to MECO would produce ~10g maximum acceleration so you must throttle them all down.

Even then, flying at 58% thrust that's still too much, producing ~6g before MECO.   So you have no choice but to shutdown two of the engines in mid-flight (two because you always want to try to balance the thrust).



In the end, you are still carrying up the additional mass of two extra 7,000kg engines all the way to orbit, and you have no extra propellant so your total impulse doesn't change - essentially you simply end up losing 14 tonnes of performance compared to the 2-engine J-120 version.   I can't yet get a 4-engine version to fly with a positive payload mass, but I haven't spent as much time on the problem as I could.


Now, with a 10m Core Tank and extra propellant, you can improve the performance with 4 engines (still lose the LOC/LOM though).   A 4-seg/10m 4xRS-68 configuration is able to lift about 30mT to LEO.

Ross.

Does it make sense if it performs the same economic stand-in duty as the Stick? You start withj 4seg + 4 RS-68 and the 10m tank, and you get 30mT to LEO. Then, later, you add more segments, engines, and the EDS to get your going-to-the-moon monster. And as an added bonus, you get to claim "no overkill" and maybe nobody will notice it's mumble-mumble $$$ more expensive than J-120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 08/08/2008 06:20 pm
Either way, that seems like a lot of rocket for not much result.
Except, of course, it would actually lift Orion and not be called Jupiter. These are key points, because we all know that Jupiter is "too much" rocket for the ISS so 30 ton payload is much closer to the needed 25 tons, notwithstanding that you've built an oversized rocket to do it. "Just a little safety margin", I can hear it now...

Oh, and you've destroyed the 8.4m tooling and made the Ares V 10 m tooling so you can go back and built Ares V in the end, should you ever get the money. Two more politically good points. Smells like a no-brainer.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/08/2008 06:31 pm

Does it make sense if it performs the same economic stand-in duty as the Stick? You start withj 4seg + 4 RS-68 and the 10m tank, and you get 30mT to LEO. Then, later, you add more segments, engines, and the EDS to get your going-to-the-moon monster. And as an added bonus, you get to claim "no overkill" and maybe nobody will notice it's mumble-mumble $$$ more expensive than J-120.

Could be some benefit to having MLPs common with Ares-V(less MLPs overall?).  Not sure if you can use the same towers?  Would it make more sense to use a Shorter/lighter version of the 10m Tank for CEV Launch? Perhaps 2 different wall thicknesses depending on whether you have an US or not?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/08/2008 06:35 pm
At least with 10m stage it sounds like they could still say they had some commonality with Ares-V.  I'm still confused, because if my math is right "14mT less than J-120" is still more than "30mT to LEO" for the 10m Core version. Did I miss something?

I've been running some tests using the older Ares-V (5-engine, 8.4m US - see attached baseball card from 24 Oct '07) Core Stage unmodified, except fitted with two, three and four engines, not all five.   And I've been testing with both 4-seg boosters (inc. a spacer stage) and 5.0seg.   Haven't tried any 5.5seg tests yet.

None of the two engine variants are workable because the Core Stage is a monster massing >150mT (compared to Jupiter's 33-series current 87.4mT 2-engine Core) and that extra mass being dragged to orbit is just too much dead mass for any of the two-engine configurations.

4-segment/3 engine performance is around 25mT.

5-segment/4 engine performance is around 30mT.


These are only very preliminary results so far and I have not yet had any time to fine-tune them.   There may be a little more performance possible there.   Either way, that seems like a lot of rocket for not much result.

Ross.

Something tells me they will go with option B which means 5-seg work stays as is and the 10m core gets built early. Also has an engine out facility as shown by option A. Heh, and you thought there was only one cynical way to get to Ares V ;).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 06:41 pm
TrueBlueWitt,
It would be sensible to build just one tank, designed to be used on the bigger rocket, and just use the same unit in a non-optimized configuration on the smaller configuration first.

You could optimize the smaller configuration by making it shorter (for 4-seg boosters), by making the tanking structure walls thinner and designing the Thrust Structure specifically for that many engines, and that vehicle would retain the 'footprint' of the later Ares-V to follow.

But you would be replicating a great deal of the costs of two vehicles again as their developments would be divergent, their qualification progams would be totally different and their testing would have no commonality either.

So the trade boils down to whether you care much about the cost or not.

The higher cost profile for developing the 10m tanking also squeezes the budget a lot more in the short-term and that will put pressure on the existing contract for the Ares-I Upper Stage.   I think that contract would end up at risk of not being funded until quite a bit later on, which would be really bad news for Boeing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/08/2008 06:44 pm
Does it make sense if it performs the same economic stand-in duty as the Stick? You start withj 4seg + 4 RS-68 and the 10m tank, and you get 30mT to LEO. Then, later, you add more segments, engines, and the EDS to get your going-to-the-moon monster. And as an added bonus, you get to claim "no overkill" and maybe nobody will notice it's mumble-mumble $$$ more expensive than J-120.

The 10m tank needs to be redesigned depending on if you use 4 or 5 segments unless you want to bite off the design of a yoke or cryogenic tank passthrough. There would be commonality in tooling, but not in design or test.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/08/2008 06:47 pm

The higher cost profile for developing the 10m tanking also squeezes the budget a lot more in the short-term and that will put pressure on the existing contract for the Ares-I Upper Stage.   I think that contract would end up at risk of not being funded until quite a bit later on, which would be really bad news for Boeing.

Ross.

Would close the gap though as it's no longer on the critical path.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 07:06 pm

Would close the gap though as it's no longer on the critical path.

I think it FOC might be sooner than 2016, but with the costs having to strip all the infrastructure out at MAF and KSC only to replace it all again in order to support the new 10m dia footprint, I'm not at all sure how much money & time they can really save.

J-2X still needs to be funded if it is still to be ready for 2018/19 flight-testing. You can't cancel that contract or even reduce the funding much, even though it isn't in the critical path to getting the first vehicle going.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: parham55 on 08/08/2008 07:15 pm
Should this concept have its own thread rather than being discussed in the DIRECT v2.0 thread?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/08/2008 07:18 pm
Should this concept have its own thread rather than being discussed in the DIRECT v2.0 thread?

For the time being, because of the history of this thread, this is the right place. But if it becomes something more than a commentary on the progress of DIRECT, then you are correct. But let’s see where this goes first.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 07:20 pm
Assuming that the 'rumor with legs' is actually happening, NASA is going to have to do a ton of trades into this.

I just hope that the trades they look at will actually include the configurations which we have suggested.   We've been through the process of working out what works best.   We've checked a huge number of SDLV configurations and we've narrowed the field down gradually to these recommendations.

I think NASA would find that the results of an exhaustive review would probably end up in a similar place when everything is added up.

I just hope our configurations aren't veto'd and simply ignored just *because* they come from 'those meddling kids' (I'm betting that comment just put a grin on the face of some of our Gray Beards ;) )

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Magnus_Redin on 08/08/2008 07:20 pm
Oh, and you've destroyed the 8.4m tooling and made the Ares V 10 m tooling so you can go back and built Ares V in the end, should you ever get the money. Two more politically good points. Smells like a no-brainer.

If you made a clean sheet launcher design with two giant SRB:s and
RS-68 engines what tankage diamater would then be ideal for making it configurable as a large or very large launcher?

Is 8,4 m or 10 m the closest to the performance and flexibility ideal?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/08/2008 07:26 pm
I just hope our configurations aren't veto'd and simply ignored just *because* they come from 'those meddling kids' (I'm betting that comment just put a grin on the face of some of our Gray Beards ;) )

I'm guessing it's more likely to be Veto'd just because "someone" really wants a 10 meter diameter core, to match Saturn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/08/2008 07:27 pm
TrueBlueWitt,
It would be sensible to build just one tank, designed to be used on the bigger rocket, and just use the same unit in a non-optimized configuration on the smaller configuration first.

You could optimize the smaller configuration by making it shorter (for 4-seg boosters), by making the tanking structure walls thinner and designing the Thrust Structure specifically for that many engines, and that vehicle would retain the 'footprint' of the later Ares-V to follow.


Ross.


Any benefit to launching with less than a full load of fuel?  Or is the tank mass so high that you need all the fuel you can get in it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 07:32 pm
If you made a clean sheet launcher design with two giant SRB:s and
RS-68 engines what tankage diamater would then be ideal for making it configurable as a large or very large launcher?

Is 8,4 m or 10 m the closest to the performance and flexibility ideal?

Depends mostly on the boosters and the main engines.

The Shuttle design is highly optimized to best-suit the performance of the pair of 4-segment SRB's and the 3 x SSME's.

If you determine that you wish to use the same 4-seg boosters and similar performance main engines (say, 2 x RS-68's), you will automatically find that this general size is very close to optimal.

The further away you go from that, the less optimal it will get. And the more costly ($$$ and time) the changes will also be to get you into a 'revised' sweet-spot.

Adding Upper Stages changes things a lot though and you have a lot more factors to deal with.

The key issue, IMHO, is that cost and mission requirements should be your #1 and #2 driving forces.   If they aren't, you will always end up with something which is either too expensive to use, or doesn't actually do what you need it to.   Both lead straight to a brick wall.

In order to save as much money as possible to make the program more likely to succeed, DIRECT has chosen to re-use the existing tooling and facilities and to make one vehicle capable of supporting ISS, 2-launch Lunar and multi-launch Mars missions.

"Using what you've got" instead of "clean sheet" is the key difference.

If you believe you're budget is safe, will remain high, and may even increase, you can propose solutions which cost more.   If you want to hedge your bets, and make sure you succeed no matter what the fiscal climate does to you, you are better off looking at what you already have available and keep your overheads down by re-using that as much as possible.   In this case, much of what we have already with Shuttle *can* be used to do the job.   We've shown how.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 07:45 pm
Correcting my earlier 10m numbers:

My early numbers included a stupid mistake on my part.   I forgot to add back in the mass of the engines we are flying with.   I basically removed all five engines (6,909kg each), but forgot to put the 2/3/4 engines back on - a total Homer Simpson moment.


That reduces my numbers on the previous page by ~21mT and 28mT respectively.

In short, those configurations are not actually capable of launching an Orion.   A 10m Core Stage solution would therefore *have* to be shortened to make them a lot lighter.

I don't have a detailed mass-breakout of the current Ares-V Cores right now, so I can't accurately predict the mass improvements of making that stage shorter.   A scale based purely on pmf might be usable as a first-order estimate, but I will have to work on that later tonight (unless someone else wants to provide a 'best guess' for me to use).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/08/2008 07:48 pm

If you made a clean sheet launcher design with two giant SRB:s and
RS-68 engines what tankage diamater would then be ideal for making it configurable as a large or very large launcher?

Is 8,4 m or 10 m the closest to the performance and flexibility ideal?

That depends a great deal on the mission IMLEO that you forecast needing. Remember, the bigger the launch vehicle, the more mass it can throw but also the less often it can fly. One needs to select the launch vehicle size based on a solid plan to use it. Everything costs money, and bigger launch vehicles cost more than smaller ones, precisely because they fly less often. Big launchers have their place, but they can’t be bigger than what can be economically sustained or the advantages offered by them are lost to unsustainability.

It is the opinion of the DIRECT team that Ares-V, in its current suggested manifestations, has gone beyond that point of sustainability. It grows ever bigger to make up for the lack of performance of the other side of its coin, the Ares-I, instead of being sized upwards because of mission needs. Ares-V could be brought back down to a sustainable size if the CLV were replaced with a launch vehicle configuration that could actually contribute more to the mission IMLEO. Even better, if the CLV and the CaLV could share the same base core, the way that DIRECT does, the cost would drop drastically.

This latest (reminder: unconfirmed reports = rumor) configuration appears to be a step in that direction. It appears to be attempting to reproduce the advantages that DIRECT has identified and proposed, but using the 10m core that they had previously baselined for Ares-V. Will it work? Apparently, by Ross’ rough calculations, yes, in some form, perhaps with a shortened core. But will it work well enough economically? Don’t know yet. Remember it still would require the dismantling and replacement of the entire manufacturing and launch infrastructure. That’s not cheap either. DIRECT avoids all that additional cost and time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/08/2008 07:53 pm
Surely if you could pick *any* length of tank starting from a 10m diameter you should be able to beat J-120 at some length and weight by say 10-15 mT with 4 RS-68s giving 55-60mT performance ? Also why 4 and not 3 or 2 ? Maybe they are planning to do the 4 outer tank RS-68 configuration early as shown in the latest Ares V configuration here ...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481

This new 4 engine lifter as the CLV with the 6 engine Ares V could work you know as a 1.5 solution ;).

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/08/2008 08:00 pm
Surely if you could pick *any* length of tank starting from a 10m diameter you should be able to beat J-120 at some length and weight by say 10-15 mT with 4 RS-68s giving 55-60mT performance ? Also why 4 and not 3 or 2 ? Maybe they are planning to do the 4 outer tank RS-68 configuration early as shown in the latest Ares V configuration here ...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481

That would be consistant with a common thrust structure.
Fly 4 engines on the CLV with no upper stage.
Fly 6 engines on the CaLV with the upper stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/08/2008 08:01 pm
Surely if you could pick *any* length of tank starting from a 10m diameter you should be able to beat J-120 at some length and weight by say 10-15 mT with 4 RS-68s ? Also why 4 and not 3 or 2 ? Maybe they are planning to do the 4 outer tank RS-68 configuration early as shown in the latest Ares V configuration here ...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481



Someone correct me if I'm wrong here..

10m Tank has two disadvantages for CEV launcher that I see.. short and squat would be pretty high drag for the first part of the trip.. also the adapter and fairing to get down to Orions diameter would likely be heavier than from a 8.4m core.  Also given the cluster F'd 6 motor configuration they're now proposing for Ares-V, there would be little commonality if any in thrust structures with the 4 motor design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/08/2008 08:03 pm
Surely if you could pick *any* length of tank starting from a 10m diameter you should be able to beat J-120 at some length and weight by say 10-15 mT with 4 RS-68s giving 55-60mT performance ? Also why 4 and not 3 or 2 ? Maybe they are planning to do the 4 outer tank RS-68 configuration early as shown in the latest Ares V configuration here ...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481

That would be consistant with a common thrust structure.
Fly 4 engines on the CLV with no upper stage.
Fly 6 engines on the CaLV with the upper stage.

So does that make it 'DIRECT on steroids' ? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/08/2008 08:07 pm
Attachment points for the SRB's are your key limiting factor.

Your choices are limited to Fwd mounting in the intertank area (as Shuttle and Ares-V) or above both tanks (creating a much shorter overall stage).

I have only been working on Intertank area configurations.   There may be some configuration of 10m Core Stage which works with both tanks fitting under the Fwd attachment of the SRB (probably 5-seg would be necessary in this case).

But this is a major alteration to the configuration - a whole lot different from NASA's current Shuttle experience base.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/08/2008 08:09 pm
Surely if you could pick *any* length of tank starting from a 10m diameter you should be able to beat J-120 at some length and weight by say 10-15 mT with 4 RS-68s ? Also why 4 and not 3 or 2 ? Maybe they are planning to do the 4 outer tank RS-68 configuration early as shown in the latest Ares V configuration here ...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481


Someone correct me if I'm wrong here..

10m Tank has two disadvantages for CEV launcher that I see.. short and squat would be pretty high drag for the first part of the trip.. also the adapter and fairing to get down to Orions diameter would likely be heavier than from a 8.4m core.  Also given the cluster F'd 6 motor configuration they're now proposing for Ares-V, there would be little commonality if any in thrust structures with the 4 motor design.

It's not ideal but on the other hand you can pick your length, weight and overall shape and you have 3 more engines than you really need anyway to start with. Consider it a testbed for the Ares V core stage, without the two centre engines, moonlighting as a CLV ;).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/08/2008 08:13 pm
Surely if you could pick *any* length of tank starting from a 10m diameter you should be able to beat J-120 at some length and weight by say 10-15 mT with 4 RS-68s giving 55-60mT performance ? Also why 4 and not 3 or 2 ? Maybe they are planning to do the 4 outer tank RS-68 configuration early as shown in the latest Ares V configuration here ...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481

That would be consistant with a common thrust structure.
Fly 4 engines on the CLV with no upper stage.
Fly 6 engines on the CaLV with the upper stage.

So does that make it 'DIRECT on steroids' ? ;)

DIRECT with Hemroids(given latest 6 engine layout) maybe..

Steroids to me implies doing "more with less".. in this case they'd be doing.. "less with more"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/08/2008 08:14 pm
Does it make sense if it performs the same economic stand-in duty as the Stick? You start withj 4seg + 4 RS-68 and the 10m tank, and you get 30mT to LEO. Then, later, you add more segments, engines, and the EDS to get your going-to-the-moon monster. And as an added bonus, you get to claim "no overkill" and maybe nobody will notice it's mumble-mumble $$$ more expensive than J-120.

The 10m tank needs to be redesigned depending on if you use 4 or 5 segments unless you want to bite off the design of a yoke or cryogenic tank passthrough. There would be commonality in tooling, but not in design or test.


How much mass penalty would you incur with a dummy fifth segment for the initial flights, assuming you were going to go to 5-seg SRB later on? They've already done the design for the Ares I-X...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/08/2008 08:17 pm
Surely if you could pick *any* length of tank starting from a 10m diameter you should be able to beat J-120 at some length and weight by say 10-15 mT with 4 RS-68s ? Also why 4 and not 3 or 2 ? Maybe they are planning to do the 4 outer tank RS-68 configuration early as shown in the latest Ares V configuration here ...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481


Someone correct me if I'm wrong here..

10m Tank has two disadvantages for CEV launcher that I see.. short and squat would be pretty high drag for the first part of the trip.. also the adapter and fairing to get down to Orions diameter would likely be heavier than from a 8.4m core.  Also given the cluster F'd 6 motor configuration they're now proposing for Ares-V, there would be little commonality if any in thrust structures with the 4 motor design.

It's not ideal but on the other hand you can pick your length, weight and overall shape and you have 3 more engines than you really need anyway to start with. Consider it a testbed for the Ares V core stage, without the two centre engines, moonlighting as a CLV ;).


Really?  Not sure you'd want to carry all the extra drag/weight of the wide engine layout not to mention how assymetric the thrust gets if you lose an engine.. From what I've read elsewhere I'd guess you'd have to use massive heat shielding in the large gap between the engines.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/08/2008 08:28 pm
Surely if you could pick *any* length of tank starting from a 10m diameter you should be able to beat J-120 at some length and weight by say 10-15 mT with 4 RS-68s ? Also why 4 and not 3 or 2 ? Maybe they are planning to do the 4 outer tank RS-68 configuration early as shown in the latest Ares V configuration here ...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481


Someone correct me if I'm wrong here..

10m Tank has two disadvantages for CEV launcher that I see.. short and squat would be pretty high drag for the first part of the trip.. also the adapter and fairing to get down to Orions diameter would likely be heavier than from a 8.4m core.  Also given the cluster F'd 6 motor configuration they're now proposing for Ares-V, there would be little commonality if any in thrust structures with the 4 motor design.

It's not ideal but on the other hand you can pick your length, weight and overall shape and you have 3 more engines than you really need anyway to start with. Consider it a testbed for the Ares V core stage, without the two centre engines, moonlighting as a CLV ;).


Really?  Not sure you'd want to carry all the extra drag/weight of the wide engine layout not to mention how assymetric the thrust gets if you lose an engine.. From what I've read elsewhere I'd guess you'd have to use massive heat shielding in the large gap between the engines.

Sure you wouldn't want to but hey this is about building a DIRECT commonality between the launchers which saves time and money in the long run. Isn't that what this exercise has been all about ? Cut the gap and save running costs with one basic launcher ? Does it really matter if it's a different basic launcher ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/08/2008 08:40 pm

Also given the cluster F'd 6 motor configuration they're now proposing for Ares-V, there would be little commonality if any in thrust structures with the 4 motor design.

No, there is good commonality between the 4 and 6 engine configurations. Just like DIRECT, they fly/do not fly the center engine(s), depending if it's a CLV or a CaLV flight. It's just not "DIRECT", that's all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/08/2008 08:42 pm

So does that make it 'DIRECT on steroids' ? ;)

No. It still costs a LOT more to impliment and operate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/08/2008 09:00 pm

Also given the cluster F'd 6 motor configuration they're now proposing for Ares-V, there would be little commonality if any in thrust structures with the 4 motor design.

No, there is good commonality between the 4 and 6 engine configurations. Just like DIRECT, they fly/do not fly the center engine(s), depending if it's a CLV or a CaLV flight. It's just not "DIRECT", that's all.

(http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/Images/Thumbnails/Thumbnailer.ashx?Img=library/1016/A1(214).JPG&W=225&H=170)
Just to be clear.  This design?  Minus the center two?  At least that might take care of plume impingement issues.  I'd venture a guess that the extra mass/drag of this design was NOT accounted for in the quick and dirty analysis of mass to LEO. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/08/2008 09:05 pm

No, there is good commonality between the 4 and 6 engine configurations. Just like DIRECT, they fly/do not fly the center engine(s), depending if it's a CLV or a CaLV flight. It's just not "DIRECT", that's all.

Just to be clear.  This design?  Minus the center two? 

That's correct. That's the design I was refering to.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/08/2008 09:14 pm
Surely if you could pick *any* length of tank starting from a 10m diameter you should be able to beat J-120 at some length and weight by say 10-15 mT with 4 RS-68s ? Also why 4 and not 3 or 2 ? Maybe they are planning to do the 4 outer tank RS-68 configuration early as shown in the latest Ares V configuration here ...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481



Someone correct me if I'm wrong here..

10m Tank has two disadvantages for CEV launcher that I see.. short and squat would be pretty high drag for the first part of the trip.. also the adapter and fairing to get down to Orions diameter would likely be heavier than from a 8.4m core.  Also given the cluster F'd 6 motor configuration they're now proposing for Ares-V, there would be little commonality if any in thrust structures with the 4 motor design.

3rd disadvantage.  too much $$$ for a crew LV
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/08/2008 09:26 pm

No, there is good commonality between the 4 and 6 engine configurations. Just like DIRECT, they fly/do not fly the center engine(s), depending if it's a CLV or a CaLV flight. It's just not "DIRECT", that's all.

Just to be clear.  This design?  Minus the center two? 

That's correct. That's the design I was refering to.

Thanks,

Throwing a couple more Ideas out there for anyone's thoughts.

If you did wind up having to shorten the core to get enough performance..

Is there any configuration with just the center two engines that would work? Perhaps with the core the same height as 5-seg Solids? That would really be "Stumpy", The Intertank part would not be common with Ares -V. Then again the same beam might be able to be used, just mounted to the top instead of the bottom of the upper tank.  The tanks themselves could be cut down version of the Ares-V.. think 747SP

I know people bring up the fact it's no longer common and takes more validation if they are different lenghts..   I'm wondering how much different the validation is between having 30MT CEV sitting up top..  and having 100+Mt  US/EDS/Altair up top?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 08/08/2008 09:36 pm
Well this is all a bit exciting!
4 segment, 4RS8, 10m core for CLV? 5 segment, 6RS8, 10m Core with EDS for Ares V?
One interesting benefit is that 5 segment booster development could be pushed to the Ares V vehicle and is not in the critical path for Ares "II". Plus the five segment booster can simply be the original shuttle 5 segment booster that has already been ground tested. There has to be some cost savings there. Also the J2-X engine is not need until Ares-V thus removing it from the critical path. The commonality mean Ares-V is less likely to be cancelled and is easier to resurect if it is.

If the Ares II ends up being a tad more expensive in terms of hardware there has to be savings over Ares I in terms of development so it should work out better from a cash flow point of view.
Also, as mentioned by other posters, the core stage is then already developed for Ares V - thus saving cash there.
There would be new ground infrastructure required (crawlers?, barge, tooling etc). Some of that infrastructure could probably do with being replaced so this may not be such a bad thing.

Time wise it may take longer than Direct to meet first launch due to the extra development. A fitment test article could be on the pad (new pad?) within 2-3 years. Another 2 years to actual launch? This would mean operational launches by 2013 at the latest.

I approve of this approach. It would reduce the gap, retain the workforce, reduce development costs.

It's not Direct, but it does have a logic of it's own that is valid.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/08/2008 11:04 pm
I'd say this is a good start...it isn't ideal but it is better than Ares I. A switch like this could easily morph into Jupiter as well. Right now this is a rumor at best...it seems like the Ares V commonality is the real driving force here, keeping them away from a true Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/08/2008 11:19 pm
"More rumblings over Ares I; Is the stick dying?"
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/more-rumblings.html

The article is saying  2 - 4 seg SRB's and  a core with 4  RS-68 engines. Sounds like an equivelent to a Jupiter 140. Excuse me but hasn't NASA been calling the J-120 over kill

Looks like overkill for a crew launcher, especially when the same results can be provided with two or three RS-68s (Ares IB or EELV) and NO SRBs or with a two or three engine core-only Direct-like solution (and maybe with a one RS-68, two SRB Direct-like solution).  Four RS-68s with SRBs (a version of "Magnum" once looked like this) sounds like the beginnings of a dual-lunar-launch architecture machine to me.

 - Ed Kyle 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 08/08/2008 11:31 pm
I'd say this is a good start...it isn't ideal but it is better than Ares I. A switch like this could easily morph into Jupiter as well.
Yes, it would be very easy for NASA to switch from this to Jupiter-120 "temporarily" in the next two years, and damned hard to justify changing back.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 08/09/2008 02:57 am
No, there is good commonality between the 4 and 6 engine configurations. Just like DIRECT, they fly/do not fly the center engine(s), depending if it's a CLV or a CaLV flight. It's just not "DIRECT", that's all.

This concept opens up an additional possibility that would make it more reasonable.  For sake of simplicity let’s call it Ares 2.0

Since the 4 seg, SRB – 10m 4 engine core (Ares 2.0 - IV) would likely have a core height the same as the J120, what would be the performance of following configurations?

(Ares 2.0 - V)     4 seg, SRB – 10m 5 engine core + EDS - 1 J-2x

(Ares 2.0 - Vb)   4 seg, SRB – 10m 5 engine core + EDS - 2 J-2x 

(Ares 2.0 - VI)   4 seg, SRB – 10m 6 engine core + EDS - 1 J-2x 

(Ares 2.0 - VIb) 4 seg, SRB – 10m 6 engine core + EDS - 2 J-2x 

Now if we used any one of these configurations in a 2 launch Direct 2.0 type system what would the performance be?

This could reduce the Ares 2.0 - IV to a largely developmental vehicle and test LV for Orion that would seldom be used once lunar operations begin. This would work good if ISS Ops are given to private vehicles like Space X’s Dragon.

In such a case the less than optimum performance of the Ares 2.0 – IV would be justified.

By the way these are not intended as proposed designations just working labels.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/09/2008 03:05 am
Wasn't the initial response from NASA that Jupiter was OVERKILL for the ISS, but UNDERKILL for the Moon and Mars?

Well this "Ares 2.0" provides more than enough umph for the Moon and Mars. And while it is major overkill for ISS, Delta IV H or some other EELV class vehicle can take over, as detailed above.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 08/09/2008 04:04 am
Oh, but wouldn't changing from the "Ares I" to an "Ares V Wimpy" mean that they would have to take all of the time to redo those difficult stage development contracts (you know, Griffin's biggest argument against DIRECT)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Davinator on 08/09/2008 05:21 am
Oh, but wouldn't changing from the "Ares I" to an "Ares V Wimpy" mean that they would have to take all of the time to redo those difficult stage development contracts (you know, Griffin's biggest argument against DIRECT)?

How about Beefy Stumpy?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4670
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/09/2008 03:38 pm
At this point I would like independent verification about this new rocket model other than the Orlando Sentinel before discussing it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/09/2008 03:51 pm
I agree completely.

While I have five separate sources for the rumor, I think Chris has the correct approach - lets wait and get some validation/documentation first before assuming anything like this is actually happening.   It is still only a rumor right now, albeit a rumor with legs.

I would also suggest that we spin all further discussion of this off into a separate thread for the time being - HERE (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13990.msg305863#msg305863).   We do not yet have any basis to make the assumption that DIRECT's launcher configurations are even in contention for the new concept (assuming it exists).   So, for now at least, I think they are actually two separate subjects worthy of discussion in and of themselves.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/09/2008 04:11 pm
At this point I would like independent verification about this new rocket model other than the Orlando Sentinel before discussing it.

That was exactly the gist of what I was saying in my initial post on the sybject. There are lots of rumors abounding - no documentation.

Like I said then, until NASA says it - it ain't real.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 08/11/2008 06:59 am
What perchlorate issues?  According to the guys on the Phoenix Mars Lander mission:

 "It is an oxidant, that is, it can release oxygen, but it is not a powerful one… The compounds are quite stable and do not destroy organic material under normal circumstances."

Why address issues that can be press released away?

Y'know, if ATK wanted to get our of the solid rocket business before EPA inevitably develop sharp teeth over the perchlorate issues, something like Sea Dragon would be a pretty good direction for them to consider going. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/11/2008 02:27 pm
Saving America’s space program

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1188/1
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/11/2008 05:28 pm
Lab,
Ammonium Perchlorate, even in quantities as small as six parts in ten billion, is considered dangerous because it can affect the thyroid of pregnant women enough to damage the unborn child's growth.

California has already set a limit after detecting higher concentrations than that in 350+ water supplies.   They are already requiring any facility using NH4ClO4 to begin clean up of the residuals - and that really means all army, navy and air-force bases including VAFB.

California is usually ahead of the curve on such environmental issues, but sooner or later these issues always tend to get adopted by the rest of the nation as well.   Right now Shuttle isn't affected by CA law and isn't likely to be in the next two years, so that program isn't going to be affected.

But whenever this eventually goes Federal, Ammonium Perchlorate in solid rocket fuel will become a headache for CxP, and if its a headache for them, the producer might end-up finding it becomes a major headache for their balance sheet too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Keermalec on 08/11/2008 08:04 pm
Oh, but wouldn't changing from the "Ares I" to an "Ares V Wimpy" mean that they would have to take all of the time to redo those difficult stage development contracts (you know, Griffin's biggest argument against DIRECT)?

How about Beefy Stumpy?
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4670

Lool, isnt that going the DIRECT way? Soon the only difference between Constellation and DIRECT will be 10-meter versus 8.4-meter diameter core...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 08/11/2008 11:18 pm
Hello Again Everyone...I just read the article about the "stumpy" style rocket and I must say that I find the idea hysterical.  So, now instead of testing and man-rating a 5-seg or a 5.5-seg booster, we have to test and man-rate BOTH a 3-seg and 5-seg booster???  Why don't we just split the difference and use a 4-seg??  Oh wait, we already have that and the government wouldn't be able to waste more money.  And I see that NASA would use the J2-X, which correct me if I'm wrong, won't be ready until 2016 at the earliest.  And they still want to air start the the liquid engines??  Since the solids can't be throttled, doesn't that affect the performance through MAX-Q when the mains on the shuttle are throttled back to downplay the vibrations through the stack?  I see the shorter solids producing the same thrust with just a shorter burn time, is that correct?? 

If that idea is really NASA's Plan B, then they are already lost, in this sailor's opinion.  It seems to me that they are willing to do whatever they have to do and throw as much money at the program as physically possible just to avoid DIRECT because it wasn't "their" idea. 

Another thing that I've been wondering about is it's obivious to me that the DIRECT system has the potential of becoming to NASA and the U.S., what the R-7 is to Russia.  Their Soyuz is still basically the same design with improved upper stages that put up nothing more than a modified Soyuz spacecraft that has been in some form of use since 1967.  I think that we could have had the same thing with Apollo had we payed attention, but we didn't and I see from my chair here, the current adminstration making the same mistakes.  I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic but forgive me, I'm easily frustrated by government bureaucracy when it is not needed.   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/12/2008 12:16 am
If a lunar-fueled Orion is launched to ISS by being placed directly into the Shuttle's MECO orbit by the launch vehicle, how much propellant would be left to re-boost ISS once docking and re-entry fuel is expended?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 08/12/2008 12:25 am
Reboost ISS to an entirely new orbit or just correct for orbit decay??

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 08/12/2008 01:12 am
0.6 ppb?  Good lord. When I was a lab tech, we all know about the explosion risks, but I had no idea about such low levels of toxicity. I called the Phoenix report daft on those grounds ( see http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2008/08/perchlorates-are-dangerous.html (http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2008/08/perchlorates-are-dangerous.html)), but this sounds even slacker.

What sort of residue do the SRB's leave behind?  And can the direct project survive if the SRB's have to be replaced with a liquid fuel booster?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 08/12/2008 01:15 am
I'm sure this is politically tricky, but how much of the payload difference between Jupiter 232 and Ares V could be made up by putting Jupiter on a boat and launching it from French Guyana?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MagDes on 08/12/2008 01:48 am
Now there's only one way to speed things up:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKN1143975220080811 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKN1143975220080811)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 08/12/2008 01:53 am
Unfortunately, that was just a matter of time.  We've all known that they weren't going to make the date, now it's just official.

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/12/2008 02:36 am
What sort of residue do the SRB's leave behind?  And can the direct project survive if the SRB's have to be replaced with a liquid fuel booster?

I don't know what each SRB leaves behind, but I do have a friend who works for the local water management guys here for the St. Johns River Management District and he says the water around here is quite a lot higher than that already.

Local water here is only currently requiring 0.0007 mg/kg/day maximum dose levels for Perchlorate which is a *lot* higher than CA's standards.   I understand that in a region ~20 miles around the space center, the levels are around half that already, and climbing fairly steadily.

Quote
And can the direct project survive if the SRB's have to be replaced with a liquid fuel booster?

A well-designed liquid booster will always knock the socks off of a Solid equivalent - in performance terms.   Its the political terms which nix the idea though.   The issues of workforce, spreading the wealth and corporate (& DoD) lobby's are all working against any solution which doesn't include the solids today.

There is a pretty big gulf of difference between what simply works best, and what works best given the political & budgetary limitations we have today.   DIRECT is not attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole - we figure a round peg is a lot more likely to be supported, even though a square one might actually be technically superior in some ways.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/12/2008 02:56 am
Hello Again Everyone...I just read the article about the "stumpy" style rocket and I must say that I find the idea hysterical.  So, now instead of testing and man-rating a 5-seg or a 5.5-seg booster, we have to test and man-rate BOTH a 3-seg and 5-seg booster???  Why don't we just split the difference and use a 4-seg??  Oh wait, we already have that and the government wouldn't be able to waste more money.  And I see that NASA would use the J2-X, which correct me if I'm wrong, won't be ready until 2016 at the earliest.  And they still want to air start the the liquid engines??  Since the solids can't be throttled, doesn't that affect the performance through MAX-Q when the mains on the shuttle are throttled back to downplay the vibrations through the stack?  I see the shorter solids producing the same thrust with just a shorter burn time, is that correct??

"Stumpy" was an extremely short-lived idea originating at KSC as a possible way to launch a rocket from the existing facilities without having to modify them much at all.   It was only ever a Back of the Envelope (BoE) concept and never actually gained any traction, even at KSC.   It never even reached the 'study' stage, although the graphics department at KSC was asked to whip something up.

There are a few people who really like the idea, but you have correctly identified some of the reasons why it will never be looked at seriously by CxP.


Quote
If that idea is really NASA's Plan B, then they are already lost, in this sailor's opinion.

Don't worry.   No its not.   Rest assured, "Stumpy" never was a Plan B and never will be.   The *only* interest in Stumpy remaining today is here in "Forum Land".   I can't find anyone at KSC who still has an interest in it any longer.


Quote
It seems to me that they are willing to do whatever they have to do and throw as much money at the program as physically possible just to avoid DIRECT because it wasn't "their" idea.

That, I can't argue with.   Ares-I/V already proves that to me.


Quote
Another thing that I've been wondering about is it's obivious to me that the DIRECT system has the potential of becoming to NASA and the U.S., what the R-7 is to Russia.  Their Soyuz is still basically the same design with improved upper stages that put up nothing more than a modified Soyuz spacecraft that has been in some form of use since 1967.  I think that we could have had the same thing with Apollo had we payed attention, but we didn't and I see from my chair here, the current adminstration making the same mistakes.  I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic but forgive me, I'm easily frustrated by government bureaucracy when it is not needed.   

You are most certainly not the only one here who gets frustrated by government waste of perfectly good operational systems in favor of highly expensive tax-funded boondoggles.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 08/12/2008 02:32 pm
Ross,  thanks for assuring me that the "stumpy" idea has no merrit.  I was worried there for a second.  Also, on another board, someone was talking about using the RD-180.  I seem to remember that that engine was looked at but it can't be used on DIRECT or anything else because:

A) It's a Russian design and we need to use American designs based on Congressional mandates and;

B) It uses kerosene as the fuel which is totally against the "shuttle-derived" idea.

Thanks again for all the work and quick responses.

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/12/2008 03:16 pm

A) It's a Russian design and we need to use American designs based on Congressional mandates and;

B) It uses kerosene as the fuel which is totally against the "shuttle-derived" idea.


A.  No such mandate

b.  Use of LH2 is not defined as ""shuttle-derived".  Use of the SSME would be ""shuttle-derived" and it just happens that the SSME uses LH2.  Since the SSME is no longer being use, there is no constraint to LH2, Kerosene is just as viable. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 08/12/2008 06:18 pm
Jim, you told me that the RS-68 can't be air-started because of the helium that it needs.  How about this RD-180??  Could this be a viable option over the J2X??

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/12/2008 06:24 pm
Jim, you told me that the RS-68 can't be air-started because of the helium that it needs.  How about this RD-180??  Could this be a viable option over the J2X??

-Tom

Tom;
A hydrocarbon engine (RD-180) has high power density, meaning greater thrust, which is what you want leaving the pad. It's not a good choice for a second stage because it's not high thrust you want in an upper stage, it's high efficiency, which is best provided by a LH2 engine, like the J-2X.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/12/2008 06:25 pm
Jim, you told me that the RS-68 can't be air-started because of the helium that it needs.  How about this RD-180??  Could this be a viable option over the J2X??

-Tom

There are other reasons that the RS-68 is not an upperstage engine.

Also J-2 and RD-180 don't need helium to start.

Engines are designed for certain altitude ranges and the RD-180 is a booster and not an upperstage engine
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 08/12/2008 06:36 pm
Cool Guys...I'm getting the picture now.  Seems like that picture looks more and more like DIRECT to me everyday.  Just had to throw that one in.

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 08/14/2008 10:10 pm
Hi Ross & Co,
Any updates, progress, setbacks?
With NASA supporting the springy stick does this mean all the "behind the scenes" stuff happening was all smoke & mirrors? Or are we now awaiting a change of president and/or admnistrator to implement Direct?

Nathan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 08/15/2008 12:00 am

Quote
And can the direct project survive if the SRB's have to be replaced with a liquid fuel booster?

A well-designed liquid booster will always knock the socks off of a Solid equivalent - in performance terms.   Its the political terms which nix the idea though.   The issues of workforce, spreading the wealth and corporate (& DoD) lobby's are all working against any solution which doesn't include the solids today.

Ross.


I know with shuttle retirement there are mandates to discontinue certain processes that are environmentally sensitive (including CFCs). Do you think that an environmental mandate on Amonium Perchlorate could trump the business aspect of ATK's stranglehold in solids for future rocket development? More specifically Constellation/Direct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/15/2008 01:08 am
Hi Ross & Co,
Any updates, progress, setbacks?
With NASA supporting the springy stick does this mean all the "behind the scenes" stuff happening was all smoke & mirrors? Or are we now awaiting a change of president and/or admnistrator to implement Direct?

Nathan.


The stuff going on behind the curtains is like turning an aircraft carrier with the SPM, very slow, but constant. Think of an ion engine, whose thrust is like the weight of a piece of paper on your hand, yet given enough time at full thrust can propel a spacecraft to 1/4 light speed. The question is do we have enough time? The answer: don't know. All we can do is to continue thrusting, which we are doing, as hard as we can.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 08/15/2008 01:31 am
Hi Ross & Co,
Any updates, progress, setbacks?
With NASA supporting the springy stick does this mean all the "behind the scenes" stuff happening was all smoke & mirrors? Or are we now awaiting a change of president and/or admnistrator to implement Direct?

Nathan.


The stuff going on behind the curtains is like turning an aircraft carrier with the SPM, very slow, but constant. Think of an ion engine, whose thrust is like the weight of a piece of paper on your hand, yet given enough time at full thrust can propel a spacecraft to 1/4 light speed. The question is do we have enough time? The answer: don't know. All we can do is to continue thrusting, which we are doing, as hard as we can.

Chuck-

Thanks for the update.  I hadn't seen much activity on this topic recently, and I was wondering what was going on also.  I am sure there are a lot of interested folks who want to know how things are going.  Don't want to pester, as I am sure you are all busy, and this isn't your "day job".  I am sure the Direct Team will forward any info as soon as you all can.

Thanks,
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 08/15/2008 10:40 am
Hi Ross & Co,
Any updates, progress, setbacks?
With NASA supporting the springy stick does this mean all the "behind the scenes" stuff happening was all smoke & mirrors? Or are we now awaiting a change of president and/or admnistrator to implement Direct?

Nathan.


The stuff going on behind the curtains is like turning an aircraft carrier with the SPM, very slow, but constant. Think of an ion engine, whose thrust is like the weight of a piece of paper on your hand, yet given enough time at full thrust can propel a spacecraft to 1/4 light speed. The question is do we have enough time? The answer: don't know. All we can do is to continue thrusting, which we are doing, as hard as we can.

What about the design itself? Are the Jupiter rockets essentially closed designs now? (not in the sense of which wire goes where, thinking more on the system level). Will there be further updates to the Direct papers? V3 etc?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/15/2008 03:28 pm
In light of recent events certain combinations become more likely.

If Shuttle is extended and Ares I is still performance viable then that's the path followed by Ares V in around 2025.

If Shuttle is extended and Ares I is not performance viable then DIRECT becomes the preferred option over 4 RS-68 10m Ares V lite as it would be very costly if not impossible to have both 8.4m and 10m tanks going at the same time.

Looks like the Georgian episode has made both Shuttle extension and DIRECT more likely.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 08/16/2008 08:25 am
In light of recent events certain combinations become more likely.

If Shuttle is extended and Ares I is still performance viable then that's the path followed by Ares V in around 2025.

If Shuttle is extended and Ares I is not performance viable then DIRECT becomes the preferred option over 4 RS-68 10m Ares V lite as it would be very costly if not impossible to have both 8.4m and 10m tanks going at the same time.

Looks like the Georgian episode has made both Shuttle extension and DIRECT more likely.

I think Shuttle extension and Direct would be a preferable course of action.  Shuttle extension would give more time to develop Direct, and given world events we are most likely going to need the shuttle to supply ISS. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robert_d on 08/16/2008 02:11 pm
Hi,
I am also new to this forum.  Whatever the outcome, just wanted to say thank you for the effort to try to keep the USA in the Human spaceflight business.  After checking Directlauncher.com, reading all 118 pages of the 2nd Direct 2.0 message thread and the Safesimplesoon.com website(for the counter-arguments to Direct), I am very impressed with the thrust (pun intended) of the Direct argument.  I was especially bemused with the comments by ATK that they have no vested interest to support Ares 1, because there would only be one SRB instead of 2.  They fail to mention the development contract for the 5 segment booster and the fact that their original proposal was advanced as an alternative to manrating an EELV, which would have knocked them out of the game entirely.  Now they have to stay with the proposal or look silly.

   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 08/18/2008 01:41 am
Have you guys seen this cartoon from Klyde Morris?

http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/18/2008 01:43 am
Have you guys seen this cartoon from Klyde Morris?

http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm (http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm)

They say that once you make the cartoons, that is a sign that you are being taken seriously. I've heard it said that first they ignore you, then they fight you, then they make fun of you and then you win. Let's hope that's true. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 08/18/2008 01:56 am
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win " M.K Gandhi
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/18/2008 02:00 am
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win " M.K Gandhi

I was close  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/18/2008 07:08 am
Also mentioned on 3 July 2008 (http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=1858) and 30 June 2008 (http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=1857).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 08/18/2008 01:12 pm
Have you guys seen this cartoon from Klyde Morris?

http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm

That's classic!  I printed it out and stuck it on the entrance to my cubicle.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 08/19/2008 03:17 am
If there is going to be a review, it has to be done at the architecture level, not at the rocket level.  A rocket is only part of an architecture and this is why to me DIRECT is no more than Ares lite as it does not address the fundamental flaws of the ESAS architecture. 

Agree 100% wingod. Well said!  "fixing" the rocket does not fix the disconnect between available budget and stated goals and requirements.

Well, what would??  I'd really like to hear your proposal... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 08/19/2008 03:56 am
if you don't know what you are going to be doing how can you build an architecture to service it?

My point is, we don't know what we are going to be doing for the next 20-40 years.  You don't know if ISRU is feasible and practical or not and neither does anyone else.  You don't know what challenges will come up or what political winds will blow.  Will we be going to the moon, or NEOs?  Will we be building bases or ships?  Will we be building a radio telescope on the moon, or a geological base on Mars?  Remember, we're talking about decades here, and no one can predict the future over such a long period of time with any certainty whatsoever.  That's not a flaw of any one project proposal, that's a flaw of all of them, and so I don't think any of them should be penalized for not predicting the future with certainty.  In fact, I think they should be rewarded for flexibility.

This is my hangup with the whole "all we need is ISRU" argument...  We don't even know if ISRU is even feasible.  To hang the whole program on something that might not even prove available or feasible seems, at the very least, premature to me. 

If we had the equivalent of Phoenix on the moon's south pole, actually digging up ice, and PROVING it was there, and an orbiting satellite with ground penetrating radar and other instruments capable of detecting whether that ice (presuming it's there) was present in accessible veins and in economically and industrially viable quantities, and followed that up with prototype robotic missions to not only extract such resources but prototype small-scale processors to produce the finished product and store it, for systems development and testing to be applied to full scale equipment to be emplaced to produce your ISRU's, then I'd say "go for it" and probably so would most everyone else.  However, while the chemical processes and theoretical work proving the processes are theoretically possible, no actual IN SITU work has been done-- not on extraction, processing, or storage, to prove it's PRACTICAL and can be feasibly performed on an industrial scale. 

Until that groundwork is accomplished, I don't see realistically how you can base the entire infrastructure of an exploration plan on such resources.  It would be a whole 'space program' in itself just to do that groundwork.  While most of it could be done robotically, and SHOULD, inevitably equipment would have to be sent capable of producing the resources on an industrial scale, which would most likely require the use of an HLLV, of whatever flavor or origin.  Perhaps it COULD be accomplished on a much smaller EELV class vehicle, but certainly with more difficulty and expense, and if by some chance it could not... then what??

I think we have a VERY LONG way to go before we can prove large scale ISRU even feasible or practical, let alone an established fact capable of supporting an entire exploration architecture... JMHO!   OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 08/19/2008 07:25 am
The idea of a Jupiter-110 has been brought up before. It doesn't actually work though.

A single RS-68 (even a B) can't push a full ET after SRB separation, so you end up having to short-fuel the Core Stage. That makes the whole vehicle a lot lighter when those powerful SRB's blast you off the pad - the result is a pretty nasty max-Q (900+psf).

And performance ends up being insufficient to lift an Orion CEV anyway, so its unworkable. And it would also have no engine-out capability at all too.


More importantly though, I wonder why there is the perception that extra performance is a bad thing?

Isn't too little performance the thing hurting Ares-I so badly? Why would extra performance be a burden?

I'm guessing it is because there is a perception that the bigger rocket costs more? That is not actually the case when you factor in flight rate - Jupiter-120 actually ends up being quite a lot cheaper than Ares-I at the expected baseline flight rates specified by Constellation, and only improves further if the flight rate increases. And it costs $5bn less to develop anyway, so even if it did cost $50m more to launch, you would have to launch an awful lot of them to make up that difference. The 'costs more' perception simply doesn't hold any water when analyzed.

And Jupiter-120 can be launched carrying nothing but a CEV too.

You place a simple ballast tank filled with water inside the payload shroud and it would allow an Orion to fly on its own. Such a ballast tank would also act as a partial 'bullet-proof shield' if anything ever goes wrong during a launch. And Jupiter-120 provides engine-out capabilities starting from around T+45 seconds.

I just don't get why that is being perceived as a lesser solution?

Ross.

I wonder if the water tank/shield could be used as a useful payload for ISS water needs or just left in LEO for any private group to take advantage of?

Just one tank would take care of ISS's water needs for a year and even allow better living conditions on ISS.

Maybe they could sale the excess water tanks to Bigelow or other private station operators.

Other uses propellant for NTR stages or solar thermo stages.
Maybe host an xprize competition for a stage that can use the ballast water for propellant.

Other uses just store it on or near ISS or Bigelow's station in a depot and use it for shielding on a NEO or Mars mission.

I see a gold mine of opportunities in this.

I'm sold on the J120 for use as the CLV because of the excess cargo and engine out capability.
It's better and safer then all the options even the EELVs.

Any good crew launch vehicle should be able to loose an engine on the way up and still complete it's mission this saved Apollo and later the Shuttle a few times.

Even private companies like Spacex and Planetspace see the importance of this feature on a crew vehicle.


Store it on orbit indefinitely for future use as rocket fuel...  >10 mt of water on orbit from every ISS flight could be cracked into a LOT of LH2 and LOX by a solar powered electrolysis satellite connected to a depot... even if an early LOX only depot that didn't have facilities to store LH2 so  you tossed it overboard...  (crazy, since it's worth it's weight in gold once it's zipping around Earth at 17,000 mph... better to make another storable compound out of it, like methane or something that COULD be stored easily on orbit for longer periods)

THAT is the kind of thinking that will be necessary to make a program affordable/sustainable...  JMHO!  OL JR :) 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/19/2008 08:38 am
What would it take to store all that water on orbit? Each keg would be a fairly massive satellite and I'm assuming you'd need to manage it somehow, not just leave it tumbling in an unattended orbit. After a while, there'd be dozens of massive waterballs (or icebergs) circling the earth and posing some sort of risk, if you did. Gudiance or reboost? Does the station arm have the power to manipulate something as heavy as one of these? Just trying to visualize what it would involve. If you weren't using it up, you'd soon accummulate hundreds of tons of water somewhere. It sounds like one of those "better plan ahead" items.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 08/19/2008 12:38 pm
Nice resuse of the blast sheild :)

Remember most LH/LOX engines burn LH rich, so you either you end up with less H2 than you need, or you end up boosting extra O2 up (which is the heavier component of the duo).

If someone built (for which there is no money for) a hab module that was really a large water tank with small sleeping space in the center, it could make a really excellent radiation shelter.

I am getting up off topic .... Maybe this needs it's own topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 08/19/2008 12:58 pm
Quote from: luke strawwalker

Store it on orbit indefinitely for future use as rocket fuel...  >10 mt of water on orbit from every ISS flight could be cracked into a LOT of LH2 and LOX by a solar powered electrolysis satellite connected to a depot... even if an early LOX only depot that didn't have facilities to store LH2 so  you tossed it overboard...  (crazy, since it's worth it's weight in gold once it's zipping around Earth at 17,000 mph... better to make another storable compound out of it, like methane or something that COULD be stored easily on orbit for longer periods)

Where are you gonna get the carbon to make the methane?  :)

Bear in mind that for a crewed vehicle, water is a byproduct of metabolism.  Unless you have a really good closed-loop ECLSS, you end up venting excess H2O overboard.  Closing the ECLSS loop means you have to have to have a LOT of extra mass for power and volume for storage, and (I will add) that process hasn't been well tested on orbit for any length of time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 08/19/2008 02:00 pm
What would it take to store all that water on orbit? Each keg would be a fairly massive satellite and I'm assuming you'd need to manage it somehow, not just leave it tumbling in an unattended orbit. After a while, there'd be dozens of massive waterballs (or icebergs) circling the earth and posing some sort of risk, if you did. Gudiance or reboost? Does the station arm have the power to manipulate something as heavy as one of these? Just trying to visualize what it would involve. If you weren't using it up, you'd soon accummulate hundreds of tons of water somewhere. It sounds like one of those "better plan ahead" items.

Transfer the water to a Bigelow style habitat -- something like Genesis1 -- and you have a giant Kevlar water balloon. Eventually send several of those giant water balloons to EML-1 and attach them to an L point transfer station for crew radiation protection. And since its a water balloon, use Belbruno trajectories, small kick stages and solar ion propulsion to get it there.

But this would need a paradigm shift in NASA mentality; a willingness to carry up a giant water blast shield with a Jupiter 120 and then sell that blast shield to other non-NASA interests capturing the revenue to offset the cost of flying the original J-120 mission.

= = =

Then, run a contest to see who can develop smallish water balloons capable of surviving a lunar "splatter landing" sent from EML-1 to the surface -- maybe approach the lunar surface at a shallow angle and let them bounce down range until they either splatter or stop. Or suppose two water balloons were in low lunar orbit on the exact same orbital inclination except heading in precisely reverse directions -- what would happen if via tether they captured each other? Wouldn't the two water balloons cancel out the other's orbital energy and they both fall to the surface?

It seems to me the challenge would be to ascertain how small such Kevlar balloons would need to be to minimize the chances of bursting.

This might be a cheaper way of acquiring water on the Moon then sending nuclear reactors to power large machines to crack open multi-billion year old cold trap water. Which might not even be there.

= = =

Without the "excess capacity" of the Jupiter 120 to send tanks of water to LEO as a fringe benefit of Orion launch these ideas would have even less basis in reality.

I also created a new thread in Advanced Concepts if anyone cares to weigh in on this off the wall idea

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 08/19/2008 04:06 pm
Water would be frozen in cold space and the water balls could be crashed onto the moon near a habitat area, if they are covered with moon dust or dirt, could be kept frozen and mined when needed. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imfan on 08/19/2008 04:12 pm
Quote from: kraisee link=topic=12379.msg305281#msg305281


There are a few things we actually agree with, such as the forces on the LIDS from two J-2X's, but which all seem to have obvious solutions available, such as aligning the thrust vector through the center of the LIDS so the forces are reduced to near-zero - or by using some of the spare TLI mass performance to allow for a re-designed and strengthened LIDS.

Ross.

I dont think that aligning the thrust vector through LIDS would work. There still would be off-axis forces however of lower magnitude. But the main problem is that in this configuration the whole stage would be experiencing pitch forces and only way how to compensate it I can think of is to engage roll so the pitch would be eliminated in a similar way like the lift is compensated during ballistic soyuz reentry. I am lazy to calculate the magnitude of pitch moment and therefore the required roll , but I suspect it would be pretty violent.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/19/2008 05:40 pm
Quote from: kraisee link=topic=12379.msg305281#msg305281


There are a few things we actually agree with, such as the forces on the LIDS from two J-2X's, but which all seem to have obvious solutions available, such as aligning the thrust vector through the center of the LIDS so the forces are reduced to near-zero - or by using some of the spare TLI mass performance to allow for a re-designed and strengthened LIDS.

Ross.

I don’t think that aligning the thrust vector through LIDS would work. There still would be off-axis forces however of lower magnitude.

It absolutely works. Shuttle does the exact same thing. All 3 of its engines are aligned to intersect at a common center of mass.

This was a subject of a lot of analysis and it was ultimately shown to be, not only the simplest solution, but the most effective as well.

Notice that this principle applies not only to spacecraft. Naval vessels with twin screws align their shafts so that they intersect at a common center of mass for the same reason, both surface ships and submarines. It is an engineering solution that has been employed almost as long as there have been ships with screws.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 08/19/2008 06:02 pm
Water would be frozen in cold space and the water balls could be crashed onto the moon near a habitat area, if they are covered with moon dust or dirt, could be kept frozen and mined when needed. 

Why waste rocketfuel? Freeze it on trhe ground, wrap it in steel foil and ship it to the Moon with a magnetic induction catapult...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imfan on 08/19/2008 06:37 pm
Quote from: kraisee link=topic=12379.msg305281#msg305281


There are a few things we actually agree with, such as the forces on the LIDS from two J-2X's, but which all seem to have obvious solutions available, such as aligning the thrust vector through the center of the LIDS so the forces are reduced to near-zero - or by using some of the spare TLI mass performance to allow for a re-designed and strengthened LIDS.

Ross.

I don’t think that aligning the thrust vector through LIDS would work. There still would be off-axis forces however of lower magnitude.

It absolutely works. Shuttle does the exact same thing. All 3 of its engines are aligned to intersect at a common center of mass.

This was a subject of a lot of analysis and it was ultimately shown to be, not only the simplest solution, but the most effective as well.

Notice that this principle applies not only to spacecraft. Naval vessels with twin screws align their shafts so that they intersect at a common center of mass for the same reason, both surface ships and submarines. It is an engineering solution that has been employed almost as long as there have been ships with screws.


I dont say that aligning with CoG does not work. I say that there might be problems when you align thrust with LIDS which is far away from CoG.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/19/2008 06:54 pm

I dont say that aligning with CoG does not work. I say that there might be problems when you align thrust with LIDS which is far away from CoG.

The analysis showed that it would work fine.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 08/20/2008 02:28 am
Quote from: luke strawwalker

Store it on orbit indefinitely for future use as rocket fuel...  >10 mt of water on orbit from every ISS flight could be cracked into a LOT of LH2 and LOX by a solar powered electrolysis satellite connected to a depot... even if an early LOX only depot that didn't have facilities to store LH2 so  you tossed it overboard...  (crazy, since it's worth it's weight in gold once it's zipping around Earth at 17,000 mph... better to make another storable compound out of it, like methane or something that COULD be stored easily on orbit for longer periods)

Given that carbon is one of the more abundant elements, it shouldn't be too hard to find...  of course, the difficulty comes from importing it from extra LEO sources, which is well beyond the purview of the immediate future. 

There are any of several suitable carbon sources that could be sent up for making methane.  The first that springs to mind would be dry ice used as a ballast on certain flights, instead of water, which would provide not only carbon but excess oxygen as well.  Another source might be frozen carbon monoxide, which would have a higher carbon density per unit measured, but more exotic and difficult to handle.  Earth is practically drowning in carbon, so I don't foresee it being too difficult to find some carbon-rich liquid or gas that could be sent up...  Heck I bet even a slurry of carbon black particles suspended in the ballast water would be a good source, requiring only filtration/seperation (centrifuge seperation perhaps) and then using the seperated carbon as a feedstock to react with hydrogen to make methane...

Figure out the right proportions and take the carbon up already suspended in the water... that way if you lose a few tanks for whatever reason, it doesn't matter... every tank already has the correct proportions of carbon/water to make O2 and methane...   Hmmm... I wonder if carbonated water would hold sufficient carbon for the process, or other suitable carbon compounds that would dissolve/emulsify in water??  (not a chemist and I don't have the figures, but if Zubrin figures he can make rocket fuel from LH2 from Earth by catalyzing the thin Martian CO2 atmosphere, I wouldn't see why we couldn't do it in LEO... might make a great 'pilot plant' to test the idea 'in situ' sort of...)

The hard part would be designing and building the solar powered 'space refinery' to crack the water in O2 and H2 and create CH4 from the carbon source feedstock and H2.  O2 would require active cooling to prevent boiloff but L-CH4 should be more easily storable than LH2.  The process would depend a lot on your preferred feedstock of carbon... gases or liquids would be easiest to handle/transfer/ work with. 

Of course the other possibility is just cracking it 'just in time' to fill a LOX/LH2 depot just prior to it's being needed to refill an outgoing mission.  That way you minimize the storage time and resultant losses.  Water should be infinitely easier to store on orbit than just about any other liquid I can think of.  If you just used it as LH2/LOX no carbon source would be needed (not that I think a carbon source would be a problem, but it does add more steps and complicates the process) and LH2 is a better upper stage fuel than LCH4 anyway, if harder to store.  Of course we'd probably need to develop active cooling systems for long term LOX storage on orbit and certainly would for a mature LH2 depot system, so again this would be an excellent opportunity to develop and test such systems on orbit. 

As for collecting and tending such castoff ballast tanks, they should be affixed with proper grapple points so they could be retrieved by other spacecraft and joined together in some fashion say like barges on the Mississippi River.  Ultimately it will require the use of a 'space tug' that could retrieve, connect, and manuever these 'water barges' to the space refinery, where they would be docked to it using standardized connections which could then extract the water (using a solar concentrator/reflector to melt it if necessary) and process it into LOX/LH2.  Solar arrays would shade the tanks, and provide power for the refinery and active cooling systems.  The manuevering/grappling/docking functions COULD be incorporated into the depot/refinery itself, but that would be foolish, as it would require a lot more manuevering energy than a small dedicated space tug, which could refuel from the depot/refinery. 

The cast off aluminum tanks could be stored on orbit for future use as raw material for a solar-powered smelter, uninsulated storage tanks, or whatever other creative uses we could come up with for them. 

With every pound taken to orbit worth thousands of dollars, it just makes GOOD SENSE to use this stuff SOMEHOW.  Even if we don't have the experience or technology to do it in the immediate future, it's like money in the bank if we keep it up there, as it would be a terrific source of raw materials and enable future development.  JMHO!  OL JR :)

Edit:  Please move to the new thread in advanced concepts... wish I could correct for getting my text in the middle of the quote box... :)  JR

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/20/2008 03:09 am
If you want a carbon based rocket fuel that is liquid at room temperatures there is always ethanol as used by the V2 and Redstone rockets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/20/2008 02:15 pm
Ethanol isn't ideal.   Methane has higher efficiency and is far more applicable for Mars later.   Here are your more common options:-

LOX/Hydrogen - Exists, In Common Prodution.   Lots of Domestic Experience.   Highest Isp (~465s), Bad density.   Ideally suited for Upper Stages.

LOX/Kerosene - Exists, In Common Production.   Lots of Domestic Experience.   Good Isp (~353s), Good density.   Ideally suited for First Stages.

LOX/Methane - Prototypes/Early Development only.   Very little Domestic Experience.   Fair Isp (~310s), Fair density.   Ideally suited for Mars ISRU.

LOX/Ethanol - Prototypes/Early Development only.   Very little Domestic Experience.   Fair Isp (~297s), Fair density.   No current applications expected.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 08/20/2008 02:22 pm
I was under the impression that methane had an ideal Isp closer to 350 or 360.  You might be quoting a sea level value for methane.

Methane is less dense than kerosene though (by about 20%), so it doesn't make much sense to use for an earth launched vehicle when you can just use kerosene and get similar performance.  However, it is really good for space based applications where you can't readily get kerosene.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/20/2008 02:24 pm
Of the 4, only kerosene and ethanol are liquid at room temperatures; all the rest are gaseous. The observation from A_M_Swallow was for carbon-based propellant that is liquid at room temperature, not which was the most efficient. From that standpoint, ethanol would make a reasonable substitute for kerosene, should that propellant ever become a problem, albeit less efficient.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/20/2008 08:04 pm
Just looking for an alternative shield to water that the J-120 can lift, which does not boil off and is useful when it arrives at LEO or the Moon.

Mars has lots of carbon (CO2 atmosphere) the Moon does not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 08/21/2008 03:39 am
Greetings, everyone...

I first became aware of the DIRECT system a few weeks ago, when the media made a big deal about what they inferred were 'disgruntled NASA engineers and their unworkable alternative' (That's not a quote, BTW, it just reflects the tone of the article I read)

I am no scientist. I had trouble with freshman algebra, but the one thing I have never seen addressed (and I tried to go through all 119 pages of this thread, and a lot of that technical stuff really gave me a headache!) is a good, layman's answer to the question of WHY is the DIRECT alternative not a viable one?

One of the things I saw much earlier in this very thread was this:

Quote
Dr. Gilbrech said a different thing, a very precise thing.

Transcript:

1:25:50 into the podcast
Mr. Lampson: Dr. Gilbrech, one of the more controversial decision in the exploration program was the decision to develop the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles rather than modifying the existing EELV family use by DOD. In addition some have criticized NASA for developing two new launch vehicles rather than a single launch vehicle as proposed in the so called "Direct" concept. Did NASA examined the alternative of using either an EELV-based architecture or the Direct architecture instead of the Ares I and Ares V approach - and if so, why did you wind up rejecting those approaches ? You can provide more detailed answer...[inaudible]... whatever you can now.

Dr. Gilbrech: Yes, sir...[reject EELV]... The other one you mentioned, the Direct launcher, there was a similar achitecture like that that was in the ESAS ...Ummm... the claims for the Direct launcher... we've actually had our Ares projects look at that and we can't justify based on laws of physics the performances that were being claimed by that approach... so ... we don't claim to have a market on good ideas but we also like to go investigating and make sure they're credible, and we beleive we have the best architecture on the books.

I don't know who this "Dr. Gilbrech" is, but it seems to me that he threw down a really big, rusty, steel gauntlet that made a really big, loud, CLANG on the floor, and in doing so, very obliquely called the DIRECT team a bunch of morons. "We can't justify based on laws of physics the performances that were being claimed" sounds to me like he's saying that the claims made by the DIRECT team are fanciful, impossible, not scientifically sound, and the people who came up with them don't know what they're doing. I'd have a big problem with that if someone said something like that about a project I came up with.

So my question is, how come I have never seen a straight  response to his statement, and one that explains why he is wrong by saying it? (And especially one in Layman's terms! You know, simple enough that a politician or Presidential candidate could understand it?)

From what little I could follow of all the technical jargon in the DIRECT proposal PDF that I downloaded, it just sounds like a better, faster, less expensive and more capable system than Ares ever could be. And the recent articles I've read about the "shock absorbers", the delay of the launch of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and the serious concerns raised by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel over safety and morale issues, makes me think that NASA is either not paying attention to reality, or is being run by the wrong people.

Call me naive, but why does this Dr. Gilbrech say Jupiter is impossible, and why isn't someone stepping up to the plate and doing something about  these serious issues?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/21/2008 03:59 am
Richard J. Gilbrech is the Associate Administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate - in other words, he is the guy in charge of everything to do with NASA's new "Exploration" efforts - and only Mike Griffin & Shana Dale are above him.

Following Dr. Gilbrech's comments in that hearing one of our team got extremely angry, said some really stupid things here on the forum which caused quite a significant incident.

He was, quite rightly, banned from this site by Chris shortly after making his inappropriate comments.   But the damage was already done by then.   The whole issue turned into a completely different discussion at the time, one no longer focused on Gilbrech's comments.

We ended up having to spend all of our time repairing the damage and apologizing for the incident.   We were never able to tackle the real issues because we had to all our efforts doing a lot of damage control instead.   That only distracted us, derailed all of our efforts and completely blew the wind out of our sails at the time.

It was a stupid situation and we lost a truly golden opportunity - one which has not presented itself again, since.

To be very frank, we were simply never able to get our sh*t together in time to respond to those comments in the way we had actually hoped to do before the comments were made (they were fairly predictable and we had planned an outline of a response well ahead of time).  The opportunity was ultimately lost though.

By the time the incident finally blew over, we just decided it was a lot more profitable for us to simply move on and fight the next battle instead.


We would very much prefer to leave sleeping dogs lie on this subject, so can I please ask everyone to leave it be.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 08/21/2008 04:01 am
Ethanol isn't ideal.   Methane has higher efficiency and is far more applicable for Mars later.   Here are your more common options:-

Isn't hydrazine the propellant of choice for planetary missions?

Also, if you want an oxidizer going to Mars, don't you need a non-cryogenic one?

-clueless geologist
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/21/2008 04:07 am
You can go to Mars with cryo's at the Mars end - but you will have to budget for the added mass of refrigeration systems and account for sufficient backups to make those reliable too.

And LOX is a lot easier to handle than LH2.   Bringing LOX with you to meet with Martian Methane is not all that crazy.   Not easy, but certainly "plausible".

Nuclear is still the superior option though, IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 08/21/2008 04:09 am

Call me naive, but why does this Dr. Gilbrech say Jupiter is impossible, and why isn't someone stepping up to the plate and doing something about  these serious issues?


Here's a related question to Lancer's:
Supposing we want to write our congressmen to express our concern about Russia/ Georgia/ the Gap/ alternative ways into space, how do we help you guys out without having Dr. Gilbrech's arguments cripple our arguments.

Remember that some of us are just greedy geologists hoping to get new rocks back sooner rather than later, and know little about the details of rocketry. 

I mean, a cheaper better program sounds great, but if it really does violate the laws of physics then I'll loook like a moron by promoting it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 08/21/2008 04:22 am
If you're hauling LO2, then wouldn't simply taking liquid methane as well be easier than trying to reduce the Martian atmosphere?  From what we know of Martian soil, you'd be better off hauling up your fuel (1/4 the mass, higher boiling point) and extracting your oxidizer.

You can go to Mars with cryo's at the Mars end - but you will have to budget for the added mass of refrigeration systems and account for sufficient backups to make those reliable too.

And LOX is a lot easier to handle than LH2.   Bringing LOX with you to meet with Martian Methane is not all that crazy.   Not easy, but certainly "plausible".

Nuclear is still the superior option though, IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 08/21/2008 04:29 am
(1)but why does this Dr. Gilbrech say Jupiter is impossible,
(2) and why isn't someone stepping up to the plate
(3)these serious issues?
1) Why whould he say these things is a good question. One imagines he believes it or has been told by someone he has reason to trust that Direct was impossible. I suspect he has not run the actual numbers himself, so he would have to rely upon another source to tell him whether it was good or bad.

2)Stepping up to the plate? Who and in what way? The Direct team to refute Gilbrech's statement? If that's what you mean, I believe that since that statement was made the publishing of the Direct 2.0 paper has all the details needed to show that the Direct team believes that their approach _is_ physically possible. Now, have they come out & specifically said Gilbrech's statement is a crock? No. But if you run the performance prediction tools, you should see their results. Several people here have run similar tools and gotten essentially the same answers, within the tolerance of the methods used. There are assumptions in the Direct proposal that you can agree or disagree with that make substantial changes in the predicted performance, but Gilbrech didn't specify any conditions and the Direct team has outlined their assumptions in their proposal. If you want to verify their results, run the model with the tools and see for yourself. Otherwise it's essentially "he said, she said" and you can believe what you want to believe.

3)Well, it depends upon who you are talking to. Talk to management at NASA and, apparently, there is nothing worth calling "serious". They have no intention of considering Direct or anything else other than Ares.  Many of us here think that the issues with Ares or the dismissal of Direct are "serious", but what do we matter? It's what the US Congress and/or the US public think is serious is the real question.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 08/21/2008 05:05 am

Call me naive, but why does this Dr. Gilbrech say Jupiter is impossible, and why isn't someone stepping up to the plate and doing something about  these serious issues?


Here's a related question to Lancer's:
Supposing we want to write our congressmen to express our concern about Russia/ Georgia/ the Gap/ alternative ways into space, how do we help you guys out without having Dr. Gilbrech's arguments cripple our arguments.

My own opinion (coming from some very cheap seats far on the outside) is that Congress should call for a credible independent and neutral review of all potential options to close "the Gap" immediately upon the new Congress being sworn in.

The next President can do that also.

ESAS & DIRECT & EELV options & COTS/New Space should all get a fair hearing from qualified teams of engineers who have no skin in the game except the national interest.

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 08/21/2008 08:17 am
The conservation of mass is a fundamental concept of physics and the "Direct" team breached it when they allocated for the EDS main propulsion system only the mass of the left engine (or the right engine, I forgot) ha haaaa  (sorry could not resist)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: autopoietic on 08/21/2008 09:41 am
This might be a bit tangential, and it's my first post, but being greatly inspired by the awesomeness of this thread and the Direct people, I'm jumping right into it!

There are a slew of claims surrounding electrolysis of water into HHO gas.  From a search on youtube on "HHO" you would think the hydrogen economy was here already and that some sinister conspiracy is keeping us from it.  Of course, some have been debunked and shown to be frauds.

Notwithstanding all of that, one claim that I've come across several times is that there is some way, patent pending, to get oxyhydrogen to burn at temperatures in excess of 6000K ("hotter than the surface of the Sun").  Representatives of some (seemingly) serious institutions tentatively support the claims too.  I'm sort of sceptical, but I'm neither a physicist nor chemist (robotics is my thing).  It's damn hot, after all, and seems to me like it would have to have net energy gains. Where else would the >3200K of energy compared to an ordinary HHO torch come from?

Even if all of that is baloney, would it be feasible to store fuel in one form, chemically bonded (eg water), separate it using an external energy source and burn that mixture as an alternative to produce less harmful exhaust?

I'm guessing the idea has been investigated, since LOX and hydrogen are used in rockets.  Water would be easier to store and serves many purposes besides fuel.  Could any compact energy source other than nuclear be sufficient in such a system?  Barring this purported hotter-than-the-Sun chemistry, would it just be wasteful?

Go DIRECT! 

It's really unfortunate that politics have become such an hindrance to good science and not just in rocket science.  The best technology doesn't always win, not by a long shot.  That makes me rather sad.  I would certainly prefer if both the Ares and Direct proposals were developed.  It's not like it would be impossible, more money is already being spent elsewhere, although I'm probably partial since I'm such a space aficionado!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 08/21/2008 09:51 am
there are many very good reasons why your idea wouldn't work, but this isn't really the thread to do it on.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: autopoietic on 08/21/2008 11:37 am
Oh, sorry, I was reading the discussions just previously on fuels and icebergs in orbit; thus started thinking about storage of those fuels.

I suppose rocket science 101 is a bit outside the scope of this thread; sorry 'bout that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ventrater on 08/21/2008 02:14 pm
Is this bad for Ares and good for Direct ?:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/08/21/314931/nasa-faces-budget-busting-crawlerway-rebuild-for-ares-v.html

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rdale on 08/21/2008 02:16 pm
No - check the second-to-last paragraph in that story.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/21/2008 02:27 pm
No - check the second-to-last paragraph in that story.

No Rob..

Direct doesn't require new infrastructure(at least MUCH less than Ares)...

IF crawlerway can't support the weight of Ares-V then they would have to erect at the pad or rebuild crawlerway.. either would be massive NEW infrastructure(which Griffin said they couldn't afford).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rdale on 08/21/2008 02:29 pm
I understand, but I have a hard time thinking that administrators will read the report about possible crawlerway enhancements needed by Ares and say "Let's drop Ares and go with Direct."

Sounds nice in theory, but this is the real world.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/21/2008 02:39 pm
I understand, but I have a hard time thinking that administrators will read the report about possible crawlerway enhancements needed by Ares and say "Let's drop Ares and go with Direct."

Sounds nice in theory, but this is the real world.

Ever hear the story about the frog in the pot?  (Ares/Constellation could easily end up cooked.. each small incremental temperature rise doesn't seem to be enough to set off major alarms at NASA).. I'd say they're around 180 degrees now(and still telling themselves they're in a hot tub).. will they reach boil?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/21/2008 02:45 pm
I understand, but I have a hard time thinking that administrators will read the report about possible crawlerway enhancements needed by Ares and say "Let's drop Ares and go with Direct."

Sounds nice in theory, but this is the real world.

Griffin is only allowing small items of the Ares-V TRUE costs to be given out piecemeal. One of the advantages of DIRECT over Ares has always been the truly MASSIVE additional costs to tear down and completely replace the existing infrastructure, both at MAF and at KSC, which is not needed by DIRECT. If Griffin allowed that total figure to be given to Congress all at once they would shut Ares down in a heartbeat and send Griffin packing. In my opinion, Griffin figures that as long as he doles out the stark figures ever so slowly, that the Congress will gradually warm up to them, like the frog placed in cool water which is slowly heated until the frog is cooked. Again, in my opinion, I believe he thinks that the Congress is gullible and will slowly swallow this until they finally realize, too late, that they have been maneuvered into a corner while Griffin has systematically destroyed any possibility of an alternate course of action by virtue of having already destroyed all remnants of the STS infrastructure that any viable alternative would need.

IMHO/FWIW
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 08/21/2008 02:52 pm
Would any of the proposed DIRECT upgrades become too heavy for the crawlerway as it is currently constructed?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/21/2008 02:56 pm
Would any of the proposed DIRECT upgrades become too heavy for the crawlerway as it is currently constructed?

No. Nothing we have planned even come close to the current limits.
We have even more powerful upgrades than the Jupiter-232 that could throw in excess of 150mT into LEO, and these also remain within the limits of the existing infrastructure.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 08/21/2008 02:58 pm
Would any of the proposed DIRECT upgrades become too heavy for the crawlerway as it is currently constructed?

No. Nothing we have planned even come close to the current limits.
We have even more powerful upgrades than the Jupiter-232 that could throw in excess of 150mT into LEO, and these also remain within the limits of the existing infrastructure.

Thanks, Chuck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 08/21/2008 09:14 pm
What do the upgrades have?  I assume 5 seg solids, 5 RS-68 core stage, and 3 J2X upper stage?  Core stage would be stretched for the 5 seg solids.  Am I correct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 08/22/2008 06:41 am
Are the liquid tanks full or empty during the crawl?
If empty, then using liquid boosters instead of solid ones seems to be an easy way to reduce crawl mass.

Would any of the proposed DIRECT upgrades become too heavy for the crawlerway as it is currently constructed?

No. Nothing we have planned even come close to the current limits.
We have even more powerful upgrades than the Jupiter-232 that could throw in excess of 150mT into LEO, and these also remain within the limits of the existing infrastructure.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 08/22/2008 10:44 am
What do the upgrades have?  I assume 5 seg solids, 5 RS-68 core stage, and 3 J2X upper stage?  Core stage would be stretched for the 5 seg solids.  Am I correct?

Considering the SRB blast issue, 5 RS-68s would probably not fit on a 8.4 m core tank. Stretching the core tank could be worthwhile if the number of RS-68s could be increased to at least 4.

The 5 seg SRB could still be adopted with the current Juipiter core stage. Using the CEPE spreadsheet, I estimated that this would increase the gross LEO payload capacity of the J-120 and J-232 by about 12 mT each.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ballew on 08/24/2008 06:44 pm
Can anybody give me a quick update on the tooling being destroyed at MAF. I think I remember someone posting that it was supposed to occur sometime in the next month. I am going to bring this up in a town hall meeting with my Congressman tommorrow.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 08/24/2008 07:30 pm
Considering the SRB blast issue, 5 RS-68s would probably not fit on a 8.4 m core tank. Stretching the core tank could be worthwhile if the number of RS-68s could be increased to at least 4.
I think if you look at some of the possible Jupiter upgrades that Ross & the team have illustrated as being possible you'll find there are some versions with 5 RS-68s. Physically, they seem to fit although I'm not sure of an acoutical analysis has beren done to ensure thet all engines work acceptably together.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 08/25/2008 01:17 am
Can anybody give me a quick update on the tooling being destroyed at MAF. I think I remember someone posting that it was supposed to occur sometime in the next month. I am going to bring this up in a town hall meeting with my Congressman tomorrow.

This is something else I don't get. Why do they want to destroy it? Why can't they just store it somewhere? It isn't like the government doesn't have a lot of places they could put it. The boneyard at Davis-Monthan comes to mind. Why do they have to do something irreparable? Is there some Congressional mandate to shoot ourselves in the foot, or something?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 08/25/2008 04:30 am
The Michoud Assembly Facility is huge - there's plenty of room to mothball the ET tooling, store several unused ET tanks, and still build a new production line for the Ares I upper stage. This is Griffin's scorched earth policy. The only reason to go to the expense of destroying this tooling instead of storing it is to prevent Congress or a new administration from considering either Direct or more STS missions.

"Oh, gee, Senator, we'd love to fly more Shuttle missions to the ISS after 2010, but we no longer have the capability of building any more tanks for the Shuttle."

"No, Senator, that Direct-Jupiter idea of reusing the existing shuttle infrastructure won't save any time or money - we'd have to rebuild the manufacturing line in Michoud from scratch. We may as well start work on building a new manufacturing line for 10m tanks for Ares V."


This is something else I don't get. Why do they want to destroy it? Why can't they just store it somewhere? It isn't like the government doesn't have a lot of places they could put it. The boneyard at Davis-Monthan comes to mind. Why do they have to do something irreparable? Is there some Congressional mandate to shoot ourselves in the foot, or something?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/25/2008 04:35 am
It is completely crazy, but you have to admit it is a pretty solid way of securing your plan. As long as the ET tooling is there, the threat of DIRECT is always there. You get rid of that and pretty much every DIRECT arguement goes right out the window.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/25/2008 05:04 am
The conservation of mass is a fundamental concept of physics and the "Direct" team breached it when they allocated for the EDS main propulsion system only the mass of the left engine (or the right engine, I forgot) ha haaaa  (sorry could not resist)

Team Vision did not forget to include the mass of two J-2XD engines. The mistake was that they assumed a mass of 1400 kg per engine (the same as the J-2S) instead of the J-2X mass of 2472 kg per engine.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 08/25/2008 07:17 am
It is completely crazy, but you have to admit it is a pretty solid way of securing your plan. As long as the ET tooling is there, the threat of DIRECT is always there. You get rid of that and pretty much every DIRECT arguement goes right out the window.

I believe even with costs of new tooling at Michoud (assuming Griffin succeeds in destroying old tooling) DIRECT is far less expensive
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/25/2008 11:25 am
The conservation of mass is a fundamental concept of physics and the "Direct" team breached it when they allocated for the EDS main propulsion system only the mass of the left engine (or the right engine, I forgot) ha haaaa  (sorry could not resist)

Team Vision did not forget to include the mass of two J-2XD engines. The mistake was that they assumed a mass of 1400 kg per engine (the same as the J-2S) instead of the J-2X mass of 2472 kg per engine.

We caught caught and corrected this error ourselves, but NASA chose to use the document that had the error in-place, knowing full-well that there was an updated document in place.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 08/26/2008 04:04 am
Chuck, Ross, and anyone else on the team:

Could one of you please email me?

I have a question that I am afraid to ask on the forum, but it is killing me to not know the  answer. So, I would like to ask someone in email, privately, where I can get a straight answer from the source.

Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 08/26/2008 06:04 pm
It is completely crazy, but you have to admit it is a pretty solid way of securing your plan. As long as the ET tooling is there, the threat of DIRECT is always there. You get rid of that and pretty much every DIRECT arguement goes right out the window.

Yep, it really is a shame that pride can get in the way of rational thinking.  I have a new appreciation for the struggles that go on at NASA.  In fact it boggles my mind that we were ever able to get to the moon or have a shuttle program.  I realize how naive and idealistic I was before thinking that we could actually establish bases on the moon or Mars in an economical way or in a reasonable length of time.  I was really hoping to see a man land on Mars before I died but now, I don't know. 
   For all the people pushing for Direct, heck, for all the people trying to keep a space program alive, you have my admiration.  Now that I have a better understanding of what you're up against, your determination is phenomenal.  Hang in there!!

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/27/2008 09:05 am
"No, Senator, that Direct-Jupiter idea of reusing the existing shuttle infrastructure won't save any time or money - we'd have to rebuild the manufacturing line in Michoud from scratch. We may as well start work on building a new manufacturing line for 10m tanks for Ares V."

Or the 10m tanks DIRECT v3.0 uses.   ;)

Shorter and fatter than v2.0
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: quickshot89 on 08/27/2008 03:00 pm
im wondering, how old is the tooling at MAF? and how much would it be to build newer quicker tooling that makes the current ET?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 08/27/2008 03:07 pm
It looks like someone is willing to put some political capital into saving the shuttle infrastructure at MAF:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/mccain-asks-pus.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 08/28/2008 02:42 am
DIRECT question:
If we are suddenly looking for gap-closing alternatives in the post-Georgia world, can we leave the SRB's and external tank as-is, and just replace the shuttle with an orion + payload + engine mount with a similar mass/center of gravity as the shuttle has?

Or would that be harder/ longer than jupiter?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jose on 08/28/2008 03:02 am
Search for "Shuttle-C", especially posts by Wingod.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/28/2008 03:20 am
Shuttle-C is a dead end. It is designed as a supplemental launch system for unmanned payloads and depends upon the continuing existence and operation of the manned Shuttle in order to maintain cost effectiveness. Without Shuttle itself flying, Shuttle-C is not economically sustainable. NASA looked at it twice, and even they were shell shocked at the cost of the system if it had to fly without the manned Shuttle continuing operations. Dennis will disagree of course. He's entitled to his opinion.

There is a thread dedicated to the Shuttle-C. Further discussion, if any, should go there, not here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steve G on 08/28/2008 04:35 am
It looks like someone is willing to put some political capital into saving the shuttle infrastructure at MAF:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/mccain-asks-pus.html

As soon as I read this I logged in and found no topic for this.  Stunned, this is huge, absolutely huge and a big boost for Direct
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 08/28/2008 05:31 am
Haven't been on the site much for the last three weeks due to a pretty major health problem. Only just getting back on my feet again, slowly, now. Lot been going on.

It looks like someone is willing to put some political capital into saving the shuttle infrastructure at MAF:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/mccain-asks-pus.html

As soon as I read this I logged in and found no topic for this.  Stunned, this is huge, absolutely huge and a big boost for Direct

Lets just hope that Bush is convinced by those three (one of whom is his party's hopeful replacement a few months from now) to put the brakes on regarding demolishing the MAF tooling and the KSC infrastructure.

Would have really liked to have seen a bi-partisan effort on this, but I do understand just how impossible that sort of thing is at this point of an Election Year.

"Unlikely" is an understatement, regarding that sort of cooperation while everyone's fighting for votes, but there's still the possibility that someone like Bill Nelson could spark a similar effort of some kind within his party too.   Would sure be nice to have this problem covered from both directions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 08/28/2008 02:43 pm
Space policy is a delicate matter and we must await customs approval for the saving of Michoud infrastructure.

Democrats such as Bill Nelson need to be cautious concerning what they ask President Bush to do as Bush may then decide to do the opposite of what Nelson requests. If Bill Nelson desires that the infrastructure be saved, creating the impression that this decision would benefit McCain and hurt Obama is perhaps the best strategy for Nelson to adopt.

Nelson's grenades are of the wrong system to assist in saving the infrastructure via a more straightfoward approach.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 08/28/2008 05:15 pm
I just ran across a blog by Wayne Hale (former boss of the Shuttle program) who had some very interesting things to say about the process of shutting down the Shuttle program.  I wonder how much of what he talks about translates into trouble for DIRECT...

http://wiki.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog/posts/post_1219932905350.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/28/2008 06:06 pm
I just ran across a blog by Wayne Hale (former boss of the Shuttle program) who had some very interesting things to say about the process of shutting down the Shuttle program.  I wonder how much of what he talks about translates into trouble for DIRECT...

http://wiki.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog/posts/post_1219932905350.html

We are rapidly approaching the point where the difficulty of going DIRECT would not be economically worth the effort. We are not there yet, but we are three years further down the road than when we started, and the clock is ticking. The recent letter to POTUS to suspend the Shuttle shutdown process for one year will buy us that year if implemented, but beyond that prospects begin to dim quickly because of the suppliers who have already terminated.

Once we pass that point, it would make more economic sense to redesign the launchers using a clean sheet process, while still using the philosophy of developing a single launch vehicle that can be flown in either medium or heavy mode, with or without an upper stage. My guess is that the core stage would probably be powered by a hydrocarbon engine such as the RS-84, with J-2X upper stage engine power.

I would mention that the majority of the terminated suppliers to date dealt with items required by the Orbiter, which DIRECT does not use.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 08/28/2008 06:06 pm
I just ran across a blog by Wayne Hale (former boss of the Shuttle program) who had some very interesting things to say about the process of shutting down the Shuttle program.  I wonder how much of what he talks about translates into trouble for DIRECT...

http://wiki.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog/posts/post_1219932905350.html

None, and there is nothing really new in here.  Plus, as I said in another thread, the timing on the release of the blog is very convienent. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 08/28/2008 06:20 pm
I guess I am a little confused by Wayne Hale's argument.  If he is saying that termination letters to 95% of the NASA ET suppliers were sent 2 yrs ago, how does that speak to commonality with Ares V?  I thought the decision to go to a 10M tank only happened last year.

I think Wayne is a leader to be respected, but he also has to tow the party line within NASA, and that is just what he is doing here.  We would not know for sure on terminated components until the parts prices are rebid.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: iontyre on 08/28/2008 06:29 pm
So then, we could still build plenty of new ET's?  I love the DIRECT approach, but if the hardware is not going to be able to be built without MASSIVE efforts to re-aquire suppliers, aren't we in big trouble?

Why does it sometimes seem as though someone is PURPOSEFULLY attempting to destroy our space program?  Why do we keep going down roads (Shuttle, ISS, Ares) that quickly become engineering nightmares when better solutions are clearly available?  Why the hell did we ever abandon all that great Apollo hardware (CSM, Skylab, etc) that could have (and demonstrated as much) done virtually anything we wanted?

I am so discouraged.  The freaking Chinese are going to beat us back to the moon, and certainly to Mars.  We just don't know how to do this anymore, or else someone is making sure we fail.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 08/28/2008 06:34 pm
So then, we could still build plenty of new ET's?  I love the DIRECT approach, but if the hardware is not going to be able to be built without MASSIVE efforts to re-aquire suppliers, aren't we in big trouble?

Why does it sometimes seem as though someone is PURPOSEFULLY attempting to destroy our space program?  Why do we keep going down roads (Shuttle, ISS, Ares) that quickly become engineering nightmares when better solutions are clearly available?  Why the hell did we ever abandon all that great Apollo hardware (CSM, Skylab, etc) that could have (and demonstrated as much) done virtually anything we wanted?

I am so discouraged.  The freaking Chinese are going to beat us back to the moon, and certainly to Mars.  We just don't know how to do this anymore, or else someone is making sure we fail.

Don't read so much into this and look at it for what it is, a PR pitch for stopping the shuttle in 2010, given the political discussions and suggestions now taking place on both sides of the aisle.  These statments imply we killed the Program two years ago, we did not. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/28/2008 06:38 pm
Why does it sometimes seem as though someone is PURPOSEFULLY attempting to destroy our space program?  Why do we keep going down roads (Shuttle, ISS, Ares) that quickly become engineering nightmares when better solutions are clearly available?  Why the hell did we ever abandon all that great Apollo hardware (CSM, Skylab, etc) that could have (and demonstrated as much) done virtually anything we wanted?

I'm not a safety-nut, but Apollo was cancelled because it was not sustainable.  It was too expensive and not safe enough to operate more than a few missions. 

The biggest cost and benefit that really matters about Cx is NOT that it does more, it is that it does the same things we did before more safely.  That allows us to do it more often (if we can afford it) without the risk of lengthy shutdown and national anguish.  It also puts us in a position to do harder things later if we want (outpost, Mars, NEOs, etc.) to pay for them.

I'm of the mind that additional risk to explorers is not a bad thing, but the country (and NASA) differ.  The LOC on Apollo was estimated at 1:20 ... completely unacceptable no matter what the actual anecdotes showed.  Hopefully Cx will be better.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/28/2008 06:39 pm
Don't read so much into this and look at it for what it is, a PR pitch for stopping the shuttle in 2010, given the political discussions and suggestions now taking place on both sides of the aisle.  These statments imply we killed the Program two years ago, we did not. 

Data please?  Contracts that are active?  Materials that are in stock?  A supply chain analysis?  An estimate of what it would take to reconstitute vendors?

Wayne Hale is an honest guy.  Gotta take his word before a blanket denial on a (very excellent) message board.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 08/28/2008 06:48 pm
Why does it sometimes seem as though someone is PURPOSEFULLY attempting to destroy our space program?  Why do we keep going down roads (Shuttle, ISS, Ares) that quickly become engineering nightmares when better solutions are clearly available?  Why the hell did we ever abandon all that great Apollo hardware (CSM, Skylab, etc) that could have (and demonstrated as much) done virtually anything we wanted?

I'm not a safety-nut, but Apollo was cancelled because it was not sustainable.  It was too expensive and not safe enough to operate more than a few missions. 

The biggest cost and benefit that really matters about Cx is NOT that it does more, it is that it does the same things we did before more safely.  That allows us to do it more often (if we can afford it) without the risk of lengthy shutdown and national anguish.  It also puts us in a position to do harder things later if we want (outpost, Mars, NEOs, etc.) to pay for them.

I'm of the mind that additional risk to explorers is not a bad thing, but the country (and NASA) differ.  The LOC on Apollo was estimated at 1:20 ... completely unacceptable no matter what the actual anecdotes showed.  Hopefully Cx will be better.




What????  Where did you ever get this?  I guess that's why on it's second manned flight we sent it to the moon, as well as its fourth flight and then actually landed a crew on the fifth flight. 

CxP must function within acceptable risks, yes, but the elements must be cost effective so that we can have a healthy and robust program and not be locked into just one narrow version of the greater mission.

You are attempting to tie two things way too closely together. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 08/28/2008 06:52 pm
Don't read so much into this and look at it for what it is, a PR pitch for stopping the shuttle in 2010, given the political discussions and suggestions now taking place on both sides of the aisle.  These statments imply we killed the Program two years ago, we did not. 

Data please?  Contracts that are active?  Materials that are in stock?  A supply chain analysis?  An estimate of what it would take to reconstitute vendors?

Wayne Hale is an honest guy.  Gotta take his word before a blanket denial on a (very excellent) message board.


Sure, let me get right on that.  I never said he was dishonest, in fact I know he is not.  I just question the timing of this release. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 08/28/2008 09:21 pm
I've only recently noticed that the Upper Stage of Ares-1 has gone over to a common bulkhead design. How are the actual masses of this looking compared to those used in Direct's upper stage?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/28/2008 09:32 pm
I've only recently noticed that the Upper Stage of Ares-1 has gone over to a common bulkhead design. How are the actual masses of this looking compared to those used in Direct's upper stage?

The Ares-I US masses are significantly higher because they are using a MSFC design, while the Jupiter uses Centaur technology, which is much more efficient and lighter.

You'd never know that however from their most recent "critique" of DIRECT, because they deliberately deleted the Jupiter's Centaur-based, common bulkhead design we said we were using and substituted an earlier MSFC separate tanks configuration instead. Much heavier and much less efficient. That artificially drove the US mass significantly upward and the stage efficiency downward. Typical "thumb on the scale" move that tilted a lot of things.

I was literally saddened to see NASA engage in such disgraceful dishonesty.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/28/2008 10:19 pm
I was literally saddened to see NASA engage in such disgraceful dishonesty.

It would be great to get a point by point critique (qualitative if necessary, but impacts with numbers if possilbe) of all of the places they were dishonest.  Something like that is always useful when you have someone next to the water cooler.  General statements are less helpful ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/28/2008 11:52 pm
I was literally saddened to see NASA engage in such disgraceful dishonesty.

It would be great to get a point by point critique (qualitative if necessary, but impacts with numbers if possilbe) of all of the places they were dishonest.  Something like that is always useful when you have someone next to the water cooler.  General statements are less helpful ...

Working on it. I'll get it to you (all).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Hermit on 08/29/2008 12:38 am
What I find interesting is that some of the arguments levelled against Direct can equally be levelled at Ares. Wayne Hale's comment regarding necessary new logistics for Shuttle (and by extension Direct) parts- surely new parts would be needed for Ares also.
However, with Direct there is already the experience base, many parts are still available and there is much greater commonality between the LV's.
Ares requires almost all new parts, two assembly lines and the people building/servicing the LV's would have much less hands-on experience with some of the new design features. All of which points to a more expensive architecture, when NASA has less $ to spare.

Kudos to the Direct team- there is hope yet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kttopdad on 08/29/2008 01:59 am
I would mention that the majority of the terminated suppliers to date dealt with items required by the Orbiter, which DIRECT does not use.


That makes sense.  The parts count on that vehicle must be astounding.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 08/29/2008 09:26 am
We just don't know how to do this anymore, or else someone is making sure we fail.

Correction. We know how to do it, we just don't want.

The people who lead the decision making process are unwilling to brush aside corporate interests, their ego quirks, etc, and actually make the progress of US manned spaceflight a priority #1.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 08/29/2008 02:01 pm
We just don't know how to do this anymore, or else someone is making sure we fail.

Correction. We know how to do it, we just don't want.

The people who lead the decision making process are unwilling to brush aside corporate interests, their ego quirks, etc, and actually make the progress of US manned spaceflight a priority #1.

No matter what the outcome to date, I can't believe you would attempt to tarnish the reputation of upper management like this.  I know you think you could do better ... but unless you have been through the meat grinder you might want to be a little less harsh on those that have.

Even assuming leadership is 100% wrong (which they are not), bad decisions are always couched as failures of morality, attempts at personal gain, or "quirks".  I'm assuming you've never made a bad decision, taken your team on the wrong course, stayed with an idea you thought was good a bit too long?  If so, you've probably never led a group larger than yourself.  If you have, you'd have a bit more respect.

Many of the people that are in senior leadership have very accomplished careers outside of NASA.  They are public servants and patriots, having worked on and succeeded in defense, civil, and commercial goals.  Whether you care or not, I think this sort of blanket character assasination without any objective facts to back it up shows a lack of understanding of how most of the world works, and how hard it is to get really hard things done.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/29/2008 09:11 pm

On a some what related note I wonder if the J-120 could ever be a commercially market product for tasks such as lunar space tourism ,lifting private space stations or three or four big com sats at once?

No, because it is a NASA launch vehicle. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/30/2008 12:54 am
Hopefully if Obama gets in office he'll make NASA switch to Jupiter and end this Ares nonsense before it leaves us without a human spaceflight program except for COTS.

I'm a big DIRECT proponent too, but I disagree strongly with the above.  Another carte blanche selection of a different concept by a politician is the worst possible outcome.

Whoever gets elected should have a new, independent re-evaluation of the options for launch, including EELV and whatever other SDLV concepts are there, and pick the best one.

The last thing a politician should do is select a particular system because their lobby got more attention.

I think the DIRECT team would agree that the best outcome is a fair evaluation of the options.  I think DIRECT would come out on top, but maybe an EELV solution would, who knows.

If one were to go back into the threads and look, it would be seen that DIRECT was never presented as the best possible solution for the VSE. What DIRECT is, is the best possible solution that fulfills the mandates of the 2005 NASA Authorization Act. That is the document that NASA is supposed to be following but is now ignoring. The ESAS architecture "looked" like it was doing that, but both Ares launch vehicles quickly departed from the fundamental tenants of the law. Interestingly, the Ares launchers are proving unable to fulfill the ESAS architecture, while the Jupiter launchers can.

There are ways to do the VSE other than either ESAS or DIRECT, with DIRECT being the superior of the two. Some of them are even better than DIRECT, but none of them follow the mandates of that law. Unless Congress drafts new legislation which changes the fundamental precepts of the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, then DIRECT remains the best solution under the law. That law requires NASA to develop and field two (2) launch vehicles, a Crew Launcher which can be used to send the new Orion spacecraft into LEO, and a Heavy Lift launcher, suitable for the lunar and Mars missions. The key provision is that BOTH vehicles must be based on the existing Shuttle flight hardware, and must utilize the existing Shuttle infrastructure, facilities and workforce, to the maximum extent possible. Under those provisions, and limitations, the DIRECT architecture, which employs the Jupiter launch vehicle family, is the best way forward.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 08/30/2008 10:36 pm
Yes, back to DIRECT.

I've been reading some of the sites I've found around the net, and it seems as if there is a distinct demarcation between DIRECT proponents, and everyone else. What I'd like to see is a grass-roots groundswell of proactive support for DIRECT. Take on some of those nearly-fraudulent websites directly, so to speak.

Fight bad and misleading information with good information.

Are there people here on this board who can do that? People other than the actual DIRECT team that is. They have a fine website, but they certainly aren't the bulldog types necessary to go after people who publish half truths and innuendos.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: James Lowe1 on 08/31/2008 09:12 pm
Thread deleted back due to argument, major digression and 101 other undesirable points. It's obvious that this thread can't be self moderated, so I will be keeping a very close eye for posts that are not inline with the standards of this site's forum, and idiotic posts that inflame arguments. Such users will be banned with no warning.

This is about Direct and a technical discussion.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 08/31/2008 11:59 pm
Hello Everyone...I have been watching the threads and doing some reading and would just like to know where things stand with DIRECT at this time.  Just curious if there was anything that us civilians can do, IE: write letters and emails and the such.  Thanks

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/01/2008 03:09 am
Lancer525,
Letters, letter and more letters, yes.   Those are totally valuable.

Senators, House Representatives, your own constituency or a different senior space figure elsewhere (appropriate committee members recommended).   Show your support "DIRECTly".

And remember:-
1 Hand-Written Letter = 100 Typed Letters.
1 Typed Letter = 100 Faxes.
1 Fax = 100 E-mails.

One hand-written letter therefore has roughly the potential effect of about 1,000,000 e-mails.

If people wish to make a difference, I urge you not to seriously think about not skimping just because its a little easier :)   How long has it been since we hand-wrote letters?   Why not try it if only because it's unusual and unique in this modern age :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/01/2008 03:33 am
Lancer525,
Letters, letter and more letters, yes.   Those are totally valuable.

Senators, House Representatives, your own constituency or a different senior space figure elsewhere (appropriate committee members recommended).   Show your support "DIRECTly".

And remember:-
1 Hand-Written Letter = 100 Typed Letters.
1 Typed Letter = 100 Faxes.
1 Fax = 100 E-mails.

One hand-written letter therefore has roughly the potential effect of about 1,000,000 e-mails.

If people wish to make a difference, I urge you not to seriously think about not skimping just because its a little easier :)   How long has it been since we hand-wrote letters?   Why not try it if only because it's unusual and unique in this modern age :)

Ross.

What would make a letter more powerful, I think, is a reasonable, understandable, and factual description of why an independent, unbiased, and thorough comparative review of not just Ares and Direct, but of all the major players in the STS-replacement LV is necessary. I believe that is the best course of action. Personally, I am a proponent of Direct. I feel that it has the necessary ingredients to minimize what development issues there will be with any new LV. I can't say that in a letter to my Representative and Senators. Any letter must be something to make them think that something needs to be looked at, and also provide enough information on what does need to be looked at, to make them assign a staffer to look at it.

I noticed a few posts above, that Chuck was to be working on the point-by-point refutations of criticisms, and I would dearly love to see that, but I also think that someone else (to avoid overworking Chuck!) who is much more intimately familiar with the issues facing Ares, and the promise of Direct (and others) could write up a short list of points explaining what the major issues are, what possible solutions there are, and highlighting what the law is, so that Congress can make sure that it is being followed, and also that the best available program that fits that law can be pursued.

I will gladly sit down and hand write as many letters as necessary, if I have something more to write than "I think this is a good thing to look at", something more meaningful to Congress than just what an average layman could write. I want my voice to mean something, not just to be a plea.

Oh, and, Ross... I think you meant NavySkyGod... But I appreciate your reply as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 09/01/2008 08:29 pm
Some nice vies of the NLS and Shuttle C at

http://apogeebooks.com/Hall%20of%20Fame/SSC/viewer.htm
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: K-P on 09/01/2008 08:38 pm
like a deja-vu...  ;)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Apollo

Seamans' establishment of the Golovin committee in July 1961 represented a turning point in NASA's mission mode decision. While the ad-hoc committee was intended to provide a recommendation on the boosters to be used in the Apollo program, it recognized that the mode decision was an important part of this question. The committee recommended in favor of a hybrid EOR-LOR mode, but its consideration of LOR — as well as Houbolt's ceaseless work — played an important role in publicizing the workability of the approach. In late 1961 and early 1962, members of NASA's Space Task Group at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston began to come around to support for LOR. The engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center took longer to become convinced of its merits, but their conversion was announced by Wernher von Braun at a briefing in June 1962. NASA's formal decision in favor of LOR was announced on July 11, 1962. Space historian James Hansen concludes that:
“Without NASA's adoption of this stubbornly held minority opinion in 1962, the United States may still have reached the Moon, but almost certainly it would not have been accomplished by the end of the 1960s, President Kennedy's target date."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/01/2008 10:08 pm
K-P:

Interesting you should post that.

Not long ago, I read "Deke!", and he basically said the same thing.

History repeating itself? We can only hope so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 09/02/2008 04:19 pm
Just wondering, given the most recent animosity with Russia over the South Ossetia/Georgia debacle, has there been any more political rumblings (or, better yet, media rumblings) about the folly of depending on the Russians for rides to the ISS for such a long period of time?  One would think that DIRECT, given these recent geo-political developments, would merit closer scrutiny since it alone would shorten the gap.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/02/2008 04:41 pm
I happened across this:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/09/01/nasa-shuttle-dilemma.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Cale on 09/02/2008 05:02 pm
Yeah, that was actually embedded on the Sympatico web page.  Too bad they don't discuss DIRECT, either in the main article or the comments section.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 09/02/2008 08:52 pm
Just wondering, given the most recent animosity with Russia over the South Ossetia/Georgia debacle, has there been any more political rumblings (or, better yet, media rumblings) about the folly of depending on the Russians for rides to the ISS for such a long period of time?  One would think that DIRECT, given these recent geo-political developments, would merit closer scrutiny since it alone would shorten the gap.

Of course, NASA have stated that DIRECT wouldn't shorten the gap. I'm not sure how they came to that conclusion, but there you go  ???
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 09/02/2008 09:22 pm
Just wondering, given the most recent animosity with Russia over the South Ossetia/Georgia debacle, has there been any more political rumblings (or, better yet, media rumblings) about the folly of depending on the Russians for rides to the ISS for such a long period of time?  One would think that DIRECT, given these recent geo-political developments, would merit closer scrutiny since it alone would shorten the gap.

Of course, NASA have stated that DIRECT wouldn't shorten the gap. I'm not sure how they came to that conclusion, but there you go  ???

Well, by time you throw Direct into a NASA design cycle and optimize it to get the maximum performance out of the launcher, I can see where it would take 4 or 5 years to complete the design and then a couple more to perform some unmanned tests.  I just don't see NASA accepting Direct as "good enough" to get the job done and going to production as quickly as it could be safely accomplished.  NASA of old , sure  (like Saturn 1B) ... but not todays NASA.  I am sure the technical competence is there, just not the political will / leadership. 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 09/02/2008 09:34 pm
Just wondering, given the most recent animosity with Russia over the South Ossetia/Georgia debacle, has there been any more political rumblings (or, better yet, media rumblings) about the folly of depending on the Russians for rides to the ISS for such a long period of time?  One would think that DIRECT, given these recent geo-political developments, would merit closer scrutiny since it alone would shorten the gap.

Of course, NASA have stated that DIRECT wouldn't shorten the gap. I'm not sure how they came to that conclusion, but there you go  ???

Well, by time you throw Direct into a NASA design cycle and optimize it to get the maximum performance out of the launcher, I can see where it would take 4 or 5 years to complete the design and then a couple more to perform some unmanned tests.  I just don't see NASA accepting Direct as "good enough" to get the job done and going to production as quickly as it could be safely accomplished.  NASA of old , sure  (like Saturn 1B) ... but not todays NASA.  I am sure the technical competence is there, just not the political will / leadership. 

That’s the big mistake NASA is likely to make; try to optimize it before they build it.
THAT mistake will keep the gap open, whereas just flying as-is, “good enough” could eliminate the gap entirely, provided the switch decision were made soon. IF they were smart about it, we could fly Jupiter/Orion before the gap started. Translation: zero gap.

There's plenty of time to optimize after it's flying. It's called evolutionary improvement and smart organizations do it; stupid ones try to optimize right away when "good-enough" clears the problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 09/02/2008 09:40 pm
Just wondering, given the most recent animosity with Russia over the South Ossetia/Georgia debacle, has there been any more political rumblings (or, better yet, media rumblings) about the folly of depending on the Russians for rides to the ISS for such a long period of time?  One would think that DIRECT, given these recent geo-political developments, would merit closer scrutiny since it alone would shorten the gap.

Of course, NASA have stated that DIRECT wouldn't shorten the gap. I'm not sure how they came to that conclusion, but there you go  ???

Well, by time you throw Direct into a NASA design cycle and optimize it to get the maximum performance out of the launcher, I can see where it would take 4 or 5 years to complete the design and then a couple more to perform some unmanned tests.  I just don't see NASA accepting Direct as "good enough" to get the job done and going to production as quickly as it could be safely accomplished.  NASA of old , sure  (like Saturn 1B) ... but not todays NASA.  I am sure the technical competence is there, just not the political will / leadership. 



I really don't know what it will take to convince NASA to act like "Old NASA". Logic points to abandoning the Current Ares vehicles and turning to a quicker solution such as Direct. NASA should at least study the current DIRECT configuration to see if it can work.
I'd like to see the full TECHNICAL rebutal of NASA's Direct studies released earlier this year. Focussed purely on the technical not the politcal and not designed to embarass NASA managment (they mustn't feel like they've been slapped in the face). We seem to be missing an opportunity here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/03/2008 01:48 am
I really don't know what it will take to convince NASA to act like "Old NASA". Logic points to abandoning the Current Ares vehicles and turning to a quicker solution such as Direct. NASA should at least study the current DIRECT configuration to see if it can work.
I'd like to see the full TECHNICAL rebutal of NASA's Direct studies released earlier this year. Focussed purely on the technical not the politcal and not designed to embarass NASA managment (they mustn't feel like they've been slapped in the face). We seem to be missing an opportunity here.

As I understand it, NASA has *already* studied the current DIRECT configuration. Unless I am wrong, DIRECT is an evolution of an already-examined LV configuration. In other words, DIRECT is already NASA-generated. It just isn't as politically "sexy" as the stick is, and the current NASA Administration isn't going to back down from their much-touted huge rocket.

Each day that passes, NASA Admins embarrass themselves further, by sticking with a stick that neither follows the law, nor is as workable as they say it is. The one thing that comes to my mind is, as precious a commodity as launch weight is, why would they ADD a heavier-than necessary system (the shock absorbers) and cut weight in the CEV?

That right there tells me something major is wrong with Ares.

You ask a good question. Where is the full technical rebuttal to NASA's criticism of DIRECT?

I'd like to see some proactive statements too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 12:29 pm
Nathan,Lancer,
Sorry the tech rebuttal was in my hands and I've been mostly out of the picture for the last month or so. I am normally a very private guy and do not like taking about myself, but in explanation; I had a partial heart attack about a month ago so I've been pretty quiet recently. Please guys, no "get well soon" messages here, thanks.

I've begun working on the document again, but only very slowly. No idea what the ETA will be.   ASAP is all I can say.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: pippin on 09/03/2008 01:34 pm

THAT mistake will keep the gap open, whereas just flying as-is, “good enough” could eliminate the gap entirely, provided the switch decision were made soon. IF they were smart about it, we could fly Jupiter/Orion before the gap started. Translation: zero gap.

Will Orion be ready early enough for that?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 09/03/2008 01:41 pm

THAT mistake will keep the gap open, whereas just flying as-is, “good enough” could eliminate the gap entirely, provided the switch decision were made soon. IF they were smart about it, we could fly Jupiter/Orion before the gap started. Translation: zero gap.

Will Orion be ready early enough for that?

What’s holding Orion back is the ongoing mass constraints with Ares-I. If Ares-I were taken out of the picture, with all its performance problems, that would free Orion from the round-robin efforts that are keeping the Orion design from progressing normally. Currently Orion is “stuck” trying to accommodate the under performing launch vehicle, the Ares-I. It can’t move forward. Freed from that, Orion could proceed, even be accelerated.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 01:51 pm
pippin,
A number of people have told me that the latest Progress Report from Lockheed Martin regarding the Orion Project [EDIT: Ares - Orion TIM, August 25, 2008, apparently ITAR] told NASA that they have suffered 9 months of delays and cost-overruns so far caused entirely because of the Ares-I performance limitations and Thrust Oscillation issues. They also indicated the are expecting to suffer even more due to TO over the next year.

They officially concluded by requested that MSFC fix Ares-I and TO issues completely so they will not cause any further delays/detrimental mass concerns to the ongoing Orion efforts.

That tells me everything I need to know and is 100% consistent with everything people have been warning us all about for over two years now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 02:05 pm
What’s holding Orion back is the ongoing mass constraints with Ares-I. If Ares-I were taken out of the picture, with all its performance problems, that would free Orion from the round-robin efforts that are keeping the Orion design from progressing normally. Currently Orion is “stuck” trying to accommodate the under performing launch vehicle, the Ares-I. It can’t move forward. Freed from that, Orion could proceed, even accelerated.

Agreed.   Further, if we aren't paying so much for all the brand-new technology and all the new facilities Ares-I requires, a lot of that money could be redirected towards the Orion and more money = faster development.

Our LM contacts indicate that with (reasonable) sufficient money, Orion could still make an IOC date in 2012 - though that date requires no further performance limitations caused by the LV.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: pippin on 09/03/2008 02:13 pm
OK, I had no idea what the Orion schedule "without Ares" is. 2012 would leave a gap of 1-2 years, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 02:22 pm
2 years, yes.

Although NASA has already purchased a couple of Soyuz flights thru to the end of FY2011.   So technically we would only have a 1 year astronaut flight gap.

For those new to DIRECT, I will reiterate that Jupiter-120 can also make this same date because it requires no new engines, no new SRB's, most of the manufacturing equipment needed to make an ET-derived Core Stage is in use right now at Michoud, and KSC modifications are considerably fewer than Ares-I too.

All this, when combined together, means that the schedule would be cut by about 3 years and ~$5bn would be saved compared to developing the Ares-I.

We suggest injecting about half of that money into Orion to speed it up. Most of the other half is used to fund projects which will help protect the displaced Shuttle staff.   That approach fulfills all of the political requirements as originally set out in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JesseD on 09/03/2008 02:29 pm
I had a partial heart attack about a month ago so I've been pretty quiet recently. Please guys, no "get well soon" messages here, thanks.
I've begun working on the document again, but only very slowly. No idea what the ETA will be.   ASAP is all I can say.
-  Ross.
Glad you're well again! :)  Looking forward to reading the rebuttal when it's finished. 

Also: I was looking at some pictures of the Hubble mission prep elsewhere on teh internetz, and suddenly wondered: could the DIRECT launcher system have capabilities for such a mission?  My initial hunch is probably not.  What would be needed?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 02:49 pm
Glad you're well again! :)

Long way from 'well' still, but at least I'm still on the road :)


Quote
Looking forward to reading the rebuttal when it's finished.

You and me both :)


Quote
Also: I was looking at some pictures of the Hubble mission prep elsewhere on teh internetz, and suddenly wondered: could the DIRECT launcher system have capabilities for such a mission?  My initial hunch is probably not.  What would be needed?

JesseD,
We have already developed a rudimentary plan for implementing future Hubble Servicing Missions using Jupiter-120.

Essentially, a Jupiter-120 would lift an Orion, the Hubble equipment and also a "cradle" which we call the "Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module" or SSPDM which flies inside the PLF, located under the Orion.

The SSPDM structure would be made in the simplest possible manner, to keep costs as low as possible. Either a tubular alumin(i)mum truss-structure or a welded Shuttle-style panel structure would work intended to provide a virtually identical sized 'bay' as the Shuttle has today, but one which is designed to be disposable.

A minimal RCS system (a set of Orion thruster packs and suitable hypergolic tanks from another existing production line) would be included, and would be controlled remotely by computers aboard the Orion.

See the attached diagrams for some concept examples of what the SSPDM might look like.

The servicing equipment carried by the SSPDM would include an airlock module (allowing Orion to remain permanently pressurized throughout the mission), all of the tools needed "on orbit" and all of the new hardware destined for installation on HST.


Mission profile would be something along the lines of:-

The Jupiter-120 injecting the payload into an initial 366x100nmi elliptical, but stable orbit.

Within two orbits, Orion would separate. The PLF panels would be jettisoned. Orion would translate around and would then dock & extract the SSPDM already containing all of the mission hardware.

Orion would then circularize the mission to the final rendezvous orbit compatible with Hubble.   The Core Stage would itself then perform a de-orbit using some small onboard SRB's and/or controlled venting of the tanks (a choice to be traded still).

Orion would rendezvous and dock to the Hubble and then perform the maintenance mission.

At the end of the mission, Orion would take the SSPDM away.   The SSPDM would either then be disposed of (requiring all-new tools to be made for any future missions), or perhaps the SSPDM could even be left in a safe orbit a few hundred miles away from Hubble to remain there, with all of the specialized tools, until HSM #6 is needed. The SSPDM already includes an RCS system which could possibly be radio-controlled from the ground to allow station-keeping with Hubble - albeit at a very safe range. Whether it is better to dispose of or retain the SSPDM, Airlock & Tools is a trade which NASA would have to work out. We believe there are pro's and con's with both approaches.

SSPDM's could also be utilized to fly other Shuttle payloads like MPLM's and would provide a means to continue fully utilizing the ISS long-after Shuttle retires.

We intend that the SSPDM Project would utilize a large number of people at KSC to build about 12 SSPDM's in the time-frame of 2011-2015 as part of our process to protect the workforce. The contract for the SSPDM's would be a lucrative one and would require a fairly descent sized staff (~1,500 +/-250), and anyone with history working with the Orbiters (airframe maintenance, RCS, TPS, payload processing etc) would be most ideally suited to this work.

SSPDM represents just one of the many projects which we are planning to help carry people over the workforce gap between Shuttle and the Lunar Program. By the time the SSPDM effort is complete, the LSAM and Lunar Base elements will be coming online and the staff can then be moved to those elements permanently.

As such, SSPDM fulfills both a very useful task in and of itself, and also provides a very useful 'bridge' to help protect the workforce.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 09/03/2008 04:31 pm
Why don't you 'open up' the rebuttal process?

Perhaps the mods/admins would give you a forum topic/section just for Direct?

Then you could just pick something NASA said that Direct has an issue with and just have at it.

The document could then just be a summing up those posts?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Giovanni DS on 09/03/2008 04:53 pm
It is a good idea, the problem with the Direct thread is that it is just too massive, things are lost inside.

A dedicated subforum here on NSF would be great.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 09/03/2008 06:39 pm
What, like we have already?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=37.0
More than one Direct-related thread is allowed, there are several already.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/03/2008 07:30 pm
This Orion/SSPDM is very similar to what I had been talking about earlier.(EELV vs Direct reply#52)  I guess the word "standardized" must have caused people to blank out everything that I had said.  OK, I'll just go ahead and act as if this concept has just been presented.

   What a great idea!  Wow, just think of the possibilities! THE SSPDM could be used for cargo to ISS, it could be used for additional segments for the ISS, it could be used for habitat segments for the moon, fuel storage in orbit, sections of a vehicle to go to Mars, Lunar orbit lifeboat.  Wow, you guys are geniuses! Who could possibly have thought of these other potential applications?! OK enough sarcasm!     
    The SSPDM is good but there is a LOT of wasted space in the payload segment.  Granted, the SSPDM is a tried and true design, but if the entire payload segment were made into a larger PDM it could be used for many other purposes, or is there a NASA regulation that PDM's be claustrophobic? (OK a little more sarcasm, sorry!)
   With Jupiter's 20 ton payload surplus, this seems like a natural progression. 

Drew   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 07:39 pm
Why don't you 'open up' the rebuttal process?

Perhaps the mods/admins would give you a forum topic/section just for Direct?

Then you could just pick something NASA said that Direct has an issue with and just have at it.

The document could then just be a summing up those posts?

Good idea.   More eyes on a subject almost always helps :)

Just start another thread here and feel free to start digging.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 07:49 pm
Drew,
We see SSPDM purely for launching existing Shuttle payloads using their rather unorthodx side and keel mounting points.

Any new modules designed from here onward would no longer be confined to the ~4.4m diameter Shuttle limitations. They would, instead, be planned to fit the full payload fairings (8.4m or 10.0m) and would attach using a relatively "standardized" payload adapter more suitable for this more traditional payload arrangement (attached from underneath).

The SSPDM simply provides you with the ability to launch, one last time, any/all of the expensive hardware which has already been developed and produced for Shuttle, but will currently never fly again after 2010.

SSPDM simply provides a means to be 'backwards compatible' and get the maximum possible value from all those multi-million dollar bits of hardware which the tax-payer has already paid for, which will otherwise just be scrapped.

The project also provides a contract which can help in the difficult task of bridging the workforce gap - which is just as important in our opinion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/03/2008 07:52 pm

1.   it could be used for habitat segments for the moon, fuel storage in orbit, sections of a vehicle to go to Mars, Lunar orbit lifeboat.

2.   Granted, the SSPDM is a tried and true design,

3. but if the entire payload segment were made into a larger PDM it could be used for many other purposes, or is there a NASA regulation that PDM's be claustrophobic? (OK a little more sarcasm, sorry!)
   

1.  The SSPDM is only for the few (twice a year) Orion ISS missions that exist.  There can be dedicated Direct missions (like lunar)  that use the whole fairing volume.

2.  The SSPDM is not any existing design.   All Ross is trying to do is to provide a carrier for existing shuttle payloads.

3.  There is no need to limit future payloads to the SSPDM and be shuttle sized, they can use the whole volume of the fairing.
habitat segments for the moon, fuel storage in orbit, sections of a vehicle to go to Mars, Lunar orbit lifeboat wouldn't use the SSPDM.  They would be attached like other ELV payloads on an adapter.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/03/2008 09:00 pm
Drew,
We see SSPDM purely for launching existing Shuttle payloads using their rather unorthodx side and keel mounting points.

Any new modules designed from here onward would no longer be confined to the ~4.4m diameter Shuttle limitations. They would, instead, be planned to fit the full payload fairings (8.4m or 10.0m) and would attach using a relatively "standardized" payload adapter more suitable for this more traditional payload arrangement (attached from underneath).

The SSPDM simply provides you with the ability to launch, one last time, any/all of the expensive hardware which has already been developed and produced for Shuttle, but will currently never fly again after 2010.

SSPDM simply provides a means to be 'backwards compatible' and get the maximum possible value from all those multi-million dollar bits of hardware which the tax-payer has already paid for, which will otherwise just be scrapped.

The project also provides a contract which can help in the difficult task of bridging the workforce gap - which is just as important in our opinion.

Ross.

Ross,
   Your post about the Orion/Hubble mission gave me the impression that the SSPDM was a design that was going to be carried forward with Orion.  Again, pardon my sarcasm!  It's nice to know that some hardware is being saved from the bridge-burning being done by the powers-that-be at NASA.  I knew that my module concept wasn't original, that someone had already thought of it.  I'm just glad it's still given consideration 
   The workforce is an integral part of the shuttle infrastructure that is overlooked and shouldn't be.  Getting a new workforce might SEEM easy, but replacing an experienced workforce with novices is going to cost much more, another reason Direct is a better program.  It's like tearing down the whole barn when all you really needed to do was fix the roof!  (forgive my hick reference!)

Drew 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 09:14 pm
Your post about the Orion/Hubble mission gave me the impression that the SSPDM was a design that was going to be carried forward with Orion.

How do you mean?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 09/03/2008 09:42 pm
Hey There Ross and the DIRECT Team...

          I was just thinking a little bit about the J120 rocket (yes, some guys in the Navy do have time and the ability to think even though we're way more screwed up than NASA ;) ) and I was curious that since the argument from NASA seems to be that the J120 is "too much for ISS," what would happen instead of removing the center engine of the J232, you removed the 2 outboards and just ran off the solids and the single center engine.  Seems to me that the rocket would be high enough that the single engine could finish the job, and I know that doesn't really leave an engine-out abort to orbit option, but at least we'd know the darned thing would burn while it's still on the pad unlike "the stick's" upper stage engine.  Just a thought that I had.  Probably has already been brought up but who knows, I might one day say something no one else has thought of.  Hey, it could happen.  Thanks again for all the hard work.

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/03/2008 09:44 pm
Your post about the Orion/Hubble mission gave me the impression that the SSPDM was a design that was going to be carried forward with Orion.

How do you mean?

Ross.

From reply #1886:
SSPDM's could also be utilized to fly other Shuttle payloads like MPLM's and would provide a means to continue fully utilizing the ISS long-after Shuttle retires.

I like the idea of BIG PDM's ( my mantra: better to have more than you want than less than you need).  As an interim module design, hey great.  I completely agree with you about SSPDM's being a good workforce bridge.  I guess I kind of skipped over the "interim" part when I first read your post! 

Drew







Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 09/03/2008 09:48 pm
According to my latest runs, a Jupiter-110 will currently only launch 17,486kg to NASA's baseline -11x100nm, 51.6 degree insertion orbit.   This is because the Jupiter Core Stage mass increased, and so too did the RS-68 mass, since the last time we did a J-110 configuration 12-18 months ago.

It would be possible to 'dumb down' Jupiter-120 by integrating a 15,000kg ballistic shield, consisting of a water tank 8.0m in diameter, along with multiple layers of boron-carbide 'bullet proof' panels of a similar diameter.

Total performance would then allow an Orion CEV spacecraft massing up to 25,000kg to be flown to 100x220nm, 51.6deg with no other payloads.

And flying cargo only, it would still be in the >40mT class so would not compete with nor duplicate the EELV's performance.

Ross.

This was earlier in the thread
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 09/03/2008 10:00 pm
I figured that it had already been addressed but I couldn't remember.  Thanks for the info and I see that it just replicates EELVs so what would be the point.  Thanks again.

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/03/2008 10:18 pm

I like the idea of BIG PDM's ( my mantra: better to have more than you want than less than you need).  As an interim module design, hey great.  I completely agree with you about SSPDM's being a good workforce bridge.  I guess I kind of skipped over the "interim" part when I first read your post! 


There is no need for PDM's other than the SSPDM.  The payloads would be designed from the onset to be deployed from the J-120 and not be hampered by an PDM .  The whole 'PDM' centers around only payloads designed for the shuttle and not every payload. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 10:25 pm
SSPDM's could also be utilized to fly other Shuttle payloads like MPLM's and would provide a means to continue fully utilizing the ISS long-after Shuttle retires.

I like the idea of BIG PDM's ( my mantra: better to have more than you want than less than you need).  As an interim module design, hey great.  I completely agree with you about SSPDM's being a good workforce bridge.  I guess I kind of skipped over the "interim" part when I first read your post! 

Drew

Okay, I understand now. Thanks.   I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something there, but we seem to be on the same page.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 09/03/2008 10:30 pm
I figured that it had already been addressed but I couldn't remember.  Thanks for the info and I see that it just replicates EELVs so what would be the point.  Thanks again.

-Tom

No worries, it helps if you know the Jupiter naming scheme. The first number is the number of stages,the second number is the number of engines on the first stage and the third number is the number of engines on the second stage.

Pick your configuration ie Jupiter 120 or Jupiter 232 and fire up google :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 10:39 pm
Hey There Ross and the DIRECT Team...

          I was just thinking a little bit about the J120 rocket (yes, some guys in the Navy do have time and the ability to think even though we're way more screwed up than NASA ;) )

Our own Chuck Longton here in the DIRECT Team builds your nuclear submarines for a living. Coming from a Navy town myself (Portsmouth, England) I have a lot of respect for you guys. You guys do some stuff that scares the $&!# out of me :)


Quote
and I was curious that since the argument from NASA seems to be that the J120 is "too much for ISS," what would happen instead of removing the center engine of the J232, you removed the 2 outboards and just ran off the solids and the single center engine.

The idea of the Jupiter-110 has indeed been brought up before.   Ultimately it doesn't work though.   The Jupiter Core Stage essentially weighs too much for a single engine to be able to push uphill with a reasonable payload as well - even when short-fueled to an optimum level.

There is a theoretical configuration of Jupiter-110 "Lite" which gets a lot closer, but still doesn't quite lift enough (about 19mT to LEO).   It uses a Core Stage much shorter than standard, with both the LOX and LH2 tanks squeezed in below the 4-segment SRB Fwd attachment points.   Essentially the SRB attachments are then in the Fwd Skirt area, just below the Payload Fairing, no longer in the Intertank area.

That does create a considerably lighter Core Stage which could be used with a single RS-68.

But there are some major downsides.   From a manufacturing perspective it is a much bigger departure from the existing ET than the J-120 is, and would be a more costly option development-wise.

It also shares almost nothing in common with the bigger J-232 Core tank so you only end up recreating the same cost structure of Ares all over again, with two completely separate and expensive vehicle development programs.   It's not quite as costly as Ares (no 5-segs) but the difference is only about 5-10% of the total $30bn Ares price tag whereas the one-core-vehicle approach of Jupiter-120/232 saves more like 50%.


Believe me, it's an incredibly difficult thing to strike a good balance between requirements, cost, performance, schedule, safety and politics. Most options breach one or more somewhere along the line. There are very very few that hit all the bases correctly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 10:43 pm
There is no need for PDM's other than the SSPDM.  The payloads would be designed from the onset to be deployed from the J-120 and not be hampered by an PDM .  The whole 'PDM' centers around only payloads designed for the shuttle and not every payload. 

Exactly right.   Just find a suitable place on the payload, mount a Passive LIDS to it, and the Orion can just attach directly to the payload, which simplifies everything quite a bit.   At worst case, you might require some form of 'strongback' structure to allow multiple payloads to fly attached together (say, airlock and a.n.other module), but that's probably going to be fairly mission-specific hardware.

You may still require some sort of standardized pallet in the future, to do the same sort of thing as current Shuttle pallets do - carrying relatively small items like toolbags and replacement gyro's - but we haven't proposed a design for those as yet - there are so many different options which need to be traded to get the right answer.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 09/03/2008 10:53 pm
Thanks again guys.  Once again I open my mouth before completing ALL of the research.  Well at least the RS-68s are quite a bit cheaper than those SSMEs so we don't mind throwing them away.  As for those submarine bubbas, they get my utmost respect.  I just can't bring myself to get on a boat that sinks on purpose. ;)  Thanks again and look forward to reading some more about where we're going.  Also, I've started a very rough draft on a paper and package, including the powerpoint presentation in paper form hopefully, that I intend to have made at the print shop here on base and sent out to as many government officials and other people I can think of (maybe university engineering depts.)  Maybe actual letters signed in ink with the presentation attached to it might by some accident make it onto one of those Representative's desk in Washington.

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 11:03 pm
Tom,
The change *is* happening IMHO.   The writing seems to be on the wall already for Ares-I and change is certainly in the air.   History shows that new Presidents always like to change things too and the debacle within NASA right now is certainly juicy fruit, ripe for the picking.   Whether it will be a change to DIRECT or not is the question I'm trying to figure out at present.

Letters right now, before Congress adjourns for the very last time this year, are going to be extremely valuable indeed.

I hope you can get your pack together in time and get it into people's hands to help make a difference.   You never know who's letter might be the final one to tip the balance in the end.

Oh, and the "UPDATE" document on the website might be easier to print than the Powerpoint - although not quite as showy.   You could always include a CD containing the PowerPoint ;)

Ross.

PS - I actually got an invite to go out on one of the subs here at Cape Canaveral for a missile test in the range here a while back.   I couldn't face going under the ocean though, so I'm right there with ya!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/03/2008 11:18 pm
Wow, I rally'd through 5,000 posts and didn't even notice until now...

Woo for my 5,004th post!  ::)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DLK on 09/04/2008 01:45 am
Ross-
Congrats on surpassing 5000 posts.
Can you find a "rallysmiley" with right-hand drive? :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 09/04/2008 12:03 pm
Ah, you guys are wooses. Grab the wife and kids. Pack a picnic lunch and take a dive to crush depth. Better than a roller coaster ride. ;-)

But for entertainment before you dive (no windows), stretch a string tight across the boat (inside) from side to side, and watch as it develops lots of slack the deeper you go. That’s the sea pressure compressing (crushing) the thick steel hull, making the whole boat smaller in diameter. And the sounds of compressing metal! OMG. Definitely something you don’t want to miss! An experience you’ll never forget, like your first kiss. It’s a rush you’ll never forget, and like that first kiss, once you’ve gotten one, you want more.

All in all, a pleasant way to spend a Sunday afternoon with the wife and kids.
Hope you have better luck than me. Mine wouldn’t go along. ;-(
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 09/04/2008 12:15 pm
Ah, you guys are wooses. Grab the wife and kids. Pack a picnic lunch and take a dive to crush depth. Better than a roller coaster ride. ;-)

But for entertainment before you dive (no windows), stretch a string tight across the boat (inside) from side to side, and watch as it develops lots of slack the deeper you go. That’s the sea pressure compressing (crushing) the thick steel hull, making the whole boat smaller in diameter. And the sounds of compressing metal! OMG. Definitely something you don’t want to miss! An experience you’ll never forget, like your first kiss. It’s a rush you’ll never forget, and like that first kiss, once you’ve gotten one, you want more.

All in all, a pleasant way to spend a Sunday afternoon with the wife and kids.
Hope you have better luck than me. Mine wouldn’t go along. ;-(


Nuclear submarines are the closest any of us will get to flying aboard a starship. It was all much cooler than I thought it would be, beforehand.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 09/04/2008 04:16 pm
Ah, you guys are wooses. Grab the wife and kids. Pack a picnic lunch and take a dive to crush depth. Better than a roller coaster ride. ;-)

But for entertainment before you dive (no windows), stretch a string tight across the boat (inside) from side to side, and watch as it develops lots of slack the deeper you go. That’s the sea pressure compressing (crushing) the thick steel hull, making the whole boat smaller in diameter. And the sounds of compressing metal! OMG. Definitely something you don’t want to miss! An experience you’ll never forget, like your first kiss. It’s a rush you’ll never forget, and like that first kiss, once you’ve gotten one, you want more.

All in all, a pleasant way to spend a Sunday afternoon with the wife and kids.
Hope you have better luck than me. Mine wouldn’t go along. ;-(


Nuclear submarines are the closest any of us will get to flying aboard a starship. It was all much cooler than I thought it would be, beforehand.

Oh come on guys ... this is WAY OT ... lets have a little restraint huh?

OK, at the start of my one dive to 300 feet ... my ears started popping like I was making a rapid climb in altitude.   :o  Turns out they were testing the backup genset on the surface when they closed the air intake vents and were pumping all the internal air out of the boat via the genset exhaust.  That didn't fill me with confidence they new what they were doing.  But alas ... no crunching sounds, no radical dive or surface angles,  if it weren't for the depth gauge I wouldn't have even known the boat was submerged.  Boomers are boring ...

Now like I said, back OT please ...  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 09/04/2008 06:03 pm
Here's something on topic, in my opinion.  Now I don't want to make this political, nor do I want to enter a political debate with anyone because I will choose who I vote for when I'm in the booth, but John McCain and Sarah Palin, in my opinion, could be POTENTIALLY and I mean potentially a valuable asset to the DIRECT cause.  The new potential Vice President is against wasteful government spending and is looking to do a little reforming.  Would seem to me like this is someone that y'all might like to have on your side.  Could be a little reforming to get her feet wet in January.  Just my opinion, but I'll definitely be writing her a letter and sending her the copy of the proposal from the website.  Just thought that this might be pertainent considering the past week's events.  Let me know what everyone thinks.  I'm very interested in hearing what everyone has to say, but please, NO POLITICAL DEBATES!!!  Thanks,

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rsp1202 on 09/04/2008 06:14 pm
She can support, then turn against, a Stick to Nowhere.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 09/04/2008 06:16 pm
Here's something on topic, in my opinion.  Now I don't want to make this political, nor do I want to enter a political debate with anyone because I will choose who I vote for when I'm in the booth, but John McCain and Sarah Palin, in my opinion, could be POTENTIALLY and I mean potentially a valuable asset to the DIRECT cause.  The new potential Vice President is against wasteful government spending and is looking to do a little reforming.  Would seem to me like this is someone that y'all might like to have on your side.  Could be a little reforming to get her feet wet in January.  Just my opinion, but I'll definitely be writing her a letter and sending her the copy of the proposal from the website.  Just thought that this might be pertainent considering the past week's events.  Let me know what everyone thinks.  I'm very interested in hearing what everyone has to say, but please, NO POLITICAL DEBATES!!!  Thanks,

-Tom

I think both the political camps would be interested in Direct because it has the potential to save $billions over the current path ... Change or Reform ... take your pick.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/04/2008 06:58 pm
I agree that both sides will find that DIRECT is a great way to cut costs and allow manned spaceflight to continue in the United States. Recent events have shown that we may not be able to rely on Russia for Soyuz rides until Ares I and Orion are ready.
We need to keep the Shuttle flying longer...the implications of doing so is that we need to have a launch vehicle option that is as close to the current Shuttle stack as possible. Shuttle C is dead for safety and cost reasons. Therefore Jupiter is the closest thing we have to the current Shuttle system.
Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, saving the tax payers a little cash is an attractive option. Whatever administration comes in January is going to look for some savings where ever they can get them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 09/04/2008 07:43 pm
Ross,

     Here is the rough draft of the letter that I mentioned yesterday. I intend to send out to as many people as I can get to listen, IE: Congress and Presidental Candidates (both of them) and to anyone else with a copy of the proposal, either in paper format of on CDs (I haven't decide).  Please keep in mind this is just a first draft and while having experience writing after-action reports, this will be my first letter to any Congressional leader so any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  That goes for everyone else as well.  All I'm trying to do is help but if anyone has got any other ideas or suggestions, I'm all ears.  Please keep in mind that this is only the meat and that I will add the approiate greeting and header to each individual letter before printing it out as well as my signature in ink and my contact information.  Thanks again,

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/04/2008 10:05 pm
Both candidates have made statements recently regarding the program which offer a lot of encouragement to us here in the DIRECT Team.

They're each approaching the subject from slightly different tangents, but I think they're both interested in re-examining the current architecture and potentially changing it in some fashion or other.

If they look at DIRECT (and both have already) it naturally does raise interesting questions about whether Ares-I & Ares-V is a good approach at all.

When they take a moment to seriously review the options, all they need really do is examine the cost structures and their eyes will be opened fully. Ares' costs are nothing short of insane, in both the medium- and the long-term - its simply unsustainable - and that puts the whole effort in jeopardy.

At that point all you can do is re-examine the options.   McCain wants to keep discretionary spending down.   Ares is not even close to being able to do that.   Obama is considering reviewing the entire direction of the mission and is looking for ways to change poorly run government.   Ares is, again, right smack in the headlights.

Either way the election goes I think we're in a good position.

But I'm beginning to hear some encouraging things right now, ahead of the election too.   We might actually be getting a change from the inside if we're really lucky.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/04/2008 10:09 pm
Ross,

     Here is the rough draft of the letter that I mentioned yesterday. I intend to send out to as many people as I can get to listen, IE: Congress and Presidental Candidates (both of them) and to anyone else with a copy of the proposal, either in paper format of on CDs (I haven't decide).  Please keep in mind this is just a first draft and while having experience writing after-action reports, this will be my first letter to any Congressional leader so any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  That goes for everyone else as well.  All I'm trying to do is help but if anyone has got any other ideas or suggestions, I'm all ears.  Please keep in mind that this is only the meat and that I will add the approiate greeting and header to each individual letter before printing it out as well as my signature in ink and my contact information.  Thanks again,

-Tom

Tom

First as for voting preference, Direct would only be a SMALL factor for me in determining which candidate to vote for.  There are many more factors that need to be considered objectively.  I have a wide diversity of interests that cross the political spectrum.  To vote one way would have a positive effect on some interests and a negative effect on others.  I would like to hope that there is enough independent thinking that individuals will not just vote along party lines or based on one issue.  Having said that I can't say that I agree with your preference for your reasons.  I have not seen any indications that either side has shown any bias with respect to our space program, and given the current state of affairs I doubt it is a priority with either of them.  For example if there were an escalation in hostilities in Iraq, McCain's concerns about the space program would take a back seat.  If there were an increase in domestic economic problems Obama's concerns about the Space program would take a back seat. 

As for your letter to Congress, I like your sentiments.  Maybe a little more emphasis on our space program's vulnerability due to our dependence on Soyuz.  Given the political volatility in Eastern Europe right now, Russia could decide to pull the plug on any future cooperation in space.  They could in effect hold ISS hostage.  For these reasons, not only would Direct be preferable, but an extension on the shuttle program would be advisable as well.

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 09/04/2008 10:16 pm
Drew...Thanks for the input on both subjects.  Very good points all around.  I'll look into another sentence or two on Soyuz.  Also, rest assured this November I'll be looking at other issues than this when determining which way I vote.  On that note, I think some of the other guys might be right.  Whomever wins might change the whole thing just because it was "Bush's plan" so who know??  One thing is for certain, I'm an excited spectator, in politics as well as the space program.  Thanks again,

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 09/04/2008 10:23 pm
Both candidates have made statements recently regarding the program which offer a lot of encouragement to us here in the DIRECT Team.

They're each approaching the subject from slightly different tangents, but I think they're both interested in re-examining the current architecture and potentially changing it in some fashion or other.

If they look at DIRECT (and both have already) it naturally does raise interesting questions about whether Ares-I & Ares-V is a good approach at all.

When they take a moment to seriously review the options, all they need really do is examine the cost structures and their eyes will be opened fully. Ares' costs are nothing short of insane, in both the medium- and the long-term - its simply unsustainable - and that puts the whole effort in jeopardy.

At that point all you can do is re-examine the options.   McCain wants to keep discretionary spending down.   Ares is not even close to being able to do that.   Obama is considering reviewing the entire direction of the mission and is looking for ways to change poorly run government.   Ares is, again, right smack in the headlights.

Either way the election goes I think we're in a good position.

But I'm beginning to hear some encouraging things right now, ahead of the election too.   We might actually be getting a change from the inside if we're really lucky.

Ross.

Hmm .... I just read a recent interview with Mr. Griffin linked on another thread ... didn't see any hints of changes there ... but keep up the eternal optimism Ross ... something is bound to give between now and early next year ...



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/04/2008 10:26 pm
Ross,

     Here is the rough draft of the letter that I mentioned yesterday.

Tom,
   Looking good!   Thank-you for doing this.   Voices like yours, those people who take a bit of time instead of just blurting out yet another e-mail or online petition signature, *are* heard.   There have been recorded instances where as few as a dozen such letters have resulted in new laws being drafted within Congress.

   You could target Congress-persons, Senators, Science & Space Advisers especially and relevant Committee members. You might also target former members of CAIB, the President's Commission on US Space Exploration Policy, senior managers within the contractors (you really wouldn't believe how many aren't happy with Ares!). Hell, if you're military, send a copy to each of the Joint Chiefs too - they could use a 45mT launcher for a number of different and new uses :)

   That's a list of possibles to start with.

   Again, on behalf of the entire Team, Thank-You Tom for taking the time to do this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/04/2008 10:29 pm
something is bound to give between now and early next year ...

Something is guaranteed to give sooner or later.   Worst case is we ignore the problems too long and eventually get stung when we finally realize we just can't afford Ares-V as well - at which point we get stuck in LEO with yet another EELV, but this one costing ten times the cost of any of the other EELV's.

My optimism is that there *must* be smart enough folk out there to hopefully recognize it soon enough - specifically before the Shuttle infrastructure is all scorched away by Griffin.

Even then it isn't actually too late.   It's just $2bn more expensive than if we still have that all stuff available.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 09/04/2008 10:56 pm
Ross, thanks for the comments and the suggestions.  Here's Draft number two.  Once again the header will be changed to reflect the receipient of the package.  As for the military, we have a channel where servicemembers can submit ideas up the chain of command to the Pentagon.  I had planned on sending a copy of this letter and presentation up to see if maybe some pressure from the DoD might help.  You never know, the shuttle used to carry up payload for them so maybe they have something they need in orbit that's pretty heavy.  Or maybe a revival of the USAF MOL program.  I had an idea of a station in orbit that could be used for theatre battle managment.  Imagine real time data and line of sight comms with field commanders from a station in GEOSTA orbit.  I'll bet J232 could lift that!!! Once again to all, any suggestions to the letter would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks Again,

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/05/2008 09:35 am
Tom,
That's pretty good IMHO.

My only suggestion, the language requesting an independent review in the last paragraph - it just doesn't seem quite as "punchy" as I think it could be.   Might be worth a revisit.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 09/05/2008 04:58 pm
Ross, thanks for the comments and the suggestions.  Here's Draft number two.  Once again the header will be changed to reflect the receipient of the package.  As for the military, we have a channel where servicemembers can submit ideas up the chain of command to the Pentagon.  I had planned on sending a copy of this letter and presentation up to see if maybe some pressure from the DoD might help.  You never know, the shuttle used to carry up payload for them so maybe they have something they need in orbit that's pretty heavy.  Or maybe a revival of the USAF MOL program.  I had an idea of a station in orbit that could be used for theatre battle managment.  Imagine real time data and line of sight comms with field commanders from a station in GEOSTA orbit.  I'll bet J232 could lift that!!! Once again to all, any suggestions to the letter would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks Again,

-Tom

Crikey Tom ... Ross is right ... that's pretty darn good ... who wrote that for you?   :D 

But seriously ... it has been 11 years since I worked for the Navy, but I have always been amazed at the intelligent, thoughtful, and  dedicated people we have in our armed forces.  Based on that letter (which is much better than I would have come up with), it looks like you are one of them ... thank you for your service. 



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 09/05/2008 05:47 pm
Ross, thanks for the comments and the suggestions.  Here's Draft number two.  Once again the header will be changed to reflect the receipient of the package.  As for the military, we have a channel where servicemembers can submit ideas up the chain of command to the Pentagon.  I had planned on sending a copy of this letter and presentation up to see if maybe some pressure from the DoD might help.  You never know, the shuttle used to carry up payload for them so maybe they have something they need in orbit that's pretty heavy.  Or maybe a revival of the USAF MOL program.  I had an idea of a station in orbit that could be used for theatre battle managment.  Imagine real time data and line of sight comms with field commanders from a station in GEOSTA orbit.  I'll bet J232 could lift that!!! Once again to all, any suggestions to the letter would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks Again,

-Tom

I'd put the "$30 BILLION USD" in the paragraph describing Ares. Someone speed reading the letter might think that's the cost of Direct, since it's in the Direct paragraph.

I'd also specify the total cost of developing the Jupiter 120 & Orion, then the additional cost of J-232, for an obvious comparison to Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/05/2008 06:08 pm

I'd put the "$30 BILLION USD" in the paragraph describing Ares. Someone speed reading the letter might think that's the cost of Direct, since it's in the Direct paragraph.

I'd also specify the total cost of developing the Jupiter 120 & Orion, then the additional cost of J-232, for an obvious comparison to Ares.


Good point.  A paragraph or two focussing on Ares, then a paragraph or two focussing on Direct would offer a clear comparison and have more impact.

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ballew on 09/05/2008 06:43 pm
Here is what I sent in July to my Congressman who is on the House Committee on Science and Technology . I also sent a similar letter to my senators.

Senator Chambliss replied back that he had contacted NASA with my concerns and would follow up with me when he recieved a reply but I haven't heard anything since then.

I am preparing a followup letter to all of them this weekend.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/05/2008 07:21 pm
Here is what I sent in July to my Congressman who is on the House Committee on Science and Technology . I also sent a similar letter to my senators.

Senator Chambliss replied back that he had contacted NASA with my concerns and would follow up with me when he recieved a reply but I haven't heard anything since then.

I am preparing a followup letter to all of them this weekend.

Wow, I like it!
Maybe you and Tom could collaborate on a letter.  Two people batting ideas back and forth could definitely yield a great letter.

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 09/05/2008 10:42 pm
Here is what I sent in July to my Congressman who is on the House Committee on Science and Technology . I also sent a similar letter to my senators.

Senator Chambliss replied back that he had contacted NASA with my concerns and would follow up with me when he recieved a reply but I haven't heard anything since then.

I am preparing a followup letter to all of them this weekend.

OK, now you guys are beginning to tick me off.  Their is a really nice weekend approaching, lots of sunshine, might be the last one of the year ... and I feel like I should be writing my congressmen ...

BTW, nice letter Craig!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 09/06/2008 12:30 am
NASA is in the middle of a reality check at the moment. The options are:
1.extend shuttle flights to reduce the workforce and flight gap then let Ares take over. Possible gap in Space station occupation. More Funding required.
2.extend shuttle flights - purchase COTS flights to ISS then let Ares take over. More funding required but Commercial flight services are utilised.
3. Fund EELV Heavy Lift to launch Orion then proceed directly to Ares V development. Workforce gap worsened (or switched to EELV factories) but flight gap reduced or eliminated. Cash flow improved but potentially more costly in the long run.
4. Clean sheet design. Likely more expensive to implement in the time allowed. Workforce significantly affected. Flight gap may or may not be eliminated. Possible lengthy development time.
5. Switch to Direct Architecture to reduce or eliminate workforce gap, reduce or eliminate flight gap. Less funding required to develop whole system.

All are valid directions to take but the Direct architecture is just cheaper and quicker. So I choose that one! Why doesn't NASA?



(PS: I have to say it - sorry to here about your health issues Ross - hope all's well)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 09/08/2008 07:26 pm
Griffin talks about freelancing on Ares alternatives

http://www.space.com/news/080907-griffin-interview.html

"
What can you do as NASA administrator to keep the community from losing faith and freelancing on new policy directions?

I don't think I have any ability to keep the broader community from, as you say, freelancing. We live in a democracy. That's an artifact of life in a democracy and if you consider the broader context I don't think I'd want it to be any different.

Since I took the job I have relied on the strength of our technical arguments to reinforce the path we've chosen.

So far what you've referred to as freelancing has amounted to nothing more than noise because no one has produced an alternative which is safer, cheaper or available in a more timely way than the architecture we've recommended. And for that reason our oversight committees in Congress and our oversight branch in the White House have not chosen to redirect us. In brief we have the most sensible path given the available money. And I am always confident that more dialogue really doesn't serve to do anything except validate that conclusion. My responsibility is to keep our programs moving forward as they've been outlined. I'm sure that the proponents of alternative paths are acting in what they believe to be good faith. I am absolutely certain of that. I never suspect evil intent. I do, however, realize that not all of those people are as informed as they ought to be. So far the conclusions that have been brought to us just have not held up to engineering scrutiny.
"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 09/08/2008 09:38 pm
Griffin talks about freelancing on Ares alternatives

http://www.space.com/news/080907-griffin-interview.html

"
What can you do as NASA administrator to keep the community from losing faith and freelancing on new policy directions?

I don't think I have any ability to keep the broader community from, as you say, freelancing. We live in a democracy. That's an artifact of life in a democracy and if you consider the broader context I don't think I'd want it to be any different.

Since I took the job I have relied on the strength of our technical arguments to reinforce the path we've chosen.

So far what you've referred to as freelancing has amounted to nothing more than noise because no one has produced an alternative which is safer, cheaper or available in a more timely way than the architecture we've recommended. And for that reason our oversight committees in Congress and our oversight branch in the White House have not chosen to redirect us. In brief we have the most sensible path given the available money. And I am always confident that more dialogue really doesn't serve to do anything except validate that conclusion. My responsibility is to keep our programs moving forward as they've been outlined. I'm sure that the proponents of alternative paths are acting in what they believe to be good faith. I am absolutely certain of that. I never suspect evil intent. I do, however, realize that not all of those people are as informed as they ought to be. So far the conclusions that have been brought to us just have not held up to engineering scrutiny.
"

Does this mean that they have actually subjected the alternatives to Engineering scrutiny?
Someone from the direct team really needs to meet with Griffin.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 09/08/2008 10:16 pm
Looking back at NASA's technical Critique of Direct - I'm wondering what options there are if everything they stated about uper stage mass was assumed to be true.

Ie: if the Direct Architecture was actually lumbered with the heavier upper stage what could be done?
I'm thinking the switch to 5 segment SRB's could be done at this point as we are looking solely at the Heavy lifter - which isn't an immediate need- and the Cash flow situation would be improved as the spending could be pushed back or spread out.

So: J120 as is.
J232 with 5 segment srb & 8m core. NASA Critique upper stage.

Would this solve all of NASA's concerns? Would it fly?

Obviously if NASA had used the correct uper stage design in their critique then there would be no problem at all but it something is needed to convince NASA then this may be it?

Advantages are - still minimal infrastruture changes, 5 segment development costs pushed back, timeline improved over Constellation architecture, ATK still gets it's 5 segment booster contract(!).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/09/2008 01:56 am
Deleted
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Avron on 09/09/2008 02:43 am
Translation: They can talk all they want, they can show reams of data and engineering analysis, and I am going to sit here with my fingers in my ears and say "LA LA LA LA LA" all day long!

Something must be done to combat this.


Vote the voice for change..  I can't you can...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/09/2008 03:50 am
We learned something interesting in my Aviation Human Factors class. The professor stated that it has been observed that in many cases, (whether it be in the cockpit, the hangar, or even the common workplace) that if we hear a story, or repeat something over and over, that soon we start to take it as fact.
The common "hangar-talk" being the example...where a story gets repeated so many times that soon it is taken as fact.

I feel Griffin is suffering from this. I would not use the "L Word" when it comes to his statements. There is no deception in his words. He is so convinced that Ares I is the way to go, that he is blind to any other alternative. It is so driven in that his way is the right way, it doesn't matter if the numbers prove otherwise.
The man isn't sitting there trying to put a spin on Ares, or to try to purposely discredit DIRECT (as some believe), he truly believes deep down inside that his system is far superior.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/09/2008 05:19 am
We learned something interesting in my Aviation Human Factors class. The professor stated that it has been observed that in many cases, (whether it be in the cockpit, the hangar, or even the common workplace) that if we hear a story, or repeat something over and over, that soon we start to take it as fact.
The common "hangar-talk" being the example...where a story gets repeated so many times that soon it is taken as fact.

I feel Griffin is suffering from this. I would not use the "L Word" when it comes to his statements. There is no deception in his words. He is so convinced that Ares I is the way to go, that he is blind to any other alternative. It is so driven in that his way is the right way, it doesn't matter if the numbers prove otherwise.
The man isn't sitting there trying to put a spin on Ares, or to try to purposely discredit DIRECT (as some believe), he truly believes deep down inside that his system is far superior.

This type of delusional disorder has become an epidemic in this country.  Hopefully things will settle down after November 4.

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/09/2008 05:36 am
Does anybody know about the status of aerospike engines?  Are they anywhere close to a useable design?  Could there be a practical use for them with Direct, heck, with ANY application in our space program?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 09/09/2008 06:32 am
  The best solution might be to remove Griffin if he is not willing to alter his vision for reality.
It was this type of mind set in the leader ship that killed the X33 they would not compromise with metal tanks and the project stalled.
Getting a project stalled seems to be the most sure fire way to kill it even works better then going over budget.
He even seems to fear that an alternative could replace his concepts an EELV could close the gap if needed .
I think Griffin is a classic example of the belief-bias effect and superiority complex in action.
 For a Vulcan as he describes himself he isn't acting very logical.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/09/2008 12:38 pm
I would not use the "L Word" when it comes to his statements. There is no deception in his words.

Yes, there is.

I quote: "So far what you've referred to as freelancing has amounted to nothing more than noise because no one has produced an alternative which is safer, cheaper or available in a more timely way than the architecture we've recommended."

If that isn't a lie, I don't know what is.

There are several alternatives to Ares that are safer, less expensive, and will be ready to pad faster. And he knows it.

One thing I would have jumped on if I were the reporter to whom he made that statement would have been, You're telling me that vehicles that NASA itself studied, designed, and have been examined by your own agency are only noise? What were you doing with all that money when they were being studied? And some other things, Mr. Griffin: Do you realize that you're calling your own engineers and designers idiots? Do you realize that you're saying that your agency is hiring people who don't know how to do their jobs? What do you think the American people will say about NASA that you hire people who can't design rockets? Why is it that you won't even allow an independent review of these alternatives? Are you afraid of the results?

The most important part of what Griffin said, is actually what he didn't say. Ares does not follow the mandate of the law. What we're seeing in his statement is bureaucrat-speak. Focus on the things that are really minor, so they won't notice the major stuff.

I agree that removing Griffin will be a good step forward, but we also have to look at who there is available to replace him. Has to be someone who will tell everyone to do the simplest thing first.
[/i]
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 09/09/2008 03:11 pm
I would not use the "L Word" when it comes to his statements. There is no deception in his words.

Yes, there is.

I quote: "So far what you've referred to as freelancing has amounted to nothing more than noise because no one has produced an alternative which is safer, cheaper or available in a more timely way than the architecture we've recommended."

If that isn't a lie, I don't know what is.

There are several alternatives to Ares that are safer, less expensive, and will be ready to pad faster. And he knows it.

No, that's not a lie.  It's an opinion, and so is yours.  Unfortunately for DIRECT, Griffin's opinion is the only one that matters right now.

Griffin, despite his technical background, is now a politician.  Believe it or not, politician's rarely lie.  They spin limited pieces of truth to bolster their position, and to push down alternative positions.

That might be deceptive, but it isn't lying.

Don't get me wrong... I'm a big proponent of DIRECT if you stick to the STS-derived mandate, and I strongly disagree with Griffin's statement above.  But I'm not in a position to prove it.

Congress is.

Write (don't type) to your Congress-critters.  They are the only ones in a position to order a change of course here, if you disagree with NASA's own course. 

It honestly doesn't matter who gets put in the White House for this one.  Ultimately, Congress controls the space program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/09/2008 03:25 pm
Believe it or not, politician's rarely lie.  They spin limited pieces of truth to bolster their position, and to push down alternative positions.

That might be deceptive, but it isn't lying.

Say what?

Lie:
1  : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2  : to create a false or misleading impression

Spin (intending to leave a misleading impression) and deception are both forms of lying.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/09/2008 06:12 pm
Let's not get into a debate what is or isn't a lie. It doesn't change the matter at hand that a FAIR and BALANCED opinion is not being presented. A true study of DIRECT has not been undertaken.
What NASA has done is looked at an early form of DIRECT and declared it unsatisfactory. However, the design has evolved. It would be like declaring Ares I still shuttle derived, but using the original ESAS concept as the basis. (And not surprisingly, this is what NASA does)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2008 06:37 pm
Please everyone, I do not want this thread to turn into a "he's a liar" thread.

Whether you subscribe to that opinion or not, it is below the respect level which I would like to maintain here.

I don't have any problem if people wish to start a separate thread to discuss such opinions, but I am going to ask Chris and James to police and delete any further comments here which are in that particular vein.

I have no problems with criticizing Griffin's decisions - I'm personally about as critical as it gets - but I want to keep common respect at a high level here in this discussion and this is dipping below the radar.

Thank-you.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2008 07:11 pm
So: J120 as is.
J232 with 5 segment srb & 8m core. NASA Critique upper stage.

Would this solve all of NASA's concerns? Would it fly?

No.   NASA's concerns are not a technical problem, they are an internal political one.   In particular the current Administrator has a particular plan and simply does not want anything else to appear on the radar.

In that context, it does not matter what alternatives are ever presented, they will simply not get a hearing.   It doesn't matter if they are cheaper.   It doesn't matter if they are faster to implement.   It doesn't matter if they are simpler to build.   It doesn't matter if they are safer.   It doesn't even matter if they are all of the above.   The truth is that unless the alternative *is* exactly the same as Ares-I and Ares-V they will not be fully considered.

The fact is that under the current management, even if such an alternative plan came forward, it will still probably be attacked simply because it comes from somewhere other than the Administrators own office.


Quote
ATK still gets it's 5 segment booster contract(!).

That is a more important factor than most people give it credit.   We think that keeping the 5-seg development for the J-232 is a great way to get ATK to back Jupiter whenever Ares falls apart.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2008 07:17 pm
Does anybody know about the status of aerospike engines?  Are they anywhere close to a useable design?  Could there be a practical use for them with Direct, heck, with ANY application in our space program?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Drew

No.   Units the size that we would need for human spaceflight are still along way from becoming operational.   There was a lot of work put into the Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 and RS-2200 for the X-33/Venture Star program, but even those had a long way to go before they could have been human flown.

A human-rated conical aerospike design is going to be an effort larger, more time-consuming and more costly than J-2X currently is.

That's not to say it isn't a good idea.   The right design would be well worth developing - for the future - *if* there were any R&D money available - which there isn't.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Hermit on 09/09/2008 07:35 pm
Any news on the Asimov SciFi story involving Direct I seem to remember being mentioned a little while ago?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 09/09/2008 08:08 pm
Any news on the Asimov SciFi story involving Direct I seem to remember being mentioned a little while ago?

Huh??  Asimov has been dead for around 15 years. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/09/2008 08:27 pm
Does anybody know about the status of aerospike engines?  Are they anywhere close to a useable design?  Could there be a practical use for them with Direct, heck, with ANY application in our space program?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Drew

No.   Units the size that we would need for human spaceflight are still along way from becoming operational.   There was a lot of work put into the Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 and RS-2200 for the X-33/Venture Star program, but even those had a long way to go before they could have been human flown.

A human-rated conical aerospike design is going to be an effort larger, more time-consuming and more costly than J-2X currently is.

That's not to say it isn't a good idea.   The right design would be well worth developing - for the future - *if* there were any R&D money available - which there isn't.

Ross.

Thanks for the info.  That's pretty much the answer that I anticipated, but I was hoping that there might have been some new news.  Oh well.

Drew 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2008 08:41 pm
Drew,
The other thing about aerospikes is that they are really only useful for SSTO's.   More-so on reusable vehicles too.   Their big advantage is that they allow optimized efficiency from sea level all the way up to vacuum.

If you stage a rocket, you would be better-off highly optimizing a regular (cheap) nozzle for the specific environment it will be working within - it will be more efficient.   An aerospike becomes fairly redundant on a vehicle which stages.

Given that most practical rocket engines are in the <1.5 million pound thrust range, that means we're talking about medium-lift launch systems exclusively.


I have a pet idea whereby a very large aerospike nozzle might be powered by a collection of powerheads instead of just one.   I think it would offer some degree of redundancy and allow for a much more powerful design, but I have no idea of the complexities regarding thrust imbalance on such a design - especially if one powerhead were not to start/function correctly.   With a very complex plumbing system, each powerhead might supply the entire ring, and so imbalance would be a non-issue, but the mass implications would likely be an issue too.   But that's just a purely pet idea for something in the Sea-Dragon class.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 09/09/2008 09:00 pm
According to my latest runs, a Jupiter-110 will currently only launch 17,486kg to NASA's baseline -11x100nm, 51.6 degree insertion orbit.   This is because the Jupiter Core Stage mass increased, and so too did the RS-68 mass, since the last time we did a J-110 configuration 12-18 months ago.

It would be possible to 'dumb down' Jupiter-120 by integrating a 15,000kg ballistic shield, consisting of a water tank 8.0m in diameter, along with multiple layers of boron-carbide 'bullet proof' panels of a similar diameter.

Total performance would then allow an Orion CEV spacecraft massing up to 25,000kg to be flown to 100x220nm, 51.6deg with no other payloads.

And flying cargo only, it would still be in the >40mT class so would not compete with nor duplicate the EELV's performance.

Ross.

This was earlier in the thread

Sorry if this was discussed, but is this close enough to the required performance that a luanr-capable Orion could make up the difference using its SM, for ISS-only missions?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/09/2008 09:48 pm
Sorry if this was discussed, but is this close enough to the required performance that a luanr-capable Orion could make up the difference using its SM, for ISS-only missions?

Nope.   Not enough total impulse, sorry.   J-110 is almost 2mT short of requirements.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/09/2008 10:35 pm
Drew,
The other thing about aerospikes is that they are really only useful for SSTO's.   More-so on reusable vehicles too.   Their big advantage is that they allow optimized efficiency from sea level all the way up to vacuum.

If you stage a rocket, you would be better-off highly optimizing a regular (cheap) nozzle for the specific environment it will be working within - it will be more efficient.   An aerospike becomes fairly redundant on a vehicle which stages.

Given that most practical rocket engines are in the <1.5 million pound thrust range, that means we're talking about medium-lift launch systems exclusively.


I have a pet idea whereby a very large aerospike nozzle might be powered by a collection of powerheads instead of just one.   I think it would offer some degree of redundancy and allow for a much more powerful design, but I have no idea of the complexities regarding thrust imbalance on such a design - especially if one powerhead were not to start/function correctly.   With a very complex plumbing system, each powerhead might supply the entire ring, and so imbalance would be a non-issue, but the mass implications would likely be an issue too.   But that's just a purely pet idea for something in the Sea-Dragon class.

Ross.

Thanks for the input Ross,
My interest in the aerospike was in the fuel economy department (Fuel economy?!?!? In a rocket?!?!?  This Drew guy must not be rowing with both oars in the water!!)  With better fuel economy the launch mass could be decreased substantially.  I'm not sure of the exact calculations for this, but with a rocket engine with let's say 2% greater fuel economy, the amount of mass required for fuel could be reduced by a significant amount.  Just a thought...
 
I like the multiple powerhead idea.  I might be wrong, but I seem to recall the aerospike having a problem with "flameout", so this is a great solution.  I also suspect that it would be more efficient for the same reason as port injection is more efficient than throttle body fuel injection in cars. 

As for Sea Dragon, if the concept is still being tossed around, I wonder how much of THAT design could be optimised, like "Kiloton Karrier."  If IT was plausible 40 years ago, just imagine what could be done with it today!  But of course the R&D money has to be there!

Drew   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Hermit on 09/09/2008 10:51 pm
Any news on the Asimov SciFi story involving Direct I seem to remember being mentioned a little while ago?

Huh??  Asimov has been dead for around 15 years. 

The story was to appear in the Asimov magazine: http://www.asimovs.com/. Would be a nice little bit of publicity is all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Avron on 09/10/2008 02:04 am

No.   NASA's concerns are not a technical problem, they are an internal political one. 

Ross.. I think that needs to be enlarged.. its not just internal.. its a 17 billion dollar handout..  NASA's problem is its controlled from the outside.. and not via the will of the people..
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/10/2008 12:08 pm
Avron,
You are right that there are definitely a ton of different political and corporate pressures imposed upon NASA, without doubt.   But other than ATK's obvious involvement in the proposals, I still think that Griffin and Horowitz actually got a fairly free hand to dig their own graves with this Ares plan.

The external pressures were always more "oblique" than focused.   For example, the impetus behind "Retire Shuttle by 2010" originally came from CAIB recommendations - and it was those which were adopted so strongly by so many political figures and even NASA management itself.   Whether that's a good or bad thing, I can't really say, but I think CAIB had, and still has, a lot of valid conclusions which we should be placing front-and-center WRT the retirement of Shuttle and for also developing new program.

Additionally, there was a strong impetus to save the jobs coming from all the contractors and many space-savvy political figures.   Initially the EELV-only solution promised to really mess up a lot of space districts, which is why an SDLV-friendly Administrator was appointed once O'Keefe left the agency.   Of course, Ares is so UN-SDLV now that it will actually destroy just as many jobs as any clean-sheet solution would have.

There was also a very strong political push, both internally and externally, to place the center of development in Alabama.   The Alabama delegation has fought extremely hard to get its share of this program, even though it is at the cost of many other regions.   The other regions haven't fought as hard - at least not until the realization finally sunk-in earlier this year that regions like the Florida Space Coast are about to be 'raped' in just 24 months.   Now, of course, everybody is running around trying to 'fix' it.

I will leave Presidential politics out of this discussion (and I explicitly ask everybody else to do the SAME - thank-you), other than to say that yes, there has been political pressure on NASA from there too - most obviously in terms on a lack of increased funds which were promised four years ago - and Congress is equally responsible for this situation.

But given the 'bubbles' and 'slumps' of recent decades I personally think it was rather naive of Griffin to ever simply accept political promises for more money and leave the whole program open to serious problems if those promises ever failed to appear.   Whether culpable or not, that decision was foolish.

The plans should never have required such promised budget increases.

The plans should have been designed to be robust in a budget-neutral environment - right from the start.   Then, if the additional money did ever turn up, the agency could have made use of the surplus funding for additional things or to accelerate the program further.   It was astonishingly shortsighted to leave the agency exposed this way; so desperately reliant upon budget increases and favorable political whims just to achieve the basic "must haves" for the new program.   It was particularly stupid to include so many costly and schedule impacting technologies in the critical path to flying Orion - I speak explicitly of the decision to include the development of J-2X, the 5-seg SRB and the vast array of infrastructure changes required to support such a radical departure in rocket design as has become the Ares-I, all of which must come together before any Orion can ever fly with a crew.   That choice, by Griffin, was always asking for trouble.

So yes, there are some pretty big 'outside forces' at work.   But the exact nature of what we got - starting with Griffin/Garriott Planetary Society paper "blueprint", leading to ESAS and then becoming the Ares-I and Ares-V debacle today - was never specified by anyone outside of the Administrators "inner circle" of colleagues (excepting ATK, via Horowitz).

I therefore think that the ultimate responsibility for *those* decisions still rests entirely with Griffin at the end of the day.   He could have chosen a different, less risky path.   Its not like they were absent.   There are a number of alternatives which have been put forward from flying Orion on an EELV initially to our own efforts regarding DIRECT.

Griffin was told in no uncertain terms, and by many many people over the last few years, exactly how risky his plans were from a programmatic perspective.   Yet he ignored all those people and pressed ahead anyway.   He has actively sought to remove all opposing voices during his tenure, systematically locating and silencing nearly all dissent.   That behavior raises some very serious questions to me.   But regardless of those, now, he still won't budge, he still won't consider any alternatives seriously - he continues to refuse to listen to anyone - even though things are beginning to fall apart around him.

Griffin, alone, is responsible for that situation.

Sadly though, it will be the people of the US Space Program, NASA as an agency and the US tax-paying people who fund the efforts who will ultimately suffer as a result.   And that, at least to me personally, is where this situation crosses the line and becomes criminal.   That's my opinon.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/10/2008 01:21 pm
So, where do we go from here?  Let's say it's spring of 09 and Griffin is gone.  We can't get Ares-I done anywhere near in time, and we can't buy seats on Soyuz after 2011, but we want continued access to ISS.  What do we do?

One thought is this:

- Kill Ares-I and Ares-V design and testing work
- Continue with J2X development
- Accelerate Orion, Block 1 just for LEO (ISS)
- Man-rate one of the EELVs (pick one - quickly)
- Build necessary facilities to handle Orion and crew for that EELV
- Add two STS flights - AMS and logistics with crew rotation - in 2011
- Begin work on J-120

This would buy a year of breathing room through two additional Shuttle flights, and provide two possible ways (EELV + J-120) to get Orion to LEO - something I think we should have anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/10/2008 02:39 pm
Myself, I would probably start by adding 1 year of operations to Shuttle - just to give everyone some additional breathing room and to take the 'panic/knee-jerk' effect out of the decision-making process.   I think a knee-jerk reaction could be even more dangerous than even continuing with Ares.

Replace Griffin with an excellent business manager who understands finance, politics and managing people.   He doesn't need to know jack sh*t about engineering.   But he needs to know how to professionally manage a government agency.   He needs to leave the engineering to his chief engineer(s) and concentrate on his job: Administration of NASA.


Then we would ask Congress or the President (by Executive Order if necessary) to commission an independent study into Ares vs. DIRECT vs. EELV vs. EELV+Shuttle-C.

While I am personally confident what the result will be, I want this study to be completely untainted by me, NASA and all other factions.   The various competitors are welcome to present their case to the independent review - however it is arranged - but there must be no way for any 'side' to influence the review.   It must be independent and it must be fair and it must cover all the bases; performance, safety, politics, cost and program aims.   If it is fair I believe that whatever the final decision is, we would all be able to support it.   Fairness is something ESAS was desperately lacking and I think all sides would welcome it.


Assuming DIRECT is then selected...

#1 Priority would then be to urgently issue a non-competed contract to PWR to human-rate their current RS-68 engine as as a higher priority than J-2X.   One note goes with that:   That the work needs to be done with an eye towards later adapting the HR systems to the upgraded USAF RS-68A after it has become operational.

Orion would continue unhindered.   LM would be given an immediate assurance of that.


There are three more tasks I would then kick-off straight away:

a) Get the Space Shuttle Program and Constellation Program management together in the same room ASAP to discuss the options for transitioning External Tank manufacturing into Jupiter Core Stage manufacturing.

Everyone needs to get on the same page ASAP.   CxP personnel need to get familiar with what is in place right now and SSP personnel need to feed that information to them.

From a 40,000ft perspective, and given the 1 year extension to SSP I already mentioned, I would accept a minor (>60 day) delay to SSP processing schedules if required in order to assist this kick-off, but I would leave the planning and arranging for that in the hands of the appropriate SSP and CxP personnel.

They need to focus on the following priorities:-

i) Retaining manufacturing compatibility on major elements with commonality - barrels, domes, Interstage structure etc.

ii) DDT&E of the new Thrust Structure.   I would like, but it is not essential, for the existing Ares-I US team to get involved in this effort.   They are in the best position to get on this bicycle fastest.

iii) Find out the 'position' of ATK.   Jupiter-120 will 100% use the existing 4-seg SRB's.   But to keep ATK on our side, we may need to offer the 'bone' of 5-seg for J-232.   Bottom-line, if they are willing to cooperate on switching over these contracts, we play ball with them.   If they want to cause trouble, we simply cancel the current 5-seg contract and plan to compete for a new booster for J-232 - bringing LIQUID options into the discussion.   It would therefore very much be in ATK's best interests to play ball on this change-over.

iv) Similarly negotiate with Boeing regarding switching over their IU contract to the different Jupiter configuration.   We still need an IU for a new SDLV and there is a contract in place for one.   We re-use it for Jupiter.    LM won't stand in the way because they will be getting the Core Stage work.

v) Boeing contract for Ares-I Upper Stage is similarly handled.   We still need a brand-new Upper Stage powered by J-2X.   Change the diameter and the contract can slide over.   Again, LM won't cause problems.

vi) All other contracts and work needs to be switched over appropriately in the swiftest possible time-frame.   6 months is the current estimate to get fully into DAC-0.


We have spoken with people on the ground in all the contractors and within NASA - they are ready to pick up a different ball.   I would actually say many are itching to do so.   They have done tons of research for studies on Ares-I and are in an excellent position to take those lessons and apply them to Jupiter.   They can make this change fairly swiftly and efficiently.

The biggest change is going to be figuring out what is on Shuttle from the logistics, manufacturing and production perspectives, and then integrating the appropriate factors into the new Core Stage design - instead of starting with a completely clean sheet as they did with Ares-I U/S.   This will require a significant mental gear-shift and *everyone* from all the folk in the trenches at Michoud all the way through to upper management at MSFC & HQ all need to get on the same page regarding this issue ASAP.   There needs to be a strong leader taking this subject on.


That's some of what needs to be done to get the ball rolling.

There's an awful lot more, obviously, but if we could put those issues in motion in week #1 we would be making awesome progress.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 09/10/2008 03:26 pm
Any news on the Asimov SciFi story involving Direct I seem to remember being mentioned a little while ago?

Huh??  Asimov has been dead for around 15 years. 

The story was to appear in the Asimov magazine: http://www.asimovs.com/. Would be a nice little bit of publicity is all.

"In the Age of the Quiet Sun" in the Sept. 2008 issue describes a Jupiter 130 (a 232 w/o US) being used to boost an evolved variant of the mini-mag Orion toward a LEO propellant depot (with the payload's own propulsion taking the place of the US). The story is set in the late 2040s.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 09/10/2008 05:42 pm
- Man-rate one of the EELVs (pick one - quickly)

Why not man-rate both?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/10/2008 05:56 pm
- Man-rate one of the EELVs (pick one - quickly)

Why not man-rate both?

Time and resources.  Otherwise, fine.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/10/2008 06:11 pm
Of the 4, only kerosene and ethanol are liquid at room temperatures; all the rest are gaseous. The observation from A_M_Swallow was for carbon-based propellant that is liquid at room temperature, not which was the most efficient. From that standpoint, ethanol would make a reasonable substitute for kerosene, should that propellant ever become a problem, albeit less efficient.

IIRC, from learning about methane use as a motor fuel (more my area of expertise) it requires very high pressures to liquefy and the density is pretty low, especially when you consider it's total energy content (ISP?)  That has been one of the main holdbacks to methane in motor vehicle use-- it requires several-thousand-PSI cylinders like gaseous oxygen blowtorch cylinders to store enough of it to power a vehicle for any length of time.  The same thing has beset hydrogen as a fuel for motor vehicles.  Additionally, carrying a group of high-pressure cylinders and their associated plumbing and pressure regulators, etc. presents it's own dangers and problems in vehicular applications.  Hence Propane and butane are preferable motor vehicle fuels, since they are slightly cryogenic but easily liquified at acceptably low pressures and easily stored and safely transported.  I read something about LPG use as rocket fuel, and it would seem to be vastly easier to use from a storage standpoint than LNG (methane) or LH2, but it would not be easily (or even possibly?) made on orbit or in situ...  LPG should be much easier to store than LO2, since it's boiling temperature and head pressure is SO much higher than LO2, but then if you can perfect equipment capable of liquefying LO2 it shouldn't be TOO terribly hard to take the next step and adapt it to handle LH2; certainly LH2 presents it's own unique problems and is harder to liquefy and contain without leakage, and to keep stored...

Just tossing a couple thoughts out... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/10/2008 06:38 pm
Just my opinion regarding alternative fuels for rockets, anything that isn't RP-1/LOX or LH2/LOX is going to require some serious development $$$ to be spent for a human-rated version.   And lets not forget that all the disadvantages of LOX/LH2 can be mitigated by adding active cooling systems - which isn't brain surgery.

The only exception to that *might* be a Methane engine due to its relevancy for Mars ISRU - but that's quite a long way off still, so beyond early prototyping, I'm not even sure its all that relevant.

If we are going to be spending serious dollars on developing new propulsion technologies, my question is why are we even discussing chemical propulsion still?   Shouldn't we just be heading straight for the nuclear door and >1000s Isp solutions?   LH2 and RP-1 offer a pretty good range of performance options already.   Methane has some potential relevancy down the road.   But nuclear in some flavor or other has to be the ultimate goal.   We should not get distracted by spending dollars in places which can only offer small improvements when we need to keep those extremely valuable dollars for major improvements.

And BTW, DIRECT is all about saving large quantities of unnecessary rocket development money in order to fund more missions and more important R&D efforts.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/10/2008 07:34 pm
Just my opinion regarding alternative fuels for rockets, anything that isn't RP-1/LOX or LH2/LOX is going to require some serious development $$$ to be spent for a human-rated version.   And lets not forget that all the disadvantages of LOX/LH2 can be mitigated by adding active cooling systems - which isn't brain surgery.

The only exception to that *might* be a Methane engine due to its relevancy for Mars ISRU - but that's quite a long way off still, so beyond early prototyping, I'm not even sure its all that relevant.

If we are going to be spending serious dollars on developing new propulsion technologies, my question is why are we even discussing chemical propulsion still?   Shouldn't we just be heading straight for the nuclear door and >1000s Isp solutions?   LH2 and RP-1 offer a pretty good range of performance options already.   Methane has some potential relevancy down the road.   But nuclear in some flavor or other has to be the ultimate goal.   We should not get distracted by spending dollars in places which can only offer small improvements when we need to keep those extremely valuable dollars for major improvements.

And BTW, DIRECT is all about saving large quantities of unnecessary rocket development money in order to fund more missions and more important R&D efforts.

Ross.

Well said, I was just tossing out ideas...  I think that if we want to go deeper into space with manned vehicles in realistic timescales, or do really heavy serious probe work in the outer solar system, we're going to need more advanced (dare I say the "N" word?? [NUCLEAR THAT IS]) propulsion.  As you said, rather than develop engines capable of using different a myriad of different fuels/oxidizers, money would be better spent on perfecting the methods of cryogenic handling and storage in space.  Just like Gemini perfected the methodologies used for rendezvous, docking, and spacewalking so necessary for Apollo.  That's what we need now, a "Gemini"-like project for on orbit cryohandling/storage to perfect propellant transfer/depot technologies, and experimental advanced non-chemical propulsion (nuclear, SEP, TEP, etc.) 

Of course without an affordable sustainable launcher to make such a program possible, that doesn't completely nuke the budget and suck all the air from the room...

JMHO!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/10/2008 07:48 pm
I'm curious as to what method of nuclear propulsion is being proposed?  A pulse style propulsion, a thermal propellant acceleration, or another method that I'm not aware of?

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 09/10/2008 07:57 pm
- Man-rate one of the EELVs (pick one - quickly)

Why not man-rate both?

Time and resources.  Otherwise, fine.

I prefer to have two dissimilar LVs in order to not be grounded a-la post-Columbia 2 year gap if a problem with one of them is discovered.

Time? - man-rating can be done in parallel.
Money? - it costs less than $1 bn per LV right?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 09/10/2008 08:03 pm
Shouldn't we just be heading straight for the nuclear door and >1000s Isp solutions?

Nuclear engines in space are probably ok. Nuclear engines on Earth-LEO LV are not politically acceptable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/10/2008 08:15 pm
- Man-rate one of the EELVs (pick one - quickly)

Why not man-rate both?

Time and resources.  Otherwise, fine.

I prefer to have two dissimilar LVs in order to not be grounded a-la post-Columbia 2 year gap if a problem with one of them is discovered.

Me too, and I proposed one of the EELVs and a Jupiter 120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Avron on 09/11/2008 04:03 am


I therefore think that the ultimate responsibility for *those* decisions still rests entirely with Griffin at the end of the day. 

...


Sadly though, it will be the people of the US Space Program, NASA as an agency and the US tax-paying people who fund the efforts who will ultimately suffer as a result.   And that, at least to me personally, is where this situation crosses the line and becomes criminal.   That's my opinon.

Ross.


Ross, first off, my thanks for taking the time to respond to my simple inputs..

Secondly for giving us all ( along with your partners) a viable option.. we need more Ross'es in this world... " That's my opinon."

I cannot agree with you more in term of the criminal part, and that gets much worse when you look at what is is doing/ not doing for our children.. what are they learning from all this..??? 


I however disagree, that it all  sits  with Dr Griffin .. may I suggest it sits with the tax payers of the USA.. them with the votes... .. Dr Griffin  is just a simple representation of the voice of the people (or non voice) at this time..

Avron
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/11/2008 09:08 pm
I'm curious as to what method of nuclear propulsion is being proposed?  A pulse style propulsion, a thermal propellant acceleration, or another method that I'm not aware of?

Drew

That is a chat which needs to go in a different thread.

There are a number of such discussions which have taken place already in the Advanced Concepts section of the forum.   Further discussion really needs to go there.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/11/2008 09:32 pm
I'm curious as to what method of nuclear propulsion is being proposed?  A pulse style propulsion, a thermal propellant acceleration, or another method that I'm not aware of?

Drew

That is a chat which needs to go in a different thread.

There are a number of such discussions which have taken place already in the Advanced Concepts section of the forum.   Further discussion really needs to go there.

Ross.

Ross,
I had actually gone there, earlier but I hadn't found the answer.  In retrospect, I should have gone back to that section to ask the question, it just didn't occur to me at the time.  My bad!

Drew 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/12/2008 11:56 am
About propulsion...

Having read recently about the oscillation-damping "shock absorbers" needed on that other LV that NASA is fixated on, what is it about the engines in DIRECT that they don't need something like that?

I suppose it is that I don't necessarily follow all the nuances of rocket engines, but why is there such a big difference? Can one of the team explain why DIRECT's choice for MEs is a better choice, and what the issues are in terms of vibrations, G-loads and that sort of thing in the first segment of the launch sequence?

In layman's terms, that is?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: buzz123 on 09/12/2008 12:16 pm
Lancer

I'm not a member of the DIRECT team, but from reading this forum for a while, I think I can give you a brief layman's answer to your question.  It basically boils down to the fact that this problem is common to all solid boosters, including the ones currently flying on the shuttle.  However, the original designers of the shuttle already solved this problem with the way they connected the SRBs to the ET.  The ET helps absorb most of the problem.  Since DIRECT uses the current SRBs as is and most of the ET, this problem has already been solved for them "for free" by the original shuttle designers so it is not an issue.  At least that's my layman's understanding of it. Others can fill in more of the details. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/12/2008 12:28 pm
Well, heck... That makes sense.

I'm an historian by education and profession, not a rocket-scientist! So that means that my technical knowledge base is pretty feeble. I just didn't do well in math and had lousy math teachers when I was young, and numbercrunching has always been something to avoid for me.

Thanks, buzz!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: buzz123 on 09/12/2008 12:38 pm
Glad I could help Lancer!  That's the nice thing about these forums.  You get people from all sorts of backgrounds, who have a common interest in space.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/12/2008 12:40 pm
Well, heck... That makes sense.

I'm an historian by education and profession, not a rocket-scientist! So that means that my technical knowledge base is pretty feeble. I just didn't do well in math and had lousy math teachers when I was young, and numbercrunching has always been something to avoid for me.

Thanks, buzz!!
And, just to complete Buzz's thought (if I may), the Ares I design, by doing away with the ET, mounts the crew & upper stage directly to the top of the oscillating first stage. A first stage that, by the nature of it being longer, apparently oscillates somewhat more than the original Shuttle boosters, exacerbating the problem.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/12/2008 02:12 pm
Okay, my little science-challenged brain is starting to lock up here...

Can you explain a little better what causes the oscillation? I follow enough to know that those kinds of vibrations are pretty bad, given many of the things I've read from the Apollo-Saturn V launches. A number of the astronauts describe not being able to read the instruments on the panel at some points, the Commanders being afraid they'd accidentally jar the Abort handle, and that kind of thing.

If the thing is vibrating badly enough to need shock absorbers to dampen the wiggling, then why add so much weight to stop it, why not alter the whole design so that it doesn't oscillate so much? Is it easier to do that? (I think not, but I'd rather hear from experts...)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/12/2008 02:33 pm
Okay, my little science-challenged brain is starting to lock up here...

Can you explain a little better what causes the oscillation? I follow enough to know that those kinds of vibrations are pretty bad, given many of the things I've read from the Apollo-Saturn V launches. A number of the astronauts describe not being able to read the instruments on the panel at some points, the Commanders being afraid they'd accidentally jar the Abort handle, and that kind of thing.

If the thing is vibrating badly enough to need shock absorbers to dampen the wiggling, then why add so much weight to stop it, why not alter the whole design so that it doesn't oscillate so much? Is it easier to do that? (I think not, but I'd rather hear from experts...)


It happens in all long SRM's.  Can't be changed. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 09/12/2008 03:09 pm
Okay, my little science-challenged brain is starting to lock up here...

Can you explain a little better what causes the oscillation?

I'm certainly a layman too.... but from what I understand... it's the same kind of thing that happens when someone blows into a flute, which causes it to vibrate and make the sound...  as you open and close holes on the flute, you change the nature of the sound chamber, and change the pitch of the sound... and if you lengthen the flute.. that will change the sound as well..... so imagine those flute sound vibrations magnified to the level of a giant rocket, being "played" by the force of the exhaust coming out.... and as the solid fuel in the booster burns away... it changes the nature of the chamber as well..... and the force of the vibration....  and then imagine putting people on top of that.... which is what they're doing...

at least, so far, that's my understanding of it ;) 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 09/12/2008 03:53 pm
As I've learned on these forums, there is a whole world of difference between the vibration characteristics of a liquid rocket like a Saturn V and a large solid rocket like the SRBs.  Search the forums here for SRB and slag, or take a look at the many threads discussing Ares I oscillation.

Replacing the solid stage with a liquid stage would be a great fix, but then you've got an Atlas or a Delta, not a "shuttle-derived" Ares I. Alternatively, building a crew launch vehicle with two SRBs mounted together on a flex beam running through the inter-tank region of a large LH2/LOX tank to dampen the oscillations would work rather nicely too. I think there might even be some discussions about a design like that somewhere in this thread.  :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/12/2008 07:38 pm
As I've learned on these forums, there is a whole world of difference between the vibration characteristics of a liquid rocket like a Saturn V and a large solid rocket like the SRBs.  Search the forums here for SRB and slag, or take a look at the many threads discussing Ares I oscillation.

Replacing the solid stage with a liquid stage would be a great fix, but then you've got an Atlas or a Delta, not a "shuttle-derived" Ares I. Alternatively, building a crew launch vehicle with two SRBs mounted together on a flex beam running through the inter-tank region of a large LH2/LOX tank to dampen the oscillations would work rather nicely too. I think there might even be some discussions about a design like that somewhere in this thread.  :D


jml,
You're good!!

Maybe it's time for a personnel change at NASA.  I nominate Ross for NASA administrator and jml for head of PR!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Drapper23 on 09/12/2008 09:12 pm
If elected Senator McCain & Governor Palin would be a Godsend for Direct 2. In fact Senator McCain's latest Space Policy Statement http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/7366faf9-d504-4abc-a889-9c08d601d8ee.htm refers to alternative launch options when it states that as President John McCain will , "Review and explore all options to ensure U.S. access to space by minimizing the gap between the termination of the Space Shuttle and the availability of its replacement vehicle."

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/12/2008 11:09 pm
Here are two new amazing pictures from our Philip Metschan.   I really can't get over how talented he is with these pictures!

Enjoy them!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/12/2008 11:22 pm
Maybe it's time for a personnel change at NASA.  I nominate Ross for NASA administrator...

You have something against Ross?   ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/13/2008 12:19 am
About propulsion...

Having read recently about the oscillation-damping "shock absorbers" needed on that other LV that NASA is fixated on, what is it about the engines in DIRECT that they don't need something like that?

I suppose it is that I don't necessarily follow all the nuances of rocket engines, but why is there such a big difference? Can one of the team explain why DIRECT's choice for MEs is a better choice, and what the issues are in terms of vibrations, G-loads and that sort of thing in the first segment of the launch sequence?

In layman's terms, that is?


I posted a previous explanation of Shuttle's method of mitigation (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12540.msg299175#msg299175) - which would be precisely the same as for Jupiter.

I hope it will explain the details easily enough to understand exactly how this issue is handled.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/13/2008 12:28 am
Maybe it's time for a personnel change at NASA.  I nominate Ross for NASA administrator and jml for head of PR!!

If I were a citizen I would take the job.   Actually, thinking about it some, I wouldn't like to take the job, but I would do so anyway.

I wouldn't take it because I think I can do the best job - I'm under no illusion that that's the case.

Firstly, the changes I would implement would be to carefully listen to the instructions of Congress and the White House and I would aim to do the job they actually hired me to do - not my personal spin of their task with a healthy sub-text of pushing my own agenda as well.

I would take it because I would do my level best to surround myself with as many experienced experts as I could and I would actually take their advice on every possible aspect.   I would rely on the experience of experts in rocket design to make decisions about rocket design.   I would rely upon experts in political management for all political management decisions.   And I would spend a lot of time with those people down in the trenches who are really doing the work - and I would actually give weight to their opinions for a change.

I would NOT rely upon myself as a self-aggrandizing know-it-all.   The last few years of learning about the program have taught me one thing above all else:   I realize I personally know virtually nothing compared to what is out there to know.

I think that approach would make a rather welcome change.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 09/13/2008 12:30 am
Those are fantastic pictures Ross. Thanks for sharing!
And big kudos for Philip, he is one great artist.
I almost get the sense that it's real (or will be) :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/13/2008 12:32 am
It will be! :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/13/2008 05:01 am
Maybe it's time for a personnel change at NASA.  I nominate Ross for NASA administrator and jml for head of PR!!

If I were a citizen I would take the job.   Actually, thinking about it some, I wouldn't like to take the job, but I would do so anyway.

I wouldn't take it because I think I can do the best job - I'm under no illusion that that's the case.

Firstly, the changes I would implement would be to carefully listen to the instructions of Congress and the White House and I would aim to do the job they actually hired me to do - not my personal spin of their task with a healthy sub-text of pushing my own agenda as well.

I would take it because I would do my level best to surround myself with as many experienced experts as I could and I would actually take their advice on every possible aspect.   I would rely on the experience of experts in rocket design to make decisions about rocket design.   I would rely upon experts in political management for all political management decisions.   And I would spend a lot of time with those people down in the trenches who are really doing the work - and I would actually give weight to their opinions for a change.

I would NOT rely upon myself as a self-aggrandizing know-it-all.   The last few years of learning about the program have taught me one thing above all else:   I realize I personally know virtually nothing compared to what is out there to know.

I think that approach would make a rather welcome change.

Ross.

That was beautiful Ross!!  Ya got my vote!!

Phillip Metschan's pictures are incredible!  With someone as talented as him we COULD have faked the moon landing!

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: madscientist197 on 09/13/2008 09:43 am
Those tanks in Michoud - real impressive.  8)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: compwiz64 on 09/13/2008 11:40 am
After reading thru all the literature regarding Jupiter launcher, it’s a shame that NASA didn't adopt this layout after the Saturn was retired. The main source of cost overrun was due almost in every case to the cost of redesigning and refurbishing the orbiter, a task so complex that the labor cost of rebuilding a recently is much higher then having all new parts and starting from scratch. Take out the orbiter and put the liquid burners on the tank and every safety concern about orbiter safety is avoided, reducing weight and cost of manufacture (the tank will be reinforced, so it will offset some the weight lost). It’s so simple even a politician can understand it. I go to UCF, less then a half hour from Kennedy and you could say we have a very large aeronautics school here. I think I have a rather good location to start preaching direct.
 keep up the good work.

remember :there is no I in TEAM
(there is a me though, if you play with the letters)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/13/2008 04:58 pm
Crikey, Philip's work is really good! The continuation of the reflections in the window over top of the J-120 image is absolutely seamless. You can even make out that some of the reflections are of water bottles for a cooler.

Very, very cool.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 09/13/2008 05:57 pm
Here are two new amazing pictures from our Philip Metschan.   I really can't get over how talented he is with these pictures!

Those are awesome!  Are higher-res versions available anywhere?

And, not to take away from Philip's artistry and wizardry, but shouldn't the J-120 have an umbilical tower on the MPL?  (I'm probably mis-remembering).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/13/2008 06:16 pm
Philip's going to be rather happy to see the response so far :)

I don't know if he has higher res versions of these available.   I do know he does have the hi-res originals, but I don't know if those were actually used to produce these pictures or not.

mrbliss,
Yes, that is actually right, there would actually be two Tail Service Masts providing umbilicals for the Jupiter Core Stage.   Technically there should also be a Minimal LUT providing a damper arm and umbilicals for the payload and Orion spacecraft.   The design we have been planning is very similar to the current Atlas one used at LC-41, just bigger.   But Philip actually produced that image within a few hours of the rollout actually occurring this week and the TSM's and M-LUT were left out for expedience and simplicity.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/14/2008 05:06 pm

I posted a previous explanation of Shuttle's method of mitigation (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12540.msg299175#msg299175) - which would be precisely the same as for Jupiter.

I hope it will explain the details easily enough to understand exactly how this issue is handled.

Ross.

To be honest, it wasn't an easy read...

But I do appreciate it, and from what I could follow, it would seem that the oscillation problem is a tough one to crack.

Is there a reason we went to SRB in the first place, and got away from LFB?

Wait, stupid question. Cost savings due to reduced complexity, I would guess.

Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/14/2008 05:22 pm
That was one of the arguments, yes, but there was also a ton of politics involved at the time too.

And I believe that the Liquid Flyback Boosters for Shuttle were a proposal made after the system was already operational.   There were somewhat similar hardware suggestions made in early proposals for Shuttle, but what we call "LFB's" themselves came later - as a proposal to replace the SRB's.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/14/2008 05:24 pm
Beautiful images Ross! Thanks for posting
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: compwiz64 on 09/14/2008 08:16 pm
a few technical questions for the direct team
1. what is the maximum theoretical thrust and payload that the jupiter core can handle?
2. is it possible to have 4 srb's attached to one core? if not, why is it not feasible?
3.what is the maximum number of solid and liqued engines can equip?
4. is the current liqued fuel mix and solif fuel mix the best fuel for the job in price and efficiency?
5.how much weight will removing saftey features for the shuttle save for jupiter core?
6.will the core be more or less stressed with the payload on top and engines below then having both engine and cargo on the side like the current sts design(assuming weight is the same as shuttle or greater but shape is apollo style)?
7.how much would reinforcemt cost in weight, monetary, and fuel stroage capacity?
8. how does the theoretical payload capacity of the jupiter (weight of anything not an srb, 1st stage liqued engine or jupiter core) compare with the limits of the shuttle full payload weight (no including the weight of the engines but including all other parts of the orbiter).
when can someone finnally ask for the dictator, i mean director of nasa's resignation as well as anyone in his regime, i mean subordinates:)
i think the directora motto is

make no friends
and kick the old
all i want is
silver and gold

the circle of graft
it never ends
all i need
is a rocket to defend
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/14/2008 08:44 pm
a few technical questions for the direct team
1. what is the maximum theoretical thrust and payload that the jupiter core can handle?

We are designing the 3-engine Jupiter Core Stage shown in our documentation to handle a maximum of 4g in J-120 configuration with approximately 50mT of payload mounted above.   In J-232 configuration it is designed for a maximum 2.5g environment with a maximum 450mT of payload (EDS & pl) mounted on top.


Quote
2. is it possible to have 4 srb's attached to one core? if not, why is it not feasible?

The total mass during rollout would increase by 1,200mT compared to the regular vehicles.   This would easily exceed the design limits for the VAB concrete floor, the Crawlerway, the concrete Hardstand at LC-39A and B and also the Crawler Transporter itself.

Changes could be made to all those systems to support such a heavy configuration, but the cost and schedule impacts are severe, so we do not recommend its consideration.


Quote
3.what is the maximum number of solid and liqued engines can equip?

The design we are proposing is only a 'practical' limit.   It is the configuration you end up with if you choose to design one vehicle (based very closely on Shuttle) which is able to perform all ISS, Lunar and Martian tasks.

The 100mT performance of the 3-engine J-232 configuration (with the option to block one and make a 2-engine config using exactly the same hardware) is all we believe is actually required to support all ISS, Lunar and Mars requirements.

More powerful configurations with 4 or 5 main engines are possible, but they would 'break' the backward compatibility of the J-120 configuration.   This would mean they necessitate a separate development path - which increases costs and development schedule once again.

We therefore recommend the 3-engine configuration as the ***largest we actually require***.   We do, however, acknowledge that 4- and 5-engine configurations would still be possible as "future upgrade paths" if greater performance were ever specified by any unforeseeable circumstances 10, 20 or 40 years in the future.


Quote
4. is the current liqued fuel mix and solif fuel mix the best fuel for the job in price and efficiency?

The current Shuttle architecture makes this decision for us.

In order to keep development costs and schedules down as much as possible, we have elected to re-use the maximum possible amount of existing hardware and supporting infrastructure located primarily at MAF and KSC.

This determines the choice to use of 2 x 4-segment SRB's and an 8.4m diameter Core Stage containing approximately 728mT of LH2/LOX powered by suitable engines - in this case the existing RS-68 instead of the existing SSME - a choice made due entirely to cost.

More powerful configurations undoubtedly exist, using all manner of alternative hardware.   Some may even be more efficient in pure performance terms.   However, none of that hardware exists currently in US domestic production.   Further, none of those alternatives can be supported without extensive changes to the infrastructure as well.   All of this would add cost and schedule delays.

In addition, the law which covers the new program is the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.   It specified:

"The Administrator shall, to the fullest extent possible consistent with a successful development program, use the personnel, capabilities, assets, and infrastructure of the Space Shuttle program in developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Crew Launch Vehicle, and a heavy-lift launch vehicle."

We believe our approach fulfills the requirements of this law in the most comprehensive manner possible - in particular regarding "using the personnel".


GOT TO RUN OUT. I WILL ANSWER THE REST WHEN I GET BACK :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/14/2008 10:16 pm
We therefore recommend the 3-engine configuration as the ***largest we actually require***.   We do, however, acknowledge that 4- and 5-engine configurations would still be possible as "future upgrade paths" if greater performance were ever specified by any unforeseeable circumstances 10, 20 or 40 years in the future.

And I always like to point out that there are other ways to make the J-232 more powerful without breaking the configuration, such as using a 5-seg SRB with the same attach points as the 4-seg, and/or developing a regen nozzle for the RS-68, should more power become necessary or desirable in the future for some as-yet unforeseen reason.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 09/14/2008 11:32 pm
Hello Everyone,

      This is the final draft of the letter that I'll be sending out to members of Congress as well as anyone else I can think of who might be able to put some pressure on NASA.  Also included with the letter will be a copy of the latest presentation from the website in CD form and maybe a paper copy of said presentation (depending on Kinko's cost).  Any last minute suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks,

-Tom
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/14/2008 11:56 pm
Nice going, Tom!

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/15/2008 12:33 am
Okay, I'm back now, lets see where we got to...

5.how much weight will removing saftey features for the shuttle save for jupiter core?

Not quite sure what you're suggesting here.

I'm guessing you're talking about whether it is possible to remove some of the features which have been integrated into the Shuttle ET since STS-107 was lost, specifically those which are designed to reduce debris events.

There isn't much in the way of "weight saving" which can be done.   A lot of the changes actually reduced the weight of the system already, such as shaving more foam off of the Ice Frost Ramps and removing the entire PAL Ramps.   Also the recent change to titanium brackets actually helped reduce weight as well, so all of these would remain largely 'as is' - at least as far as possible given the necessary configuration changes.

The ET would however no longer require any of the Shuttle-specific hardware, such as the very large and heavy mountings at the rear, nor the hardware for the bipod at the front, so there would be weight savings.   All of these would be removed and deleted entirely.

However, all of that hardware would be exchanged for a new Fwd Skirt & Payload interface, a new Aft Skirt, new Thrust Structure, new Engines and all the associated plumbing for those, so the stage actually grows in mass by quite a lot, from around 26mT to more like 73-80mT depending on 2/3 engine config.


Quote
6.will the core be more or less stressed with the payload on top and engines below then having both engine and cargo on the side like the current sts design(assuming weight is the same as shuttle or greater but shape is apollo style)?

It will be differently stressed.   Some areas of the structure will experience less stress than on Shuttle and some areas more.   The side-mount approach does impart some particularly unusual lateral loads through the ET's structure and yes, they require a stronger structure than an equivalent in-line design would have.   However, the current ET only handles about 120mT of payload hanging off of the side.   A Jupiter Core will be expected to handle almost three times that load - about 450mT - on the top.   Generally speaking this means that it will experience higher loads axial throughout the structure.   The entire structure has being designed to cope with the expected environment though.


Quote
7.how much would reinforcemt cost in weight, monetary, and fuel stroage capacity?

It is fairly difficult to talk about an apples-to-apples comparison because one structure has no engines and the other has three pretty powerful engines integrated.   The most common parts of the structure (Intertank, the Tank Domes, LH2 cylindrical barrel sections) are all fairly similar in mass, with surprisingly little reinforcement actually required.   The mass difference for those elements is only in the order of 12-13%.

It is the LOX Tank structure and the Thrust Structure areas where the most radical changes occur.   But there are some easy paths to be taken still.   The LH2 Tanking tooling is ideally suited to manufacturing the new LOX Tank structure which we will need.   The Intertank tooling is fundamentally capable of also handling the Fwd and Aft Skirt assembly as well.   So all of these elements are essentially ready to go without major cost or schedule impacts.

The Thrust Structure will be an all-new element though and the bulk of the engineering work needed for the Jupiter Core Stage will be pointed towards this area.   It's not a small task (it *is* rocket science after all), but don't forget that Ares-I Upper Stage also requires a brand-new Thrust Structure also and from at least a programmatic perspective, one Thrust Structure is much the same as any other.   A similar amount of engineering will be required one way or the other to perform the Design, Development, Testing & Evaluation (DDT&E) phase either way.


Quote
8. how does the theoretical payload capacity of the jupiter (weight of anything not an srb, 1st stage liqued engine or jupiter core) compare with the limits of the shuttle full payload weight (no including the weight of the engines but including all other parts of the orbiter).

Assuming the same engines and the same amount of propellant, the total mass actually inserted should be almost identical.   In the case of Shuttle, that's somewhere about 141mT - 26mT ET, 99mT Orbiter and 16mT of useful payload.

If Jupiter-120 were using the same 3 x SSME's for main engine power it would be a safe bet that a similar amount of total mass would be inserted.

But Jupiter-120 will use the slightly less efficient RS-68 (409s vac Isp vs 455s) - primarily because two of those will cost about $30m compared to about $180m for three SSME's.

The reduced efficiency (think of your car's "miles per gallon") does reduce ultimate performance though - down to around 120mT - of which the Core Stage will account for about 74mT - leaving about 46mT for useful payload.   You would fully expect to see a similar loss in gross performance if you could replace the 3 SSME's with a pair of RS-68's on the back of the Orbiter.


Quote
when can someone finnally ask for the dictator, i mean director of nasa's resignation as well as anyone in his regime, i mean subordinates:)

It is getting pretty late in the Presidential term to ask for his resignation.   But it would not be a safe bet that Griffin will still be there by March of 2009.


Quote
i think the directora motto is

make no friends
and kick the old
all i want is
silver and gold

the circle of graft
it never ends
all i need
is a rocket to defend

Agreed.   Current policy seems to be "Everything for Ares-V!   Damn the schedule, damn the budget, damn the politicians and damn the workforce as well - just as long as we get that giant rocket so I can be remembered forever!"

It sickens me.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/15/2008 12:57 am
We therefore recommend the 3-engine configuration as the ***largest we actually require***.   We do, however, acknowledge that 4- and 5-engine configurations would still be possible as "future upgrade paths" if greater performance were ever specified by any unforeseeable circumstances 10, 20 or 40 years in the future.

And I always like to point out that there are other ways to make the J-232 more powerful without breaking the configuration, such as using a 5-seg SRB with the same attach points as the 4-seg, and/or developing a regen nozzle for the RS-68, should more power become necessary or desirable in the future for some as-yet unforeseen reason.

Yes, you are absolutely correct on this, Lee Jay.

There are *F*F*F*A*A*A*R*R*R* more cost effective methods of increasing Jupiter's performance without ever needing more than three RS-68 main engines under the Core.

Upgrade the Upper Stage performance is the #1 benefit.   Either by improving its engine performance, or better still improving (lowering) the mass of the Upper Stage itself - every kg you can lower the mass here = an extra kg of payload you can send towards the moon.

#2)   Increase the performance of the RS-68.   RS-68A is being produced already by USAF for Delta-IV with a 6% improvement in performance (102% to 108% thrust level) and this is a very logical upgrade for Jupiter to plan around for the future as well.   Worth about 3-4mT additional payload to LEO.

2b)   Optimized nozzle.   The current 21.5 AR nozzle could be increased up to 33 in order to improve vacuum performance - especially important in the phase of flight once the SRB's have fallen away and the RS-68's are producing all of the vehicle's power.   This nozzle re-design could be either a new ablative nozzle (heavier but cheaper) or a regeneratively cooled one (lighter but considerably more costly).   And with a regen, other performance benefits can also be incorporated.   Worth about 3-4mT additional payload to LEO.

#3)   Upgraded SRB's.   5-segment SRB's are a very logical upgrade for Jupiter - especially as there is already a contract in place with ATK to produce them anyway.   Depending on the clauses in the contract, canceling the 5-seg for Ares-I contract might actually prove to be almost as expensive as completing it, but for Jupiter.   Worth about 6-7mT additional payload to LEO.

3b) In conjunction with option #3 above, a tank barrel-stretch to the Core Stage is a relatively straight-forward upgrade which can be performed.   It would benefit both J-120 and J-232 performance levels providing an additional 4-5mT of added performance on top of the 5-seg improvements already mentioned.

#4)   With the massive cost savings of DIRECT's architecture new technologies, currently not affordable, can be included such as:

4a) Propellant Depot's.   Just by having a LOX depot capability in LEO it becomes possible to launch missions with not just a 45mT Lunar Lander as currently planned, but anything up to a 300mT Lunar Lander.   Worth up to 250mT additional payload thru TLI!

4b) Nuclear Earth Departure Stages.   Development work on Project Prometheus had to be shelved completely due to the costs for Ares.   If we can save $15bn of development money, this effort could be re-started to produce space-only engines which will make going to the Moon and Mars far, far more efficient than any chemical combustion engine can ever be.   Interestingly, spin-off technologies from this field of R&D could very well find valuable use back here on Earth as Oil becomes even more scarce over the next 4 decades of the Constellation Program.   Worth about 75-100% additional payload thru TLI!


Those are just a few of the many different options which can be pursued without ever adding more engines to the 3-engine Jupiter Core Stage.   There are many more options available as well.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: compwiz64 on 09/15/2008 02:41 am
first i would like to say thank you for the quick response to my question. i found the answers given to be well thought out and appreciated the effort. i have thought of one more minor question.
 1. does the jupiter layout have a significantly lower wind resistance then the sts and if so, how much would it improve performance compared to sts?
2.would implementation of jupiter remain cheap as long as griffin dis-assembles things dealing exclusively with the orbiter?
3. are there more critical structures he plans to change/destroy?. 
4.my thoughts are that orbiter contracts are of no consequence, as are the SRB's because we could always implement the 5 seg SRB. that would mitigate some of the flack griffen would get if we use any thing built for ares into jupiter system right?
5.Is any part of the jupiter craft (dare i say it?) reusable? shuttle srb's obviously are, but what about the 5 seg boosters or the reentry capsule?
6. how much of the upperstage design and development be transfered over to jupiter when ares is dropped? (i said when and not if cause i meant it)
7. just for fun, how much would it take  to launch apollo 18 (now on display at space camp alabama)

remember kids
the new motto of nasa is now
"take what you can, give nothing back"
(pirates of the carribean)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Launch Fan on 09/15/2008 03:38 am


remember kids
the new motto of nasa is now
"take what you can, give nothing back"
(pirates of the carribean)



That's incredibly stupid.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 09/15/2008 04:05 am
4a) Propellant Depot's.   Just by having a LOX depot capability in LEO it becomes possible to launch missions with not just a 45mT Lunar Lander as currently planned, but anything up to a 300mT Lunar Lander.   Worth up to 250mT additional payload thru TLI!
Ross.

A 300mT lander would open up some very interesting possibilities.
It would allow the actual construction of factories on the moon vs just a simple base camp.

I wonder what kind of landed payload could be achieved by eliminating a chemical departure stage for a SEP or NEP ion/VASIMR tug.

Also it seems yes high isp rockets can be used in LEO as seen in the case of GOCE.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/15/2008 06:22 am
4a) Propellant Depot's.   Just by having a LOX depot capability in LEO it becomes possible to launch missions with not just a 45mT Lunar Lander as currently planned, but anything up to a 300mT Lunar Lander.   Worth up to 250mT additional payload thru TLI!Ross.
A 300mT lander would open up some very interesting possibilities.It would allow the actual construction of factories on the moon vs just a simple base camp.I wonder what kind of landed payload could be achieved by eliminating a chemical departure stage for a SEP or NEP ion/VASIMR tug.Also it seems yes high isp rockets can be used in LEO as seen in the case of GOCE.
I still wonder about the possibility of designing  ET/cores that could be used as propellant depots.

Drew 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Vacuum.Head on 09/15/2008 11:54 am
@ davamanra
In

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12605.0

"DANGER Tank Farming Will Robinson DANGER" [Anonymous Robot "Lost in Space"]

I had the thought that the upper lox tank of the Common Core Booster [CCB] could - with minimum "jiggery-pokery"[sorry technical term] - be repurposed into one (and more!) International Fuel and Utilities Depot or i-FUD :) In various useful orbits...

The general consensus was that a purpose built dry stage would better serve the purpose.
And Debris (Foam) mitigation would be er problematic...

SHAME.

It would seem that CCB Farming remains an unfulfilled O'Neillian vision and that we must hope that CCBs will continue to litter the floor of the Indian Ocean. Which in _my_ future history will be regarded as a BIG MISTAKE!
(Green Issues in Space?)
SOAPBOX
OTOH and OTT OT I also had ideas for enabling easy access to the LH tank via the 'LOX vestibule' too.
Talk about Lebensraum...
(Commercial) egs
zg Vacation spot, Robinson Stardance Studio, Space Ball Arena...
 
I could go on
but so as not to upset kraisee :( <3 GWS  BTW) 
...other crazy ideas should be posted to the above thread.
/SOAPBOX
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/15/2008 12:20 pm

I had the thought that the upper lox tank of the Common Core Booster [CCB] could - with minimum "jiggery-pokery"[sorry technical term] - be repurposed into one (and more!) International Fuel and Utilities Depot or i-FUD :) In various useful orbits...

The general consensus was that a purpose built dry stage would better serve the purpose. And Debris (Foam) mitigation would be er problematic...

With no fragile orbiter bolted to the side of the ET, why would there be a need for foam mitigation steps? The whole reason, as I e understand it, for worrying about foam falling off the ET, is because it strikes the carbon-carbon leading edges and the underside of the orbiter.

No orbiter, no foam strikes.

Oh, and since DIRECT is a case of "do the simplest thing first", the propellant tank farms in space should be designed to be simple, purpose-built, and not "cobbled together" from some other piece of hardware. The trade-offs and compromises that will have to be made (remember Skylab?) of taking something designed for one thing, and making it into something else are too complex and daunting for the management atmosphere at NASA. Make the fuel depots the simplest thing we can too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 09/15/2008 02:58 pm
first i would like to say thank you for the quick response to my question. i found the answers given to be well thought out and appreciated the effort. i have thought of one more minor question.
 1. does the jupiter layout have a significantly lower wind resistance then the sts and if so, how much would it improve performance compared to sts?

Yes, an inline payload has lower aerodynamic loads that a side-mounted payload, and yes that likely amounts to a few tons of payload. There's also a much bigger difference here in payload capacity in not having to push 90+ mT of orbiter mass into orbit with each launch. As a result, even a basic J-120 can lift 40+mT compared with the Shuttle's 16mT payload.

More importantly, an in-line payload also eliminates the issues of placing people in the path of any debris from the launch vehicle - the fatal flaw in STS that has cost 14 lives.

Quote
2.would implementation of jupiter remain cheap as long as griffin dis-assembles things dealing exclusively with the orbiter?
3. are there more critical structures he plans to change/destroy?. 

No matter how much infrastructure Griffin destroys on his way out, Jupiter will always be much less expensive to develop and much less expensive to operate than Ares. However, any shuttle-derived launch vehicle will be much more expensive to develop and operate than Atlas or Delta if we just want a taxi to the ISS.

Besides the 8.4m ET tooling at Michoud, Griffin also plans to destroy the 8.4m diamater work platforms inside the VAB, and the Fixed Support Structures at Pads 39A and 39B  - all of which could be used by Jupiter. Besides new manufacturing tooling and new VAB work platforms, Ares also requires new crawler-transporters, new mobile launch platforms, and a new barge to transport the 10m stages from Michoud to KSC. Additionally the weight and thrust of the latest Ares V design may require some significant re-building of the crawlerways, and pads at KSC.

Quote
4.my thoughts are that orbiter contracts are of no consequence, as are the SRB's because we could always implement the 5 seg SRB. that would mitigate some of the flack griffen would get if we use any thing built for ares into jupiter system right?

ATK would likely be quite happy to get a firm contract for a very large number of J-120/J-232 4-segment SRB's instead of a development contract for the 5 seg that will likely only fly in limited numbers on Ares I. But continuing the 5-seg development would give a nice performance boost for a J-232 Heavy and might well be politically expedient.

Quote
5.Is any part of the jupiter craft (dare i say it?) reusable? shuttle srb's obviously are, but what about the 5 seg boosters or the reentry capsule?

Jupiter and Constellation both call for reuse of the SRB's and the Orion crew capsule. However it is looking like weight constraints on Ares I mean that the systems which would have allowed Orion to be reused are not going to be able to be included (airbags for land-recovery). Jupiter would not have this problem. The 5 segment boosters for Ares I are planned to be reused, but NASA has flirted with the idea of removing the SRB recovery parachutes to save weight, and making the SRBs expendable. For Ares V, the propsed 5.5 seg composite-case SRB's will likely be expendable.

The 4 or 5 seg steel-casing SRBs proposed for Jupiter will likely be reusable, although a number of factors mean that 5-seg SRBs will be more difficult (and costly) to recover. In comparison, the 5.5-seg composite-wound cases now being proposed for Ares V will likely be expendable.

Quote
6. how much of the upperstage design and development be transfered over to jupiter when ares is dropped? (i said when and not if cause i meant it)

The Ares I, Ares V, and Jupiter EDS's are all upperstages powered by J2-X engines, with planned assembly of the upper stages to take place at Michoud. The differences are in the diameter (5m, 8.4m, 10m) and constructions techniques proposed for the tanks. It sounds like Ares I plans to use composite tanks with a common bulkhead. Ares V and Jupiter both plan on AL-Li tanks, leverging the core stage manufacturing line at Michaud. As I understand it, Ares V currently baselines conventional separate LH2 and LOX tanks joined with an interstage like the ET/Core, while Jupiter plans a lighter tank design similar to the Centuar upper stage.

Quote
7. just for fun, how much would it take  to launch apollo 18 (now on display at space camp alabama)

You could take this non-functioning museum piece, put it on top of a J-120, and launch it on an unmanned test flight as a very heavy piece of ballast. But I don't think anyone would be willing to take on the costs and risks of launching humans to orbit in a 40 year old museum piece.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/15/2008 04:10 pm
No orbiter, no foam strikes.

A chunk of foam hit the SRB on a previous mission which was close to disastrous.  While Clearly the risk for the Orbiter would be gone on TPS, you still don't want massive chunks falling off.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 09/15/2008 04:28 pm
A chunk of foam hit the SRB on a previous mission which was close to disastrous.
If you're referring to the bipod ramp foam loss on STS-112, one of the places that event is documented is in the CAIB report.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/15/2008 06:31 pm
first i would like to say thank you for the quick response to my question. i found the answers given to be well thought out and appreciated the effort. i have thought of one more minor question.

A number of these questions have been asked before, but the DIRECT Threads are getting so long that I can understand the reluctance to trawl all the way through them to located such information.

Asking them again, and the new questions, here and now isn't a bad thing at all IMHO.   It makes sure that newcomers to DIRECT can get on the same page, so thank-you for taking the time to ask them.


Quote
1. does the jupiter layout have a significantly lower wind resistance then the sts and if so, how much would it improve performance compared to sts?

The Jupiter-120 has less, mostly because of the deletion of those pretty large wings - which act partially as giant sails while down low.

But the Jupiter-232's Upper Stage adds a lot more surface area to the side profile of the rocket, which negates any gains just mentioned.

Overall though, we're not talking about doing things we don't know how to do already.   Neither Jupiter rocket has the sail area of the Saturn-V, and both are still close enough to the current Shuttle's dynamic environment that we are not going to be breaching the knowledge-base envelope on this issue.

The same can not be said for the pencil-like Ares-I which has the highest height:width ratio of any launch vehicle ever flown, nor the gargantuan Ares-V which has a side profile almost double that of a Saturn-V.


Quote
2.would implementation of jupiter remain cheap as long as griffin dis-assembles things dealing exclusively with the orbiter?

The worst possible case scenario regarding the disassembly of the Shuttle infrastructure at both MAF and KSC would incur about $1.5-2bn worth of cost penalties and about 6-9 months delay to the manufacturing schedule for getting the first Jupiter's in the air.

That would mean that the Jupiter-120 would cost $11.5bn, not $9.5bn - which is still considerably cheaper than the Ares-I's $14.4bn price tag.   So this is *still* not actually so bad.

The place where this particular effect would be felt the hardest though, will be with the MAF workforce.   If there is no tooling at all and no work which can be done for 6-9 months, all those workers would instantly be let go - as is the current plan for Ares-I U/S transition.

That is why we would much prefer to keep the Shuttle tooling intact - because it allows for the workforce to transition straight over from processing of the very last Shuttle External Tank and to start processing the very first Jupiter Core Stage in the smoothest possible fashion, using the same tooling.


Quote
3. are there more critical structures he plans to change/destroy?.

There's lots.   At the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans the tooling for making ET's covers a lot of the floor-space of the various buildings.   Constellation wants some of the floor space to begin manufacturing the new Ares-I U/S.

So Constellation Program (CxP) wants to expedite the production of the last tanks so they rolls down the production line and the tooling behind them can be ripped out and junked, making room for the Ares-I tooling.

Space Shuttle Program (SSP) has offered a different solution which involves moving some of the tooling around to make space for Ares-I US tooling, and relocating the ET hardware elsewhere - essentially allowing both production lines to be operating under the same roof at the same time.

The last I heard the second option had been veto'd by Head Quarters.

Is anyone shocked?


Then at KSC there are ton's of changes also.   One of the particular interests to us is the VAB:   Of the four High-Bays in the VAB, only two are set up for assembling Shuttle stacks - HB1 & HB3, both facing the East and the Launch Pads.   On the other side of the building HB2 has been set up as a Hurricane Shelter for fully assembled Shuttle stacks to be rolled in for emergency protection without ever interfering with processing work in the two active High-Bays.   And finally HB4 is used to prepare other parts (SRB segments and ET checkout cells) prior to stacking.

One of Constellation's requirements is based upon the fact that there are cranes inside which can move items between lateral High-Bays.   So, for example, one single crane can transfer hardware from HB1 to HB2 with no problems at all, but it can't transfer items to HB3 or HB4 without first dropping it off in the transfer aisle, where it needs to be rolled North for the HB3/4 crane to be able to reach it.

This requirement is dictating CxP's request to have HB3 for Ares-I-X processing.   HB1 and HB2 is being planned for handling the "common" elements of Ares-V processing later allowing the crane to move Ares-V items between either Ares-V High-Bay.   So that means Ares-I will be going in HB3.   Anyway, this is causing a push from CxP for SSP to release HB3 in time for Ares-I-X processing this year - even though there is no real commonality with regard to stacking Ares-I-X vs. Ares-I they're totally different procedures.

But what CxP wants, CxP usually gets.   The top work platform (platform "C") in HB3 was recently removed.   I haven't been able to confirm yet, but I believe it has been placed outside in the disposal area where it rusts today.   Thankfully, that particular work platform isn't one which we were going to need for Jupiter, because it is the one for processing the very narrow top of the External Tanks nose tip - and we require a different 8.4m diameter 'hole' through the platforms to process Jupiter in this location (see attached diagrams).

Ares-I will require all new work platforms which won't be compatible with either Shuttle, Jupiter or Ares-V.   Ares-V will eventually also require all-new work platforms which are not compatible with anything else either.

But Shuttle work platforms D, B & E (see attached diagrams) are all 100% compatible with Jupiter.   We wish to retain all three of those work platforms in both HB1 and HB3 for processing Jupiter's.


And then there's the Pads.   We have a difference of opinion regarding the approach of structures at the Pad.   Essentially CxP wants a massive launch tower affixed to each Mobile Launcher Platform to provide both maintenance service access and also all of the umbilical connections - a so-called "clean pad" approach.   However, this is going to result in a total of five separate launch towers in total - 2 for Ares-I's and another three for Ares-V's later.   The maintenance issues for this many towers is going to be a big effort.

DIRECT wants something slightly different.   There are *massive* benefits to be had in terms of reliability and scheduling if you prepare & test all of the umbilical connections between the launch vehicle and the launch platform inside the VAB before ever rolling-out to the Pad.   But we don't agree that the Umbilical Tower must also be the Service Tower.   The Atlas-V has shown the way in this regard.   A minimal Umbilical Tower is all that is actually required on the Mobile Launcher Platform - massively lowering it's weight, and making Crawler Transporter, Crawlerway and Pad modifications far less necessary.   Then at each Pad you have just one fixed Service Tower, set back from the vehicle and just providing maintenance access to the whole vehicle.   You get the best of both worlds.

But this entire argument has been thrown into question after the Flame Trench damage to the Pads experienced during the STS-124 launch.   The structural failures there are indicative of other things not being so well deep inside the structures of both LC-39 pads and it is likely that whatever follows Shuttle after 2010, is going to require a major effort to re-build at least parts of the structures there.   In this case, DIRECT's plan to reuse the existing Shuttle Fixed Service Structures (FSS) may be in doubt.   We have been considering a contingency alternative in this scenario whereby the FSS is replaced with a new all-concrete tower for service work to be performed from.

Either way, we fundamentally believe that building a large service tower on top of the Mobile Launcher Platform is simply asking for a rocket to strike it sooner or later - and that decision will prove to be a clear mistake of catestrophic proportions one day.   A minimual umbilical tower is all that is required in that close proximity, accompanied by a separate service tower permanently located at the Pads.


There's a ton of other things which are also of concern to us, but those are some of the biggies.   Together they amount to about $2bn worth of replacement infrastructure elements, much of which doesn't need to be replaced under DIRECT.


Quote
4.my thoughts are that orbiter contracts are of no consequence, as are the SRB's because we could always implement the 5 seg SRB. that would mitigate some of the flack griffen would get if we use any thing built for ares into jupiter system right?

Orbiter contracts are of consequence.   Yes, they will be terminiated, but do we really want to lose the experience and knowledge of all those people?   Last time we did this, in 1972, we handed out pink slips to everyone and five years later we tried to get all those experienced people back again - but only 1 in 20 returned - the rest flew NASA the bird because they still felt NASA had flown them the bird.

No.   Sooner or later we are going to be needing skilled people like them to work on all of the new elements, like EDS, LSAM and Lunar Base elements.   So why not find productive ways to keep those qualified and experienced people within the program during the transition period?

Notice I used the word "productive" there.   I'm not proposing any sort of welfare program - that's a stupid notion that doesn't do anyone any good.   What I'm proposing is using those people to actually go forth and accomplish something useful.   With $5bn of development savings compareds to Ares-I we also have the money to fund such a thing too.

DIRECT proposes a number of different things, each of which would pick up some of the 'displaced' Shuttle workforce (i.e. those guys not working common elements like ET and SRB - all of whom will obviously bee keeping their jobs as part of the Jupiter effort).   Shuttle airframe guys would be ideally suited to work on our SSPDM project, so too would some of the TPS, electrical and RCS guys.   That's one contract.   SSPDM will allow a variety of Shuttle payloads to be flown after Shuttle has retired - so all of the payload processing guys will still be needed & retained too.   Every Jupiter is going to need a large Payload Fairing (8.4m dia, 10.0m dia, Crew config or Cargo config).   Because KSC will be the hardest hit center after Shuttle closes-down, it is not unreasonable to specify that the contract for PLF's must be located in the Florida Space Coast region.   Some of the SSME personnel will also need to be retained to manage the 3rd-engine swap-out capability of the Jupiter too.   We need an all-new contract for DDT&E of a Propellant Depot too.   I'm fairly sure that this major effort would be able to pick up some suitable Shuttle workers too.

I know this reply isn't packed with finite details, but please understand that I'm having to tread through a mine of proprietary discussions we have had in order to just lay-out the basic "outline" of what we propose in this regard - there's a lot more to it than you're ever going to hear from me on any public discussion board :)

There are a number of other tasks and contracts which can be issued to pick up more and more of the Shuttle staff as well, but I am not in a position to discuss those publicly at this time.   In the end, we estimate that natural attrition thru retirement accounts for all the job-losses we would need under DIRECT through to about 2013 - accounting for ~10% of current staffing levels.   At that point the program's new elements will be coming online and those positions would start to be back-filled once again.


Quote
5.Is any part of the jupiter craft (dare i say it?) reusable? shuttle srb's obviously are, but what about the 5 seg boosters or the reentry capsule?

The Jupiter system has sufficient lift capability that the Orion could have all the hardware needed for land-landings returned to its design - for both ISS and Lunar missions.

Both 4- and 5-segment SRB's are theoretically reusable.

The Core is designed to be 100% disposable.   The engines are one-use only, the tanking has a very finite number of cryo-cycles in its specification and a parachute recovery system (and associated protection for salt-water emersion) would weigh a lot - which would in turn adversely affect performance.

I'm sure there will be studies for recovering Jupiter Cores or maybe just the engines, but at this point in time I don't actually foresee any cost-effective ways to do so and doing so for thesakes of doing so isn't good enough, IMHO.

I welcome a means to prove me wrong though.


Quote
6. how much of the upperstage design and development be transfered over to jupiter when ares is dropped? (i said when and not if cause i meant it)

I guess you are referring to the Ares-I Upper Stage and what this would mean for Boeing in particular?

The current $1.2bn Boeing effort can be totally transferred over to DIRECT intact.   Jupiter still needs a new large-capacity Upper Stage with a common bulkhead and powered by Jupiter-2X engines.   A change in capacity and diameter is well within the tollerance of a contract alteration instead of a re-issued contract.

And there would be no arguments against Boeing retaining this contract from any of the other players because they all benefit from this change as well.   For example, LM are the most likely competitor for this - but LM are currently set to lose the ET contract.   Under DIRECT, LM will instead be getting a nice healthy development budget and a new production contract for Jupiter Cores - so they will play ball and won't cause trouble for Boeing with regard to the Upper Stage.

Without betraying any confidences at all, I can say that we have spoken with senior people from both organizations and they understand the situation quite clearly.   It is certainly not in the interest of either company to do *anything* delay the overall effort and both companies know that a change from Ares to Jupiter would be a substantial, but not unexpected, transition.   We have reason to believe that both companies would agree to 'play ball' on this issue - because neither companies would actually be benefitted by this arrangement.

BTW, Ditto goes for the $800m Instrumentation Unit effort - Jupiter still needs those too.


Quote
7. just for fun, how much would it take to launch apollo 18 (now on display at space camp alabama)

Are you talking the entire rocket?   The unfuelled Saturn-V masses somewhere around 300mT, so three Jupiter-232's could lift the equivalent mass of the whole rocket to LEO.

If you're talking about the spacecraft - a single Jupiter-232 could probably replicate the Apollo-18 mission quite closely on its own.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/15/2008 07:04 pm
After reading the article "Orion's plea to Ares I: Stop adversely hindering our design process" I began thinking...what does Lockheed think about DIRECT? Ares I is keeping them from doing the job that they want to do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/15/2008 07:13 pm
Nobody is willing to say *anything* to upset the Administrator.

We won't have that answer until after Griffin is working somewhere else.


My personal opinion is that none of the companies are actually web to Ares-I any more - even ATK seems to have gone quiet regarding their vocal antipathy towards all other options.

And throughout the engineering and mid-management levels of the agency and all the contractors there is an ever-growing uneasiness regarding Ares-I.

Some people know DIRECT, and recognize that it is just about the only means to protect the workforce if Ares goes to the wall.   But the truth is that the majority (probably 60%) of people in the business have *still* not even heard of DIRECT yet - and they seem to think that Ares is the only way to protect their own jobs, so continue to cling to it in sheer desperation.   We *must* therefore continue to get the word "out there" that Ares isn't the only option.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/15/2008 07:18 pm
I'm sure there will be studies for recovering Jupiter Cores or maybe just the engines, but at this point in time I don't actually foresee any cost-effective ways to do so and doing so for thesakes of doing so isn't good enough, IMHO.

Arianespace occasionally recovers their solids for inspection.  Is there any real benefit to occasionally recovering the RS-68s for the same purpose - inspection, not reuse - that can't be gleaned from operation on test stands?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/15/2008 07:31 pm
Lee Jay,
That will be extremely difficult on the Jupiter-120 flights because the stage goes all the way to orbit.   There's no realistic way that the stage can be de-orbited intact without having to do some major design changes.

However, from day 1 of the program we will be able to start doing early test flights of the 3-engine Jupiter-232 configuration - with a dummy upper stage and that Core Stage is purely ballistic, so could possibly be recovered.

It is probably possible to integrate some sort of parachute recovery system into one or more of those early test flights.   It'll still drop in the ocean, but can probably be recovered in good enough shape for examination if required.

I don't know how useful this would be, but I imagine there might well be some interest from PWR, NASA, ULA and also USAF - maybe enough to pay for the necessary development work on the recovery systems.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 09/15/2008 08:21 pm
Frankly Ross, I would move the last sets of questions to a Direct/Jupiter Q&A thread and ask Chris to pin it at the top of the forum.

I think it is time to start thread 2 after that.

Just my much reduced $0.02.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/15/2008 09:56 pm
This *is* thread #2 :)   Actually its thread #3!

The 250 pages of DIRECT v2.0 Thread #1 are located here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7868.0).

And the even earlier 131 pages of DIRECT v1.0 are here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5016.0) - though its largely out of date now.

Most of these threads are already just Q&A threads.   What we really need is a way to go through all the questions here and present them in an easier fashion.   I would love to do it in the same way the FAQ is done on our website, but I don't think any of us has the time to do such a large job at present.

So the only other ways right now are to use the search facility here or even use Google - which is surprisingly good for searching for details in this forum actually :)

I don't mind people asking questions here though - especially as many of the answers have actually been updated over the years.   It's new for some readers, its updates and refreshers for long-term observers, so its extremely worthwhile.

I'm considering closing this thread and starting a fresh one around 150 pages.

The other option is to get permission from Chris/James etc to explicitly allow discussion of each individual topic related to DIRECT in its own separate thread.   There would end up being hundreds of threads, but it wouldn't be difficult to search for things.   I think it would need its own dedicated sub-section though and that's a hassle for Chris & the guys.   If Chris is watching, I'd appreciate his opinion about the options.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/15/2008 11:03 pm
Maybe it's time for a personnel change at NASA.  I nominate Ross for NASA administrator and jml for head of PR!!

   And I would spend a lot of time with those people down in the trenches who are really doing the work - and I would actually give weight to their opinions for a change.

Ross.

Ya know that's the BIGGEST problem with modern management styles that I see, and I see it EVERY DAY in some way, shape, or form. 

You cannot effectively manage something if you are not directly involved in it, if you don't 'get your hands dirty' and come down out of your office and actually SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES what's going on. 

When I was at the nuclear plant, polishing wrenches in the contractor toolrooms and going through surplus tools and materials, my supervisor and the dept. head came up and were looking over all the surplus materials and I overheard the big boss and supervisor talking, and the big boss was lamenting "blowing a big chunk of his toolroom budget" on monster sized thread taps when "there's a whole bin full of them up here!"  I just snickered under my breath because THE THINGS HAVE BEEN UP HERE SO LONG THEY'RE COVERED WITH AN INCH OF DUST!  In fact my supervisor told me to throw anything unidentifiable out, if the markings were gone off the shank, because without the thread size/pitch/count they couldn't be used per NRC regs.  I threw out some HUGE taps, never been used, still coated in that rubbery tool coating over the cutting flutes, because the etched size/pitch/TPI numbers were rusted off and unreadable.  I'm talking HIGH DOLLAR TOOLS HERE!  It's not like the stuff hadn't been there for years, or was unlocatable, it was just a matter of the manager getting off his butt and out of the office and seeing what was going on in his dept. 

I've seen the same thing at farm dealers I trade with... I've come in and asked a question and end up knowing more about what the dealer can/can't get or has available than they themselves know... and actually brought them up to speed on their own inventory and suppliers! 

Same thing at the school I work for now... the big bosses sit in the office and don' t have a clue about what really goes on 'in the real world' out in the schools they purport to run. 

I know that being a manager has a lot of time demands and other stuff, and the higher up the chain you go the more you have to keep your hands full and the less time you have, but if you don't actually 'make the rounds' and 'watch what's going on' you'll never get the picture.  JMHO!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 09/15/2008 11:07 pm
Geeze Ross, I meant 3, but maybe 4.  :)

This *is* thread #2 :)   Actually its thread #3!

The 250 pages of DIRECT v2.0 Thread #1 are located here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7868.0).

And the even earlier 131 pages of DIRECT v1.0 are here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5016.0) - though its largely out of date now.

Most of these threads are already just Q&A threads.   What we really need is a way to go through all the questions here and present them in an easier fashion.   I would love to do it in the same way the FAQ is done on our website, but I don't think any of us has the time to do such a large job at present.

So the only other ways right now are to use the search facility here or even use Google - which is surprisingly good for searching for details in this forum actually :)

I don't mind people asking questions here though - especially as many of the answers have actually been updated over the years.   It's new for some readers, its updates and refreshers for long-term observers, so its extremely worthwhile.

I'm considering closing this thread and starting a fresh one around 150 pages.

The other option is to get permission from Chris/James etc to explicitly allow discussion of each individual topic related to DIRECT in its own separate thread.   There would end up being hundreds of threads, but it wouldn't be difficult to search for things.   I think it would need its own dedicated sub-section though and that's a hassle for Chris & the guys.   If Chris is watching, I'd appreciate his opinion about the options.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/16/2008 01:34 am
Maybe it's time for a personnel change at NASA.  I nominate Ross for NASA administrator and jml for head of PR!!

   And I would spend a lot of time with those people down in the trenches who are really doing the work - and I would actually give weight to their opinions for a change.

Ross.

Ya know that's the BIGGEST problem with modern management styles that I see, and I see it EVERY DAY in some way, shape, or form. 

You cannot effectively manage something if you are not directly involved in it, if you don't 'get your hands dirty' and come down out of your office and actually SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES what's going on. 

When I was at the nuclear plant, polishing wrenches in the contractor toolrooms and going through surplus tools and materials, my supervisor and the dept. head came up and were looking over all the surplus materials and I overheard the big boss and supervisor talking, and the big boss was lamenting "blowing a big chunk of his toolroom budget" on monster sized thread taps when "there's a whole bin full of them up here!"  I just snickered under my breath because THE THINGS HAVE BEEN UP HERE SO LONG THEY'RE COVERED WITH AN INCH OF DUST!  In fact my supervisor told me to throw anything unidentifiable out, if the markings were gone off the shank, because without the thread size/pitch/count they couldn't be used per NRC regs.  I threw out some HUGE taps, never been used, still coated in that rubbery tool coating over the cutting flutes, because the etched size/pitch/TPI numbers were rusted off and unreadable.  I'm talking HIGH DOLLAR TOOLS HERE!  It's not like the stuff hadn't been there for years, or was unlocatable, it was just a matter of the manager getting off his butt and out of the office and seeing what was going on in his dept. 

I've seen the same thing at farm dealers I trade with... I've come in and asked a question and end up knowing more about what the dealer can/can't get or has available than they themselves know... and actually brought them up to speed on their own inventory and suppliers! 

Same thing at the school I work for now... the big bosses sit in the office and don' t have a clue about what really goes on 'in the real world' out in the schools they purport to run. 

I know that being a manager has a lot of time demands and other stuff, and the higher up the chain you go the more you have to keep your hands full and the less time you have, but if you don't actually 'make the rounds' and 'watch what's going on' you'll never get the picture.  JMHO!  OL JR :)

Great post and right on. Back in High School, we had a string of principals who would barricade themselves in their office and leave it to the two security guards at the school to sort out all of the problems. My freshman and sophomore years of school, the bathrooms were full of cigarette smoke, fights every day in the lunch room, etc. Then they brought in this new guy...his style was that he would spend 95% of his day out of his office.
You saw the guy around, he dealt with problems in the school himself, first hand. The next two years all of the previous problems just flat out disappeared.

I think some of the NASA managers have taken this "barricaded in the office" style of management. On paper and in press releases Ares is looking great right now. But in reality it is not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Zpoxy on 09/16/2008 01:38 am

But what CxP wants, CxP usually gets.   The top work platform (platform "C") in HB3 was recently removed.   I haven't been able to confirm yet, but I believe it has been placed outside in the disposal area where it rusts today.   Thankfully, that particular work platform isn't one which we were going to need for Jupiter, because it is the one for processing the very narrow top of the External Tanks nose tip - and we require a different 8.4m diameter 'hole' through the platforms to process Jupiter in this location (see attached diagrams).


Sorry to say that platform was demolished about three weeks ago, along with the platform the VAB contractor was using to refurb the HB 1 and 3 vertical doors. By the way, only the north side of C platform was removed, the south side is still there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/16/2008 01:43 am
I think some of the NASA managers have taken this "barricaded in the office" style of management. On paper and in press releases Ares is looking great right now. But in reality it is not.

I completely agree, FWIW. As a taxpayer, I am frustrated and angered that this whole boondoggle is being allowed to continue down the path it is going.

This is really, really disheartening.

Oh, BTW, (for Ross...) I read over on one of the threads about that other LV that Mike Griffin is fixated on, all about the TO and SRM issues, and WHY they are inherent to SRMs. Thanks for your explanations, there, and here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2008 01:47 am


I'm considering closing this thread and starting a fresh one around 150 pages.

The other option is to get permission from Chris/James etc to explicitly allow discussion of each individual topic related to DIRECT in its own separate thread.   There would end up being hundreds of threads, but it wouldn't be difficult to search for things.   I think it would need its own dedicated sub-section though and that's a hassle for Chris & the guys.   If Chris is watching, I'd appreciate his opinion about the options.

Ross.

Whatever works best. I think there's room for a centralized Direct thread (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - in the style of Shuttle Q&A) and then specific splinter topics. The Alternatives section was set up to allow for that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/16/2008 03:02 am
Sorry to say that platform was demolished about three weeks ago, along with the platform the VAB contractor was using to refurb the HB 1 and 3 vertical doors. By the way, only the north side of C platform was removed, the south side is still there.

What was the actual purpose of removing that?   I understood it was to make way for Ares-I-X processing, but I never did get confirmation.   Do you know?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/16/2008 03:05 am


I'm considering closing this thread and starting a fresh one around 150 pages.

The other option is to get permission from Chris/James etc to explicitly allow discussion of each individual topic related to DIRECT in its own separate thread.   There would end up being hundreds of threads, but it wouldn't be difficult to search for things.   I think it would need its own dedicated sub-section though and that's a hassle for Chris & the guys.   If Chris is watching, I'd appreciate his opinion about the options.

Ross.

Whatever works best. I think there's room for a centralized Direct thread (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - in the style of Shuttle Q&A) and then specific splinter topics. The Alternatives section was set up to allow for that.

Thanks Chris,

So I guess its up to the readers here - how do YOU want it organized here?

This thread is the easiest, along with splinter threads about specific semi-related topics, or would you guys prefer a whole gaggle of different threads each dealing with one small sub-topic?

Speak now, or forever hold your peace :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/16/2008 03:20 am
Initial suggestion.

DIRECT v2.0 Introduction Q&A
DIRECT v2.0 documents
J-120 thread (or section)
J-232 thread
DIRECT EDS thread
Moon by DIRECT
Mars by DIRECT v2.0
Depot and DIRECT
SEP, NEP and DIRECT
Politics and DIRECT
Other missions by DIRECT
Ground facilities for DIRECT
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/16/2008 03:24 am


I'm considering closing this thread and starting a fresh one around 150 pages.

The other option is to get permission from Chris/James etc to explicitly allow discussion of each individual topic related to DIRECT in its own separate thread.   There would end up being hundreds of threads, but it wouldn't be difficult to search for things.   I think it would need its own dedicated sub-section though and that's a hassle for Chris & the guys.   If Chris is watching, I'd appreciate his opinion about the options.

Ross.

Whatever works best. I think there's room for a centralized Direct thread (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - in the style of Shuttle Q&A) and then specific splinter topics. The Alternatives section was set up to allow for that.

Thanks Chris,

So I guess its up to the readers here - how do YOU want it organized here?

This thread is the easiest, along with splinter threads about specific semi-related topics, or would you guys prefer a whole gaggle of different threads each dealing with one small sub-topic?

Speak now, or forever hold your peace :)

Ross.

Perhaps a daunting task, but split up the topic into subtopics and sub-sub topics and, if reasonable, list links and references to past threads and posts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/16/2008 03:55 am
What's here right now is going to stay 'as is' - I don't think anyone has time to change it around now.

But future discussions can be rearranged if there is sufficient demand to do so.

When we have collected a few candidate suggestions in a few days time, I'll set up a pole and see what people like.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/16/2008 04:35 am
What's here right now is going to stay 'as is' - I don't think anyone has time to change it around now.

But future discussions can be rearranged if there is sufficient demand to do so.

When we have collected a few candidate suggestions in a few days time, I'll set up a pole and see what people like.

Ross.

But ya said speak now or forever hold your peace, now you're tellin' us to wait??  Geez Ross make up your mind!!  (Just kidding around!)

A_M_Swallow's List is pretty close to the sub-topic arrangement I was talking about.  From there when necessary establish sub sub topics. 

Can I stop holding my "peace" now?  LOL

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ballew on 09/16/2008 04:38 am
I find it easier for most of the discussion to be in one thread. I can easily remember what page I last read if there is only one discussion. If it is broken down into a half a dozen or more separate discussions, I'm afraid I will not be able to follow them all due to time restrictions and remembering at what point I've stopped reading for each one
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/16/2008 05:13 am
So are the Direct team proposing developing a common bulkhead COMPOSITE tank for the upper stage??  Has that ever been done before?? (common bulkhead with composite construction??)  X-33 died primarily because of difficulties with it's composite H2 tank and that wasn't even a common bulkhead tank IIRC...  (though it was a quite irregularly shaped one, granted)   Is an isogrid AL/Li common bulkhead tank more like the S-II completely off the table, or what?? 

It just seems to me, in reading everything I can about Ares I, that, much like shuttle, it's a 'bridge too far'.  Counting on a composite common bulkhead stage tank before that technology has been demonstrably proven capable and reliable seems to be stretching things, and will inevitably cause problems, unforeseen expense, and schedule slips.  Much like these 'active damping' systems proposed for TO, but that's another issue...  but all these things just add unneccessary complexity to 'make it work' that just wouldn't be necessary with a more capable and more 'conventional' vehicle design, using well understood dynamics. 

Remember these 'technological leaps' were in no small part responsible for shuttle's breathtaking costs, operational difficulties, and vehicle/crew loss.  Shameful to make the same mistakes again... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/16/2008 05:31 am
jml wrote

>More importantly, an in-line payload also eliminates the issues of placing people in the path of any debris from the launch vehicle - the fatal flaw in STS that has cost 14 lives.

Debris did not cause the loss of Challenger. The O-rings on the SRB failed due to cold temperatures and poor design. Debris from the ET during launch caused the failure of Columbia on re-entry, so only 7 lives were lost due to debris, not 14.

kraisee wrote

>So I guess its up to the readers here - how do YOU want it organized here?

I prefer a single thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/16/2008 12:08 pm
For what its worth, I also prefer a single thread, albeit one with a specific, dedicated single sub-forum that contains FAQ-answer posts. One for discussion, and the other for information that contains answers to the most-asked questions. That way, it's easiest to remember where things are.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Giovanni DS on 09/16/2008 01:02 pm
For what its worth, I also prefer a single thread, albeit one with a specific, dedicated single sub-forum that contains FAQ-answer posts. One for discussion, and the other for information that contains answers to the most-asked questions. That way, it's easiest to remember where things are.

I agree
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 09/16/2008 01:34 pm
Why can't DIRECT have it's own sub-forum similar to 'Exploration Alternatives (Direct, EELV, Etc.)'?

Then you can sticky a FAQ and other 'read me first' posts.

Or is that what has been suggested?

One single thread (such as this one) with 136 pages is ridiculous IMHO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Marsman on 09/16/2008 02:19 pm
So are the Direct team proposing developing a common bulkhead COMPOSITE tank for the upper stage??  Has that ever been done before?? (common bulkhead with composite construction??)  X-33 died primarily because of difficulties with it's composite H2 tank and that wasn't even a common bulkhead tank IIRC...  (though it was a quite irregularly shaped one, granted)   Is an isogrid AL/Li common bulkhead tank more like the S-II completely off the table, or what?? 

It just seems to me, in reading everything I can about Ares I, that, much like shuttle, it's a 'bridge too far'.  Counting on a composite common bulkhead stage tank before that technology has been demonstrably proven capable and reliable seems to be stretching things, and will inevitably cause problems, unforeseen expense, and schedule slips.  Much like these 'active damping' systems proposed for TO, but that's another issue...  but all these things just add unneccessary complexity to 'make it work' that just wouldn't be necessary with a more capable and more 'conventional' vehicle design, using well understood dynamics. 

Remember these 'technological leaps' were in no small part responsible for shuttle's breathtaking costs, operational difficulties, and vehicle/crew loss.  Shameful to make the same mistakes again... OL JR :)

No, it's not composite (unless something has changed). Only Ares V has composites, and on both the core and upper stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/16/2008 04:00 pm
I also prefer single thread.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Alpha Control on 09/16/2008 04:12 pm
I prefer a single thread as well.  While quite lengthy, and perhaps more difficult for newer NSF members, I find it easier to work with one thread and to remember one page number where I last left off.  Of course, if I forget that, that's another story! :)

Perhaps a short "introduction & background info" thread, while the current discussion remains in the larger one?

David
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 09/16/2008 04:42 pm
I find it easier ... to remember one page number where I last left off.

I would suggest that the number of people who remember the last page/post read between visits are in a small minority. ;)

  Of course, if I forget that, that's another story! :)

I use the forums' "Unread Threads" page and "new" buttons in the topics to return to my 'last read' point.  It's not completely perfect, but it seems to be very good.

Since I keep a close eye on DIRECT and NSF in general, I don't have a strong preference for a single DIRECT thread or several. 

My preference would be to have a well formatted & maintained DIRECT FAQ -- that way, when questions come up, we can provide links to the FAQ.  But I understand a FAQ may not be practical, due to manpower.

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Harlan on 09/16/2008 04:51 pm
jml wrote

>More importantly, an in-line payload also eliminates the issues of placing people in the path of any debris from the launch vehicle - the fatal flaw in STS that has cost 14 lives.

Debris did not cause the loss of Challenger. The O-rings on the SRB failed due to cold temperatures and poor design. Debris from the ET during launch caused the failure of Columbia on re-entry, so only 7 lives were lost due to debris, not 14.

Sure, but if the crew were in a capsule in front of the tanks, the launch escape system might have been able to pull them away from the burning debris and made the breakup survivable. The Challenger crew were killed because debris from the burning ET broke the shuttle into pieces. If they were in front of the rockets instead of beside them, it would have been at least theoretically survivable. Out of curiosity, how long does it take to activate the escape system rockets, once a problem is detected? Would an equivalent accident (SRB fails and burns into/rotates into the ET) be survivable on a Jupiter rocket?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/16/2008 05:08 pm
The Challenger crew were killed because debris from the burning ET broke the shuttle into pieces.

Aerodynamics broke up Challenger (SRB pivots about forward attach point, tank breaks up, control is lost, angle-of-attack get high, wings rip off....).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 09/16/2008 06:32 pm
The Challenger crew were killed because debris from the burning ET broke the shuttle into pieces.

Aerodynamics broke up Challenger (SRB pivots about forward attach point, tank breaks up, control is lost, angle-of-attack get high, wings rip off....).

As I recall, one SRB separated from it's rear attach point and pivoted around the forward attach point, shearing off one wing and then penetrating the LOX tank with the nose.  Structural failures caused the ET to disintegrate, then aerodynamic forces broke up the orbiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/16/2008 06:38 pm
I'm actually taking a break from studying for "Principles of Management" to write this, but I find it amazing that even my text book agrees that the way things are being run right now are WRONG and setting us up for failure.

I am reading a chapter entitled "Decision-Making Heuristics and Cognitive Biases"

Prior Hypothesis Bias: Decision makers who have strong prior beliefs about the relationship between two variables tend to make decisions on the basis of these beliefs, even when presented with evidence their beliefs are wrong

Escalating Commitment: Arises when decision makers, having already committed significant resources to a project commit even more resources if they receive feedback that the project is failing.

Illusion of Control: The tendency to overestimate one's ability to control events.

Groupthink: Arises when a group of decision makers coalesce around a person or a policy and filters out information that can be used to question the policy, develops after-the-fact rationalizations for its decisions, and pushes out group members who question the policy.


Right there you have the four major issues with NASA Management right now. It is ironic that a college intro to management class can point out these obvious flaws. When you have one manager exhibiting all of these flaws, it is impossible to recover. The only way Constellation is going to be fixed is if the current controlling power is removed.
It is really sad that I am using NASA as examples for each of these biases in my notes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: compwiz64 on 09/16/2008 06:54 pm
it seems to me that direct is more than a program to accomplish our goals, it a desighn philosophy that emphasizes using technology in a way that enchances the benifits while minimizing risks and costs.

with all the talk about how direct will minimize the reoccurence of a post-saturn V brain drain, how could you apply direct philosophy yto the saturn V rocket system.

id reccomend a single F-1 kerosene/oxygen with 2 SRB's, a single F-1 has more thrust then 4 SSME engines and were highly developed at the time
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Navyskygod1 on 09/16/2008 07:46 pm
Compwiz64,

    Your suggestion has already been covered in the below link.  Also, replacing infrastructure to use kerosene is gonna cost quite a bit of money as well as the changes to the core stage.  If we did that, we might as well go with a clean sheet design.

Tom

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14040.0
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: compwiz64 on 09/16/2008 08:10 pm
i wasn't implying that we attempt to do this now.
i was saying that if nasa used direct philosophy back in the 70's, instead of devoloping the shuttle, nasa could have added SRB's to a single F-1 rocket, which would have 90% of the maximum thrust of the saturn V and be significantly cheaper.
in hindsight would this have been the best option?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2008 08:28 pm
i wasn't implying that we attempt to do this now.
i was saying that if nasa used direct philosophy back in the 70's, instead of devoloping the shuttle, nasa could have added SRB's to a single F-1 rocket, which would have 90% of the maximum thrust of the saturn V and be significantly cheaper.
in hindsight would this have been the best option?


No, not even an option.  there is no advantage to such a system
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/16/2008 09:12 pm
So are the Direct team proposing developing a common bulkhead COMPOSITE tank for the upper stage??

No.   Not composite materials.

To clarify:   Standard Al-Li-2195 construction is currently planned for all major Jupiter Upper Stage (JUS) structural elements - including the Common Bulkhead, Tank Domes and Barrel Sections.

It should be noted that current ET still uses the older Al-2219 for some areas of the Interstage, along with small sections using Al-2024 and Al-7075.   So some unpressurized elements, such as the Fwd and Aft Skirts, may be made from different materials than Al-Li-2195.

Trade studies performed for equivalent elements on Ares-I-US may indicate composite materials would be advantageous.   Those trades will be given full consideration for JUS as well.   But currently, JUS design does not currently assume any mass allocation advantages here.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Vacuum.Head on 09/16/2008 09:23 pm
FWIIW the singular and organic DIRECT thread has a paramount use as a "one stop shop" for all things 'happening' in the DIRECT camp and it sometimes oddball/offbeat posts make for entertaining reading!
 
AND the seemingly infinite patience to (re)explain the basic concepts are a distinct plus.
_Especially for the newcomer._
(Hats off to kraisee, clongton et al)

BUT The sheer mass of posts and data is a little overwhelming.
Perhaps Chris can embed a mini (Tiddly) Wiki on this site with the latest DIRECT factoids _and pics_ organised in the heirarchical manner described by previous posters.

tho on second thoughts perhaps that would be better placed on the DIRECTlauncher site.

If a DIRECT related topic seems to take on a life of its own or is too offbeat: a separate thread would be called for.

Thus it would be nice if the Administrators could group all the DIRECT threads in one place.
Just my 0.02$
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/16/2008 09:34 pm
I think we need separate categories of DIRECT threads:

DIRECT for Dummies:
A place to for new comers to ask beginner questions about DIRECT. This could serve more as a FAQ.

DIRECT and Engineering:
An area for the discussion of the engineering and design of the concept.

DIRECT and Politics:
An for the discussion of the politics surrounding the concept.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/16/2008 09:36 pm
i wasn't implying that we attempt to do this now.
i was saying that if nasa used direct philosophy back in the 70's, instead of devoloping the shuttle, nasa could have added SRB's to a single F-1 rocket, which would have 90% of the maximum thrust of the saturn V and be significantly cheaper.
in hindsight would this have been the best option?

That's a difficult question.   I'm not sure there was any tenable option for continuing Saturn given that the budget was cut to about one quarter of it's high-point.   I can't see any way to continue that program safely given that sort of forced reduction.

I would like to know how much Saturn-V & Apollo CSM fixed and variable costs were to see if anything was possible if you just trimmed out Saturn-1B production.

As it turned out there was a fairly large development budget in the end for Shuttle and I'm pretty sure that Saturn could have continued to be operated successfully if that budget had been utilized that way instead of "developing something just for the sakes of developing" - and that is a topic which reminds me of Ares a lot.


Ultimately I am not convinced that Saturn-V's could have been produced for any significant dollar figure less than they already cost - no matter how good a cost cutting exercise were put in place.   I think the Saturn program was simply too expensive for Congress to stomach, so they were canceled after just 13 flew, given a new plan to replace it with something much cheaper.

Ironically, Shuttle ended up being considerably more expensive in the end, and turned out to be even less capable.   For the 125 or so Shuttle missions we've had so far, you could have launched about the same number of Saturn-V's and lifted four to five times as much useful payload mass.   ISS could have been completed in just five flights, and that launch-cost saving alone would have been so gargantuan that it probably would have offset any budget difference on its own.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/16/2008 09:50 pm
Perhaps we could start with three threads and go from there:-

- DIRECT General Discussion Thread #x
- DIRECT Q&A
- DIRECT Documentation Links

The General Discussion Threads would mostly be a continuation of this thread and would be 'replaced' every 50 pages or so, which should keep each fairly manageable and easier to reference and search: "that was discussed in thread 5 on page 12".

The Q&A would start-out as a 'catch-all' section for all Q&A's, but if it gets too large it could be spun-off into a few separate threads, like 'Technical Q&A', 'Political Q&A', 'Budget Q&A' etc.

And then related discussions can still continue to be added whenever needed, like the "EELV vs. DIRECT" thread.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ballew on 09/17/2008 01:31 am

Ironically, Shuttle ended up being considerably more expensive in the end, and turned out to be even less capable.   For the 125 or so Shuttle missions we've had so far, you could have launched about the same number of Saturn-V's and lifted four to five times as much useful payload mass.   ISS could have been completed in just five flights, and that launch-cost saving alone would have been so gargantuan that it probably would have offset any budget difference on its own.

I can't think of a better selling point for Direct than extrapolating this comparison to the current situation with the Ares programs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/17/2008 02:00 am

Ironically, Shuttle ended up being considerably more expensive in the end, and turned out to be even less capable.   For the 125 or so Shuttle missions we've had so far, you could have launched about the same number of Saturn-V's and lifted four to five times as much useful payload mass.   ISS could have been completed in just five flights, and that launch-cost saving alone would have been so gargantuan that it probably would have offset any budget difference on its own.

I can't think of a better selling point for Direct than extrapolating this comparison to the current situation with the Ares programs.

As if greater commonality with existing STS infrastructure, higher payload capacity, lower launch cost, and faster time to launch wasn't enough for Griffin, what makes you think that any other logical arguments would sway him?

On that note, how about a little discussion (if it's not OT) about what WOULD sway him?

Wait, that can be answered in one word: Nothing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ballew on 09/17/2008 02:07 am
As if greater commonality with existing STS infrastructure, higher payload capacity, lower launch cost, and faster time to launch wasn't enough for Griffin, what makes you think that any other logical arguments would sway him?

On that note, how about a little discussion (if it's not OT) about what WOULD sway him?

Wait, that can be answered in one word: Nothing.

If the Direct concept is to succeed, Griffin's opinions need to be made irrevelant, the people who control the purse strings are who need to be convinced.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/17/2008 02:15 am
As if greater commonality with existing STS infrastructure, higher payload capacity, lower launch cost, and faster time to launch wasn't enough for Griffin, what makes you think that any other logical arguments would sway him?

On that note, how about a little discussion (if it's not OT) about what WOULD sway him?

Wait, that can be answered in one word: Nothing.

If the Direct concept is to succeed, Griffin's opinions need to be made irrevelant, the people who control the purse strings are who need to be convinced.

I completely and wholeheartedly agree. See Navyskygod's letter to Congress for a great letter to write.

Problem is, Congress goes to their technical source for all things space-related, when they have questions about things like this, and that source just so happens to be... You guessed it: NASA.

As long as Griffin is there, he will grossly distort the truth to promote that other LV.

I bet a massive letter writing campaign to HIM, and CCing all those Congress-people, might get some attention... Include the Contractors, and all the other business people involved, and that might be enough of a grass-roots campaign to get the ball rolling in the right DIRECTion...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 09/17/2008 03:55 am
On another thread I saw mention of a SSTO Saturn V first stage derivative, that dropped of the 4 outer engines & thrust structure on the way to orbit, (Atlas style). They were to be recovered and re-used. 

Similar payload performance to Ares-1.  (22 t)
No SRB's.
Not too expensive either.
Expandable with an US to about 80 t.

$150m and 36 months to develop in 1968.   I could cry...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 09/17/2008 03:59 am
...

As if greater commonality with existing STS infrastructure, higher payload capacity, lower launch cost, and faster time to launch wasn't enough for Griffin, what makes you think that any other logical arguments would sway him?

On that note, how about a little discussion (if it's not OT) about what WOULD sway him?

2 rockets called the Griffin-120 and the Griffin-232?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/17/2008 05:05 am
On another thread I saw mention of a SSTO Saturn V first stage derivative, that dropped of the 4 outer engines & thrust structure on the way to orbit, (Atlas style). They were to be recovered and re-used. 

Similar payload performance to J-120.  (45 t)
No SRB's.
Not too expensive either.
Expandable with an US to about 100 t.

$150m and 6 months to develop in 1973.   I could cry...

I know what you mean.  It is so frustrating sometimes.

"2 rockets called the Griffin-120 and the Griffin-232?"

This is so good it's scary!

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mboeller on 09/17/2008 08:23 am
On another thread I saw mention of a SSTO Saturn V first stage derivative, that dropped of the 4 outer engines & thrust structure on the way to orbit, (Atlas style). They were to be recovered and re-used. 

Similar payload performance to J-120.  (45 t)
No SRB's.
Not too expensive either.
Expandable with an US to about 100 t.

$150m and 6 months to develop in 1973.   I could cry...

IMHO the performance of the Saturn V-B was not so high. According to Astronautixs.com the payload was 48900Ib (=22.6to). Still a good performance for a 1.5 stage Saturn 5 but not as good as the J-120.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm   (look for Saturn V-B)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 09/17/2008 09:32 pm
It seems NASA is studying options for Shuttle life extension, Capability D- COTS but nothing related to DIRECT.

Sad really.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 09/17/2008 10:04 pm
On another thread I saw mention of a SSTO Saturn V first stage derivative, that dropped of the 4 outer engines & thrust structure on the way to orbit, (Atlas style). They were to be recovered and re-used. 

Similar payload performance to J-120.  (45 t)
No SRB's.
Not too expensive either.
Expandable with an US to about 100 t.

$150m and 6 months to develop in 1973.   I could cry...

IMHO the performance of the Saturn V-B was not so high. According to Astronautixs.com the payload was 48900Ib (=22.6to). Still a good performance for a 1.5 stage Saturn 5 but not as good as the J-120.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm   (look for Saturn V-B)

The V-B was a proposed replacement for the Saturn I-B after the 260" solid first stage Saturn I-B proved unworkable.
Part of the Apollo applications program where they tried to find uses for for the lunar exploration hardware on alternative missions.
It was a good concept and would have had a cost similar to STS if other Apollo upgrades such as the winged Apollo or reusable CM worked out.
Orion really should skip over the Apollo stage and go strait to the concepts proposed in the Apollo applications program.
Among those was commonality of launch hardware with everything being based on variants of the Saturn V.
This kinda sounds like Direct when you get it some thought.
This is one of the big mistakes of Ares in that it repeats many of the mistakes made on Apollo such as two boosters with little commonality though Ares I and V have even less commonality then the Saturn IB and Saturn V had.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 09/18/2008 04:46 am
On another thread I saw mention of a SSTO Saturn V first stage derivative, that dropped of the 4 outer engines & thrust structure on the way to orbit, (Atlas style). They were to be recovered and re-used. 

Similar payload performance to J-120.  (45 t)
No SRB's.
Not too expensive either.
Expandable with an US to about 100 t.

$150m and 6 months to develop in 1973.   I could cry...

IMHO the performance of the Saturn V-B was not so high. According to Astronautixs.com the payload was 48900Ib (=22.6to). Still a good performance for a 1.5 stage Saturn 5 but not as good as the J-120.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm   (look for Saturn V-B)

My bad. I was working from memory. I've edited my original post.

However, with uprated F-1A engines and J-2S on upper stage, payload could have been be considerably higher.


I also noticed the Direct-like common first stage.  Funny how good ideas never die.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/18/2008 08:51 pm
Funny how good ideas never die.

Just a shame how rarely they are ever put into practice, eh?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/19/2008 02:45 am
Funny how good ideas never die.

Just a shame how rarely they are ever put into practice, eh?

Ross.

We're working on it... Grass roots, but we're working on it.

I am going on a tour/group trip to KSC in November. I think I'll make a "DIRECT 2.0" t-shirt to wear on the tour, just to see what kind of response it gets...  :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/19/2008 04:10 am
Lancer,
We have a full range of DIRECT Merchandise already available (no profit for us):-

http://www.cafepress.com/directlauncher/


I really like the large mug myself - great for a big soothing mug tea!   Ahhh PG!   ;)

Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 09/19/2008 06:21 am
Look at all those pretty t-shirts.  I guess we won't have to worry about a blast shield huh, Ross!!  LOL

Drew

OK, where are the "Girls Gone Wild in Space" videos!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/26/2008 01:03 am
Lancer,
We have a full range of DIRECT Merchandise already available (no profit for us):-

http://www.cafepress.com/directlauncher/ (http://www.cafepress.com/directlauncher/)


I really like the large mug myself - great for a big soothing mug tea!   Ahhh PG!   ;)

Enjoy,

Ross.

Pretty cool...

I was actually thinking something along these lines:

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/j120-blackshirt.jpg)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/28/2008 04:38 pm
I have not heard of much activity lately, anything brewing for DIRECt?  Or do we have to wait till November?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/29/2008 06:17 am
calm before the storm?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: EE Scott on 09/29/2008 05:45 pm
calm before the storm?

We can hope.   :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/29/2008 07:30 pm
Here is a silver lining for you, if STS-125 is delayed until February 2009 then Ares will not get Pad -B until it is safely on the ground, at which time there will be a new Administration in office.  would such a move buy more time for the DIRECT proposal?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/29/2008 08:02 pm
I think the recent resolution in the States that seems to have authorised a study that might fly the AMS mission and also prohibits any further scrapping of shuttle infrastructure is a better safeguard for DIRET's possible future.

(Unless, of course, I've misunderstood the news...)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/29/2008 08:09 pm
I think the recent resolution in the States that seems to have authorised a study that might fly the AMS mission and also prohibits any further scrapping of shuttle infrastructure is a better safeguard for DIRET's possible future.

(Unless, of course, I've misunderstood the news...)

Umm, Tank?

What resolution was this, and what news report did you see?

 ???
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/29/2008 11:35 pm
Lancer,
He's talking about the 2008 NASA Authorization Bill which just got passed and is due for the President's signature.   There's a whole thread (or two) on the forum about it.

One of the things this law will do is preclude NASA from doing anything to the infrastructure which would prevent Shuttle operations continuing beyond 2010 if the next President were to so order early next year.

This is more important WRT tooling at MAF than the Pads though.   From what I'm hearing its looking like a good idea to completely overhaul the Pads no matter what rocket ultimately replaces Shuttle.

This bill buys us another 6-9 months respite from scorched earth policies - which will hopefully carry us all over to a post-Griffin Administration too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 09/29/2008 11:57 pm
Lancer,
He's talking about the 2008 NASA Authorization Bill which just got passed and is due for the President's signature.   There's a whole thread (or two) on the forum about it.

One of the things this law will do is preclude NASA from doing anything to the infrastructure which would prevent Shuttle operations continuing beyond 2010 if the next President were to so order early next year.

This is more important WRT tooling at MAF than the Pads though.   From what I'm hearing its looking like a good idea to completely overhaul the Pads no matter what rocket ultimately replaces Shuttle.

This bill buys us another 6-9 months respite from scorched earth policies - which will hopefully carry us all over to a post-Griffin Administration too.

Ross.

Gee, I wonder how I missed that?

Thanks, Ross! (and Tank!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/30/2008 02:40 am
Lancer,
He's talking about the 2008 NASA Authorization Bill which just got passed and is due for the President's signature.
Whew, I thought I was losing it there for a minute. Not like it would be the first time, of course... :)

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/30/2008 06:08 am

This bill buys us another 6-9 months respite from scorched earth policies - which will hopefully carry us all over to a post-Griffin Administration too.

Ross.

Anything that buys Shuttle some time is good right now. As soon as the new administration gets in, let's hope they do a true review of the VSE and be willing to make some changes.

As every DIRECT presentation has stated, "we already have our heavy lifter in the Shuttle"...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 09/30/2008 11:25 am
The lay-offs at Michoud have already begun (seen on NASA Watch).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 09/30/2008 06:21 pm
The lay-offs at Michoud have already begun (seen on NASA Watch).
Yes and that's going to pique a few southern US Congress Crittters' attention in this run-up to the elections.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/30/2008 08:12 pm
While lay-offs are alarming, it is the destruction of the shuttle infrastructure that is much more damaging. The people being layed-off could be rehired if need be.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/30/2008 08:31 pm
Only in the short term.   The Apollo > Shuttle gap shows us that 9 out of 10 such employees will never return to NASA again.

Would you go back to work for someone who showed you the door 5 years ago?

Of course not.   You'd go find a different job, quite possibly in a different industry sector, maybe even in a different city or state, so that you can continue paying your mortgage and your kids college funds.   Certainly nobody in their right mind is going to just "hang around" for five years waiting and hoping for a new job with their former employer.

So when that NASA guy calls you up in 5 years time, you'll do what most Apollo guys did and say "well gee, thanks for kicking me out half a decade ago, costing me my career, nearly costing me my home and my family's future.   Say again?   You want me back now that I have found a new career with a more stable employer?   Errr, you know what you can do with your job offer..."

That is precisely what happened before.   There is no reason to believe it won't happen again.

If there aren't jobs already lined up within a few weeks of the layoff date, those guys will be gone -- with all their experience and proven loyalty -- permanently.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 10/01/2008 08:07 pm
wow I feel like I have seen this design somewhere before ;)

http://www.esa.int/images/ARVcrew,0.jpg
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 10/02/2008 02:17 am
Saw an interesting article today on NASA's impending 50th. (Which is actually today) The media liken the agency to a man in middle-age crisis.

Oh, by the way... Ross?

Did you know you're a "dissident" ??

http://tinyurl.com/4doko4 (http://tinyurl.com/4doko4)

 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/02/2008 02:27 am
I'm not sure that article was specifically referring to us or not.   We aren't the only group working on alternatives.   In fact what we have today as The DIRECT Team is currently made up of two such separate groups (original DIRECT and also Team Vision Inc) who merged our efforts together almost 2 years ago when we found our two separate proposals shared a great deal in common with each other.

The article seemed to be referring mostly, not to any particular groups putting forward alternative plans, but to those people within both the Program and the Administration who have been expressing their reservations.

I'm sure that some of our team might have feet in that category as well, but I would term us more as opponents and perhaps competition rather than mere dissenters.   We aren't just complaining, we're actively putting forward alternative plans to fix the problems.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/02/2008 02:37 am
hey... at least they got it right that it's a  "cheaper alternative"   ;) 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/02/2008 02:43 am
hey... at least they got it right that it's a  "cheaper alternative"   ;) 

Yeah.   Perhaps they were referring to us after all  ;D

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 10/02/2008 02:53 am
Ross:

Let me be perfectly clear here... I had NO intention of being disrespectful or demeaning when I wrote the earlier post.

I'm sure that I'm not in a minority here when I say that I think you and your team are visionaries, forward thinkers, and open-minded.

I admire everything that all of you guys do, whether you're working on the Jupiter, or the other one. I know I can't do it. The problem with most people is that if they can't do someone else's job, all that's left is criticism. I want you to understand that I wasn't criticizing.

I just thought it funny that the reporter used the term "dissidents" when describing what I clearly saw as the DIRECT team. I hoped you would too.

No harm done?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/02/2008 03:21 am
Lancer,
Not to worry, I didn't take it that way :)

I didn't mean for my reply to sound critical - its difficult to get "tone" into a piece of text sometimes and I was aiming for "Op Ed" tone, not "Critique" tone.   I was merely commenting that I couldn't tell if that article even *knew* about DIRECT when they wrote that, or whether they were talking about A.N.Other option - like maybe the "Ares-V Lite" idea which the Astronaut Corps came up with a few months back.


I guess my comment originated from a position of concern.   Let me provide some added background to help explain.   My #1 issue, the one that keeps me awake at night sometimes, is how few people really know anything at all about DIRECT - even within the NASA family.   I don't think we have yet reached 33% coverage even after all the recent (and ongoing - you'll see) press.

My #2 concern is that according to reliable reports, those who do know about us don't fully understand what we're trying to say.   Just to give an example; The other day someone of significance mentioned being interested in the concept.   Apparently the only problem that particular person had with DIRECT was that he/she believed we still needed Propellant Transfer technology to achieve the baseline performance!

Now, anyone who has been following along will know that while that may have been the case for our baseline way back in Sept 2007, we have come a long way since then and don't have Prop Transfer requirements at all to meet NASA's performance targets comfortably today - and we haven't had such requirements for the last three consecutive quarters.


(BTW, I thnk its interesting to note that both my #1 and #2 concerns with DIRECT aren't technical at all - they're "perception" related - given that this *is* rocket science and this *is* an extremely difficult business, that the technical issues are all behind the perception issues says an awful lot, IMHO).


Maybe its just me, but I keep seeing places where our message isn't getting through, or where our message is not getting through clearly.   This article just made me wonder about that again.   Sorry if it sounded critical - it wasn't supposed to be, honest!!! :)

No harm done at all.   Ditto from my side too, I hope!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Vacuum.Head on 10/02/2008 03:40 am
wow I feel like I have seen this design somewhere before ;)
snip
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/e/energiam.gif
In biology it's called convergent evolution. When something is just right you see it again. And again. And again
Survival of the fittest... Or Intelligent Design!
Can't wait for the Chinese equivalent!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/02/2008 08:24 am
Article on Direct in the Smithsonian Air and Space Magazine

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/End_Run.html

Includes comments from Steve Cook, Ares I program manager.

“The primary issue with all of the ‘Direct’ options, including the most recent variation released in late June, 2008, is that they fall short of our performance requirements. If a system can’t pass this primary gate, we do not perform more detailed analyses.”

Do you mean that study that grossly overestimated the stage masses and doubled the residual propellant mass?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/02/2008 11:41 am
Article on Direct in the Smithsonian Air and Space Magazine

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/End_Run.html

Includes comments from Steve Cook, Ares I program manager.

“The primary issue with all of the ‘Direct’ options, including the most recent variation released in late June, 2008, is that they fall short of our performance requirements. If a system can’t pass this primary gate, we do not perform more detailed analyses.”


So by his point then the Stick (both vesions) shouldn't have gotten past the primary gate since it falls short of performance requirements. 

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 10/02/2008 01:44 pm
Still regarding the dissidents, this appeared on BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7642014.stm

Here's the statement you can find from Griffin on Ares-Orion: "Things are going quite well" on the shuttle replacement, Ares-Orion, says Mr Griffin, despite what people read on "certain internet blogs".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/02/2008 03:18 pm
yes... just like those terrible "dissidents" who wanted to stop those challenger and columbia flights due to some safety concerns.....

perhaps they need to try listening to dissidents for a change, rather than just ignoring and/or bashing them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: EE Scott on 10/02/2008 04:27 pm
Article on Direct in the Smithsonian Air and Space Magazine

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/End_Run.html

Includes comments from Steve Cook, Ares I program manager.

“The primary issue with all of the ‘Direct’ options, including the most recent variation released in late June, 2008, is that they fall short of our performance requirements. If a system can’t pass this primary gate, we do not perform more detailed analyses.”

Do you mean that study that grossly overestimated the stage masses and doubled the residual propellant mass?

And the problem with interviews is that no one gets to call him on that statement.  He just gets to make it, and is not challenged in any way.  Kind of like when Griffin talked about EELV "black zones" earlier in the year.  The interviewer does not push back, so there is never any true dialogue on this.  Someone should get Steve Cook in a room and make him nail down where Direct does not meet their requirements, and then make him say how Ares does meet those requirements, and then make him discuss how much each might cost, and time needed to develop, etc.  Argh.   :P
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 10/02/2008 04:31 pm
Maybe Chris could interview him....yeah, I'm sure that would happen. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 10/02/2008 04:43 pm

And the problem with interviews is that no one gets to call him on that statement.  He just gets to make it, and is not challenged in any way.  Kind of like when Griffin talked about EELV "black zones" earlier in the year.  The interviewer does not push back, so there is never any true dialogue on this.  Someone should get Steve Cook in a room and make him nail down where Direct does not meet their requirements, and then make him say how Ares does meet those requirements, and then make him discuss how much each might cost, and time needed to develop, etc.  Argh.   :P

I've been saying that from the beginning... Someone needs to contact that reporter, and tell them there's another side to this whole story. It would make one hell of an "Investigative Journalism" piece on the outright dishonesty and possible malfeasance going on at the Agency.

There HAS to be a way to combat this bad information with good information.

Maybe every time someone at the Agency makes a statement like that, the DIRECT team should send out a Press Release that shows clearly how much of a lie it is, with point-by-point comparisons. Maybe that would get something going.

Then again, if that were done, the DIRECT team wouldn't have time to do anything else, it seems.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/02/2008 05:05 pm
Such questions will not come from anywhere but a Congressional hearing or perhaps 60 Minutes.  For the former, call and write (real paper, not email) letters to your representatives; for the latter, call CBS. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/02/2008 05:12 pm

And the problem with interviews is that no one gets to call him on that statement.  He just gets to make it, and is not challenged in any way.  Kind of like when Griffin talked about EELV "black zones" earlier in the year.  The interviewer does not push back, so there is never any true dialogue on this.  Someone should get Steve Cook in a room and make him nail down where Direct does not meet their requirements, and then make him say how Ares does meet those requirements, and then make him discuss how much each might cost, and time needed to develop, etc.  Argh.   :P

I've been saying that from the beginning... Someone needs to contact that reporter, and tell them there's another side to this whole story. It would make one hell of an "Investigative Journalism" piece on the outright dishonesty and possible malfeasance going on at the Agency.

There HAS to be a way to combat this bad information with good information.

Maybe every time someone at the Agency makes a statement like that, the DIRECT team should send out a Press Release that shows clearly how much of a lie it is, with point-by-point comparisons. Maybe that would get something going.

Then again, if that were done, the DIRECT team wouldn't have time to do anything else, it seems.

Steve gets to spread the party line and get paid for it; because it is his “day job”.
Unfortunately, even though DIRECT occupies such a large percentage of our personal time and effort, it is not our day job, we don’t get paid for it, and we don’t have the ability to put the time into it that we all wished we could. We go to work and earn our livings, then go home and follow our passion, DIRECT. My wife has joked to me that she is a rocket widow and will be glad when the Jupiter finally flies so that she can have some of my time back. So that’s the point. All the time we put into this is at the expense of our families, without whose support this effort would never have been possible. You’ve no idea how incredibly important their willingness to stand beside us has been. It’s a fact we never forget. It’s coming up on three years now and their support is as steadfast as ever. That’s incredible! I just wanted to take the time here to express our appriciation for our families standing with us. They never seem to get mentioned.

But yea, I would like nothing more than to have the time to be able to just watch for official crap like that and then just jump in and take it apart – line by line – to their face. Our inability to do that is what emboldens them to continue to spread the disinformation and “cooked” analyses upon which the Ares effort relies.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rocketguy101 on 10/02/2008 05:40 pm
Would it be of any use to post rebuttals with backup data in the comments sections of these articles?  Not "scorched-earth" remarks, but just like above "point x is wrong because y assumption was made, when in fact z is the correct value"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 10/02/2008 05:44 pm
Such questions will not come from anywhere but a Congressional hearing or perhaps 60 Minutes.  For the former, call and write (real paper, not email) letters to your representatives; for the latter, call CBS. :)

You know, this has reached the point where it might interest larger mainstream newsmedia. At CNN, Lou Dobbs might be worth a try, since he has some interest in space exploration. For TV people, the best contact point us usually the producers' office.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 10/02/2008 09:33 pm
Lancer,
Not to worry, I didn't take it that way :)

I didn't mean for my reply to sound critical - its difficult to get "tone" into a piece of text sometimes and I was aiming for "Op Ed" tone, not "Critique" tone.   I was merely commenting that I couldn't tell if that article even *knew* about DIRECT when they wrote that, or whether they were talking about A.N.Other option - like maybe the "Ares-V Lite" idea which the Astronaut Corps came up with a few months back.


I guess my comment originated from a position of concern.   Let me provide some added background to help explain.   My #1 issue, the one that keeps me awake at night sometimes, is how few people really know anything at all about DIRECT - even within the NASA family.   I don't think we have yet reached 33% coverage even after all the recent (and ongoing - you'll see) press.

My #2 concern is that according to reliable reports, those who do know about us don't fully understand what we're trying to say.   Just to give an example; The other day someone of significance mentioned being interested in the concept.   Apparently the only problem that particular person had with DIRECT was that he/she believed we still needed Propellant Transfer technology to achieve the baseline performance!

Now, anyone who has been following along will know that while that may have been the case for our baseline way back in Sept 2007, we have come a long way since then and don't have Prop Transfer requirements at all to meet NASA's performance targets comfortably today - and we haven't had such requirements for the last three consecutive quarters.


(BTW, I thnk its interesting to note that both my #1 and #2 concerns with DIRECT aren't technical at all - they're "perception" related - given that this *is* rocket science and this *is* an extremely difficult business, that the technical issues are all behind the perception issues says an awful lot, IMHO).


Maybe its just me, but I keep seeing places where our message isn't getting through, or where our message is not getting through clearly.   This article just made me wonder about that again.   Sorry if it sounded critical - it wasn't supposed to be, honest!!! :)

No harm done at all.   Ditto from my side too, I hope!

Ross.

Ross, may be what is important is not to pass the Direct message to everybody but to specific "players" who, given the right conditions, could become key allieds. I am thinking here of ATK staff/management. When the Ares I/V scheme falls apart, they will the ones who will have the most to loose. So it would be important that they be immediately ready to jump over to Direct. From what I heard, they have a formidable lobby machine who could effectively sell Direct to the US Government after the Ares I/V demise. 

What is needed from the Direct team, however, is to resolve a few loose ends/details (formal reply to NASA critique of Direct, decision to use of 5 seg SRB or not, development of J-120 + Delta IV US or not, unmanned moon cargo mission to use one J-232 or two,...) and update their architecture documents accordingly, so a fully up-to-date Direct solution/plan is available for ATK to promote.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 10/02/2008 10:15 pm
Perhaps what is needed is a seperate thread for a "Go Direct" campaign?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/03/2008 01:56 am
What is really needed is for a single VP within ATK, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne or United Space Alliance to recognize that Ares-I is leading the whole program completely the wrong way and to voice the "dissenting" opinion within the corporate framework of their company.   They need to put together the presentation internally and make their own board choose to push for it, board-members, staff, lobbyists and political partners together.

DIRECT benefits every one of those companies by primarily resulting in a system which can actually work and which won't simply be canceled prematurely.   But it also benefits those companies by preserving those company's short-term profit margins through the otherwise harmful transition years and also providing additional profit via the additional work (contracts) it ultimately requires.

ATK would still get to keep its lucrative 5-segment development money (for Jupiter-232 Heavy due 2017), but DIRECT needs about 10 times as many boosters prepared for flight on Jupiter-120's between now and 2020 compared to Ares.  DIRECT is worth an additional $1-2bn to ATK between now and 2020.

Lockheed Martin will get to continue its current contracts for building ET's in the form of Jupiter Core's.   It also gets a lucrative development contract there too.   DIRECT is worth about $3bn extra to LM by 2020.

Boeing gets to keep its Upper Stage and Instrument Unit contracts, but now gets *guaranteed* work to produce BOTH upper stages for the CLV and the CaLV.   Not only is Ares-V probably never going to be built, but even if it does there is no guarantee that Boeing will get the EDS contract.   Lets just ponder the fact that Lockheed actually finally got the composite cryo tanks to work for X-33 before the project was terminated.   Because of that experience, I feel they will actually have the advantage when it comes to producing the all-composite EDS, no?   So Boeing has no guarantees there at all.   Under DIRECT though, both CLV and CaLV Upper Stages for the 2-launch Lunar architectures would be locked-in for Boeing.   And LM won't mind because they're quite happy making the Core Stages.   DIRECT is worth about $3bn extra to them by 2020.

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne get to continue work on J-2X (due 2017), and also guarantee getting RS-68B as well (due 2013) and the RS-68B contract is in serious jeopardy when Ares-V is canned.   The extra flights DIRECT allows for mean a lot more units are also required.   DIRECT is worth about $2bn extra to Boeing by 2020.

And United Space Alliance is currently set to become virtually non-existent under Ares.   They're going to be the hardest hit company in the workforce retention stakes.   There's simply not going to be anything at all for them to do until Ares-I-Y in 2013/14, and even when Ares-I/Orion comes online it will only require a fraction of the Shuttle staff numbers.   They won't have the same size contracts or workforce until sometime after Ares-V comes online - and that's only in the vain hope it doesn't get canceled.   USA are going to be completely boned under the Ares plans - and USA's board must know by now that is precisely why ATK has been pillaging their staff recently - right now every other company in the business thinks USA is all-but finished because of Ares and they are lining up to just take over all of USA's business when the company gets flushed.   But under Jupiter we have need for USA workers to process test flights in 2011, 2012 and we go fully operational in 2013 with a heavy lifter which lifts both crew and cargo!   This is three years faster timetable, coupled with additional payload capacity which is going to *require* additional contracts and thus more processing staff.   This is the "bridge" we need to transition the staff from Shuttle to the new program - and USA is right in the bullseye of this issue.   DIRECT is the difference between USA staying in business at all vs. losing all its staff and all its contracts to other companies by 2014.


Every one of those company's benefits enormously from DIRECT's approach.

What is interesting is that we know that a *LOT* of those company's are no longer happy with Ares either.

I'm pretty sure it is only a matter of time before *someone* develops the necessary boardroom courage to stand up and be the leading voice within those company board rooms.

I believe the writing is already on the wall for Ares.   Who will speak out first, more importantly who will grasp the leadership on this change is the only remaining question for me now.


I'll stick my neck out and say I think it should be ATK who makes the first move towards DIRECT.   When this change happens, if they don't move quickly, they could easily find themselves sidelined by a liquid booster alternative proposed by some sort of LM/Boeing/PWR conglomeration and if that happened they would find their company on the outside looking in, with no voice at the table any longer.   DIRECT remains the most logical alternative for ATK to support once they accept Ares-I is in big trouble and that Ares-V is simply never going to happen.   ATK would be far better-off leading the charge towards DIRECT instead of reacting to a charge being led by the others.

I just hope a few influential people get to read this post.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 10/03/2008 02:41 am
Article on Direct in the Smithsonian Air and Space Magazine

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/End_Run.html

Includes comments from Steve Cook, Ares I program manager.

“The primary issue with all of the ‘Direct’ options, including the most recent variation released in late June, 2008, is that they fall short of our performance requirements. If a system can’t pass this primary gate, we do not perform more detailed analyses.”

Do you mean that study that grossly overestimated the stage masses and doubled the residual propellant mass?

It is statements like that that I find so frustrating. Ares can't meet their performance requirements either. They scew the data until it favors their needs.

Keep repeating a statement, and eventually management will take it as fact. No matter what the data says.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/03/2008 03:21 am
Okay.   No more Mr. Nice Gaius (I have the right accent to do Baltar!).   It's "gloves off" time.

HERE is the REAL "apples-to-apples" comparison figures:-

All figures below utilize the Constellation Program's own current Ground Rules and Assumptions (GR&A's) throughout, and do *not* include DIRECT's own arbitrary margins - those have been removed to align these performance numbers with NASA's own.

Lockheed Martin's flight-proven Centaur mass estimate tools are utilized instead of MSFC's unproven "INTROS" mass estimation tools for Jupiter Upper/Earth Departure Stage calculations.


DIRECT can send 84,778kg of mass thru TLI (CEV+LSAM+ 1,400kg ASE).

This exceeds NASA's baseline requirements by 11.3mT, or 15.5%.


LAUNCH #1:
Jupiter-232 Heavy Series 33.1.3 (CaLV config w/ minimal PLF 'cap', 2 x 5-seg SRB, 3 x RS-68B main engines, 2 x J-2X upper stage engines)
Insertion to 130x130nmi, 29.0degree circular orbit:-
- 20.1mT dry "Earth Departure Stage"
- 6.4mT reserves & residuals propellant
- 1.0mT RCS propellant
- 120.3mT of usable LOX/LH2
After 4 days orbital boil-off @ 0.35% per day, results in 118.6mT of usable LOX/LH2 at the time of the TLI Burn.


LAUNCH #2 (within 4 days):
Jupiter-232 Heavy Series 33.1.4 (CLV config with 10.0m dia/10.0m barrel PLF, 2 x 5-seg SRB, 3 x RS-68B main engines, 2 x J-2X upper stage engines)
Insertion to 130x130nmi, 29.0degree circular orbit:-
- 20.1mT dry "Upper Stage" (de-orbits after insertion)
- 6.4mT reserves & residuals propellant (de-orbits after insertion)
- 1.0mT RCS propellant (used to get CEV/LSAM "close" to EDS, then used to de-orbit Upper Stage)
- 20.2mT Orion CEV
- 64.1mT LSAM (includes 5mT L2 margin and 4mT L3 margin)
- 1.4mT ASE Cradle
- 26.6mT of unused "ballast" - disposed of before TLI.

Total hardware mass (EDS Burnout, CEV, LSAM, ASE) thru TLI:   111,686kg
Total Usable TLI Propellant:   118,643kg
TLI burn requirement:   3,180m/s.

RESULT:-

CEV mass delivered thru TLI:   20,185kg
ASE mass delivered thru TLI:   1,400kg
LSAM mass delivered thru TLI:   63,193kg


AND this system would also be fully operational by 2017, a full 3-years ahead of the current 2020 Ares-V FOC date.


Lets see Ares-I / Ares-V match those apples.

FYI: Right now, the current baseline 5.5seg/6 engine Ares-6 supports no more than 71.1mT of spacecraft thru TLI - that's 12.3mT less than DIRECT.


BTW, this requires No Propellant Transfer ***AT ALL***, although that 26.6mT of "ballast" on launch #2 looks very useful for future growth.   I wonder if the LSAM could be given drop tanks...   Hmmm.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 10/03/2008 03:57 am
The problem is you aren't given an opportunity to truly go gloves off against NASA. They get their words out in a few articles and thats the end of it. No chance for you guys to respond.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/03/2008 04:00 am
Actually I have the Air & Space guy's phone number and e-mail address and I'm planning a followup with him.

But I need to get the rebuttal document issued first.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/03/2008 05:56 am
Ross, you've used Centaur values with two J-2X for your EDS on Jupiter 232, but NASA is using MSFC values with one J-2X for Ares-V. The current comparison is not fair. How does Ares-V perform with a Centaur derived EDS with two J-2X? On the other hand, how does Jupiter 232 perform with MSFC values for EDS and one J-2X?

By the way, are you assuming that Orion docks with Altair in LEO, or after TLI? I see that you have now switched to 5-segment SRB. Does this also include a lengthened Core? Could you give the stage masses and propellants masses for all the stages?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/03/2008 06:31 am
Steven,
This example uses the same engines as Ares simply to provide a more level playing field.   It doesn't stretch the Core though, because while it would improve J-232 performance, it would also cripple J-120 performance and incur additional costs at KSC & MAF to implement.   Given that we close with more than 11mT of TLI clearance, we didn't see the point in increasing Lunar performance any further at the cost of J-120 LEO performance.   This is, we feel, just a better balance overall.

I'm working on a set of baseball cards for someone else anyway, so as soon as they are ready I'll post them here too.

This approach assumes "eyeballs out" with CEV transition occurring before TLI.   We believe that with 11mT of margin, the LSAM/LIDS can be made quite strong enough.   We can sacrifice about 6mT of our spare 11mT TLI performance margin and retain the PLF through TLI to provide "eyeballs out" as an optional approach if the LSAM/LIDS can't be strengthened.   It's a viable backup option which we're keeping in the bag.


Yes, we are refusing to use their unproven calculations for the Upper Stage mass, favouring instead to use a flight-proven industry design tool.   If they want to provide details of an Ares-V Upper Stage using LM's calculations, they are more than welcome to do so - there is absolutely nothing stopping them.   But it is not my job to do it for them.

This difference of opinion has been a documented cornerstone of the DIRECT plan for almost 2 years now.   They insist that NASA must be the design agency and the lead integrator for all the cryo stages, but they don't insist on this for the booster stages.   We disagree with this approach because the EDS element is *so* sensitive in performance terms - it needs to be handled exactly the same way the SRB's are, being lead by an experienced design contractor (Boeing or LM - Boeing being the more logical given the current disposition of contracts, but we use LM because those are the only tools we currently have access to) instead.

They have tried to use this particular issue to bash us, repeatedly, now.   So forgive me, but I am *really* disinclined to do them any favours in return.

They are welcome to stick to their guns on this issue.   We will be sticking to ours.   If that means we kick their butts even harder because of it, then so be it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 10/03/2008 09:56 am
Okay.   No more Mr. Nice Gaius (I have the right accent to do Baltar!).   It's "gloves off" time.

HERE is the REAL "apples-to-apples" comparison figures:-

All figures below utilize the Constellation Program's own current Ground Rules and Assumptions (GR&A's) throughout, and do *not* include DIRECT's own arbitrary margins - those have been removed to align these performance numbers with NASA's own.

Lockheed Martin's flight-proven Centaur mass estimate tools are utilized instead of MSFC's unproven "INTROS" mass estimation tools for Jupiter Upper/Earth Departure Stage calculations.


DIRECT can send 84,778kg of mass thru TLI (CEV+LSAM+ 1,400kg ASE).

This exceeds NASA's baseline requirements by 11.3mT, or 15.5%.


LAUNCH #1:
Jupiter-232 Heavy Series 33.1.3 (CaLV config w/ minimal PLF 'cap', 2 x 5-seg SRB, 3 x RS-68B main engines, 2 x J-2X upper stage engines)
Insertion to 130x130nmi, 29.0degree circular orbit:-
- 20.1mT dry "Earth Departure Stage"
- 6.4mT reserves & residuals propellant
- 1.0mT RCS propellant
- 120.3mT of usable LOX/LH2
After 4 days orbital boil-off @ 0.35% per day, results in 118.6mT of usable LOX/LH2 at the time of the TLI Burn.


LAUNCH #2 (within 4 days):
Jupiter-232 Heavy Series 33.1.4 (CLV config with 10.0m dia/10.0m barrel PLF, 2 x 5-seg SRB, 3 x RS-68B main engines, 2 x J-2X upper stage engines)
Insertion to 130x130nmi, 29.0degree circular orbit:-
- 20.1mT dry "Upper Stage" (de-orbits after insertion)
- 6.4mT reserves & residuals propellant (de-orbits after insertion)
- 1.0mT RCS propellant (used to get CEV/LSAM "close" to EDS, then used to de-orbit Upper Stage)
- 20.2mT Orion CEV
- 64.1mT LSAM (includes 5mT L2 margin and 4mT L3 margin)
- 1.4mT ASE Cradle
- 26.6mT of unused "ballast" - disposed of before TLI.

Total hardware mass (EDS Burnout, CEV, LSAM, ASE) thru TLI:   111,686kg
Total Usable TLI Propellant:   118,643kg
TLI burn requirement:   3,180m/s.

RESULT:-

CEV mass delivered thru TLI:   20,185kg
ASE mass delivered thru TLI:   1,400kg
LSAM mass delivered thru TLI:   63,193kg


AND this system would also be fully operational by 2017, a full 3-years ahead of the current 2020 Ares-V FOC date.


Lets see Ares-I / Ares-V match those apples.

FYI: Right now, the current baseline 5.5seg/6 engine Ares-6 supports no more than 71.1mT of spacecraft thru TLI - that's 12.3mT less than DIRECT.


BTW, this requires No Propellant Transfer ***AT ALL***, although that 26.6mT of "ballast" on launch #2 looks very useful for future growth.   I wonder if the LSAM could be given drop tanks...   Hmmm.

Ross.

5 segment boosters? Weren't we saving money not developing them? Does this mean that the Direct 2.0 document's figures, based on 4 segment boosters, are truly invalid just as NASA states?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 10/03/2008 09:58 am
And 10m core?

I'm confused - this isn't the vehicle we've seen previously.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MagDes on 10/03/2008 11:55 am
I believe the 10m diameter is for the Pay Load Fairing (PLF) not the core. 5seg solid boosters also gives a closer approximation to the current Ares2-6 vehicles and should keep the development team at ATK happy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/03/2008 12:52 pm
5 segment boosters? Weren't we saving money not developing them? Does this mean that the Direct 2.0 document's figures, based on 4 segment boosters, are truly invalid just as NASA states?

Shuttle 5-segment has already been developed, however the Ares 5-segment is a completely new stage from the already developed 5-segment.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: madscientist197 on 10/03/2008 01:09 pm
Hints of a Direct 3.0?

Perhaps a rebuttal using the 4 segs would help as well -- even if it is getting to the point where there is little financial advantage in cancelling the 5 segs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/03/2008 07:53 pm
Guys, that's not what I said.

Quote
with 10.0m dia/10.0m barrel PLF.

That refers purely the PLF being 10m dia and the barrel section of that PLF being 10m long.   Check out Figure 19 on Page 13 of our "UPDATE" Summary document on the website (currently v2.0.2) for a good picture of the 2 Lunar launcher configurations I'm talking about.

The Core, the Upper/Earth Departure Stage all still remain 8.4m dia.   Remember that all 10m dia Core configurations fail miserably for all J-120 style configurations so we have no plans to utilize 10m diameter tanking at all.

This was the version demonstrating what we would do with the same engines as NASA assumes - to get as close as possible to apples-to-apples.   An 11mT surplus thru TLI should have indicated to everyone that we don't actually need the extra power though.

The baseline remains 4-seg, RS-68 (102% not 108%) and 8.4m diameter - and that closes quite comfortably too if using NASA's margins.

We do want ATK to get the idea that they still completely "win" with DIRECT instead of Ares, so I did use this to hint very very strongly that DIRECT could easily use the 5-segs within the family.   And for clarity, this results in approx $1.8bn increase in J-232 development cost - which still puts Jupiter a full $13.5bn cheaper than Ares-I & Ares-V together so there is still a massive financial advantage to "Be DIRECT".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/03/2008 11:53 pm
Ross, you have mentioned that after STS-124 you are not as confident in the existing FSS as you were before.  If you needed to add a service structure onto the MLP, how much money/weight would that add?

Edi:  Also with a 5-segment J-232, would J-120 ISS missions use 4 or 5 segment boosters?  If different segments, how does this affect processing and the cost?  Will there need to be two completely separate lines for both boosters?

and for your rant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP7_z331EdM
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/04/2008 12:05 am
Such questions will not come from anywhere but a Congressional hearing or perhaps 60 Minutes.  For the former, call and write (real paper, not email) letters to your representatives; for the latter, call CBS. :)

You know, this has reached the point where it might interest larger mainstream newsmedia. At CNN, Lou Dobbs might be worth a try, since he has some interest in space exploration. For TV people, the best contact point us usually the producers' office.

BBC interviewers like talking truth unto power.  Something like Hardtalk or Newsnight will ask tough questions.  Their researches will double check the facts first.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/04/2008 12:39 am
{snip}
I'll stick my neck out and say I think it should be ATK who makes the first move towards DIRECT.   When this change happens, if they don't move quickly, they could easily find themselves sidelined by a liquid booster alternative proposed by some sort of LM/Boeing/PWR conglomeration and if that happened they would find their company on the outside looking in, with no voice at the table any longer.   DIRECT remains the most logical alternative for ATK to support once they accept Ares-I is in big trouble and that Ares-V is simply never going to happen.   ATK would be far better-off leading the charge towards DIRECT instead of reacting to a charge being led by the others.

I just hope a few influential people get to read this post.

Ross.

The post does not have to be read by influential people, at the next progress meeting a few employees could ask if the directors want detailed plans to switch from Ares to DIRECT preparing?

Now for the stick to go with Ross's carrot.

There are rival lunar architectures to Ares and DIRECT:

By using the heavy versions of their rockets the EELV firms can lift the Orion, EDS, propellant and the lunar lander.  Seven launches permission is expensive but not impossible.  This would squeeze ATK out of the LV market.

In 3 or 4 years time SpaceX plans to fly the Falcon 9 Heavy.  At $94.5 million to put 28,000 kg in a circular LEO the lunar Orion has its man rated launcher.  Both the Ares-I and the Jupiter-120 could lose their main customer.
http://spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php (http://spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php)

SpaceX are definitely targeting the Moon.
http://www.spacex.com/FalconLunarCapabilityGuide.pdf (http://www.spacex.com/FalconLunarCapabilityGuide.pdf)

Time is running out for a switch from Ares to DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/04/2008 12:40 am
BBC interviewers like talking truth unto power.  Something like Hardtalk or Newsnight will ask tough questions.  Their researches will double check the facts first.

unfortunately, the BBC is not that large in the US, where political pressure is needed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/04/2008 01:17 am
I spent Thursday and Friday at a space conference in Orlando.  Talked to several NASA people.  Two, one from KSC and another from JSC both rolled their eyes about Ares 1. 

The one from KSC said, regarding Ares 1-X, that if it does survive long enough to fly that its a 'Lawn Chair, Six Pack and a bucket of chicken launch'.  He  wants to see what it looks like when a vehicle that big fails.

Both love Direct and said that Ares 1 will be ditched as soon as there is a new president and/or administrator.

A rather informal poll but these guys seemed pretty certain and weren't mixing words.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/04/2008 02:28 am
Ross, you have mentioned that after STS-124 you are not as confident in the existing FSS as you were before.  If you needed to add a service structure onto the MLP, how much money/weight would that add?

We still aren't in favour of that option.   We remain convinced that the Atlas-V-style minimal umbilical tower on the MLP is the way to go, with a fixed service tower permanently sited off to the side at the Pad.

Depending upon the results of the ongoing studies into the structure of the LC-39's Pads there are a number of possible options.   It's too early to say what those result will be so what I write below is based on assumptions only...

If they need some fairly extensive rebuilding, then the current FSS would need to be replaced one way or the other.   One option which I'm trying to learn more about is based on a rudimentary study performed at KSC into using a Concrete FSS.   It would essentially be a strengthened & reinforced skyscraper where the FSS is today, with some Service Arms attached.   It's extremely strong, cheap to build and needs surprisingly little maintenance - the key issue on the topic of cost.   If the Pads are going to need rebuilding anyway, it seems like a really logical option to me.


Even more interestingly, there is *already* a budget allocation for rebuilding the Pads after 2010.   So the money we need to do much of this is already allocated.   That's handy.


Quote
Edi:  Also with a 5-segment Jupiter-232, would J-120 ISS missions use 4 or 5 segment boosters?  If different segments, how does this affect processing and the cost?  Will there need to be two completely separate lines for both boosters?

The 4-segs are available to use today.   We use those on the initial J-120 flights to ensure there are no delays in getting Orion in the air as soon as possible.

If ATK insists, we develop and qualify the 5-segs for use on the J-232's planned for the Lunar missions - due 2017.

As soon as the 5-segs are qualified, we can start using them on the J-120 as well so we don't have duplicate production lines.   J-120 would get ~7mT additional performance for that configuration to LEO courtesy of such an upgrade.

Of course, if ATK doesn't want to fight for the 5-segment development money, we really don't require them.   The existing 4-segs are actually enough to do everything we need.


FYI: The RS-68B 'upgrade' might follow a very similar path if USAF decide to consolidate the production lines.   We don't need it in the critical path to get Orion flying, but if it proves cost-effective upgrades are always nice to have in your back pocket.


Quote
and for your rant:
[removed]

Yeah, that's almost exactly the way I was feeling - bl**dy Cylons everywhere you turn around! ;)  LOL

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/04/2008 02:36 am
I spent Thursday and Friday at a space conference in Orlando.  Talked to several NASA people.  Two, one from KSC and another from JSC both rolled their eyes about Ares 1.

Wow, I didn't even know there *was* a space conference just down the road from me.   I'd have gone and handed out Postcards and leaflets...

Nutz.

Good about the 2-person poll though :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/04/2008 02:49 am
I spent Thursday and Friday at a space conference in Orlando.  Talked to several NASA people.  Two, one from KSC and another from JSC both rolled their eyes about Ares 1.

Wow, I didn't even know there *was* a space conference just down the road from me.   I'd have gone and handed out Postcards and leaflets...

Nutz.

Good about the 2-person poll though :)

Ross.

Space based solar power.  It was interesting and its alot closer than I thought, but that doesn't say much,  I thought it was 100+ years out.  Might only be 20 years till a reasonable demo.

But lots of people from different areas of the industry.  I'm sure you would have had a few dozen people swarming.  but it seems that everyone is aware of your efforts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/04/2008 03:32 am
Wow.   That's good to hear.   Thanks.

And yes, space based solar power has potential.   It has a fair way to go before we'll get a proof of concept going, but the ideas people are getting into it and that's a great thing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 10/04/2008 12:02 pm
Okay.   No more Mr. Nice Gaius (I have the right accent to do Baltar!).   It's "gloves off" time.

HERE is the REAL "apples-to-apples" comparison figures:-

All figures below utilize the Constellation Program's own current Ground Rules and Assumptions (GR&A's) throughout, and do *not* include DIRECT's own arbitrary margins - those have been removed to align these performance numbers with NASA's own.

Lockheed Martin's flight-proven Centaur mass estimate tools are utilized instead of MSFC's unproven "INTROS" mass estimation tools for Jupiter Upper/Earth Departure Stage calculations.


DIRECT can send 84,778kg of mass thru TLI (CEV+LSAM+ 1,400kg ASE).

This exceeds NASA's baseline requirements by 11.3mT, or 15.5%.


LAUNCH #1:
Jupiter-232 Heavy Series 33.1.3 (CaLV config w/ minimal PLF 'cap', 2 x 5-seg SRB, 3 x RS-68B main engines, 2 x J-2X upper stage engines)
Insertion to 130x130nmi, 29.0degree circular orbit:-
- 20.1mT dry "Earth Departure Stage"
- 6.4mT reserves & residuals propellant
- 1.0mT RCS propellant
- 120.3mT of usable LOX/LH2
After 4 days orbital boil-off @ 0.35% per day, results in 118.6mT of usable LOX/LH2 at the time of the TLI Burn.


LAUNCH #2 (within 4 days):
Jupiter-232 Heavy Series 33.1.4 (CLV config with 10.0m dia/10.0m barrel PLF, 2 x 5-seg SRB, 3 x RS-68B main engines, 2 x J-2X upper stage engines)
Insertion to 130x130nmi, 29.0degree circular orbit:-
- 20.1mT dry "Upper Stage" (de-orbits after insertion)
- 6.4mT reserves & residuals propellant (de-orbits after insertion)
- 1.0mT RCS propellant (used to get CEV/LSAM "close" to EDS, then used to de-orbit Upper Stage)
- 20.2mT Orion CEV
- 64.1mT LSAM (includes 5mT L2 margin and 4mT L3 margin)
- 1.4mT ASE Cradle
- 26.6mT of unused "ballast" - disposed of before TLI.

Total hardware mass (EDS Burnout, CEV, LSAM, ASE) thru TLI:   111,686kg
Total Usable TLI Propellant:   118,643kg
TLI burn requirement:   3,180m/s.

RESULT:-

CEV mass delivered thru TLI:   20,185kg
ASE mass delivered thru TLI:   1,400kg
LSAM mass delivered thru TLI:   63,193kg


AND this system would also be fully operational by 2017, a full 3-years ahead of the current 2020 Ares-V FOC date.


Lets see Ares-I / Ares-V match those apples.

FYI: Right now, the current baseline 5.5seg/6 engine Ares-6 supports no more than 71.1mT of spacecraft thru TLI - that's 12.3mT less than DIRECT.


BTW, this requires No Propellant Transfer ***AT ALL***, although that 26.6mT of "ballast" on launch #2 looks very useful for future growth.   I wonder if the LSAM could be given drop tanks...   Hmmm.

Ross.

Ross, based on the above payload numbers, I assume that the J-232 H series 33.1.4 rocket uses about the same quantity of EDS propellant than the J-232 H series 33.1.3 rocket to reach LEO and, therefore,  has a propellant offload of 120 mT.  Is the J-232 H structure strong enough to do "pure" LEO flights (that could be usefull for some of the flights of an eventual Mars mission) without EDS propellant offload or left over after reaching LEO? and what would be the increase LEO payload under such condition?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/04/2008 12:49 pm
In 3 or 4 years time SpaceX plans to fly the Falcon 9 Heavy.  At $94.5 million to put 28,000 kg in a circular LEO the lunar Orion has its man rated launcher.  Both the Ares-I and the Jupiter-120 could lose their main customer.


EELV's would be the first choice
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 10/04/2008 01:43 pm
In 3 or 4 years time SpaceX plans to fly the Falcon 9 Heavy.  At $94.5 million to put 28,000 kg in a circular LEO the lunar Orion has its man rated launcher.  Both the Ares-I and the Jupiter-120 could lose their main customer.


A couple of thoughts:

First, per kg, the J-232, which is the primary rocket the DIRECT team actually want to have built, would be just as cost effective as the Falcon 9-H and require fewer launches per mission.  It's even more effective when one flies more often, and flying the J-120 does that for the lower 4/5 of the rocket.

Second, never underestimate the power of gov't bureaucracy when it comes to purchasing choices.

Edit: The Falcon 9H makes sense, assuming SpaceX gets it to flight readiness, but since when does a government agency do what makes sense?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/04/2008 03:01 pm

Edit: The Falcon 9H makes sense, assuming SpaceX gets it to flight readiness, but since when does a government agency do what makes sense?

Still doesn't mean F9H can do the mission
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 10/04/2008 05:28 pm


BBC interviewers like talking truth unto power.  Something like Hardtalk or Newsnight will ask tough questions.  Their researches will double check the facts first.
The British public has no knowledge of Ares so Newsnight is unlikely to pick up on this. There would be too much background to fill in.

About two years ago, the BBC website asked "Is NASA a waste of space". 99.9% of the responses were around the subject "Is manned space exploration a waste of effort".

0.1% of the responses were NASA has the right mission but is undertaking it's mission poorly.

(I was the 0.1%)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/04/2008 06:45 pm
The British public has no knowledge of Ares...

the sad part is that the same is probably true for the american public... they don't know anything about the Ares program either (or now asinine it is).   ::)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/04/2008 10:59 pm
OT, but just a reminder that today is the anniversary of the launch of Sputnik-I, and the beginning of the space age; October 4, 1957.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 10/04/2008 11:54 pm
OT, but just a reminder that today is the anniversary of the launch of Sputnik-I, and the beginning of the space age; October 4, 1957.

How far (or maybe not) we have come in such a short period of time. First LEO, then the moon, then LEO (ISS); next DIRECT to LEO (ISS) then the moon!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/05/2008 03:26 am
Ross, based on the above payload numbers, I assume that the J-232 H series 33.1.4 rocket uses about the same quantity of EDS propellant than the J-232 H series 33.1.3 rocket to reach LEO and, therefore,  has a propellant offload of 120 mT.  Is the J-232 H structure strong enough to do "pure" LEO flights (that could be usefull for some of the flights of an eventual Mars mission) without EDS propellant offload or left over after reaching LEO? and what would be the increase LEO payload under such condition?

Paul, yes it has been designed to do that.   In fact it must do exactly this in order to support the Crew Flight (Orion & Altair) for all Lunar missions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/05/2008 03:31 am
The British public has no knowledge of Ares...

the sad part is that the same is probably true for the american public... they don't know anything about the Ares program either (or now asinine it is).   ::)

The sad fact is that the governing leaders we have are in the same boat too.   There are few who understand the budgetary problems with Ares.   There are pitifully few who understand any of the technical problems with Ares.   Even fewer are asking questions.   Fewer still seem interested in doing anything about it.

Most know little enough about Ares that they have no option but to buy the "everything's fine" line their fed by NASA's Administrator, hook, line and sinker - they just don't know any differently.

Apathy is the specific thing which has allowed this insanity to prosper.

It reminds me of Edmund Burke's famous comment: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/05/2008 04:56 am
Falcon still has a *very* long way to go before attaining the ability to launch crew for NASA.   They're going to have to make their vehicle meet NASA HR standards first.   They're going to have to prove consistent reliability too.   Right now they are only 1 for 4, so proving reliability won't happen quickly and there are no guarantees in this business.

Don't forget that the EELV makers each have plenty more than 50 successful flights of heritage in their back pockets, yet NASA has so-far refused to even allow them to play.   What makes you think that the new guy, essentially fulfilling the cheap "Wal-Mart" end of the market, is going to get consideration when even the big boys can't with their well-established track-records and recognized high quality?

And Space-X has no political power to change any of that yet either.   Without politicial muscle they haven't got a chance in hell of playing in the current Lockheed/Boeing/ATK/PWR/Aerojet/NG sand pit that is government funded human space flight.


I personally think Space-X should stay away from government funding entirely.   The more they rely upon government money, the less independence they will ultimately have.

I think they should stay completely commercial.   They can offer great value satellite launch services equally to both government and commercial entities, but can remain independent and uncontrolled by the government.

Eventually will probably start doing commercial human space flight too, but even then, I don't see NASA using their services for at least 20-30 successful commercial crewed flights proving their capabilities first.

What scares me about their commercial human space flight operation (and Virgin Galactic too) is their liability for losing a crew.   You're talking about extremely wealthy people as your passengers - with huge fortunes which their families can use to fund some pretty big lawsuits.   That could easily ruin them when (not if) they lose their first crew.   If they are not already very, very well established they probably won't survive such a disaster.


Anyway, Space-X is completely off-topic for this thread so further discussion needs to go here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=6.0) please.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/05/2008 05:21 am

Anyway, Space-X is completely off-topic for this thread so further discussion needs to go here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=6.0) please.

And DIRECT is off topic for "Commercial Launchers".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/05/2008 05:28 am
That's correct.

If there did need to be some sort of combined Space-X + Jupiter discussion ??? I suggest it goes in a separate thread in this Exploration Alternatives (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=37.0) section, that's about as good as we're going to find for now, and I'm not even sure there is any need.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/06/2008 10:26 am
NYtimes article on the gap:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/science/space/06gap.html
Has an interesting Freudian slip by Griffin:
“It is essentially unfixable now,” Dr. Griffin said.

He was referring to the length of the gap, not the Ares rocket, but still...

One of you folks who actually knows what he is talking about might want to post something in comments- evidentially they are planning on doing a series on the gap, so you might get some paper coverage if you play your cards right.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: iontyre on 10/06/2008 06:04 pm
Falcon still has a *very* long way to go before attaining the ability to launch crew for NASA.   They're going to have to make their vehicle meet NASA HR standards first.   They're going to have to prove consistent reliability too.   Right now they are only 1 for 4, so proving reliability won't happen quickly and there are no guarantees in this business.

Ross.

Just one little note here, Ross.  Each of the Falcon launches incorporated a significant hardware or software change based on lessons learned on the previous flight.  Therefore, I do not consider the four flights to be of the same vehicle.  Each was unique.  The fourth Falcon was a new vehicle system, and that system is now 1 for 1 in terms of success.  I would apply the same standards to the development of a Direct launch system (which I heartily support over Ares anyday!!).

Here's hoping BOTH go on to great things!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/06/2008 06:13 pm
  Therefore, I do not consider the four flights to be of the same vehicle. 


You may not, but the launch vehicle and spacecraft community does consider the Falcon 1 failure rate as 75%
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 10/06/2008 06:15 pm
The fourth Falcon was a new vehicle system, and that system is now 1 for 1 in terms of success.

I wouldn't go as far as calling a staging delay timer change a "new" system. For all intents and purposes flight 3 and 4 vehicles were identical.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/06/2008 09:25 pm
SOOOO not the place for this discussion guys.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/06/2008 09:33 pm
quite true....

any news on the Direct front?  seems like there quite a few articles that came out in sort of a little media blizzard there for a while, and now it seems like the news on it is fairly sparse.    anything cool happening behind the scenes?    or is everything sort of on hold until the new president comes in? 

i'm really hoping that you guys can get in there and influence the space policy of the next president... to let him see that the current plan is just completely unworkable, way too expensive, and just never going to happen... and that Direct is workable, afordable, and doable on time...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/06/2008 09:42 pm
There was the Air & Space Magazine article only last week (http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/End_Run.html).   There's another coming soon in Popular Mechanics which I think you'll like.

We have a new 2-page printable pamphlet in work right now to help people distribute the "Be DIRECT" message far & wide.   The rebuttal document is coming along well.   Steve is over in Glasgow currently, giving his presentations and meeting important folk there.   There's actually quite a lot going on right now.


Regarding the political arena, it reminds me of a Swan, all calm and serene above the water, but madly, furiously working away beneath :)   We are working behind the scenes with a lot of different channels into both campaigns.   And there is interest from both camps.   Neither seem happy or confident with either Griffin or Ares.   I think VSE is safe in either's hands, but I don't think things will continue down this path very much longer.

I think the thing they like most of all from us is our call for an independent review to get some hard facts for making decisions on.   Everyone else is fighting for their specific vehicle(s) simply because they have a pet favorite or money to make from that choice.

While I'm sure we will be accused of having our own favourite too, we are pushing mostly for an independent review to get to the *truth* - and both camps seem to like that approach a lot.   Its very rare that any group is so sure and so open with its findings that they only try pushing for a level playing field analysis and actually welcome all opposition.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/06/2008 10:58 pm
With the New York Times story, the DIRECT comment is currently the 25th most recommended.  If any of y'all want to bump it up a bit, it is comment #86, listed here:
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/06/science/space/06gap.html?s=1&pg=4
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: arachnitect on 10/06/2008 11:34 pm
With the New York Times story, the DIRECT comment is currently the 25th most recommended.  If any of y'all want to bump it up a bit, it is comment #86, listed here:
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/06/science/space/06gap.html?s=1&pg=4

Has anyone emailed (or otherwise contacted) the author of the article? I was considering sending him an email this morning, but perhaps discussion could be better initiated by someone more knowledgeable, convincing, and better connected than I? If someone with an engineering background -or a member of the direct team- contacted Mr. Schwartz, I suppose they would have a good chance of capturing his attention, and pointing out that there are people who see things differently.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 10/06/2008 11:45 pm
The best thing to do is to go on NYT into the comment section and recommend comment 86. The authors of thees articles watch their comment sections to inform them as to what people are interested in. I can guarantee if you get 86 (The Direct comment) up over the "GOP sucks" comments you'll see things happen.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/06/2008 11:59 pm
very cool, ross.  i didn't know that so much stuff was going on.  an article in popular mechanics, huh?  that's extremely cool.  i'm glad there's so much going on.  was beginning to think things had kinda pittered out after that recent flurry of media attention.  and i'm very glad that there is interest from BOTH presidential candidate camps.  that's wonderful :)

and yeah, having an independent review would be wonderful...  from the reviews you've gotten from other sources so far (aldrin, etc), it looks like it wouldn't even be a challenge between Ares and Direct.  Ares wouldn't really have a chance.  And it's funny that pretty much everything they say to rule out Direct, is actually more powerful in ruling out the program they chose (not meeting baseline requirements, etc.)


i don't know how, but i didn't catch that air and space article... thanks for pointing it out...  was a pretty good article... i'm impressed with how much they got right, and how much info they found out about you guys.   but would have been nice if the writer would have pointed out the all-too-obvious answers to the nasa quotes.  or if he would have gone into the price differences between them....  i wrote a decent comment, but so far it hasn't shown up.

here is what i wrote.....


Well, even if they are right about the external tank being more expensive to modify than the Direct guys think... it still has to be a LOT cheaper than the $35 billion Ares program.  With Direct you are only taking an existing launch vehicle and modifying it.  With Ares you are making 2 new launch vehicles, basically from the ground up (they don't even share the solid rocket boosters with the current shuttle anymore). And with 2 different launch vehicles, comes 2 new different infrastructures, 2 different manufacturing chains, 2 different workforces, 2 different mobile launch platforms, basically twice as much money to operate them.  With Direct you use the current infrastructure, the current workforce, the current manufacturing chain, the current mobile launch platforms, etc. The only expensive part of the shuttle stack is the shuttle, and that is taken out of the equation.  NASA was instructed to utilize all they could from the shuttle program, including workforce, hardware, components, infrastructure, etc... the Ares program does none of this, but the Direct/Jupiter program would do all of this.    http://www.directlauncher.com/



i guess it was probably too long ;)   though there aren't any recent comments showing up, so i don't know.  anyway, good luck.  i hope things keep going well, and go even better for the Direct team/program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/07/2008 02:17 am
I have already contacted Mr. Schwartz.   We will see what happens.

[EDIT:   And I just heard back]

I also strongly encourage everyone here go register on the NYT site and Recommend that comment.   Lets get it up into the top three replies.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/07/2008 02:23 am
i don't know how, but i didn't catch that air and space article... thanks for pointing it out...  was a pretty good article... i'm impressed with how much they got right, and how much info they found out about you guys.   but would have been nice if the writer would have pointed out the all-too-obvious answers to the nasa quotes.  or if he would have gone into the price differences between them....  i wrote a decent comment, but so far it hasn't shown up.

Lewis,
Might I recommend you locate an e-mail address for Michael Klesius (the author) and encourage him to write a follow-up piece.   The author already has my e-mail address, and my phone number, and he already knows I'm willing and able to talk his ear off ;)

His job is to write articles.   YOU GUYS can give him (and his editor) a real reason to write another one :)   It's up to you guys.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/07/2008 02:27 am
very cool, ross.  i didn't know that so much stuff was going on.  an article in popular mechanics, huh?  that's extremely cool.

We think you will be especially pleased with the quality of the source material for the article. This source couldn't be any higher placed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/07/2008 03:47 am
very cool, ross.  i didn't know that so much stuff was going on.  an article in popular mechanics, huh?  that's extremely cool.

We think you will be especially pleased with the quality of the source material for the article. This source couldn't be any higher placed.
Are they in LEO?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Capt. Nemo on 10/07/2008 06:43 am
I went to that article and 'recommended' that comment. Sadly, I was only the 16th person to do so. :-(
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/07/2008 10:32 am
Well, we're 10th overall, sorted by recommendations, and there are no pro-Ares comments in the 25 most recommended.  Twelve more and we'll have the lead.

On a completely different note, I tried DLing the pdf from the directlauncher.com site, and it freezes.  Also the movies don't load.  Is something up with the server?

Also, a technical question- is the shuttle tank able to withstand the additional vibration load from being bolted directly to the engines, as opposed to having them on a separate vehicle? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: SimonFD on 10/07/2008 12:27 pm
Well, we're 10th overall, sorted by recommendations, and there are no pro-Ares comments in the 25 most recommended.  Twelve more and we'll have the lead.

Now 7th
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 10/07/2008 12:52 pm
The comment is now in fifth place among readers' recommendations.  Five more votes will tie it for first.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: EE Scott on 10/07/2008 01:29 pm
Just recommended.  Now third place, one vote from being tied for second.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 10/07/2008 01:34 pm
I gotta say, while I'd be in awe of the sight of a rocket that puts Saturn V to shame by its sheer monstrosity while lifting off, the DIRECT proposal seems so painfully more elegant and more reasonable to me.

NASA insisting on an (IMHO idiotic) idea of putting humans on top of a SRB on what's probably the ugliest looking LV ever and stretching the Ares V implementation way past the point of diminishing returns is ludicrous. Pretty soon they'll have an Ares V-dash-9 baseline of 9 RS-68 engines, two humongous 7-segment HMSRBs (that's Hail Mary Solid Rocket Booster for you, because the paper thin composite casing it'll need for performance will make everyone pray it doesn't blow up), it'll require a huge zeppelin to drag the MLP up just to keep its weight from wrecking the crawlerway. The zeppelin and the RS-68s will require all the world's available supply of helium at once.

When lit it will probably break windows across the Florida coast and for what? They'll still need two actual launches for a lunar mission. They might as well split the load to two smaller launch vehicles, but no... Maybe NASA developed a bit of the old Soviet habit of making utterly big and useless objects - Tsar Bomba, Tsar Pushka anyone? Hey, maybe we can call the Ares V the Tsar Rocket, then.

Sorry guys, being in an overly sarcastic mood. Must be all the coffee...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MagDes on 10/07/2008 01:42 pm
Boeing's prop depot:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4224660.html?page=1
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dcbecker on 10/07/2008 02:09 pm
One away from being tied for first. lets get this on top. go direct!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: parham55 on 10/07/2008 02:10 pm
With the New York Times story, the DIRECT comment is currently the 25th most recommended.  If any of y'all want to bump it up a bit, it is comment #86, listed here:
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/06/science/space/06gap.html?s=1&pg=4


Now 1 vote away from being tied for first!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/07/2008 03:10 pm
it's number one now ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/07/2008 03:53 pm
Great work guys!   Please don't stop though.

There will continue to be more recommendations for the politi-speak posts, so don't let them drown us back out.   Get us a substantial lead which can't be dominated.

I think we have a good chance of getting an article in the New York Times because of this hard work from you all!   So let me say "thank-you" to all of you who have/will help.   Please keep up the good work.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cookiejar500 on 10/07/2008 03:54 pm
Come on we can do better then this, we are only 1 vote ahead of the crazy demented Democrats commenting on Bush! Let's double the comment vote to 62!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: glanmor05 on 10/07/2008 04:14 pm
Come on we can do better then this, we are only 1 vote ahead of the crazy demented Democrats commenting on Bush! Let's double the comment vote to 62!!

"Crazy demented Democrats"?  Thought this was an a-political discussion about the best way to advance the further exploration of space (not LEO)?  Trolling??

Registering my recommendation now!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 10/07/2008 04:24 pm
There was the Air & Space Magazine article only last week (http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/End_Run.html).   There's another coming soon in Popular Mechanics which I think you'll like.


What's the article in Air and Space called?  I can't find it. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/07/2008 04:25 pm
ugordon,
Fundamentally I agree with you.

I still don't think what they have planned right now is actually going to work.   Any way I cut it I'm personally convinced that you must launch at least 208mT (EDS, Propellant, ASE, LSAM, CEV & sufficient reserves & margins throughout) of equipment (IMLEO) to perform the size of Lunar mission CxP are talking about - and the Ares architecture is still a fair way below that line.   Last time I checked they were lifting about 143mT of payload, 26mT of EDS and 20mT of Orion for a gross IMLEO of 189mT - about 20mT short of targets.

Ignoring the serious problems with Ares-I for a moment (if you can!), the Ares-V is going to have to grow further because Ares-I is never going to offer any benefits to this.   I think 7 main engines is actually quite likely on Ares-V - 6 around the perimeter, 1 in the center.   I also think they're going to have to go further with the SRB's too.   6.0-segment HTPB with disposable composite cases and an even longer stretched Core is where I think they're heading to really make this close correctly.   What's *really* silly right now is that the Core is already larger than the S-IC and S-II stages combined!

This totally breaks the whole raison d'etre of the architecture from where I sit.   This pair of expensive launchers won't be affordable to develop and it will never be affordable to operate.   Worse still, the two Ares boosters won't have any commonality between them virtually at all so there are no opportunities for cost savings and because there are two they effectively cut the flight rate of each in half - and flight rate is *the* most important factor in making any launch architecture economical and sustainable.   So they've broken rule #1 straight out of the gate.

The whole thing is just over-ripe fruit waiting to be disposed of.   Especially now that we are all expecting a long-term economically down-turned country over the next decade.

It's just a stupid plan.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/07/2008 04:26 pm
There was the Air & Space Magazine article only last week (http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/End_Run.html).   There's another coming soon in Popular Mechanics which I think you'll like.


What's the article in Air and Space called?  I can't find it. 

"End Run", dated 29th September 2008.

That's actually a working URL link in the quote above in case you hadn't spotted it :)   The URL is:

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/End_Run.html

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 10/07/2008 04:34 pm
I also strongly encourage everyone here go register on the NYT site and Recommend that comment.   Lets get it up into the top three replies.

Done.  Recommendation #34.

While we're waiting for more people to recommend comment #86, here's a question in a completely different direction...

In the end, will DIRECT's first stage -- designed as ET + Thrust Structure -- be significantly different from a "clean sheet" first stage serving the same purpose?  Would it have different features, future options, technical details, etc, etc?

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/07/2008 04:45 pm
I also strongly encourage everyone here go register on the NYT site and Recommend that comment.   Lets get it up into the top three replies.

Done.  Recommendation #34.

Looking good everyone - now up to 35. Keep it up. If the comment keeps being recommended we could get an indept story in the NY Times!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/07/2008 04:52 pm
ok... here's a question....

suppose that for some odd reason... NASA or congress or whoever, decided that they don't actually want crew going up with cargo (makes no sense, i know)...

OR....

let's suppose that at some future time, direct would like to be able to substantially increase it's mission size, without vastly increasing cost.... 


would it be possible to do a sort of 2.5 launch architecture?  would it be possible to have the 2 Jupiter 232's taking up the cargo for the mission, and an EELV taking up the Orion/SM?  what would that do to the mission numbers overall?  how much larger of a mission could you do?  could the EELV lift a lunar orion?  how much would the EELV launch add to the cost of the mission?  how much would it add in development cost? 

just curious... don't know why, but this just occurred to me over lunch, and it got me wondering.  could be an interesting way to increase mission size without adding much cost (supposing the EELV launch wouldn't be that much, comparatively speaking).

(and yes, i'm sure you guys have thought of this, but haven't seen it before, and i was just curious).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/07/2008 04:58 pm
In the end, will DIRECT's first stage -- designed as ET + Thrust Structure -- be significantly different from a "clean sheet" first stage serving the same purpose?  Would it have different features, future options, technical details, etc, etc?

What a great question Steve.   You've picked up on a very subtle, but also very important issue.

Yes, there will be some differences between the Core Stage we are proposing and a completely "clean sheet" equivalent.   The key area of difference is in the approach used to design it.

Obviously a clean sheet approach assumes you start afresh.   You specify your requirements, you design, prototype, test and produce something essentially with no prior constraints upon it.

What we are proposing differs from this by introducing one key constraint right from the start, before the design phase:   Examine what we have today in terms of tooling and infrastructure, and design the new stage to re-use as much as is reasonably possible.


In practice this will mean the difference between throwing away or re-using the tooling used today to make most of the major parts of the ET.   Tooling for tank barrel sections, tank dome sections, interstage panels, major welding equipment, foam application equipment and a host of other high-value infrastructure elements are the main issue here.   A lot of the smaller elements are going to change anyway, such as the feedlines, the avionics, umbilicals etc are all likely to be re-designed no matter which approach we take so those aren't such an issue.


A clean sheet approach would, for example, decide to weld the Al-Li panels for the LH2 Tank using a brand-new piece of welding equipment which might cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The DIRECT approach stipulates that if there is Shuttle tooling in good working order, which can be used just as effectively, that the designers plan their new designs so they can re-use that valuable asset instead of throwing it away and having to replace it.


This is really just a single, simplified example just used for demonstrating the idea here.   But it is this sort of thing which is the key difference in the two approaches.

It really boils down to requiring the designers to go down to MAF and KSC and see what's there right now, and also understand what's down there right now, before starting their design efforts.   Then to make the conscious choice to try to reduce the costs (& schedule) by reusing as much of it as possible.   That's it in a nutshell.


Either method will result in very similar Flight-Stage hardware, both designed to do exactly the same job.   But one will end up costing an additional $400-700m (dependent on rocket) more than the other at MAF alone (any KSC impacts would be extra) because of the need to replace infrastructure elements.   And that same one will also mean clearing out all existing fabrication facilities for an extended period of time - and that results in greater job losses too because there will be no opportunity for a smooth transition.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/07/2008 05:07 pm
While we're waiting for more people to recommend comment #86, here's a question in a completely different direction...

In the end, will DIRECT's first stage -- designed as ET + Thrust Structure -- be significantly different from a "clean sheet" first stage serving the same purpose?  Would it have different features, future options, technical details, etc, etc?
Well, if starting with an actual clean sheet, you'd go for an all liquid booster and no SRBs at all. Probably a LOX/RP1 1st stage & a LOX/H2 second stage. It would look rather like, oh, yeah, a Saturn V. Depending upon the actual payload you wanted to push uphill it could be a bit smaller or the same size as a Saturn V. If you chose a payload & mission architecture similar to a J-232 & DIRECT I think you end up with 3 or 4 F-1 size engines (or ~3 F-1As) in the first stage and ~4 J-2s in the second stage. Tankage diameters would be optimised for the payload and might not necesarily be 10 or 8.4 m.

A true "clean sheet" would not have to maintain any particular workforce and would build a two-launch lunar architecture from the ground up.

A very, very different animal indeed from either Jupiter or Ares.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 10/07/2008 05:17 pm
I put in my vote.  40 recommended so far.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/07/2008 05:18 pm
I put in my vote.  40 recommended so far.


awesome ;)   we're getting it up there ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 10/07/2008 05:19 pm
Which would be a better choice  in "clean sheet" terms, something like Saturn V, or something like an Energiya with an in-line EDS on top? If the latter, then something like Jupiter-232 with the SRBs replaced by kerolox LRBs seems like it would be quicker and cheaper.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/07/2008 05:24 pm
ok... here's a question....

Anything's possible.   The system is certainly flexible enough to do a lot of different things such as these ideas.


Mind you, I simply do not buy into the 'mixing of crew and cargo' issue given that the cargo is separated from the crew vehicle and absolutely does not compromise the ability of the crew to activate the LAS in the case of any emergency.   I retain a problem with integrating cargo carrying ability into the crew vehicle because it does compromise safety, but the Apollo/Saturn 'separate spacecraft' approach compromises nothing so the argument itself is made irrelevant.


My only real question with your premise would be, why use the EELV as the third vehicle?   The cost difference to get an extra J-232 off the ground instead of an EELV Heavy is not very significant, yet offers 4 times the payload capacity, effectively increasing the mission size by about 33%.

Yes it could certainly be done, but I see no advantage unless the Jupiter's are already flying at maximum capacity (16-24 per year depending mostly on VAB configuration) and we can only hope to ever achieve that! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/07/2008 05:30 pm
ah, ok, ross.... i was thinking that the cost for the EELV would be significantly less than the J-232.... but if it's not, then yeah, the idea is completely pointless....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/07/2008 05:47 pm
Which would be a better choice  in "clean sheet" terms, something like Saturn V, or something like an Energiya with an in-line EDS on top? If the latter, then something like Jupiter-232 with the SRBs replaced by kerolox LRBs seems like it would be quicker and cheaper.

That entirely depends on whether your "clean sheet" comes with a "blank check" or not.

If you can afford to build all new engines, stages, manufacturing and launch facilities then I would think something more akin to a "modern Saturn-V" would be real nice.   But if you are cash strapped working on a budget roughly a quarter (in real terms) of what you had during Apollo, then you're going to have to make some rather different decisions.

Energiya's arrangement will make for a shorter rocket, which is easier to process.   But it requires more complex staging, so is a little trickier to fly.   As is so often the case, to get an advantage in one area you lose something somewhere else.

Replacing the SRB's with Kero-LOX boosters is tricky because there aren't any suitable engines currently (RD-180 would need US domestic production) and there will be a major fight over dropping ATK.   There is an awful lot of lobbying power to fight involving groups as disparate at the DoD and some religious elements with business and local government interests in Utah.


The problem with Ares is it *is* virtually "clean sheet", with little more than a visual similarity to Shuttle.   It has all the costs of "clean sheet", yet is also constrained by the re-use of SRB's and LH2/LOX fuel throughout.   In typical Griffin-esque fashion he has somehow found the #1 option with all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of "clean sheet".

The only explanation which fits the facts sufficiently enough to argue as Ockham's Razor is that this was a deliberate choice right from the start.   He has made no attempt to hide the fact to work colleagues over the years that he dislikes Shuttle and loves big rockets like Saturn-V.   He has been equally vocal in recent years that his greatest fear is that if anything remains of the Shuttle Program after 2010, that a scared Congress/President might just try to extend Shuttle at the cost of its replacement ever happening.   Add to that his passion for a gigantic new Mars rocket - which I must point out actually has no clear rationale at all - and this all adds up to a single tapestry:   That Shuttle and anything similar, must go so completely and utterly that it can never ever be resurrected again.   It's just Cortes destroying his ships all over again.


The advantage which DIRECT has identified is in using what we have right now to do everything we need it to do.   We have 4-segment SRB's fully human-rated and in production right now, so don't change them at all.   We have Shuttle ET's in production right now, so modify those as little as possible to make something suitable.   We have RS-68 engines already in use too, so human-rate them and go fly.   The manufacturing is mostly ready tomorrow.   The launch facilities need modifications, but vastly less compared to what is currently being proposed by CxP for Ares.

Essentially about 70% of what we need to make a combined Crew/Cargo heavy lift system capable of supporting both ISS and large-scale Lunar missions in just two flights (not to mention also Mars-forward too) is there right now and can be levered very economically and swiftly to the task.

Better still, all of the 'new technology' items like J-2X engines are not needed to get Orion flying and to "close the gap" effectively - those things are only needed in time for the much later phases when we reach for the moon, so the US Human Spaceflight Program will not be delayed by them.   That's DIRECT's advantage.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/07/2008 06:34 pm
ah, ok, ross.... i was thinking that the cost for the EELV would be significantly less than the J-232.... but if it's not, then yeah, the idea is completely pointless....

It's a difficult thing to measure.

The baseline Jupiter program in both scenario's would be a ~$3.2bn before adding the '3rd flight' you mention.   This baseline supports only 2 x 2 J-232 for Lunar Crew missions and 2 x 1 J-232 Lunar Cargo missions.

I'll make the assumption that we want 2 extra of these '3rd flights' each year and that ISS always uses the smallest launcher.

On top of the baseline, adding 4 human-rated EELV Heavy's for all CLV duties (2 ISS and 2 Lunar), and assuming a starting point of ~7 regular non-human EELV flights are counted towards the economies of scale, it will cost about $540m each, including the CEV (4 in total).

To add 2 Jupiter-120 CLV's for ISS and two Jupiter-232 CLV's for the extra Lunar launches it will cost about $520m each, again including the CEV (4 in total).


One architecture is essentially launching about 700mT per year and enabling 225mT Lunar missions, the other launches 900mT every year and enables 300mT Lunar missions -- yet both have an almost an identical cost.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 10/07/2008 06:40 pm
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/10/06/science/space/06gap.html?s=1&pg=4

For newcomers, go to comment #86 and Reccomend it, to boost Direct's chances of getting NYT coverage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Alpha Control on 10/07/2008 07:55 pm
Done. Recommendation #50.

David
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/07/2008 10:11 pm
I think that's getting nice and noticed :)

52 vs 30 is a substantial lead.   We've already noticed increased traffic on the website too.

Thanks everyone,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 10/08/2008 01:02 am
Falcon still has a *very* long way to go before attaining the ability to launch crew for NASA.   They're going to have to make their vehicle meet NASA HR standards first.   They're going to have to prove consistent reliability too.   Right now they are only 1 for 4, so proving reliability won't happen quickly and there are no guarantees in this business.

Ross.

Just one little note here, Ross.  Each of the Falcon launches incorporated a significant hardware or software change based on lessons learned on the previous flight.  Therefore, I do not consider the four flights to be of the same vehicle.  Each was unique.  The fourth Falcon was a new vehicle system, and that system is now 1 for 1 in terms of success.  I would apply the same standards to the development of a Direct launch system (which I heartily support over Ares anyday!!).

Here's hoping BOTH go on to great things!!

Fourth Falcon was the same design as the third, with the only significant changes being an increased staging delay after MECO, and a different payload.

I think it's fair to say they are 1 for 2 with the current Falcon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/08/2008 10:18 am
Could you use a Jupiter rocket for a high delta-V science mission, like a robotic sample return mission from Mars or a Jovian satellite?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2008 10:26 am
Could you use a Jupiter rocket for a high delta-V science mission, like a robotic sample return mission from Mars or a Jovian satellite?

I don't see why not, but the specific upper stage configuration would probably need to be tinkered with - using only one engine for maximum kick for a lower mass payload or something of the sorts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/08/2008 11:32 am
High delta-V missions are definitely capable on the Jupiter launchers and there are an extensive range of different specifications possible.

Jupiter-120 can lift a 20mT payload and a fully fueled EELV-class Upper Stage to LEO.   This can produce a fairly impressive throw capability all on its own.

A single Jupiter-232 is capable of sending more than 40mT of useful payload thru a 3,180m/s TLI burn, so it is in a higher class again.   And if that still isn't enough, there's no reason you couldn't put an EELV Upper Stage on top of the J-232 as well.

With our plans to harness a Propellant Depot architecture as a follow-on phase, that opens the door to virtually any size mission you care to suggest.   If we ever needed to send a 300mT payload all the way to Jupiter, PD enables that.

The systems are incredibly flexible:-

* Small Payloads: EELV Medium
* Medium Payloads: EELV Heavy
* Medium-Heavy Payloads: Jupiter-120
* Heavy Payloads: Jupiter-120+EELV US
* Very Heavy Payloads: Jupiter-232
* Super-Heavy Payloads: Jupiter-232+EELV US

Every base would be covered.   Better still, most would be human-usable too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 10/08/2008 03:30 pm
With the economy going to pot, Nasa is going to get some things cut.  It makes sense NOW to go with Direct more than ever.  We won't get Aries V for another 20 years because of the bailouts. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MagDes on 10/09/2008 11:57 am
Will you guys be presenting the Direct proposal at any upcoming conferences?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 10/09/2008 12:42 pm
Done. Recommendation #50.

Mine is #70
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/09/2008 04:39 pm
Interesting that the comment with the most recommendations (by a factor of more than 2:1) has no "Editor's Choice" annotation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 10/09/2008 04:54 pm
That's because comment #86 has more to do with implementation of the vision than with philosophical choices in development of human spaceflight. The editor's picks represent views where pride, private enterprise, international cooperation are privileged.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/09/2008 05:04 pm
Will you guys be presenting the Direct proposal at any upcoming conferences?

Steve has been in Glasgow giving a presentation and meeting lots of people there.

I think there's another in November, but I personally can't make it so I haven't really been paying enough attention to the events calendar.

If you have any suggestions you can always mention events here.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 10/10/2008 02:12 am
I hate registering for all these different apps & so on. I get so much spam now it's nuts.
But for this great team, who stand for making more with what you have available, and for less cost and waste, I gave my vote. #72.

Go DIRECT!

Personally, I now see Ares folding in on itself when (not if) Griffin gets the boot. I give it 2-3 months after such an action, giving them time to look at the options, cancel, then move forward. I would like to see Ares I-X fly, only to prove a point, and to create more good data and provide the proof that this approach DOES NOT work. End one chapter in space history.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 10/10/2008 04:02 am
I hate registering for all these different apps & so on. I get so much spam now it's nuts.
But for this great team, who stand for making more with what you have available, and for less cost and waste, I gave my vote. #72.

Go DIRECT!

Personally, I now see Ares folding in on itself when (not if) Griffin gets the boot. I give it 2-3 months after such an action, giving them time to look at the options, cancel, then move forward. I would like to see Ares I-X fly, only to prove a point, and to create more good data and provide the proof that this approach DOES NOT work. End one chapter in space history.



I don't think there is even a reason to go ahead with Ares IX. If a switch is on the books post-Griffin, the program needs to be frozen and a quick switch must be made.
You want the general public to never know an Ares I ever existed. Ares IX will be public, and after that launch explaining why a switch is being carried out will be hard to do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 10/10/2008 04:09 am
I'm #73 by the way! Keep em coming!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/10/2008 07:36 am
I don't think there is even a reason to go ahead with Ares IX. If a switch is on the books post-Griffin, the program needs to be frozen and a quick switch must be made.
NASA and Project Constellation need to produce headlines in the tabloids every couple of years.  Otherwise its budget will be cut.

The Ares I-X cannot lift a 21 tonne Orion to LEO so a bigger rocket is needed.  The Jupiter-120 is a bigger rocket.  The general public can understand this argument since they have seen it with road vehicles.

With proper instrumentation the vibrations produced by a SBR can be measured - the J-120's core will have to handle similar vibrations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/10/2008 08:28 am
No real purpose to this message, but I recently found that I *really* wanted to produce some 3D imagery of the DIRECT launchers.

Now, while I've drawn many 2D things before (as I'm sure y'all have seen), I've never messed around with anything at all to do with 3D.   Until 2 days ago anyway :)

Just thought I would share with you the fruits of my first 48 hours worth of attempts to produce something.   I'm actually fairly chuffed with the results considering two days ago I was a complete 3D virgin :)

Hope you enjoy what you see :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 10/10/2008 11:23 am
I dunno, Jim. The majority of American taxpayers might support an expanded space program whose object was to rescue Elvis and his alien offspring from their long imprisonment on Venus...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/10/2008 12:35 pm
I dunno, Jim. The majority of American taxpayers might support an expanded space program whose object was to rescue Elvis and his alien offspring from their long imprisonment on Venus...



Only if the aliens are ugly and imprisoning cute and cuddly aliens ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 10/10/2008 12:51 pm
Just thought I would share with you the fruits of my first 48 hours worth of attempts to produce something.   I'm actually fairly chuffed with the results considering two days ago I was a complete 3D virgin :)

Nice!  Which software did you use?

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 10/10/2008 02:47 pm
I hate registering for all these different apps & so on. I get so much spam now it's nuts.
But for this great team, who stand for making more with what you have available, and for less cost and waste, I gave my vote. #72.

Go DIRECT!

Personally, I now see Ares folding in on itself when (not if) Griffin gets the boot. I give it 2-3 months after such an action, giving them time to look at the options, cancel, then move forward. I would like to see Ares I-X fly, only to prove a point, and to create more good data and provide the proof that this approach DOES NOT work. End one chapter in space history.



I don't think there is even a reason to go ahead with Ares IX. If a switch is on the books post-Griffin, the program needs to be frozen and a quick switch must be made.
You want the general public to never know an Ares I ever existed. Ares IX will be public, and after that launch explaining why a switch is being carried out will be hard to do.

Well, I think you are completely wrong to think that, but I will try to keep this on the DIRECT thread.  First off, I'm not a fan of DIRECT I think it's a good idea, but I have my doubts.  That said, our NASA workforce is woefully inexperienced with LV's, and as much as the DIRECT selling point is that we could build it very soon, the fact of the matter is that we need to relearn and build new tools to analyze LV's.  By sending up 1-X, we can create our analysis tools and learn from our mistakes - that way if we do build DIRECT, it's development will go on without too many problems.  The fact of the matter is, we can't keep using our Shuttle Critical Math Models (CMMs), they are old and outdated - we need new tools, and furthermore we need new people to learn how to make those tools.  You need new math models for DIRECT, might as well learn how to make them and make them correct on Ares 1-X.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2008 02:54 pm

Well, I think you are completely wrong to think that, but I will try to keep this on the DIRECT thread.  First off, I'm not a fan of DIRECT I think it's a good idea, but I have my doubts.  That said, our NASA workforce is woefully inexperienced with LV's, and as much as the DIRECT selling point is that we could build it very soon, the fact of the matter is that we need to relearn and build new tools to analyze LV's.  By sending up 1-X, we can create our analysis tools and learn from our mistakes - that way if we do build DIRECT, it's development will go on without too many problems.  The fact of the matter is, we can't keep using our Shuttle Critical Math Models (CMMs), they are old and outdated - we need new tools, and furthermore we need new people to learn how to make those tools.  You need new math models for DIRECT, might as well learn how to make them and make them correct on Ares 1-X.

Don't need to make new tool.  They already exist.  ULA and OSC use the tools.  NASA LSP uses the tools to valid ULA and OSC. 

If you mean "models", then still I-X is not needed since the experience exists for ELV's  No need to spend 3/4 billion dollars to verify model development for a vehicle that isn't going to fly again

Anyways, hire the experts (the contractors) with the knowledge.  NASA shouldn't be doing it inhouse anyways
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 10/10/2008 03:10 pm
Anyways, hire the experts (the contractors) with the knowledge.  NASA shouldn't be doing it inhouse anyways

Well, if that's your opinion, then the argument is somewhat moot, since outside contractors have their own proprietary LV tools.  I suppose I am wrong, but it was my understanding (at least on the loads analysis side) that most of the tools were very specific, and could not be used on a separate vehicle (at least not as a CMM).

And maybe NASA shouldn't be doing it inhouse, but if they didn't, I probably wouldn't have a job this close to ARES (as a contractor), so I'm glad that they did.  Maybe I'm selfish, but I'm learning about how to design launch vehicle loads analysis tools, and I hope that later on this experience will be invaluable, I suppose it won't if we just use what's already out there...  That said, I'm not exactly writing my own version of Nastran, so maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cpcjr on 10/10/2008 03:12 pm
By sending up 1-X, we can create our analysis tools and learn from our mistakes - that way if we do build DIRECT, it's development will go on without too many problems.  The fact of the matter is, we can't keep using our Shuttle Critical Math Models (CMMs), they are old and outdated - we need new tools, and furthermore we need new people to learn how to make those tools.  You need new math models for DIRECT, might as well learn how to make them and make them correct on Ares 1-X.

The only value Ares-1X would have for DIRECT would be if its launch is a spectacular failure forcing NASA to go with a new system. At that point some form of DIRECT would be their only viable option.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 10/10/2008 03:47 pm
No real purpose to this message, but I recently found that I *really* wanted to produce some 3D imagery of the DIRECT launchers.

Now, while I've drawn many 2D things before (as I'm sure y'all have seen), I've never messed around with anything at all to do with 3D.   Until 2 days ago anyway :)

Just thought I would share with you the fruits of my first 48 hours worth of attempts to produce something.   I'm actually fairly chuffed with the results considering two days ago I was a complete 3D virgin :)

Hope you enjoy what you see :)

Ross.

Holy shiitake! Looks great Ross! Especially for a first time 3d.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/10/2008 03:53 pm

Nice!  Which software did you use?

A simple-to-use package called "Anim8or".   It's one which Antonio (Simcosmos here) put me on to a while back, but I was frankly quite intimidated by it until deciding to just leap in and take the plunge a few days ago.

I created my own custom textures using both Photoshop (SOFI foam) and CorelDraw (detailing and painted parts).

The drawing is only an outer-mold-line for now (although the Tank Domes are all done inside too), but every part has been measured carefully and is as accurate as I can make it, down to the inch wherever possible.


There are parts which I'm still not happy with - in particular the Aft Skirt detailing which requires some odd-shaped bits for the hold-downs, and I haven't been able to make this program do quite what I want yet, so I've still got more learning here :)   But this is good so far.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 10/10/2008 05:53 pm
Kraisee,

Not to get too far off topic, but I use Anim8or for most of my animating as well.  However, there are some modeling types that are difficult to make in Anim8or (notably circles and complex combinations of said geometry), for which an extension package called Terranim8or or another more powerful but still free software package called Blender can be quite useful.  I picked up Anim8or first because its tools were more closely related to 3D solid modeling systems like ProE and CATIA that I used as engineering student.

Sorry.  Carry on - DIRECT all the way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DaveJes1979 on 10/10/2008 06:17 pm
Ross,

If I may be so bold:  if you ever need a Pro/E guy to lend a helping hand with 3D CAD/CAM services, drop me a line.  I'd be stoked to help the cause in my free time.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/11/2008 03:50 pm
Not sure if these are popular or are actually an annoyance, but here's my latest effort at the 3D drawings.

I've managed to fix the SRB Aft Skirt which proved to be a very interesting exercise indeed.

I've now also added an Orion (SM is actually included, just is not visible here in this shot, and this CM has a very old Orion Texture Map because that's all I had handy currently) and I've actually been tweaking almost every part to hone it down even more accurately.   I'm now extremely happy with how 'tight' all the locations are compared to known Shuttle STA height references.

I'm next going to get working on the Interstage and Upper Stage, but that's going to take some effort because of the work required on the J-2X engine - that's going to prove to be a lot of detailed work to get right, because those engines have all their mechanicals exposed for all to see.

Then I will make a crack at the new LSAM design, and finally I will have a go at the SSPDM units, along with a few example payloads.

Hope these are of interest, but let me know either way.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 10/11/2008 04:22 pm
They look bloody great to me!

Well done!

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 10/11/2008 11:56 pm
2.  Highly unlikely.  The ET supplies the Shuttle with propellant.
This is ridiculous. The discussion is going in circles with someone here obviously forgetting what the original point was.

The original point was Jupiter doesn't need additional SRB TO measurements from an Ares I-X flight because the SRB-ET connection through the intertank is the SAME as in the shuttle. It's this same intertank structure that alleviates most of the problems of a payload sitting directly ON TOP of a SRB - dampening those vibrations by its construction and it certainly helps to have a huge propellant tank acting as a shock absorber.

Whether the actual payload is then inline with the ET/Jupiter core or on top of it is not very relevant in this case.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 10/12/2008 01:01 am
Not sure if these are popular or are actually an annoyance, but here's my latest effort at the 3D drawings.

I've managed to fix the SRB Aft Skirt which proved to be a very interesting exercise indeed.

I've now also added an Orion (SM is actually included, just is not visible here in this shot, and this CM has a very old Orion Texture Map because that's all I had handy currently) and I've actually been tweaking almost every part to hone it down even more accurately.   I'm now extremely happy with how 'tight' all the locations are compared to known Shuttle STA height references.

I'm next going to get working on the Interstage and Upper Stage, but that's going to take some effort because of the work required on the J-2X engine - that's going to prove to be a lot of detailed work to get right, because those engines have all their mechanicals exposed for all to see.

Then I will make a crack at the new LSAM design, and finally I will have a go at the SSPDM units, along with a few example payloads.

Hope these are of interest, but let me know either way.

Ross.

Ross, it would be interesting if you could also draw the parts required to do your Apollo 8 mission using the J-120 + Delta IV US.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2008 02:38 am
Ross, it would be interesting if you could also draw the parts required to do your Apollo 8 mission using the J-120 + Delta IV US.

Yeah, that's a good idea.   It's another stage and a relatively complicated engine, but my guess is someone has already done a Delta-IV Heavy model for Orbiter and I should be able to find a way to import that hopefully.

Essentially though, the flight configuration would be identical to the one represented in that image, with the DIVHUS located inside the 8.4m diameter PLF, under the Orion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 10/12/2008 02:56 am
On dealing with unusable payload on the second J-232 launch for a lunar mission: Use unburned prop to put the spacecraft in an elliptical orbit. The first launch should also enter this same orbit.  Docking and TLI (at perigee) follow as normal, but TLI is easier because the spacecraft is already in a higher-energy orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2008 03:09 am
I'm not very familiar with the dynamics, but I understand that option severely limits your launch opportunities for making successful 2nd launch attempts.

Maybe someone here with a better understanding of orbital mechanics than I, can offer a clear explanation of why though?   The nuances escape me, but I would venture a guess that trying to time insertion (usually aimed close to the perigee) into a specific highly elliptical orbit coinciding with the launch site on the Earth rotating below, is going to be a fairly rare timing event than just waiting for a more 'simple' flyover in a more circular orbit.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/12/2008 04:07 am
Couldn't an apollo 8 style mission be done with a J-232 with out a lander?

Personally I am not fond of the J-120/Delta Iv US because it would involve a different infrastructure and testing that would take away money/talent that should be applied to a regular rocket. Apollo 8 inspired many people in the 1960's, however today I don't think it will have the same effect on younger people that Apollo 8 did (saying this as a member of that group).   I can imagine when this is done (why did they fake circling, its more interesting to land lolz omg, side note don't let me ever use that lingo) I support DIRECT so that we can land on the moon as cheaply as possible, s that is why I do not believe the Apollo 8 mission is necessary or warranted.  Every other aspect I concur with.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 10/12/2008 10:50 am
Couldn't an apollo 8 style mission be done with a J-232 with out a lander?

J-232 has an upperstage powered by the new J-2X engine which will be in development for some time yet. Using the Delta IV US would give you a means of a crash course, Apollo 8 style circumlunar flight several years before J-2X is ready.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simcosmos on 10/12/2008 11:26 am
Ross, it would be interesting if you could also draw the parts required to do your Apollo 8 mission using the J-120 + Delta IV US.

Yeah, that's a good idea.   It's another stage and a relatively complicated engine, but my guess is someone has already done a Delta-IV Heavy model for Orbiter and I should be able to find a way to import that hopefully.

Essentially though, the flight configuration would be identical to the one represented in that image, with the DIVHUS located inside the 8.4m diameter PLF, under the Orion.

Ross.

Hummm… Ross, not sure if you forgot but I have made a few earlier / rough representations related with what PaulL is asking, for example, some stuff is available at my flickr's space DIRECT set (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/sets/72157594339919067/).
 

Going slightly back on time, on February / March 2008 have shared a .zip containing renderings that resulted from an early development / flight test session in Orbiter Space Flight Simulator. They were ~32 screenshots showing a Jupiter120 ascent (starting at SRB separation) all the way to showing Orion at the Moon.



I. J120 + DIVHUS + Orion: Vehicle Integration Options

PauL: such Orbiter screenshots are slightly outdated in a number of ways, (for example, the 3D models used there were just performance placeholders, the abort system model on that specific simulation session was something closer to the MLAS concept because was still converting the LAS to the ALAS design, etc) but they might still be good enough to illustrate two possible methods of integrating the mission stack composed by an adapted DeltaIV Heavy Upper Stage (DIVHUS) and Orion:


I.a) DIVHUS with passive LIDS, inside J120's SLA:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/2672276647/
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/2672276647_84666acc4c.jpg)
(these are +/- recent renderings but also already outdated, click link for description and to access higher resolution version of the image)

This integration method means that J120 core would have to fully deliver the mission stage + CEV into LEO, then SLA would be jettisoned / would open, CEV would gain some distance, deploy solar panels, transpose, dock with mission stage...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/2379361661/
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2088/2379361661_f9d5f12b97_o.jpg)

J120 core would deorbit later - after mission stack separation - by using some kind of RCS kit (similar to something proposed in a few NLS concepts). TLI would be made with CEV flying backwards.


I.b) DIVHUS with Orion Adapter

The other method (which I personally like more due to a number of reasons) would still have the DIVHUS inside J120's SLA but there will now exist an adapter (instead of a passive LIDS) between the mission stage and CEV's SM bottom. SLA would be released during ascent, J120 core would make MECO while in sub-orbital trajectory (no RCS / deorbit kit needed). [DIVHUS + adapter + Orion] would separate from core, solar panels would be deployed during coasting phase and a small burn would be made at apogee (for stable orbit insertion of ~185Km to ~200Km altitude). Then TLI would happen next (within half to 2 orbits), with CEV remaining in launch configuration.


I.c) There could also exist a few other integration options between the J120 core and the mission stack (example: the 8.4m diameter SLA could even not be used at all).




II. J120 + DIVHUS + Orion: Lunar Capabilities

The kind of early lunar crewed capability (or, being generic, payload injection capability beyond LEO) that J120 could provide - assuming proper integration and adaptation of Delta IV Heavy Upper Stage - would depend of several assumptions related with launch vehicle specifications and such mission stack / payload integration, required DIVHUS modifications, assumptions made for Orion and, last but not least, would depend of the mission requirements.


II.a) The 'easiest' near-term goal (back to focusing again in crewed lunar flights) could be a 'simple' - approximately one week long - flyby mission (free return trajectory, which was the specific scenario that I have simulated) and then evolve - in later missions - to some kind of lunar orbit insertion, again depending of the whole set of assumptions (there could potentially exist several families of interlinked starting assumptions options, with different results).



II.b) Talking about non-flyby concepts: something that might be the next 'easiest' goal (after the flyby mission) and if continuing to focus in terms of minimizing dV requirements, could be a crewed mission to Earth-Moon L2 via a propulsive + gravity assist at the Moon in the ways in and out.

The voyage legs would take ~9 days each. Anytime return from EML2 (using Orion's SM). Of course that this kind of mission capability would make a lot more sense if the astronauts really had something to do at EML2 (if they had 'something' waiting them there)...

Anyway, this could provide some interesting mission flexibility not only as near-future 'test' missions but also as later operational / evolved mission modes... The non-crewed applications - alone or combined with crewed flights - could also be something interesting, from both perspectives of earlier lunar capabilities and later additional mission flexibility options.



II.c) Next, in degree of difficulty (continuing talking about crewed missions vs dV requirements), would eventually be Orion insertion into some kind of (high elliptical) lunar orbit. This might require a bit of extra work in order to study eventual return constraints vs mission requirements vs spacecraft capabilities.



II.d) The ultimate step – insertion into low lunar orbit of ~100Km to 400Km – might end up by requiring something else other than 'adaptations' to DIVHUS (things could perhaps be easier if CEV was slightly smaller, but that was out of the trade space)...

Assuming then Orion more or less like we know it, it could perhaps still be feasible - with a 'single' (assuming something extra) J120 crewed launch (EDIT: depending of assumptions, with some kind of dual launch: 2 x J120, EELV + J120 and/or some kind of refuel at LLO and/or interaction with pre-deployed mission hardware) - but IF using instead an optimised ascent / mission stage design based in something like a mix between Lockheed Martin's and Boeing's advanced stage studies with ~5.4m diameter and a cluster of RL-10-(B2?) engines (if meanwhile J-2X and 8.4m diameter stage would not become available).



III. The Context!

It is very important to give a proper context to these kind of alternative J120 launch vehicle / mission stack configurations!

This kind of brainstorms result from the basic key idea of studying what could be some enhanced LEO and beyond LEO Jupiter120 mission capabilities (both crewed and robotic) IF assuming the integration / modification of an *existing* upper stage (or, for more demanding scenarios, IF assuming an evolved upper stage derived from existing stages but not yet powered by J-2X / not having a 8.4m diameter).


Yes, it might be argued that depending of the number of changes needed to the DIVHUS (or that if considering a new EELV derived upper stage), such effort could end up by detracting (perhaps not the best word, I mean, diverging attention) from the work needed to field the heavier Jupiter232.

On the other hand, these kind of alternative Jupiter launch vehicle considerations could share synergies with EELV Fleet work and either improve future mission design flexibility (example, focusing in the Moon, smaller cargo delivery, etc) and / or, in last analysis, could also provide a kind of backup plans for some mission assumptions, depending of how things really go in the 'real world' (economics, political factors and so on)...


Anyway, this is an example of the work in progress, and the brainstorm can surely be improved with the input of anybody who wishes to contribute.


To end, and back to the (outdated) images regarding a simulation of J120 + DIVHUS + Orion and the lunar flyby simulation: I'm attaching below five previews. If someone is interested in the full set, please let me know and I will try prepare a zip containing the images about the mentioned above integration methods I.a) and I.b)... Who knows? Perhaps could even make a quick power point (a kind of slideshow) from those older / outdated screenshots, while new updated imagery isn't produced either by me, Philip or Ross.

António
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/12/2008 12:52 pm
António,

I don't quite understand the reason for "strut" interface between the core and the payload.  It should just be a conical adapter like the top of a Centaur or DHUS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simcosmos on 10/12/2008 01:44 pm
António,

I don't quite understand the reason for "strut" interface between the core and the payload.  It should just be a conical adapter like the top of a Centaur or DHUS.

Hi Jim,

There are a number of visual details in several components (launchers, spacecraft, adapters, launchpad, etc, etc) that need to be updated across my multiple 3D archives related with DIRECT.

EDIT:

I believe that you are saying that

a) the adapter between the core and the mission stage should simply be a cone starting at 8.4m diameter and ending at the main diameter of the DIVHUS, something more or less like seen in the older image below, in the second J120 representation (independently if the mission stage is or not covered with the 8.4m diameter SLA):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/2050152317/
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/2050152317_269b34a6af_o.jpg)


b) or that the 'green structure' (on the top of Jupiter's core LO2 tank) should just be conical (similar to what is seen in the top part of the above DIVHUS images, Centaur, Wide Body Centaur and in other DIRECT imagery (by other authors)).


Meanwhile, just using copy + paste in the 3D editor and / or using outdated 3D models imported into Orbiter simulator as 'visual placeholders' for performances.

Somehow related with this, would also like to note that my 3D models might be sometimes simplified and/or then use older 'dummy' visuals in order to save time while implementing the performances or while producing new renderings, etc.

The key principle here, for the moment, is to provide a generic idea of what are the assumptions for overall components integration and mission design capabilities / simulation.

I do plan to update some of those visual details in both 3D editor / simulator (it just takes a little of time to implement such update across all 3D instances - due to some reasons, the contents of the 3D files / scenes are a bit scattered by multiple files and, sometimes, also by multiple geographic locations - time, that I sometimes use instead for other non-3D purposes).

Hope this answers the question ;)

António
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/12/2008 01:56 pm
António,

I don't quite understand the reason for "strut" interface between the core and the payload.  It should just be a conical adapter like the top of a Centaur or DHUS.

Jim;
If you are referring to what I think you are, the concept was that the struts and the conical PLF form an integral structure. The struts are the load bearing member and the conical PLF is just an aerodynamic cover. For both an Apollo-8 style mission and for a lunar landing mission, the PLF cover is jettisoned leaving Orion attached to the TLI injection stage (EDS/DIVHUS) by the struts. This allows the solar panels to deploy thru the open struts, and the TLI burn to be in the “eyeballs in” configuration. For landing missions, Orion translates and docks with the LSAM after the TLI burn, just like Apollo.

Antonio, please correct me if I’m not addressing the right question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 10/12/2008 03:35 pm
Ross (and all) they always say a picture is worth a thousand words, and for the many that you are trying to sell this proposal too, your efforts are indeed fruitful. These pictures are fantastic, as they provide a visual baseline of what the different options are. The engineers (and obviously others) love to see the data behind the proposal, but most people like (and need) visual cues for comparison purposes.

I love what you have all put forth. Great work!
I do work in CAD (AutoDesk: AutoCad, MDT & Inventor) so I can relate to your efforts. But once you go 3D, there's no turning back. I find 3D easier than 2D now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 10/12/2008 03:46 pm
With regard to the arrangements between Orion and the Delta IV US discussed by Antonio, I believe that the selected configuration should allow to do large unmanned exploration missions to the outer planets by simply replacing Orion with the large unmanned payload.  This would play against any configuration requiring docking maneuvers in LEO.  As NASA is considering a flagship exploration mission for the 2010's it would make sense that this mission use the J-120 + Delta IV US rocket if it is available.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2008 07:03 pm
Couldn't an apollo 8 style mission be done with a J-232 with out a lander?

Personally I am not fond of the J-120/Delta Iv US because it would involve a different infrastructure and testing that would take away money/talent that should be applied to a regular rocket. Apollo 8 inspired many people in the 1960's, however today I don't think it will have the same effect on younger people that Apollo 8 did (saying this as a member of that group).   I can imagine when this is done (why did they fake circling, its more interesting to land lolz omg, side note don't let me ever use that lingo) I support DIRECT so that we can land on the moon as cheaply as possible, s that is why I do not believe the Apollo 8 mission is necessary or warranted.  Every other aspect I concur with.

I can respect that, but I'm not in agreement.

IMHO one of the most important aspects of this is going to be showing continuing and obvious progress to each of the following:
 i) Each President from now to 2020.
 ii) Each Congress from now to 2020.
 iii) The US Taxpayers footing the bill all the time.

And remember that this will all be *after* the collapse of the ESAS/Ares debacle, so it will be doubly important to show that NASA is back on course again.   The naysayers will have caught the whiff of blood after Ares collapses and it will be astonishingly important for the agency to show very clearly that we are making real progress on getting on with the VSE after a very expensive false-start.   A repeat of the Apollo-8 mission in 2013 would be as clear an indicator of progress as I can think of - at least, prior to doing the Apollo-11 re-run mission anyway ;)

I feel we need to aim for a regular "punch" every 4 years (i.e. every Presidential term) in order to not just get support, but more importantly to keep it sustained across what is shaping up to be a very difficult decade to come.

Achieving successful crew rotations in 2012 is an impressive target which could capture the attention of the next President because it will occur just in time for their re-election campaign.   That's the goal of the 2009-2012 term.

For the 2013-2016 term we can't quite reach the moon, so what else can we do?   Well with the cash savings of DIRECT we will have been able to invest more in robotic missions again, which should be coming to fruition in this time-frame.   But is that enough?   Can we really afford to not do anything new in the human program for 5-7 years?   Maybe.   Maybe not.

It isn't actually all that big of a deal to rig a Jupiter-120 with a Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage and attempt a repeat of Apollo 8.   The cost to human rate the system and get this launch in the air would be equivalent to flying two or three J-120's - and once its qualified we can use it again and again - as often as we like after that.   It could be ready to go in 2013, just in time for the 45th anniversary if we plan to go in December - which seems like a very logical target to be aiming for from where I sit.

It would be even easier still if we got NASA & DoD to share the costs of human rating the DIVH anyway, which creates a backup human launch capability for the first time in US history and provides DoD with their own human launch capability too.

But the real key is that the President of the 2013-2016 time-frame (Obama, McCain or someone else) can have their name alongside it - and that's legacy stuff.   They are more likely to support NASA if they can offer legacy to their term.

And the real issue is this:   NOBODY else is planning to go anywhere near the moon as early as 2013.   But whoever does the first Lunar flyby of the new era, given that the majority of people on Earth would not have been alive to see Apollo-17, whoever orbits the moon next is going to make worldwide headlines.   With this approach the US can guarantee doing it before China.   We can guarantee doing it before Russia, India or anyone else too.   NASA gets the headlines and nobody will give a cr*p about the country who does it second.   Can you imagine how ugly this would get if we don't do this when we could have and China gets all the headlines instead?   You can knock 500 points off the NASDAQ the following morning for sure.

All IMHO of course.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2008 10:08 pm
António,

I don't quite understand the reason for "strut" interface between the core and the payload.  It should just be a conical adapter like the top of a Centaur or DHUS.

Jim,
Don't worry too much about that one, its mostly a "style" issue.

We haven't performed a full study on the types of payload adapter above the tank domes.   Antonio whipped up something there to demonstrate a generic structure.   The final would probably be either a conical adapter as you suggest, or perhaps a Warren Truss (the "W" arrangement of struts as planned to support both the Orion's and Altair's).

We're going to need at least two adapters too - one compatible with ~5m payloads and another wider one for payloads making the full use of the larger 8.4m or 10m payload envelopes.   And there may even need to be quite a few more because an adapter suited to mounting a stage on top is probably going to need to be quite different from one mounting a regular payload.

But like I say, this adapter issue needs a study which we have not yet performed, so consider these as purely "notional" for now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2008 10:17 pm
Antonio,
Great posts there!   Thanks for putting it all together on here in a single post for everyone else to see.   It really gets everyone up to speed on what we've been trying to work out.   Absolutely wonderful.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2008 10:28 pm
I do work in CAD (AutoDesk: AutoCad, MDT & Inventor) so I can relate to your efforts. But once you go 3D, there's no turning back. I find 3D easier than 2D now.

I'm beginning to see exactly what you mean :)

I'm already quite desperate to re-do all of my previous 2D art now in this form.   I think its the level of detail and accuracy which you can achieve in 3D compared to 2D which makes it so appealing.   So far it seems very worthwhile tackling the fairly steep learning curve.

I would like to start an off-topic thread somewhere here to discuss the pro's and con's of the different software packages for this sort of work - but that discussion needs to happen in General Discussions (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=1.0) because it is totally off-topic for this thread :)

Major kudos goes to Antonio though, for his encouragement over the last year (actually more like 2) to get me to have a go at what initially seemed quite an intimidating task.   I'm so glad I dove in.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/12/2008 10:57 pm
With regard to the arrangements between Orion and the Delta IV US discussed by Antonio, I believe that the selected configuration should allow to do large unmanned exploration missions to the outer planets by simply replacing Orion with the large unmanned payload.  This would play against any configuration requiring docking maneuvers in LEO.  As NASA is considering a flagship exploration mission for the 2010's it would make sense that this mission use the J-120 + Delta IV US rocket if it is available.

PaulL

This is a topic of much debate behind the scenes, Paul.

There are essentially two leading methods to using a DIVHUS along with a standard Orion to perform a Lunar flyby mission:-

1) "Standard" Orion mounting on the PLF, DIVHUS mounted separately inside the PLF, DIVHUS fitted with passive LIDS adapter, Orion Transition before TLI Burn, TLI Burn will be "eyeballs-out" i.e. Astronauts will be facing backwards.

2) "Modified" PLF no longer supporting the mass of the Orion, DIVHUS mounted inside the PLF with an adapter structure on top supporting the Orion from the aft of the SM.   The PLF would fall away during ascent and the Orion would not separate from the DIVHUS until after the TLI Burn has been completed.


There are pro's and con's with each approach.   Of particular note the "Standard" approach requires less development time and less $$$, but requires a docking in LEO and offers no abort options for the crew during the TLI.   The "Modified" approach also seems to offer a slightly better performance, but its marginal.


One other thing to note WRT using the DIVHUS with a crew is that we are assuming that the extending nozzle on the RL-10B-2 would have to be replaced with a fixed nozzle extension for all human use.   It would have the same performance but would make the stacked stage a wee bit taller at the Pad.   Making the nozzle a fixed fitting means there would be one less mechanical feature to go wrong.


Either way, pure Cargo flights using the DIVHUS as a booster stage are always possible.   Payloads would be integrated directly on top of the DIVHUS in a standard EELV fashion and both DIVHUS and Payload would be completely encapsulated inside the PLF.   8.4m and 10m PLF's are already planned, each with 10m long barrel sections.   If longer barrel sections are required they can be produced too.   20m long barrel sections are quite possible for any Jupiter - they even fit inside the VAB on a Jupiter-232! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/13/2008 01:33 am
How much structural re-enforcement will have to be done to the tank in order to accommodate having a payload on top, and thrust from below?  Do you guys plan on taking the current ultralight tank and beefing that up, or do you go back to the early 80's standard tank and work from there?

Also, once 232 becomes available, will 120 use an over-engineered 232 tank, or will there be parallel assembly lines for stronger, heavier 232 tanks and lighter, weaker 120 tanks?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 10/13/2008 03:19 am
Could a stronger and a weaker tank be made on the same tooling?

I am thinking that you set the milling machine to take off more aluminum for one than the other. Etc.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 10/13/2008 04:13 am
IIRC, J-120 core is exactly the same as J-232, minus one engine. This gives extra margin initially, and flight tests the J-232 core long before the EDS is ready.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/13/2008 06:02 pm
Also, once 232 becomes available, will 120 use an over-engineered 232 tank, or will there be parallel assembly lines for stronger, heavier 232 tanks and lighter, weaker 120 tanks?

Could a stronger and a weaker tank be made on the same tooling?
I am thinking that you set the milling machine to take off more aluminum for one than the other. Etc.

Lab & tn;
A fundamental premise of the Jupiter Launch system is that both launch vehicles, the Jupiter-120 and the Jupiter-232 share the identical core. Essentially what this means, in terms of your question, is that we are not actually building a Jupiter-120 core. We are actually building the Jupiter-232, and calling the Configuration that does NOT use the upper stage and center RS-68 a Jupiter-120. That means that the Jupiter-120 is not optimized for performance, because it is quite a bit heavier than it needs to be, but the trade is that all we need to do to get the Jupiter-232 flying is to field the upper stage. That means that there is only a single assembly line, producing a common core launch vehicle. The financial savings of this approach are enormous. It is financial efficiency redefined.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/14/2008 03:18 am
Another feature is that the Jupiter-120 Core Stage would end up having a Factor of Safety well above the current 1.4 requirement - probably well above 2.0 according to current predictions - and that is a safety factor unheard of in human space flight previously.

Another bonus is that as soon as J-120's start flying we can begin performing early test flights of the J-232 configuration too, test flights would begin by using the three-engine Core and a mass simulator for the Upper Stage and they would gradually progress  to using more and more flight hardware.   We predict about four J-232 test flights would be required in total, each getting closer and closer to final spec.

Another idea which has been floated is for those early J-232 test flights to fly with recovery hardware to allow close examination of the Core Stages.   Because they will be flying ballistic trajectories and will never reaching space, there is a real chance to recover them.   This would quite possibly be of interest to both LM producing the Core Stages and also to PWR to recover 3 or more real flown RS-68's for post-flight evaluation purposes.   It's an interesting opportunity we are considering.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/14/2008 10:41 am
I get a 1 kb corrupted file when I try to download the following:
http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/14/2008 03:19 pm
Lab, the link works for me.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: quickshot89 on 10/14/2008 04:11 pm
i got a question about direct, ive seen various pictures showing that orion can perform say a hubble repair mission by taking up a shuttle derived payload, that it then docks to etc. My question is, what would happen to this payload after the mission is done? and wouldnt this sort of thing require a robotic arm? would that too be just chucked away? or would it be left in orbit parked?

not sure if this is the best place, but its sort of related to direct as i havnt seen the ARES V have this payload
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/14/2008 06:49 pm
Lab, the link works for me.

Ross.

Ditto.  It is a big file (30 MB) so be prepared for that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/14/2008 08:05 pm
My question is, what would happen to this payload after the mission is done? and wouldnt this sort of thing require a robotic arm? would that too be just chucked away? or would it be left in orbit parked?
As such a mission is conjectural and doesn't actually exist, what happens to the components is even more speculative than the mission itself. If an arm is required then it and any other payloads could be left on the Hubble, it could be left in a parking orbit or it could be de-orbited. The cheapest answer would be to de-orbit it along wth the SM prior to CM re-entry. However. if someone came up with a requirement to leave it up there, you'd just design it to be left up there.

It's rather in the nature of the process; first you have a need, then you express that need in discrete requirements and then you design something to meet the requirements. As NASA don't have a recognised need yet, everything else is smoke & mirrors.

In this case, asking abut what is to be done with the payload after an Orion / Hubble servicing mission is putting the cart so far ahead of the horse that the wood for the cart is still a tree and the horses aren't even born.  :)

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/14/2008 11:02 pm
Reading the horizons article, I was wondering- how stable is a 30x120 nm orbit (page 11, 3rd column)? 

I assume you mean nautical miles, not nanometers. 

But even if a nm is about 2 km*, that's still only 60 km up.  That's only 10 km above the stratosphere.  That can't be very stable.

* I have no idea how big these odd units are.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 10/14/2008 11:41 pm
Reading the horizons article, I was wondering- how stable is a 30x120 nm orbit (page 11, 3rd column)? 

Not stable at all; re-entry is expected prior to first perigee. A 30x120 nmi orbit is "orbital" only in the most restrictive sense of the term; by all practical measures it is suborbital. A posigrade burn must be performed at first apogee to raise perigee.

Quote
But even if a nm is about 2 km*, that's still only 60 km up.  That's only 10 km above the stratosphere.  That can't be very stable.

* I have no idea how big these odd units are.

A nautical mile is defined as 1.852 km (exactly).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/14/2008 11:57 pm
And here's my latest DIRECT/Jupiter imagery hot off my laptop.   Enjoy!

 ;D

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 10/15/2008 01:13 am
Not sure if these are popular or are actually an annoyance, but here's my latest effort at the 3D drawings.

I've managed to fix the SRB Aft Skirt which proved to be a very interesting exercise indeed.

I've now also added an Orion (SM is actually included, just is not visible here in this shot, and this CM has a very old Orion Texture Map because that's all I had handy currently) and I've actually been tweaking almost every part to hone it down even more accurately.   I'm now extremely happy with how 'tight' all the locations are compared to known Shuttle STA height references.

I'm next going to get working on the Interstage and Upper Stage, but that's going to take some effort because of the work required on the J-2X engine - that's going to prove to be a lot of detailed work to get right, because those engines have all their mechanicals exposed for all to see.

Then I will make a crack at the new LSAM design, and finally I will have a go at the SSPDM units, along with a few example payloads.

Hope these are of interest, but let me know either way.

Ross.

Hey Ross,

For all us modelers out there, do you have a link to any reference data, like say a dimensioned drawing, that would provide scale data for those of us who want to make a model of the Jupiters??  Any info/links greatly appreciated!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 10/15/2008 01:38 am
Oh, one other thing while I'm thinking about it... having read the posts for the last week or so since I've been in here, I have a possible suggestion for increasing exposure:) 

I read on a model rocketry forum that Dr. Zooch Rockets (username 'zerm' on here) is possibly coming out with a Jupiter Direct model rocket kit...??

Maybe you guys could send him a mess of flyers or something, not necessarily particularly elaborate, but something like the old "join NAR" flyers that used to be included in every rocket kit produced.  Maybe a short description, baseball card style deal, with a pic of the rocket on one side and the link to yall's website on the other... Sorta collector deal that would give folks a quick link to the website...

Good luck!   OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/15/2008 03:16 am
Nice rocket models.
What sort of mission would require the fat payload fairing?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/15/2008 01:20 pm
That is the 10.0m diameter PLF designed to match the PLF on Ares-6, allowing the current design of Altair LSAM to be flown on Jupiter "as is".

There's no reason why a 12.0m dia PLF couldn't also be planned too - if needed.   And the barrel sections of the PLF's shown here are all 10.0m long too - longer is quite possible.   20.0m long PLF's all fit within the VAB on top of the Jupiter-232!

Theoretically any payload could make use of the fat PLF's.   Other than allowing the Lunar Lander to be made wider (improving its CofG for landing stability) they would prove equally useful for sending large payloads destined for Mars too.

And a wide PLF could also prove extremely useful for an extremely wide telescope mirrors - a feature which would benefit both 'Hubble'-style space telescopes and potentially also military spy satellites too.   We have already had some inquiries along those lines.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/15/2008 01:31 pm
Oh, one other thing while I'm thinking about it... having read the posts for the last week or so since I've been in here, I have a possible suggestion for increasing exposure:) 

I read on a model rocketry forum that Dr. Zooch Rockets (username 'zerm' on here) is possibly coming out with a Jupiter Direct model rocket kit...??

Maybe you guys could send him a mess of flyers or something, not necessarily particularly elaborate, but something like the old "join NAR" flyers that used to be included in every rocket kit produced.  Maybe a short description, baseball card style deal, with a pic of the rocket on one side and the link to yall's website on the other... Sorta collector deal that would give folks a quick link to the website...

Good luck!   OL JR :)

We were contacted by zerm about these models and other than using the correct name we don't need anything more.   We figure that people launching the rocket itself will attract enough questions to bring interest from that community too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/15/2008 03:36 pm
That is the 10.0m diameter PLF designed to match the PLF on Ares-6, allowing the current design of Altair LSAM to be flown on Jupiter "as is".

There's no reason why a 12.0m dia PLF couldn't also be planned too - if needed.   And the barrel sections of the PLF's shown here are all 10.0m long too - longer is quite possible.   20.0m long PLF's all fit within the VAB on top of the Jupiter-232!

Theoretically any payload could make use of the fat PLF's.   Other than allowing the Lunar Lander to be made wider (improving its CofG for landing stability) they would prove equally useful for sending large payloads destined for Mars too.

And a wide PLF could also prove extremely useful for an extremely wide telescope mirrors - a feature which would benefit both 'Hubble'-style space telescopes and potentially also military spy satellites too.   We have already had some inquiries along those lines.

Ross.

A nice side benefit to this is that by using the Jupiter in lieu of the Ares-6, we can actually make the payload physically larger because we are not as constrained by the height of the launch vehicle. We literally have more room "to play with" as it were. This takes a lot of pressure off the payload design teams. The Ares-6 launch vehicle itself is so large that it severely restricts the available volume for payload design because everything has to fit inside the VAB and not exceed the height of the doors. This, in turn, can drive the payload complexity up as the designers find innovative, but more complex ways to design the mission payload to fit into the smaller available volume.

There is a point of diminishing returns in terms of launch vehicle size, where the larger a launch vehicle gets the less efficient it becomes. Ares-6 has long since past that point, while DIRECT's Jupiter series lives in the sweet spot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/15/2008 11:16 pm
I get a 1 kb corrupted file when I try to download the following:
http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf

When I try using the link in Britain using Firefox I get
"Connection Interrupted

 
The document contains no data.
       

The network link was interrupted while negotiating a connection. Please try again.
"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/15/2008 11:32 pm
As such a mission is conjectural and doesn't actually exist, what happens to the components is even more speculative than the mission itself. If an arm is required then it and any other payloads could be left on the Hubble, it could be left in a parking orbit or it could be de-orbited. The cheapest answer would be to de-orbit it along wth the SM prior to CM re-entry. However. if someone came up with a requirement to leave it up there, you'd just design it to be left up there.
{snip}

Possible reason, to permit the very expensive machine to be reused on the next repair.  High transportation (launch) costs apply.

Building and launching two machines will approximately double the construction and launch costs.  The mass saved can be used for something else such as extra parts for the telescope.

Reusability needs specifying because long life parts tend to weight more than ones optimised to last only 2 weeks.  A method of refuelling the consumables such as air, navigation fuel, water and food could be designed in.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/16/2008 12:58 am

Possible reason, to permit the very expensive machine to be reused on the next repair.  High transportation (launch) costs apply.

Building and launching two machines will approximately double the construction and launch costs.  The mass saved can be used for something else such as extra parts for the telescope.

Reusability needs specifying because long life parts tend to weight more than ones optimised to last only 2 weeks.  A method of refuelling the consumables such as air, navigation fuel, water and food could be designed in.

It isn't a spacecraft in the first place.  Making the SPDM reusable will increase is costs above launch costs
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/16/2008 02:14 am
Specifically regarding Hubble servicing, there are only two primary purposes to making an SSPDM reusable:-

1) Providing a means to preserve and re-use all of the existing customized tools from previous HSM's.

2) Provide a work area (with integrated airlock module) so that an Orion and other hardware can be sent up next time.


Option 2 becomes fairly pointless because there are cost issues with making the SSPDM a long duration module with integral control authority systems suitable for station-keeping Hubble (probably @ ~100nmi distance) for a period of maybe 5-8 years until the next servicing mission.   Is it really worth the high cost of development for a one-use-only version of the SSPDM?   Or would it simply be cheaper to assume we use another SSPDM in 5-8 years time?   I'd wager that it would be cheaper to just plan to use a second SSPDM than do all that development work *unless* there is more than one use for a long-duration SSPDM.   I just can't think of any other purposes yet...

Option 1 becomes the driving issue then.   The hand-tools and payload bay equipment used for HSM's are valuable items which have proven extremely reliable and robust on multiple flights.   Again, it boils down to whether it would be cheaper to develop the long-duration SSPDM capability or to simply plan to replace those tools?   Again, I suspect that the development work would be considerably more costly that planning to replace the tools with new ones - especially as some of those tools are already 15 years old and will be 30-36 years old by the time of a second SSPDM-based mission when it becomes a necessity.   It might actually be worthwhile contemplating replacing many of them with newer ones anyway.   And with 5-8 years between missions, its not like we don't have time to produce them.


I personally lean in favour of disposing of the SSPDM's *unless* there are at least a handful of different missions which could really use make the extra development of long-duration capability SSPDM's a truly worthwhile exercise.   I'm open to suggestions for such usage.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/16/2008 04:03 am
Is there a rebuttal posted somewhere in response to the Jan 07 analysis posted by Doug Stanley here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6065
If so, where do I find that?
cheers,
Chuck

p.s. The thread linked above is the last (and most recent) thing listed on the DIRECT facebook page.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/16/2008 01:52 pm
Is there a rebuttal posted somewhere in response to the Jan 07 analysis posted by Doug Stanley here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6065
If so, where do I find that?
cheers,
Chuck

p.s. The thread linked above is the last (and most recent) thing listed on the DIRECT facebook page.

That thread was January 2007 and was repudiated as part of the opening of THIS thread. Dr. Stanley's remarks were against version 1.0, and was a deliberate distortion of the DIRECT v1 design. Every one of his claims was subsequently shown to be not only incorrect, but a deliberate attempt at deception. Subsequent private communications revealed the extent of the deliberate deception.

What we did however, was take his comments and fold the essence of them into the updated design, DIRECT v2, removing any possibility of such a FUD ever having legs again, which actually turned out to produce an even more capable and less expensive launch system than version 1. Because of his abortive attempt to discredit the entire concept (which was actually originally created at MSFC as the NLS and promoted by NASA), he exposed areas that we could exploit to actually improve the design. So you might say that his efforts on behalf of Dr Griffin backfired and ended up producing something even better than before. Thank you Dr Stanley.

But that is old news and it no longer serves any purpose to re-open old issues. Nothing is served by doing that. DIRECT v1 worked, in spite of the attempt to show otherwise; even ATK finally admitted that. But like I said - that's history. We are better served by moving forward with the new design which is more effecient, more capable and less expensive; DIRECT v2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/16/2008 11:19 pm
Sorry, it is hard for us outsiders to keep track of the saga...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/17/2008 09:12 am
Is there not another rebuttal due? Something to counter NASA's findings here:

www.nasa.gov/pdf/256922main_Direct_vs_%20Ares%20_FINAL_62508.pdf

and the main report here:
http://saturn.netwrx1.com/rfischer/docs/pcdocs/257003main_NASA%20Performance%20Assessment%20of%20(DIRECT%202)%20Compiled.0702.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/17/2008 09:52 am
p.s. The thread linked above is the last (and most recent) thing listed on the DIRECT facebook page.

*What* facebook page?

I set one up (DIRECT-Launcher) at the end of July, but haven't had any chance to put anything on there yet.   I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever adding that link.

Is there another DIRECT page which has been set up by someone else?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/17/2008 10:08 am
Kaputnik,
Yes, that new rebuttal is still in-work.   It's a really big job, but its coming together nicely and will actually serve to showcase the latest configurations too.

I have been toying with the idea of not actually releasing it until the New Year - to coincide with another very important release then (which I'm not allowed to talk about yet, sorry).   The two together would produce a double-whammy sucker-punch effect, far more effective than either one alone could be.

It all depends on whether we start to lose ground by not releasing the rebuttal first - and we haven't actually lost any ground so far, so I don't think its all that urgent.   If it looks like we might, we could release a preliminary version of the rebuttal in the interim just as a place-holder.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/17/2008 11:57 am
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2223853081&ref=mf
p.s. The thread linked above is the last (and most recent) thing listed on the DIRECT facebook page.

*What* facebook page?

I set one up (DIRECT-Launcher) at the end of July, but haven't had any chance to put anything on there yet.   I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever adding that link.

Is there another DIRECT page which has been set up by someone else?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/17/2008 12:53 pm
Thanks Lab,
Never seen that site before so I'll make contact with the creator, Mark Soppet, and see if we can't get it updated.

Which reminds me that we also need to *seriously* update the wiki article too...

Actually, would anyone here be willing to have a go at that for me?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ventrater on 10/17/2008 01:37 pm
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/10/nac-backs-const.html

No comment yet on Orlandosentinel article...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/17/2008 01:46 pm
This isn't really the right thread for that Ventrater, but this is no surprise at all considering Griffin got rid of all the NAC folk who had complaints about ESAS two years ago and replaced them with his own hand-selected people.   What d'ya expect?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ventrater on 10/17/2008 02:47 pm
This isn't really the right thread for that Ventrater, ...
???
IF Gen. Abrahamson is right when he says """Ares has a solid baseline and foundation for Constellation ... If change is made, even well-meaning change, it is only going to hurt support [for the program""" ... then you are wrong to promote DIRECT.

"""even well-meaning change"""" (!) ...

Don't you (The DIRECT team) need to know who (and where and when) are your opponents?
and don't you need to know what they say and think and do?
Don't you hope and want and need to answer to them?
So, I don't understand why this is "not really the right thread"...
I only try to help (in all modesty) the DIRECT team...
(sorry for my bad english; and now I'll be silent)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/17/2008 03:22 pm
Ventrater,
Sorry I didn't mean for that to sound harsh, I just meant that there already was a dedicated thread about this subject elsewhere on the forum (here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14665.0)).

Yes, there are some relevant points regarding DIRECT, but one thread should be enough to discuss it and the whole subject has a wider impact than just DIRECT.

I believe that Griffin is trying to rally as much support around him and his plans as he can, simply because he knows there are some extremely serious problems at the moment and this election could bring serious investigations crashing down upon his head.

He is shoring-up support to allow him to try to weather the coming storm and continue for another year down this path.   There have been a number of such attempts to shore-up support recently and this seems to just be one part of a much larger pattern.


WRT the good General's comments, I think he is sorely mistaken in a very "Chamberlain" fashion.   To recommend a system which has more and more cracks appearing in the dam almost every day is rather short-sighted.   "Sticking to what we're doing" only works if "what we're doing" is going to lead to something that works.   Ares is, however, shaping up to be a total train-wreck in terms of 1) Budget, 2) Schedule, and 3) Technical capability.

The fact is that the ongoing technical problems (mostly stemming from the unusual configuration choice for the Ares-I) are causing severe ripple-effects in the budget and scheduling arenas seems to be totally irrelevant to Griffin.   I'm more convinced than ever that he is happily sacrificing anything and everything to the altar of Ares-I and Ares-V - whether they fly by 2015, 2020 or 2030 and whether they cost $10bn, $20bn or $50bn, he doesn't seem to care any more - everything can go to hell as long as he gets those.


The military has experience with similar programs created due to expensive pork-fat development programs only benefiting certain individuals ego's and which have little real-world purpose, but many of those multi-billion dollar programs still march on unhindered because nobody takes any notice.   The good General may be used to such projects in his career, but there is a critical difference:   NASA is a civilian agency and the public has the ability to perform real oversight and can catch this sort of charade.

I don't blame Gen. Abrahamson for speaking in support of Griffin considering what happened to his predecessor.   I do think everything, including the General's comments, will change as soon as Griffin's spirit has been exorcised from the agency.

BTW - Your English is very good indeed! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 10/17/2008 03:28 pm
Yes, that new rebuttal is still in-work.   It's a really big job, but its coming together nicely and will actually serve to showcase the latest configurations too.

That's good to know.  None of us 'amazing peoples' would want that to fall through the cracks...

Quote
I have been toying with the idea of not actually releasing it until the New Year - to coincide with another very important release then (which I'm not allowed to talk about yet, sorry).   The two together would produce a double-whammy sucker-punch effect, far more effective than either one alone could be.

Argh!  Now I'm all anticipatory! ;)

Quote
It all depends on whether we start to lose ground by not releasing the rebuttal first - and we haven't actually lost any ground so far, so I don't think its all that urgent.   If it looks like we might, we could release a preliminary version of the rebuttal in the interim just as a place-holder.

You should post (maybe a news item on www.directlauncher.com) a short announcement, saying (in a slightly longer form) "NASA has released the results of their comparision of Ares with DIRECT.  They noted several shortcomings of the DIRECT plan.  We believe their methods were flawed.  We are confident in the DIRECT plan, and are preparing a detailed rebuttal."  That way, you aren't leaving a vacuum in the message-space.

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 10/17/2008 03:31 pm
Never seen that site before so I'll make contact with the creator, Mark Soppet, and see if we can't get it updated.

Especially since that group has more fans signed up...

Quote
Which reminds me that we also need to *seriously* update the wiki article too...

Actually, would anyone here be willing to have a go at that for me?

By 'wiki', do you mean Wikipedia?  Or some other wiki?  Either way, I could have a go at it.

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/17/2008 03:31 pm
That's a good idea.   Mind if I rip some of your wording?

And yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT needs a serious update.   A lot of the technical stuff on there dates back to v1.0!!!  :o

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 10/17/2008 03:46 pm
That's a good idea.   Mind if I rip some of your wording?

I don't mind at all.

Quote
And yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT needs a serious update.   A lot of the technical stuff on there dates back to v1.0!!!  :o

I'll see what I can do, probably this weekend.  Unless someone else dives into it first.

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bobthemonkey on 10/17/2008 03:48 pm
Kaputnik,
Yes, that new rebuttal is still in-work.   It's a really big job, but its coming together nicely and will actually serve to showcase the latest configurations too.

I have been toying with the idea of not actually releasing it until the New Year - to coincide with another very important release then (which I'm not allowed to talk about yet, sorry).   The two together would produce a double-whammy sucker-punch effect, far more effective than either one alone could be.

It all depends on whether we start to lose ground by not releasing the rebuttal first - and we haven't actually lost any ground so far, so I don't think its all that urgent.   If it looks like we might, we could release a preliminary version of the rebuttal in the interim just as a place-holder.

Ross.

Ross, the new year idea is a good one.

Certainly anything released between now and the election will disappear. When things start to settle down around December may well be a good time to release it. Newspapers will be looking for stories as the campaign machines wind down and the senior positions in the new administration are finalized. Space is always a feel good story, especially if you play on the Apollo 8 re-run. That, and the prospect of retaining jobs in this winter of anxiety and fear should prove for a good reception.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Vacuum.Head on 10/17/2008 11:44 pm
Ross Re Wiki revisions
I see your artistic endeavours already grace the Wiki!
To go along side:
REVISION
The proposal would replace the planned Ares I and Ares V with a single Common Core Booster [CCB] developed more directly from existing Shuttle components. The Jupiter 120 would immediately service the ISS as Medium to Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle able to deliver additional major components and replacements. With the addition of an Orion Crew Transport Vehicle other missions canceled with the retirement of the Space Shuttle would be enabled. Proponents assert that DIRECT would cut development and manufacturing costs and advance program schedules, in part by minimizing the modification of existing Shuttle components, and also by creating greater commonality between the crewed and unpiloted launch vehicles to be used in the program.

Future developments would see improvements to the design, principally by adding more rocket motors and a cryogenic upper stage; to produce the Jupiter 232 with a lift capacity to support the planned Lunar Return and Martian Exploration mandate of VSE.
/REVISION

ie get the spin of a single rocket across from the start, the heavy lift and the DIRECT replacement of shuttle functionality.

Finally in the "Advantages and disadvantages" section I would add a final word/paragraph _after_ the David King quote perhaps something clever about TO and crew safety!

Just a thought. Would not have the temerity to change your Wiki bitz after all IANARS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/18/2008 12:17 am
:) I started to add some visuals and update some of the sections there but got a 'conflict' message indicating one of you guys was already getting your hands dirty (Thank-you, whoever it was!).   I figured I better leave it and see what you could all come up with before doing any more.

I like those ideas.   Lets see them, and others, in B&W and I'll do some fine-tuning after the weekend.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/18/2008 04:13 pm
I don't have a Wikipedia account (and from the sounds of it i wouldn't be able to edit the page for a while even if i sign up)... but here are a couple of suggestions...

near the top it says... "Developed independently from NASA..."  Which is true, but from my understanding, Direct is somewhat based off of previous NASA studies from the '80's on.  perhaps it would seem more legitimate to the uninitiated if it said "Based on previous NASA studies, but developed independently from NASA, DIRECT proposes..."  Just a thought.


Also, I think that one of the biggest things that they layperson (such as myself) doesn't really understand at first reading is how much more expensive and costly it is to run 2 different launch vehicles than to run one.  it says lots of places in there about how it will be less expensive, and will save money on infrastructure, etc... but it doesn't necessarily say how or why... don't overestimate the understanding of us laypeople ;)  I think it needs to spell it out on there.  something similar to this....


The Ares program proposes to have 2 different launch vehicles, both with extremely different configurations from the current shuttle stack.  This results in many extra infrastructure costs.  With 2 different launch vehicles, you need 2 completely different sets of manufacturing chains, 2 new different kinds of mobile launcher platforms, 2 different workforces to man them, 2 different assembly facilities, etc.  Having the smaller Ares I launcher doesn't actually save money.. Overall the infrastructure ends up costing twice as much due to having 2 separate infrastructures for 2 separate launch vehicles that share no commonality with either each other, OR the current launch stack.   

On the other hand, the Direct/Jupiter program would utilize the current shuttle launch stack manufacturing chain, the current mobile launcher platforms, the current workforce, the current assembly facility, etc.  And ALL versions of the Jupiter rocket would use that same infrastructure as well.  Direct/Jupiter only has the cost of ONE infrastructure, and most of that infrastructure is already in place. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 10/18/2008 04:44 pm
You don't need an account to edit wikipedia. Just click edit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/18/2008 05:56 pm
well... for this page you apparently do.... when you click on "improve this article" it says....

"This page is currently semi-protected, and can be edited only by established registered users."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 10/18/2008 06:06 pm
well... for this page you apparently do.... when you click on "improve this article" it says....

"This page is currently semi-protected, and can be edited only by established registered users."
Right, it usually happens when pages are vandalised by unregistered users.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/18/2008 06:22 pm
yeah... i figured that....


as far as what i wrote.... does that seem pretty straightforward and understandable?   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 10/18/2008 07:41 pm
well... for this page you apparently do.... when you click on "improve this article" it says....

"This page is currently semi-protected, and can be edited only by established registered users."
Right, it usually happens when pages are vandalised by unregistered users.
God damn it - hasn't Griffin got anything better to do?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/18/2008 10:03 pm
Wasn't Griffin.   A couple of other people have a grudge with us and have behaved rather poorly in a number of locations.   I suspect it was one of them.

Anyone can register an account with wikipedia and edit the page.   This feature successfully stops casual vandalism and allows serious editing to continue.

I will have a good look over the page tomorrow (Sunday) afternoon/evening and see if any further tweaks are needed then.   Thanks for any work on the page through to then.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/19/2008 12:07 am
Wasn't Griffin.   A couple of other people have a grudge with us and have behaved rather poorly in a number of locations.   I suspect it was one of them.

Anyone can register an account with wikipedia and edit the page.   This feature successfully stops casual vandalism and allows serious editing to continue.

I will have a good look over the page tomorrow (Sunday) afternoon/evening and see if any further tweaks are needed then.   Thanks for any work on the page through to then.

Ross.

One user named Ckatz seems to have undone your edit of specifications due to lack of a cited source.  Seems that it doesn't matter that it is coming from the horse's mouth !  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/19/2008 01:52 am
One user named Ckatz seems to have undone your edit of specifications due to lack of a cited source.  Seems that it doesn't matter that it is coming from the horse's mouth !  ;)

"Horse's mouth" counts as original research.  It is better if something is in a peer reviewed paper but newspaper articles, this nasaspaceflight.com thread or the directlauncher.com website can be cited as a source.  So simply get someone to put any diagrams and tables etc. up on the website before you add them to Wiki.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stowbridge on 10/19/2008 01:57 am
Whatever happened to the response to the NASA study that found Direct is lacking?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/19/2008 02:29 am
Whatever happened to the response to the NASA study that found Direct is lacking?

Ros just addressed this yesterday. See above.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Integrator on 10/19/2008 03:23 pm
The Ares program proposes to have 2 different launch vehicles, both with extremely different configurations from the current shuttle stack.  This results in many extra infrastructure costs.  With 2 different launch vehicles, you need 2 completely different sets of manufacturing chains, 2 new different kinds of mobile launcher platforms, 2 different workforces to man them, 2 different assembly facilities, etc.  Having the smaller Ares I launcher doesn't actually save money.. Overall the infrastructure ends up costing twice as much due to having 2 separate infrastructures for 2 separate launch vehicles that share no commonality with either each other, OR the current launch stack.   

On the other hand, the Direct/Jupiter program would utilize the current shuttle launch stack manufacturing chain, the current mobile launcher platforms, the current workforce, the current assembly facility, etc.  And ALL versions of the Jupiter rocket would use that same infrastructure as well.  Direct/Jupiter only has the cost of ONE infrastructure, and most of that infrastructure is already in place. 

THAT is the biggest problem with the current architecture and they don't even see the risk. It is the proverbial undefended exhaust port on the Death Star folks, that leads directly to the main reactor at its core.

You all have your orders, may the Force be with us.

INTEGRATOR
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/19/2008 06:15 pm
Here are the latest performance numbers.

I am using a brand-new way to automate the generation of these charts so please be aware that they may still have 'bugs' which still need ironing-out ;)

Keeping in mind that these will probably have to be re-issued over the next few days anyway, here is a preview of the latest configurations for you to peruse.

And as always, these are a Work In Progress and continually evolve.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/19/2008 09:37 pm
Shouldn't the thrust for the regenerative engine at the bottom of the "core stage" summary (lower right) for the J120 be labeled 108%, not 102%?  You say 102% on both versions, despite listing different values.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 10/19/2008 10:10 pm
Those are some great pages Ross, many thanks.
I especially like the VAB door outline, which drives home how well these designs 'fit' into the current architecture.

From my own 'aesthetic' perspective, the EDS ogive looks funny for some reason. Might need a logo (stripes, or something...) to help the balance. As much as people want performance, having that extra 'punch' with looks helps sell the product, which is what you really trying to do. My 2 cents.

Great work!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2008 12:33 am
Shouldn't the thrust for the regenerative engine at the bottom of the "core stage" summary (lower right) for the J120 be labeled 108%, not 102%?  You say 102% on both versions, despite listing different values.

Good eye you've got there.   That's certainly one of the 'bugs' I was referring to :)   Thanks.   I'll fix it soon.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2008 01:02 am
I need some assistance from all you eagle-eyed folk:-

A handful of months ago I read a reference where Mike Griffin stated that the cost of Ares would be either $32 or $34 billion.

I need to find the reference and am having difficulties tracking it down using Google so I wanted more eyes on the subject.

I think it may have been in the transcript of one of his hearing appearances, or perhaps one of his many talks.

If you recall where this reference is please PM me with a link ASAP.

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/20/2008 01:06 am
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy29949.000/hsy29949_0.HTM

"NASA predicts the Orion development effort will cost $18.3 billion from 2006 to 2020 at 65 percent confidence including both contractor and government costs. In the near-term, NASA predicts that the cost of the Constellation program through 2011, when NASA would begin testing Orion and Ares I, is $32.1 billion with 80 percent confidence. Finally, NASA believes that the cost of returning to the Moon by 2018 may be around $104 billion, but NASA has not yet performed a detailed analysis of this cost. GAO estimates the total Constellation costs through 2018 total $122 billion. For Constellation, most of the development risk lies beyond the 2012 timeframe, when NASA begins work on the various craft needed to support a lunar mission."

Is that it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/20/2008 01:06 am
using my Microsoft Paint skills and print screen, I was able to get all the configurations in one screen shot, unfortunately I was not able to get rid of the watermark completely:

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2008 03:22 am
Just for you Ron! ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2008 03:24 am
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy29949.000/hsy29949_0.HTM

"NASA predicts the Orion development effort will cost $18.3 billion from 2006 to 2020 at 65 percent confidence including both contractor and government costs. In the near-term, NASA predicts that the cost of the Constellation program through 2011, when NASA would begin testing Orion and Ares I, is $32.1 billion with 80 percent confidence. Finally, NASA believes that the cost of returning to the Moon by 2018 may be around $104 billion, but NASA has not yet performed a detailed analysis of this cost. GAO estimates the total Constellation costs through 2018 total $122 billion. For Constellation, most of the development risk lies beyond the 2012 timeframe, when NASA begins work on the various craft needed to support a lunar mission."

Is that it?

That isn't the same one I'm thinking of, it actually seems (unless I'm mis-reading the page you linked) to have been a statement given by Scott Horowitz not Mike Griffin.   But that's still a darned good one to have found, so thanks!

If you can keep searching for the $32bn Griffin quote from earlier this year I would be very grateful.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2008 06:11 am
Regarding the wiki Article:

I have updated the first two sections now, the intro (including the side-bar) and the "Safer, Simpler, Sooner" section.

I will continue with the update tomorrow (Monday).

Have fun :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 10/20/2008 08:02 am
Ross, can I just give a slight aesthetics-releated comment? The orange foam texture on the Jupiter core lacks shading, it appears to be translucent and thus looks 2D, unlike the rest of the vehicle.

Other than that, the stuff looks great.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 10/20/2008 09:10 am
Shouldn't the thrust for the regenerative engine at the bottom of the "core stage" summary (lower right) for the J120 be labeled 108%, not 102%?  You say 102% on both versions, despite listing different values.

Good eye you've got there.   That's certainly one of the 'bugs' I was referring to :)   Thanks.   I'll fix it soon.

Ross.

Engine Thrust and ISP are both labelled as "Engine Thrust"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2008 12:29 pm
Ross, can I just give a slight aesthetics-releated comment? The orange foam texture on the Jupiter core lacks shading, it appears to be translucent and thus looks 2D, unlike the rest of the vehicle.

Other than that, the stuff looks great.

Thanks for the observation.

I've played with the settings for the texture to try to bring out the 3D shading a bit more.   I'm still learning what works and what doesn't and this is a valuable lesson to 'get'.

I've also brightened the shade of the whole texture a little more too.   I think this works better.   Let me know if you agree.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 10/20/2008 02:08 pm
I've played with the settings for the texture to try to bring out the 3D shading a bit more.   I'm still learning what works and what doesn't and this is a valuable lesson to 'get'.

I've also brightened the shade of the whole texture a little more too.   I think this works better.   Let me know if you agree.

This is definitely an improvement - the shading is good. 

I was trying to suss out what the various configurations represent, I'm not entirely sure what's going on - are configs 1, 3, and 5 primarily different fairings for the J-120 Cargo?  Likewise, config 4 is the J-120 CLV with a wide fairing?  Configs 7 & 8 seem to be the standard lunar mission pair - so config 6 is just an exploded view of #8?

Also, is there significance to the longer thrust structure skirt on config #1?

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 10/20/2008 02:17 pm
This is definitely an improvement - the shading is good. 

I agree with Steve. The core still looks slightly "flat", but it's a marked improvement over the previous version.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2008 02:17 pm
That's mostly correct.

#1 shows an alternative design for the thrust structure/engine compartment - what I will call the "extended" design.   All the others show a shorter structure with "pods" around the engines, mounting to a shorter engine compartment.   The Pods are designed to try to allow easier mounting of the RS-68 engines in pre-prepared modules and *might* offer some advantages regarding base heating and stage mass too.   We have not baselined to either configuration yet - a lot more investigation needs to happen before one will be proven ahead of the other.   I'm just showing you both here.

The Payloads Fairings are as follows:

#1 - J-120 8.4m dia, Ogive, Cargo Only - Designed to maximize performance
#2 - J-120 8.4m dia, Conical, Crew & Cargo - Proposed first generation J-120 config.
#3 - J-120 8.4m dia, Conical, Cargo Only
#4 - J-120 10m dia, Conical, Crew & Cargo
#5 - J-120 10m dia, Conical, Cargo Only (shown with one petal 'separated')
#6 - J-232 8.4m dia, Ogive, Lunar EDS configuration (shown 'exploded')
#7 - J-232 10m dia, Conical Crew & Cargo Lunar configuration
#8 - J-232 8.4m dia, Ogive, Lunar EDS configuration (same as #6, shown together)

Hope that helps.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/20/2008 06:39 pm
Regarding the wiki article, I would appreciate some additional "eyes-on" the page:

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


I have completed a re-write of the first three sections now, the Intro (inc. the sidebar), the "Overview" section and the "Origins & History" section.

I haven't yet tackled anything from "Advantages & Disadvantages" down yet.

I would appreciate a couple of people taking a look at the sections I have re-done, and do any edits you think it needs please.

Thanks for any assistance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/20/2008 07:54 pm
Note: Wikipedia spells Ares-I as Ares_I or Ares I.

Spelling in article changed.

When Kraisee has finished someone not involved with DIRECT will have to go through the article and formally confirm its accuracy on the Talk page.  Wiki has learnt to be suspicious of participants writing about their own products.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/20/2008 11:08 pm
Are all the numbers and specifications being put on wikipedia also found in the big AIAA conference paper?  If so, that can be a valid source as long as it has been published.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2008 12:04 am
Are all the numbers and specifications being put on wikipedia also found in the big AIAA conference paper?  If so, that can be a valid source as long as it has been published.

No, the AIAA paper is over a year old now.   The numbers have matured quite a bit since then.   The UPDATE document on the website has the latest "official" set of performance numbers, but even those are out of date already - I just posted the latest performance numbers on this thread yesterday.

The AIAA paper is still very useful for demonstrating the "big picture" behind the DIRECT effort, but the details continue to be a WIP - "Work In Progess".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/21/2008 12:06 am
Note: Wikipedia spells Ares-I as Ares_I or Ares I.

Spelling in article changed.

When Kraisee has finished someone not involved with DIRECT will have to go through the article and formally confirm its accuracy on the Talk page.  Wiki has learnt to be suspicious of participants writing about their own products.

Actually that isn't quite right.   The Links embedded in the wiki page work best with "spaces", but the actual hard URL's use "underscores".   Its best to just use "spaces" in the article.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/21/2008 12:58 am
Links using spaces and using underscores work.  I agree spaces look better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/21/2008 02:02 am
The trouble with that is that wikipedia doesn't allow the presentation of original research- so you really do need to put your best numbers up somewhere else before using them in the encyclopedia.

Are all the numbers and specifications being put on wikipedia also found in the big AIAA conference paper?  If so, that can be a valid source as long as it has been published.

No, the AIAA paper is over a year old now.   The numbers have matured quite a bit since then.   The UPDATE document on the website has the latest "official" set of performance numbers, but even those are out of date already - I just posted the latest performance numbers on this thread yesterday.

The AIAA paper is still very useful for demonstrating the "big picture" behind the DIRECT effort, but the details continue to be a WIP - "Work In Progess".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 10/21/2008 04:19 am
Why did you switch to the RS-68B engines? I thought you wanted to avoid baselining them because of the extra risk.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/21/2008 09:51 am
Why did you switch to the RS-68B engines? I thought you wanted to avoid baselining them because of the extra risk.

tnphysics - Not speaking from authority, since I'm not kraisee.  ;) But from what I can see, the RS68B is not on the critical path for the Jupiter 120, only for the Jupiter 232.

It is the type of incremental upgrade that can be put in place as the Jupiter launch system matures over time, but is not required for LEO / ISS flights.

I've reposted the baseline J120 PDF from the other day in case you missed it.

Cheers!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/21/2008 10:03 am
Ross -

    First, I'm posting this at 5am. See what you've done?

    Second, I just registered because I can no longer suppress the urge to post. One more website login for me to keep track of!

   Third, I want to congratulate you and the DIRECT team on putting together this spectacular project. Even if it never gets off the ground, you have done America a great service.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/21/2008 10:30 am
(Wow. I really need to be more careful about hitting the tab key and spacebar so fast. My previous post wasn't even finished, much less proof read, before it got out the barn door.)

continued-

Fourth - I am very excited about this project, and the more I read about it the more it makes sense. NASA has really gone off the rails with Ares. That project is not fulfilling any of the original mandates of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, whereas DIRECT promises to adhere closely.

Fifth - The DirectLauncher website lists a recently released (10/17/08) NASA analysis of DIRECT that you hold to be deeply flawed. Is this analysis available to the public? I think it would be a good thing to host a copy on your website, just to show everyone that DIRECT is not about suppressing criticism.

Sixth - I think the entire DIRECT team needs to come out in the open very soon, maybe right after the election. No matter how cogent the arguments are, or how convincing the presentations and designs are, most people just will not take an anonymous dissident group seriously. "After all," people will say, "are you a courageous team of serious professionals who are willing to stand up and fight for your convictions, or a shadowy cabal who is only willing to take potshots from the sidelines without risking a thing?" While it may be difficult to hold a press conference at NASA HQ, you could probably put something together at the Holiday Inn across the street. :)

Seventh - And IF the DIRECT team actually is composed of the copy room 'technicians' and the snack machine 'vendors' that the critics accuse you of being, (which of course I don't believe), then I say you are one ballsy bunch of dudes. More power to you!

Cheers!
   Mark S.
   Dallas, TX
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/21/2008 11:04 am
Why did you switch to the RS-68B engines? I thought you wanted to avoid baselining them because of the extra risk.

The RS-68B development is going forward without prompting from the DIRECT team. DOD needs it on the Delta-IV for heavier payloads. DIRECT is all about using what we've got. Fielding the Jupiter-120 involves using the existing RS-68 because it's what we have. But by the time the Jupiter-232 comes on line, the current RS-68 will no longer be available, and the RS-68B will be the "standard" online engine. As such we will use it because it will be "what we've got".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/22/2008 07:17 pm
Why did you switch to the RS-68B engines? I thought you wanted to avoid baselining them because of the extra risk.

tnphysics - Not speaking from authority, since I'm not kraisee.  ;) But from what I can see, the RS68B is not on the critical path for the Jupiter 120, only for the Jupiter 232.

It is the type of incremental upgrade that can be put in place as the Jupiter launch system matures over time, but is not required for LEO / ISS flights.

That is exactly correct.

Our current information from PWR is that the likelyhood is that the Delta-IV program will need to consolidate RS-68 production to the single higher-performance 108% engine spec sometime in the first half of the next decade i.e. by 2015.


FYI: "RS-68B" simply refers to a human-rated version of the upgraded 1085 RS-68A already being developed for Delta-IV.   There is sadly no official nomenclature for a human-rated version of the basic 102% RS-68 yet, so to try to avoid ambiguity here I will be referring to the "standard 102%" version and the "upgraded 108%" version of the RS-68.   I will also try to make a clear distinction between the regular cargo variants and the ones which will need to include human-rating sub-systems.


If we (DIRECT) don't upgrade at around the same time (given a period of cross-over of course) we would have to shoulder all the additional costs of running a separate production line manufacturing the older 102% versions of the engine with little further "sharing" w/ DoD.   So we need to be planning our architecture to shift-over to the 108% variant around that same sort of time frame (though yes, we do expect our switch-over would probably take a bit longer (12-18 months?) than the cargo versions, but that's something we can live with).

We understand that the majority of work which will need to be done on the human-rating hardware for the standard 102% engine would be approximately 80% compatible with the 108% engine too.

So overall, we are suggesting that we start-off by human-rating the existing 102% basic engine for early versions of the Jupiter-120.   This still allows us to reduce the initial schedule impacts to the absolute minimum, in order to support Orion flights as early as possible and "close the gap".

Then, without as much scheduling pressure, some time around 2016 (about three-and-a-half years after the crewed Orion flights started) we plan to re-qualify the whole system to use the upgraded 108% engines as part of the effort to qualify the Jupiter-232 for the Lunar Program.    At this point all Jupiter's, 120's and 232's alike, would use the upgraded engines and production costs would be shared with DoD.

This approach is designed to reduce the overall cost impacts as much as possible, while not hurting any of the schedules.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/22/2008 08:43 pm
Ross -

    First, I'm posting this at 5am. See what you've done?

Muwahahahah.   My work here is (almost) done!  ;D

Quote
Fifth - The DirectLauncher website lists a recently released (10/17/08) NASA analysis of DIRECT that you hold to be deeply flawed. Is this analysis available to the public? I think it would be a good thing to host a copy on your website, just to show everyone that DIRECT is not about suppressing criticism.

Yes, it's been doing the rounds for a while.   We don't really want to provide links to it to propagate it any further than must be -- I personally consider it tantamount to muck-spreading -- but if you Google for "DIRECT 2.0 Space Exploration Architecture Performance Analysis" I'm sure you'll find it.

Just keep in mind that they use MSFC's analysis tools (which have never been used to build a flying stage) to come up with the weight of the Upper Stage, and did not use any figures sourced from Lockheed Martin as we had specified in almost every one of our documents.

We used LM's analysis tools because they have a grounded history proven on the 41-year-long Centaur program.   This one 'oversight', deliberate or not, meant they severely over-estimated the weight of the stage by a huge amount, which results in far less payload to orbit, and that then cripples all the Lunar performance analysis.

Be aware that we reject all their starting assumptions because of this (and a few other reasons) and believe all the calculations based upon them are therefore deeply flawed.   We will be publishing an official rebuttal to this analysis soon, so I'd ask you to wait until you hear both sides before making any final decisions about who to believe.

Quote
Sixth - I think the entire DIRECT team needs to come out in the open very soon, maybe right after the election

Not going to happen.   I've spoken to a number of people who have been victims of the witch-hunts.   Anyone who expresses a dissenting opinion continues to solicit career-impacting retribution from the current Administration.

The entire workforce seems to know what happens to you if you get out of line, so nobody wants to be identified as a target in that situation.

I'm sure our people will choose to come out just as soon as they are confident they won't be punished or penalized, but I have no clue what it will take to give them that degree of confidence.

Either way, its entirely their own call, for each and every one of them.   The members of the team are welcome to come forward, or not, as they personally see fit.   I certainly won't ever reveal anyone's name and neither will any of my colleagues.

I personally expect that most will remain anonymous right up until the day we need to collect our requested VIP tickets to see the first Jupiter launch.   I think many will come out for that event, but no sooner.


Instead, we have a number of "water carriers" out there who are doing the rounds, who are recognizably above suspicion and who can quietly take our message to the people who really make the decisions.   That's all we really need.   The change isn't likely to come from generating raw public support, its more likely to come from changing the minds of "the powers that be", and that's exactly what we're focused on right now.   Doing so usually happens behind closed doors, so there is rarely ever much for people to actually see.   But its happening.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: Mark S on 10/22/2008 09:06 pm
Ross  -  Thanks for the reply to my previous post. Of course I would never suggest that you 'out' anybody involuntarily. I was just thinking that your position would be more persuasive from a known group of experts. Your critics are using anonymity against the DIRECT team, but maybe that is less effective than firing everyone who might show their face.  :(

Anyways, I was looking a the Jupiter design and I have a question regarding the common core. It looks to me like the RS-68 engine nozzles, and perhaps the engines themselves and associated plumbing, protrude somewhat from underneath the main tanks. Would this leave them vulnerable to damage from falling ice and/or tank insulation? I can see that there is a pod fairing, but was it designed to withstand falling debris, or just for aerodynamic reasons?

Because we all know that a chunk of falling tank insulation had no problem punching through the reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge panels of the Space Shuttle Columbia.

Just a thought.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/22/2008 09:29 pm
Regarding the NASA analysis of DIRECT 2.0 -

I found a document that looks like it was released in July 2008, but it seems the actual analysis was done in October 2007. Is that the one? Because I'm just a computer geek, and even I could see that they rigged the numbers in that one for their desired "doomed from the start" scenario.

If there is a newer NASA paper out there, I guess my search-fu is too weak. Could you just email it to me directly?

And really, just what is their problem with DIRECT anyways? All you're trying to do is save the American space program, and save their sorry a**es at the same time. Or at least, I didn't see any DIRECT plans for "Save money through massive management layoffs!".

Cheers!
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: Jim on 10/22/2008 09:49 pm

Anyways, I was looking a the Jupiter design and I have a question regarding the common core. It looks to me like the RS-68 engine nozzles, and perhaps the engines themselves and associated plumbing, protrude somewhat from underneath the main tanks. Would this leave them vulnerable to damage from falling ice and/or tank insulation? I can see that there is a pod fairing, but was it designed to withstand falling debris, or just for aerodynamic reasons?

Because we all know that a chunk of falling tank insulation had no problem punching through the reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge panels of the Space Shuttle Columbia.


Not the same thing, see Atlas and Saturn V and other launch vehicles.  Pod fairings are SOP
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: Mark S on 10/22/2008 10:25 pm

[snip]

Because we all know that a chunk of falling tank insulation had no problem punching through the reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge panels of the Space Shuttle Columbia.


Not the same thing, see Atlas and Saturn V and other launch vehicles.  Pod fairings are SOP

Thanks Jim. I wasn't asking whether pod fairings were applicable or if they had been used in the past. I was curious if they had been, or should be, designed to deflect heavy debris that could be rapidly accelerated by the slipstream on top of a 200-foot fall at 3 G's.

It seems to me the fairings would have to be substantially reinforced if that is the case.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: Jim on 10/22/2008 10:45 pm

Thanks Jim. I wasn't asking whether pod fairings were applicable or if they had been used in the past. I was curious if they had been, or should be, designed to deflect heavy debris that could be rapidly accelerated by the slipstream on top of a 200-foot fall at 3 G's.


I am saying the same designs as before are applicable.  The other vehicle had tons of ice on them
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/23/2008 01:25 am
Will the current shuttle tank plumbing be able to handle the 50% higher flow rates required to feed the J232? 

Also, I was wondering where this stage ends up.  At the end of it's burn, according to the baseball card, it's going 3 km/sec at about 160km alt.  That's not fast enough to clear Africa, is it?  I'm imagining a village in Mauritania getting bombarded by half-burned-up engines...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/23/2008 01:38 am

Thanks Jim. I wasn't asking whether pod fairings were applicable or if they had been used in the past. I was curious if they had been, or should be, designed to deflect heavy debris that could be rapidly accelerated by the slipstream on top of a 200-foot fall at 3 G's.


I am saying the same designs as before are applicable.  The other vehicle had tons of ice on them

Indeed. A slab of insulation falling from 200 ft is nothing compared to a much smaller slab of ice falling from the same distance.

Also, once something has broken loose & is falling, it is falling at one G (on Earth, of course). You can't make if fall faster unless you accellerate it with another force in addition to gravity.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/23/2008 01:47 am
Will the current shuttle tank plumbing be able to handle the 50% higher flow rates required to feed the J232? 
No. That's why the plan is (I believe) to enlarge those feed pipes as part of the required changes to turn a shuttle tank into a Jupiter 1st stage.
Quote
Also, I was wondering where this stage ends up.  At the end of it's burn, according to the baseball card, it's going 3 km/sec at about 160km alt.  That's not fast enough to clear Africa, is it?  I'm imagining a village in Mauritania getting bombarded by half-burned-up engines...
I believe the track angles SE from Kennedy such that it doesn't intersect Africa & the stage drops in the south atlantic/SE Indian ocean.

I think. Anyone?  Anyone? Beuler?


Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: kraisee on 10/23/2008 01:55 am
Anyways, I was looking a the Jupiter design and I have a question regarding the common core. It looks to me like the RS-68 engine nozzles, and perhaps the engines themselves and associated plumbing, protrude somewhat from underneath the main tanks. Would this leave them vulnerable to damage from falling ice and/or tank insulation? I can see that there is a pod fairing, but was it designed to withstand falling debris, or just for aerodynamic reasons?

It is designed to protect the engine nozzle from aerodynamic forced and most types of debris.   The deflectors are designed to protect against ice, ice+foam or foam hits.   We figure that while debris events are always something to strive to reduce, that realistically they are never going to completely go away.   So we believe the only sensible approach is to design that area with suitable protection in mind from day 1.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/23/2008 01:56 am
I found a document that looks like it was released in July 2008

That's the one.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: kraisee on 10/23/2008 02:02 am
Thanks Jim. I wasn't asking whether pod fairings were applicable or if they had been used in the past. I was curious if they had been, or should be, designed to deflect heavy debris that could be rapidly accelerated by the slipstream on top of a 200-foot fall at 3 G's.

It seems to me the fairings would have to be substantially reinforced if that is the case.

Actually Mark, one of the things CAIB clarified was that heavy ice debris doesn't actually decelerate as much in the slipstream as lightweight foam does - the inertia of the heavy stuff keeps its momentum fairly high.

It it the low density foam which essentially stops dead in its tracks when liberated and the quickly accelerating vehicle the essentially "runs over it" with a high velocity difference.

If you throw an ice cube and a packing bubble out of your car window (not something I recommend doing BTW) at the same time while doing 50mph, the ice-cube will mostly keep up with the car as it arcs down to eventually collide with the ground, but the packing bubble will virtually stop as soon as it encounters the airflow - and the car will be a long way up the road by the time it hits the ground.   It was this 'difference in relative speed' which actually doomed Columbia.   By the time the wing came up and hit the 2lb chunk of foam, the foam had slowed down by roughly 550mph.   Hitting anything at that relative difference in speed is never going to be good.   Ironically, if it had been a 2lb chunk of ice it would have retained most of its momentum and the relative speed difference when the wing caught up with it may have been as little as ~20mph, and that might have been survivable.


That's not to say both types don't cause problems, each can be deadly at the wrong point of the ascent, but the two different types of debris (foam and ice) actually have rather different mechanisms and each needs to be identified accurately in order to counter their effects correctly.

Hope that helps.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 10/23/2008 02:05 am
Also, I was wondering where this stage ends up.  At the end of it's burn, according to the baseball card, it's going 3 km/sec at about 160km alt.  That's not fast enough to clear Africa, is it?  I'm imagining a village in Mauritania getting bombarded by half-burned-up engines...

I believe the track angles SE from Kennedy such that it doesn't intersect Africa & the stage drops in the south atlantic/SE Indian ocean.

For a 28.5 degree inclination, there is no way the ground track could *not* intersect Africa. Fortunately, 3 km/s is not even fast enough to *reach* Africa. It will fall in the North Atlantic.

For comparison, the Apollo 17 S-II stage separated at 6.534 km/s at 173.6 km, and hit the North Atlantic only 4185 km downrange.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/23/2008 02:10 am
Will the current shuttle tank plumbing be able to handle the 50% higher flow rates required to feed the J232?

The flow is considerably higher than on STS and the feedlines are wider diameter to cope with that difference.   We have been planning 22" diameter feedlines instead of the current 17" ones.


Quote
Also, I was wondering where this stage ends up.  At the end of it's burn, according to the baseball card, it's going 3 km/sec at about 160km alt.  That's not fast enough to clear Africa, is it?  I'm imagining a village in Mauritania getting bombarded by half-burned-up engines...

I will have to go double-check with our guys at MSFC on that one, but I believe the Jupiter-232 Core Stage impacts in the Atlantic long before ever reaching either the African or European coastlines (depending on 29deg or 51.6deg inclination).

I know for certain that was the case for the previous version of the Jupiter-232, but I haven't personally checked what changed in this regard with this new version yet.   I will try to get you a better answer Thursday, if I can.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/23/2008 02:10 am
Thanks Jim. I wasn't asking whether pod fairings were applicable or if they had been used in the past. I was curious if they had been, or should be, designed to deflect heavy debris that could be rapidly accelerated by the slipstream on top of a 200-foot fall at 3 G's.

It seems to me the fairings would have to be substantially reinforced if that is the case.

Actually Mark, one of the things CAIB clarified was that heavy ice debris doesn't actually decelerate as much in the slipstream as lightweight foam does - the inertia of the heavy stuff keeps its momentum fairly high.

It it the low density foam which essentially stops dead in its tracks when liberated and the quickly accelerating vehicle the essentially "runs over it" with a high velocity difference.

That's not to say both types don't cause problems, but that the two different types of debris (foam and ice) actually have rather different mechanisms and each needs to be identified accurately in order to counter their effects correctly.

Hope that helps.

Ross.

Another thing to note is that Ares V (VI?) has much larger pod fairings.  plus if any foam does damage an engine you can still abort (Which one would depend on the time)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/23/2008 02:26 am
Thanks to everyone for the very informative replies regarding the engine protection. I do remember watching the launches of the Saturn V's and seeing all of the ice shaking off of the sides.

I wasn't trying to make a big deal, I guess 2/1/03 is still fresh in my memory. Along with 1/28/86. I heard the awful popping and crackling noise that Columbia made as it broke up overhead that terrible morning. I didn't know what it was at the time, until later that day.

Mark S.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/23/2008 02:46 am
Thanks, Jorge.  I didn't appreciate just how far west Florida is compared to the Northeast.  5600 km might get you to the Cape Verde Islands, but Africa's a good 6700 km away.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: Mark S on 10/23/2008 03:15 am

Thanks Jim. I wasn't asking whether pod fairings were applicable or if they had been used in the past. I was curious if they had been, or should be, designed to deflect heavy debris that could be rapidly accelerated by the slipstream on top of a 200-foot fall at 3 G's.


I am saying the same designs as before are applicable.  The other vehicle had tons of ice on them

Indeed. A slab of insulation falling from 200 ft is nothing compared to a much smaller slab of ice falling from the same distance.

Also, once something has broken loose & is falling, it is falling at one G (on Earth, of course). You can't make if fall faster unless you accellerate it with another force in addition to gravity.

Paul

Paul, just doing a thought exercise, I believe a free-falling object near Earth's surface will accelerate downwards at a rate of 1G due to gravity. Since a piece of debris would be moving rapidly upwards, it will actually be decelerating, relative to the Earth, at 1G, or 9.8m/s/s. This ignores any deceleration due to air friction.

The rocket will continue accelerating away from Earth, say at 2G's. Since one of those 2G's is from the Earth's gravity, the rocket will actually be accelerating upwards, relative to the Earth, at 1G, again 9.8m/s/s.

This gives a relative acceleration between the debris and the rocket of 2G's, or about 20m/s/s. Even a small piece of ice could build up some serious momentum at that rate. Especially if it came from near the top of the LOX tank, and impacted on the pod fairing at the bottom of the stack.

Or am I doing it wrong?

Of course all of this is academic if the nozzles, engines, and plumbing don't actually stick out from under the tank to a significant degree.

Thanks again!
   Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: Jorge on 10/23/2008 03:25 am

Thanks Jim. I wasn't asking whether pod fairings were applicable or if they had been used in the past. I was curious if they had been, or should be, designed to deflect heavy debris that could be rapidly accelerated by the slipstream on top of a 200-foot fall at 3 G's.


I am saying the same designs as before are applicable.  The other vehicle had tons of ice on them

Indeed. A slab of insulation falling from 200 ft is nothing compared to a much smaller slab of ice falling from the same distance.

Also, once something has broken loose & is falling, it is falling at one G (on Earth, of course). You can't make if fall faster unless you accellerate it with another force in addition to gravity.

Paul

Paul, just doing a thought exercise, I believe a free-falling object near Earth's surface will accelerate downwards at a rate of 1G due to gravity. Since a piece of debris would be moving rapidly upwards, it will actually be decelerating, relative to the Earth, at 1G, or 9.8m/s/s. This ignores any deceleration due to air friction.

The rocket will continue accelerating away from Earth, say at 2G's. Since one of those 2G's is from the Earth's gravity, the rocket will actually be accelerating upwards, relative to the Earth, at 1G, again 9.8m/s/s.

This gives a relative acceleration between the debris and the rocket of 2G's, or about 20m/s/s. Even a small piece of ice could build up some serious momentum at that rate. Especially if it came from near the top of the LOX tank, and impacted on the pod fairing at the bottom of the stack.

Or am I doing it wrong?

For foam, depending on the dynamic pressure at the time of release, deceleration due to aerodynamic drag is predominant over either acceleration of the rocket due to thrust or the acceleration of the foam due to gravity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 10/23/2008 11:31 am
Never forget that velocity squared term in the kinetic energy equation.  That's what got Columbia, more so than the mass of the object which hit the wing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/23/2008 03:05 pm
I will try to get you a better answer Thursday, if I can.

As Jorge noted above, I can confirm that the Core Stages of the Jupiter-232 will be landing in the mid-Atlantic.   They aren't ever going to get close to the African or European coastlines.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: iontyre on 10/23/2008 05:12 pm
I will try to get you a better answer Thursday, if I can.

As Jorge noted above, I can confirm that the Core Stages of the Jupiter-232 will be landing in the mid-Atlantic.   They aren't ever going to get close to the African or European coastlines.

Ross.

Ross, I love the way you use terms like 'will' and 'are' instead of 'would' or 'could'.  Very confident outlook!  Go Direct!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/23/2008 08:39 pm
iontyre, your right.  The Direct guys are using some very positive terms lately.  Almost like they are hinting at something, perhaps its just optimism of a new administrator coming up in a few months.

Either way I like it and share the optimism.

Keep it coming!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/23/2008 09:19 pm
There really isn't any big "hoo-hah" about Griffin's replacement.

It's simply that according to almost every source we hear from, both Obama and McCain have already decided who they want as Administrator and it just isn't him.

And no, I don't know who they have in mind.   I can make logical guesses same as anyone else, and I hear some interesting rumors with only a few names being repeated often enough to be of interest, but I really don't know yet who will actually be nominated for that seat within the next few months.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/23/2008 10:55 pm
Is the buzz Buzz?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/23/2008 11:07 pm
No, but he is certainly getting 'stuck in' WRT advising both candidates.

But no, I don't think he is seeking the pressures of that job.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/24/2008 06:41 am
If we saw Buzz in the NASA hotseat, I think we'd also see some interesting developments regarding alternative propulsion as well, which would be good news for exploration much later in the 21st century... and DIRECT would have the cash for that exotic stuff AND the good old space probes department.

Oh, and your anim8or pics are really nice, Ross! It's a really neat little package.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 10/24/2008 11:11 am
Has anyone ever looked at a "last resort" version of Jupiter-23x, where no J-2x development would take place? I guess I'm asking about a hypothetical Jupiter where all you have is a stage with as many RL-10s as will fit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/24/2008 05:17 pm
Good morning everyone! I now have a collection of DIRECT-related files that looks like this:

(http://swbellpwp.att.net/m/a/mark625/direct_contents.PNG)

Does anyone have any other interesting docs that I am missing?

Thanks,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/24/2008 05:19 pm

Paul, just doing a thought exercise, I believe a free-falling object near Earth's surface will accelerate downwards at a rate of 1G due to gravity. Since a piece of debris would be moving rapidly upwards, it will actually be decelerating, relative to the Earth, at 1G, or 9.8m/s/s. This ignores any deceleration due to air friction.

The rocket will continue accelerating away from Earth, say at 2G's. Since one of those 2G's is from the Earth's gravity, the rocket will actually be accelerating upwards, relative to the Earth, at 1G, again 9.8m/s/s.

This gives a relative acceleration between the debris and the rocket of 2G's, or about 20m/s/s. Even a small piece of ice could build up some serious momentum at that rate. Especially if it came from near the top of the LOX tank, and impacted on the pod fairing at the bottom of the stack.

Or am I doing it wrong?

Of course all of this is academic if the nozzles, engines, and plumbing don't actually stick out from under the tank to a significant degree.

Thanks again!
   Mark S.

Ahh, so we're talking about more than just falling, eh? :)

Well the specifics of the impact event depend completely on when in the flight profile they occur & how long they act. At some specific point in the flight, your numbers will be correct, but at other times they won't. The accelleration of the booster changes over time and goes from 0 at launch to a max of 3-4 Gs at MECO. Items liberated later in the flight will actually start to fall away from the vehicle as the booster is pitched over and boosting nearly parallel to the ground at that point. It all gets moderately complex, but the basic point is correct: If you lose something that decellerates rapidly and that decelleration happens for a long enough time for a significant enough relative velocity to build up between the booster & the liberated item, then a "significant squared" amount of energy will be released upon impact and the fairing structures better be able to take it.

Luckily, fairings made the old fashioned way (aluminum skins & structure) are generally quite good in impact & can absorb a lot of energy even if the impactor eventually punches through, all protecting the engines below. Carbon-carbon leading edge material is very light, but really bloody brittle. If an impact is strong enough to overcome the structure, it tends to blow right through & into the gubbins below.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/25/2008 01:59 am
Good morning everyone! I now have a collection of DIRECT-related files that looks like this:

Does anyone have any other interesting docs that I am missing?

Thanks,
   Mark S.


Well, having to reply to myself, I see.

I tracked down and downloaded both the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 as well as the full ESAS final report. I also found the WMV animation for the Jupiter-120, but not the "Shuttle to Jupiter-232" version. Does anyone have a link to the actual file, instead of the online YouTube video?

Thanks,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: davamanra on 10/25/2008 06:26 am

Ahh, so we're talking about more than just falling, eh? :)

Well the specifics of the impact event depend completely on when in the flight profile they occur & how long they act. At some specific point in the flight, your numbers will be correct, but at other times they won't. The accelleration of the booster changes over time and goes from 0 at launch to a max of 3-4 Gs at MECO. Items liberated later in the flight will actually start to fall away from the vehicle as the booster is pitched over and boosting nearly parallel to the ground at that point. It all gets moderately complex, but the basic point is correct: If you lose something that decellerates rapidly and that decelleration happens for a long enough time for a significant enough relative velocity to build up between the booster & the liberated item, then a "significant squared" amount of energy will be released upon impact and the fairing structures better be able to take it.

Luckily, fairings made the old fashioned way (aluminum skins & structure) are generally quite good in impact & can absorb a lot of energy even if the impactor eventually punches through, all protecting the engines below. Carbon-carbon leading edge material is very light, but really bloody brittle. If an impact is strong enough to overcome the structure, it tends to blow right through & into the gubbins below.

Paul

Perhaps a better way of approaching this would be to find way of making the ice fall off MORE easily, or at least a soon as possible after launch so that the damage would be insignificant.  Since there is already a huge amount of vibration during launch, if there is a way of making the skin as slick as possible then the ice would fall off at very low velocities and the potential damage would be minimized.

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: usn_skwerl on 10/25/2008 06:48 am
a thinned down version of WD-40 (weight reduction) would help. protection against ice buildup, protection against external corrosion due to salt spray ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 10/25/2008 08:19 am
a thinned down version of WD-40 (weight reduction) would help. protection against ice buildup, protection against external corrosion due to salt spray ;)

Considering that WD-40 was originally formulated for this type of application it seems highly appropriate!!  LOL!  Well, NASA guys, could this be a fix for this issue?

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/25/2008 10:26 am
a thinned down version of WD-40 (weight reduction) would help. protection against ice buildup, protection against external corrosion due to salt spray ;)

Considering that WD-40 was originally formulated for this type of application it seems highly appropriate!!  LOL!  Well, NASA guys, could this be a fix for this issue?

Drew

WD-40 was first used by General Dynamics for the Atlas.   It isn't a fix, ice still forms.    Ice build up is not an issue and is sometime welcomed since it does provide some insulation.   This is a non problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: davamanra on 10/25/2008 01:59 pm
a thinned down version of WD-40 (weight reduction) would help. protection against ice buildup, protection against external corrosion due to salt spray ;)

Considering that WD-40 was originally formulated for this type of application it seems highly appropriate!!  LOL!  Well, NASA guys, could this be a fix for this issue?

Drew

WD-40 was first used by General Dynamics for the Atlas.   It isn't a fix, ice still forms.    Ice build up is not an issue and is sometime welcomed since it does provide some insulation.   This is a non problem.

True, ice still forms and that build up is advantageous on the ground.  The problem that I was addressing was ice sticking to the LV and falling off at high speeds causing damage.  With the skin of the LV made slick by the use of something like WD-40 then under the vibration of launch most of the ice will fall off early and at low speeds minimizing the chances of damage.

Drew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/25/2008 02:28 pm
Ice formation isn't a problem on foam-insulated tanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/25/2008 02:41 pm
With the skin of the LV made slick by the use of something like WD-40 then under the vibration of launch most of the ice will fall off early and at low speeds minimizing the chances of damage.


The issue here is that basic premise is wrong in the first place, there  is no problem.  It doesn't matter when the debris comes off.  All launch vehicles are robust enough to handle it. 

The problem in 2003 was that an entry vehicle wasn't robust enough.

Edited for mistyped dated
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DaveS on 10/25/2008 07:49 pm
The problem in 2001 was that an entry vehicle wasn't robust enough.
If you're talking about Columbia, it happened during launch on January 16 2003. Vehicle and crew was lost during entry on February 1 2003. As far as I know, no NASA "entry" vehicles was lost in 2001 due to debris.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Pod fairings
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/26/2008 01:40 am
Perhaps a better way of approaching this would be to find way of making the ice fall off MORE easily, or at least a soon as possible after launch so that the damage would be insignificant.  Since there is already a huge amount of vibration during launch, if there is a way of making the skin as slick as possible then the ice would fall off at very low velocities and the potential damage would be minimized.

Drew
Well, yes, that's what you want, of course, but if you actually design a fairing system that can't take ice impact at any point in the launch then you make it as fragile as the RCC leading edge panels are on the shuttle now. That isn't smart design. You end up having to go to great lengths to make sure ice _never_ exceeds the capability of the weak fairings. And, no matter what you do, you're just never going to be able to do that. You can spend great amounts of time & money and still there will always be a chance that a piece that is too large takes out an engine at the wrong point. Sensible & robust design goes the other way. Recognise what you can't control absolutely and then make sure your systems can handle the loads imposed. In this case, you can calculate what the largest possible piece of ice will be and can make the fairing structures able to withstand that ice. You then end up with a system that is robust and safe as well as less expensive and easier to verify.

All in all, a much better solution.

Frequently, obtimising systems can paint you into expensive & dangerous corners. Personally, I like simple, robust and inexpensive systems whenever possible.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 10/26/2008 02:51 am
The problem in 2001 was that an entry vehicle wasn't robust enough.
If you're talking about Columbia, it happened during launch on January 16 2003. Vehicle and crew was lost during entry on February 1 2003. As far as I know, no NASA "entry" vehicles was lost in 2001 due to debris.

For anyone still interested in this, IIRC there was an incident on a shuttle launch prior to COLUMBIA where a piece of foam struck the SRB skirt and put a substantial dent in it.  Given how much further down the stack the SRB skirts are, and presuming the foam originated from roughly the same stack height and dynamic environment or point in the flight as the Columbia foam strike, I could see how it would have substantially more energy than the Columbia foam strike would have had.  Also, from Wayne Hale's discussions on the foam mitigation and shedding issues, from what was said the foam shedding is basically a growing problem from liftoff thru max-Q, as the vehicle's speed increases while still in the dense lower atmosphere, which constantly increases both the force on the foam from the slipstream and the speed differential from any detached foam being decelerated by atmospheric drag.  As the vehicle ascends above the dense lower atmosphere, even though it's speed increases greatly, the danger lessens because there is little slipstream pressure against the foam, and less aerodynamic drag to rapidly decelerate any foam shed, so it's relative velocity remains much closer to that of the shuttle.  If you notice the video of the Columbia foam, where it was shed in the lower atmosphere at a high vehicle velocity, it seems to "rip" off the tank and slam down into the wing at high speed, where watching the video of foam shedding on the 'return to flight' which took place almost out of the atmosphere, the foam just 'peeled away' and spun and tumbled and fell behind the vehicle, since there was SO little air resistance to slow it down. 

Just thought the video really told the story and was quite interesting to consider the actual dynamics of these things...
slow vehicle speed + thick atmosphere= low danger
high vehicle speed + thick atmosphere= high danger
higher vehicle speed + thin atmosphere= low danger

Yall have a good one! OL JR :) 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/26/2008 12:45 pm

For anyone still interested in this, IIRC there was an incident on a shuttle launch prior to COLUMBIA where a piece of foam struck the SRB skirt and put a substantial dent in it. 

It wasn't the skirt it was the IEA box
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 10/26/2008 01:33 pm
Shouldn't the thrust for the regenerative engine at the bottom of the "core stage" summary (lower right) for the J120 be labeled 108%, not 102%?  You say 102% on both versions, despite listing different values.

Good eye you've got there.   That's certainly one of the 'bugs' I was referring to :)   Thanks.   I'll fix it soon.

Ross.

Ross, another thing you may want to change is the Burnout Mass of the J-232 upper stage. To match the logic of your core stage data, it should probably include the Flight Performance Reserve (5,279 kg) and, therefore, be increased to 28,524 kg.

By the way, assuming that you are now using only one J-232 rocket for the moon cargo flight, it would be interesting for you to produce a baseball card for that rocket showing the TLI performance.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Drapper23 on 10/26/2008 03:28 pm
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-ares2608oct26,0,561055.story
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 10/27/2008 12:40 am
Wow, just wow is all I have to say. I keep thinking Ares I is going to miraculously bounce back and suddenly work, but it just isn't going to happen.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2008 01:00 am
There's way more going on behind the scenes which never even made it into that article.

For me, the whole sequence of events where Safety & Mission Assurance department, Life Sciences department and the Astronaut Corps all refused to sign-off on the dry-run Ares-I PDR the month before the real thing, only to be 'flipped' by management just one week later, is truly worthy of a Congressional Investigation, IMHO.

But I guess that with all of the 'openness' we've come to know & love in recent years, I suppose we'll never actually get to see any of the details of that in print.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/27/2008 03:03 am
If the SRB skirt is overengineered for shuttle foam debris, will it be strong enough to survive impacts from Ares 1 foam, which is coming off from much 'higher' up?

What about foam from a Jupiter 232 upper stage, if that stage ends up being insulated?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/27/2008 10:26 am
yes
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2008 03:38 pm
Jupiter Upper Stage is designed with a completely different form of insulation so it can remain on-orbit with cryo propellant inside.

The key danger in this respect is ice forming around the vents and falling in flight.   But this can easily be mitigated in exactly the same way it is on Shuttle - with umbilical connections designed to take the vented gas safely away from the vehicle until pressurization just prior to launch.

Even then, the aero deflectors are quite robust.   Think of Saturn-V's -- although Jupiter's are considerably smaller.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/27/2008 09:34 pm
Ross- I know I'm coming to the DIRECT party kind of late, so I've been trying to catch up.

I just finished listening to the archived copy of the Direct team's discussion on The Space Show from waaay back on Feb.17, 2008. Is there anything, either politically or technically, that has changed a lot since then? I'm sure Direct has had a lot more exposure, and Ares I continues its long march to failure. But has anything fundamentally changed since then?

I also spent a few relaxing hours skimming over the Aldridge Commission report, the VSE document, the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, and the final ESAS report. From what I can see, the ESAS team didn't even evaluate a Jupiter-120 type configuration for the CLV at all. On page 41, they show three evolved derivatives of the Atlas, one evolved Delta, and three versions of what became Ares I. Where is there any evidence that they studied anything like J-120 or the old NLS proposal?

I'm sure it galls you guys to have Direct be summarily dismissed by Ares proponents as having been evaluated and dropped by ESAS, when that doesn't even seem to be the case.

Then for the CaLV, they came much closer to Direct and J-232. There were two configurations that looked like J-232: an evolved Atlas "Phase X", and a 5-segment RSRB with four SSME core. Both of these would have included a much more capable CLV, which apparently was their downfall. It looks to me like ESAS decided not to consider any option that provided a robust CLV, one that could carry any more than the bare minimum CEV to LEO.  The CaLV would have to be capable of overcoming the shortcomings of a stunted CLV, which seemed to be the driving force behind the entire ESAS exercise.

And where do they get off calling it a "1.5 Launch" architecture? Do they consider Ares-I to be half a rocket? Sheesh.

And then to top it all off, all of the ESAS primary recommendations included the SSME for the liquid first stage. Why can't NASA management just acknowledge that once the SSME was off the table, that the Ares configuration just was not and is not going to work? That it won't meet the VSE mandate, or fulfill the goals enunciated by the Aldridge Commission, or even stay within the letter of the law as dictated by the NASA Authorization Act of 2005? I don't see how there is any admission of incompetence or failure in that. Just the simple recognition that once you change something as fundamental as the SSME would have been, you no longer have the same spacecraft that you started with.

It is the bull-headed stubbornness against admitting that fact that will be the downfall of the entire Ares program, and possibly NASA with it.

Thanks,
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 10/27/2008 09:55 pm
Wow, just wow is all I have to say. I keep thinking Ares I is going to miraculously bounce back and suddenly work, but it just isn't going to happen.
Was that a high frequency bounce back? Like a tuning fork?

This new problem of pad collision is amazing. It goes to show that for a new launch vehicle the LOM and LOC estimates are bunk. What kills the crew is something not anticipated and therefore not modelled.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/27/2008 11:11 pm
Ross- I know I'm coming to the DIRECT party kind of late, so I've been trying to catch up.

That's fine.   I'm sure you aren't the only one, so this is quite likely to be useful info for many other people as well.


Quote
I just finished listening to the archived copy of the Direct team's discussion on The Space Show from waaay back on Feb.17, 2008. Is there anything, either politically or technically, that has changed a lot since then? I'm sure Direct has had a lot more exposure, and Ares I continues its long march to failure. But has anything fundamentally changed since then?

Yikes, I'll have to go back and compare notes :)

Without doing so, I'm still sure a lot has changed since Feb in all those fields.   Ares has gotten even worse, DIRECT continues to evolve.   The political map has gotten far more interesting as more and more people are catching on to the fact that lots of jobs are in the balance and that the economy means we need to be thinking about tightening belts not letting them out.

The underlying tapestry remains largely the same, but the devil is always in the details -- and those have a habit of changing, sometimes on a daily basis :)


Quote
I also spent a few relaxing hours skimming over the Aldridge Commission report, the VSE document, the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, and the final ESAS report. From what I can see, the ESAS team didn't even evaluate a Jupiter-120 type configuration for the CLV at all. On page 41, they show three evolved derivatives of the Atlas, one evolved Delta, and three versions of what became Ares I. Where is there any evidence that they studied anything like J-120 or the old NLS proposal?

That is correct, ESAS never tried assessing any versions of LV-24 and LV-25 with the RS-68.   They even go on to say "The considerable additional cost, complexity, and development risk were judged to be unfavorable, eliminating RS–68-powered CaLVs".   Th irony that we ended up with an even more expensive re-developed version of RS-68 on the CaLV is not lost on us, let alone the notion that the 5-segment+J-2X is an easier proposition for the CLV needed much sooner.   Ridiculous.

What chaps my ass is that they never show the comparison of the LV-24/25 in the CLV section -- except to show that the 3 x SSME versions do achieve the target of 1:1000min LOC.

There is so much missing from ESAS it is pathetic.

Worse still, after the chief of the ESAS Team himself said on this very forum that a simple FOIA would be able to get the Appendices you would think it would be easy.   But I put an FOIA in for an article I was writing for NSF back in April of 2006 and I'm still waiting.


Quote
I'm sure it galls you guys to have Direct be summarily dismissed by Ares proponents as having been evaluated and dropped by ESAS, when that doesn't even seem to be the case.

It does.   Its a baseless comment with absolutely no evidence to support it.


Quote
Then for the CaLV, they came much closer to Direct and J-232. There were two configurations that looked like J-232: an evolved Atlas "Phase X", and a 5-segment RSRB with four SSME core. Both of these would have included a much more capable CLV, which apparently was their downfall. It looks to me like ESAS decided not to consider any option that provided a robust CLV, one that could carry any more than the bare minimum CEV to LEO.  The CaLV would have to be capable of overcoming the shortcomings of a stunted CLV, which seemed to be the driving force behind the entire ESAS exercise.

Actually there is a configuration called LV-29 on page 421 of ESAS which is essentially a "Jupiter-234":    It consists of 2 x 4-segment Boosters, 3 x RS-68 powered ET-Sized Core Stage, with a huge Upper Stage powered by 4 J-2S+'s and had a performance of 102mT to 60x160nm, 28.5deg.

But this configuration is so overblown its just not funny.   The Upper Stage is designed to do the CaLV job of lifting a separate EDS and LSAM.   On its own, we have been able to validate its performance using our own tools.

If you aren't launching a separate EDS and design the Upper Stage to perform dual roles (exactly like the chosen LV-27.3 CaLV does) of both completing ascent and also performing TLI, you don't need 4 x J-2's.   Its serious overkill and all you end up doing is carrying about
8.7mT of extra hardware through TLI when you just don't have to.

That report frustrates the hell out of me -- and it riles me even more that so many people cling to it as though it were some sort of religious scroll.   There just aren't enough people out there who know enough to even question it, let alone those able to actually calculate where its actually wrong, its all "rocket science" and everyone just relies on NASA always telling the whole truth.


Quote
And where do they get off calling it a "1.5 Launch" architecture? Do they consider Ares-I to be half a rocket? Sheesh.

Yup.   Sales & Marketing BS.   Its the same reason why most of us ended up with Microsoft cr*p on our work computers.

There are two different launch vehicles and two separate launches.   All anyone needs to do is 'launch' 1.5 brain cells to be able to count them.

:)

We suggest the nomenclature of "2-vehicle, 2-launch" vs. "1-vehicle, 2-launch" whenever comparing ESAS with DIRECT.


Quote
And then to top it all off, all of the ESAS primary recommendations included the SSME for the liquid first stage. Why can't NASA management just acknowledge that once the SSME was off the table, that the Ares configuration just was not and is not going to work? That it won't meet the VSE mandate, or fulfill the goals enunciated by the Aldridge Commission, or even stay within the letter of the law as dictated by the NASA Authorization Act of 2005? I don't see how there is any admission of incompetence or failure in that. Just the simple recognition that once you change something as fundamental as the SSME would have been, you no longer have the same spacecraft that you started with.

Agreed.   When NASA needed to change the SSME's for J-2's and swap the 4-seg for a 5-seg on the CLV, while at the same time also swapping SSME's for RS-68's on the CaLV someone should have gone back and re-examined all the available combinations which had been disqualified for using those.

But I equally believe that Ares-I's underlying purpose was actually to pay for the development the J-2X and the 5-seg on a separate budget line item so that Ares-V would look cheaper.   Of course, I don't believe that plan is working any longer...


Quote
It is the bull-headed stubbornness against admitting that fact that will be the downfall of the entire Ares program, and possibly NASA with it.

Thanks,
    Mark S.


Wasn't it also "bull-headed stubbornness" on the part of NASA's upper management which was ultimately responsible for the loss of both Challenger and also Columbia?

I think Wayne Hale should be congratulated for managing to correct such serious problems within the Space Shuttle Program, but I think that these problems are still quite rampant in the upper echelons of the agency HQ.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 01:14 am
This new problem of pad collision is amazing. It goes to show that for a new launch vehicle the LOM and LOC estimates are bunk. What kills the crew is something not anticipated and therefore not modelled.

Thanks, that seems to me to be yet another excellent reason not to go with the radical new design of Ares-I, because the list of "unknowns" which can be identified are obviously going to be greater for a never-tried-before approach (SRB-first stage stick) vs. an approach which is essentially well tried & tested on boosters such as Shuttle, Titan, Ariane (Core stage with two boosters either side and the payload/upper stage mounted on top).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/28/2008 03:19 am
Ross - Thanks for your kind answers. It was good to be able to hear you, Stephen, and Chuck speaking on this topic. Puts a voice to your names, sort of. Is there anything more recent that I might listen to? I didn't see anything newer in The Space Show archives.

There is so much missing from ESAS it is pathetic.

Yup. I'm no rocket scientist, but I know enough to recognize when the fix has been put in. Even now, I still haven't seen any statement from Griffin disputing the J-120, only dodges about how the J-232 is over-engineered to service ISS. As if you ever had any intention of doing that!

Quote
Worse still, after the chief of the ESAS Team himself said on this very forum that a simple FOIA would be able to get the Appendices you would think it would be easy.   But I put an FOIA in for an article I was writing for NSF back in April of 2006 and I'm still waiting.

Two and a half years and no response to a legal FOIA request? That needs to be escalated. Can you go to a judge and get a ruling on this to force their compliance?

Quote
That report frustrates the hell out of me -- and it riles me even more that so many people cling to it as though it were some sort of religious scroll.

Me too, I got the same feeling. They use the conclusions of the ESAS report to justify the conclusions of the ESAS report. Very circular, and not very scientific.

Quote
There just aren't enough people out there who know enough to even question it, let alone those able to actually calculate where its actually wrong, its all "rocket science" and everyone just relies on NASA always telling the whole truth.

Yeah, that is a major obstacle. You basically have to convince someone higher than Griffin in the administration that he has been stonewalling and obfuscating the issue, if not outright... misleading.

Quote
Yup.   Sales & Marketing BS.   Its the same reason why most of us ended up with Microsoft cr*p on our work computers.

Now you're talking some serious smack! To paraphrase, a computer needs a Microsoft OS like a fish needs a bicycle.

Quote
We suggest the nomenclature of "2-vehicle, 2-launch" vs. "1-vehicle, 2-launch" whenever comparing ESAS with DIRECT.

I like that. Succinct and accurate, even though it does understate the additional complexity of Ares-I + Ares-V by a wide margin.

Quote
But I equally believe that Ares-I's underlying purpose was actually to pay for the development the J-2X and the 5-seg on a separate budget line item so that Ares-V would look cheaper.   Of course, I don't believe that plan is working any longer...

Yeah, I meant to emphasize that in my post, but accidentally left out the 'Therefore, the enormous CaLV would have to be capable of overcoming the shortcomings of a stunted CLV...'. The ESAS wanted a ginormous CaLV, and a CLV large enough to deliver ISS components would eliminate that need. So out they went, and let's pretend that such a thing is not even possible! "La la la, I can't hear you!" :)

Quote
Wasn't it also "bull-headed stubbornness" on the part of NASA's upper management which was ultimately responsible for the loss of both Challenger and also Columbia?

Yeah, that's what really scares me. They lose sight of the fact that lives are at stake here, not just prestige and career advancement.

Cheers!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 10/28/2008 06:07 am
The latest Ares I problem I've heard isn't the crashing into the launch tower, it's residual thrust or 'burps' at SRB burnout.

I assume Shuttle, Ares V & Jupiter get around this because the orbiter/core is still thrusting at full power.  But as the recent Falcon 1 flight 3 showed us, a little residual first stage thrust at stage separation can cause re-contact and Really Bad Things.

The obvious solutions are:

1)  A much longer separation delay, reducing performance. Like Ares 1 needs that!

2)  Second stage engine start before separation. Sounds a bit risky and probably requires a bigger, (heavier) interstage. Again reducing performance.

Is there no end to this madness?



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 10/28/2008 06:08 am
According to this you guys might get your wish:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/10/grim-outlook-fo.html (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/10/grim-outlook-fo.html)

Quote
Afterward, in an interview with the Orlando Sentinel, he elaborated: “The discussion I am hearing in the space community is that Ares will certainly be reviewed by the next administration.”


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/28/2008 12:19 pm
Interesting....

According to this you guys might get your wish:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/10/grim-outlook-fo.html (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/10/grim-outlook-fo.html)

Quote
Afterward, in an interview with the Orlando Sentinel, he elaborated: “The discussion I am hearing in the space community is that Ares will certainly be reviewed by the next administration.”


However, there is no mention of Direct, just the possiblity of using EELV's as CLV. Also no mention of a CaLV replacement, assuming Ares-V is also scrapped.

That would be the worst consequence of a failed Ares program: the collateral damage to NASA, the civilian space program, and America's future in space. All because NASA mgmt still won't see the obvious. Even at this late date.

Direct could have saved the VSE, if only Griffin had listened. Now I am sure he is history, and possibly the VSE. But maybe Direct still has a chance.

Cheers!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 12:40 pm
Ross - Thanks for your kind answers. It was good to be able to hear you, Stephen, and Chuck speaking on this topic. Puts a voice to your names, sort of. Is there anything more recent that I might listen to? I didn't see anything newer in The Space Show archives.

No newer radio shows yet.   But there is an older show with the three of us from ~July 1st 2007.


Quote
Even now, I still haven't seen any statement from Griffin disputing the J-120, only dodges about how the J-232 is over-engineered to service ISS. As if you ever had any intention of doing that!

Actually, there is one idea being floated around for upgrading/replacing old worn-out modules and systems around the 2018 time-frame which might involve a "SkyLab"-style module being lifted to ISS on a J-232, so theoretically even that could perhaps happen one day.


Quote
Two and a half years and no response to a legal FOIA request? That needs to be escalated. Can you go to a judge and get a ruling on this to force their compliance?

I could, I suppose.   Mind you I've met Congressional staffers who have requested copies too and they've never gotten hold of them either.   I'm pretty sure they could bring a lot more weight to bear than little ol' me.


Quote
Quote
That report frustrates the hell out of me -- and it riles me even more that so many people cling to it as though it were some sort of religious scroll.

Me too, I got the same feeling. They use the conclusions of the ESAS report to justify the conclusions of the ESAS report. Very circular, and not very scientific.

Having read (most) of the ESAS Report, you now need two more documents for comparison:-

1) Mike Griffin & Owen Garriott's Planetary Society Paper "Extending Human Presence into the Solar System" (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/AdvisoryGroupReports/garriott_griffin_2004.pdf).   It really does read like a blue-print for exactly what ESAS would validate 16 months later and proves Griffin had this plan already in his pocket before he ever became NASA Administrator.   That on its own calls into question the independent authenticity of all ESAS' conclusions.

2) The ACI Draft version of the ESAS Report (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Public/ESAS/Unreleased%20Draft%20ACI/).   This is the version of ESAS which still includes all the important cost numbers and other details the public was never supposed to see.   It was accidentally released just before Christmas 2005 for a 24 hour period and some lucky folk snagged it before it was replaced with the "sanitized" version.   One of them sent me this copy.


Quote
Yeah, that is a major obstacle. You basically have to convince someone higher than Griffin in the administration that he has been stonewalling and obfuscating the issue, if not outright... misleading.

Easier said than done.   Much.   Believe me, we know.

But I think Griffin's house of cards is beginning to tumble and I don't think he will have hold of the power much longer.

I just hope his screw-up doesn't result in taking the entire VSE with it.   That is the #1 danger we are all facing today and incredibly few people have noticed, so far.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 10/28/2008 12:44 pm
Interesting....

According to this you guys might get your wish:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/10/grim-outlook-fo.html (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/10/grim-outlook-fo.html)

Quote
Afterward, in an interview with the Orlando Sentinel, he elaborated: “The discussion I am hearing in the space community is that Ares will certainly be reviewed by the next administration.”


However, there is no mention of Direct, just the possiblity of using EELV's as CLV. Also no mention of a CaLV replacement, assuming Ares-V is also scrapped.

That would be the worst consequence of a failed Ares program: the collateral damage to NASA, the civilian space program, and America's future in space. All because NASA mgmt still won't see the obvious. Even at this late date.

Direct could have saved the VSE, if only Griffin had listened. Now I am sure he is history, and possibly the VSE. But maybe Direct still has a chance.

Cheers!
Mark S.


If Ares is cancelled, will ATK switch to Jupiter for Plan B, or will they back the mini-Ares they put up for ISS resupply?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 01:00 pm
Direct could have saved the VSE, if only Griffin had listened. Now I am sure he is history, and possibly the VSE. But maybe Direct still has a chance.

Mark, there are three likely outcomes I foresee:-

1) Griffin goes and VSE is scrapped.   LEO is deemed 'good enough' and the jobs are deemed 'unimportant'.   This case is the cheapest option and would allow NASA's Budget to be cut ~$2bn per year or so.   It results in Orion flying on an EELV (probably Delta-IV Heavy, with LC-39 as the front-runner site) and no Lunar/Mars work at all.

2) Griffin (or one of his 'disciples') remains, but Ares-I collapses.   An EELV CLV is chosen as a replacement, but Griffin makes the case that we still need a gargantuan moon rocket and still need to keep some of the Shuttle staff (about 25% of current numbers).   Ares-V picks up all development costs (new SRB's, new J-2X etc) and becomes a $20-25bn project.   This isn't cheaper, faster or higher performance than the current Ares-I/Ares-V plans, but does push the development costs down the road a little more so there is an advantage in the short-term -- but an even greater danger of Ares-V never actually being built.   That would leave us with only 25mT lift capabilities and no Heavy Lift system after having spent a lot of money trying to radically alter Shuttle into a new one.

2b) The exact same situation exists for EELV/Shuttle-C too, but with a 3-launch architecture (2 C's and 1 EELV) to make the same size missions.   2-launch would force a downscale the size of the LSAM and crew size.

3) Griffin's goes and his replacement is open to new ideas, but has a mandate to protect as many Shuttle workers as possible.   Jupiter-120 is chosen as a new CLV by this new WH/Congress and Orion doesn't need a major re-design and can simply progress straight into PDR now, not in 15 months time.   The Upper Stage for J-232 can be added whenever the funds are available, hopefully immediately, but we can wait if we must.   By reducing the technical development costs and the infrastructure replacement costs drastically, there is now sufficient spare cash available to keep 80-90% of the current workforce doing useful things within the program, and the extra performance of J-120 now allows for additional payloads to be planned which we wouldn't get otherwise - providing much of the 'useful work' for the staff being transitioned while we await LSAM/EDS/Lunar Base elements to come online.   And this option also allows sufficient spare cash to be made available to qualify an EELV as well!   Although that should be a secondary priority as it is Jupiter's IOC date which is the one which ultimately determines how many staff we can retain and any cash not spent closing the gap only extends it.

To me, the choice has been a no-brainer for two years.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 10/28/2008 01:06 pm
We should include the possibility that Shuttle + ISS becomes Plan B until 2020 or next Shuttle failure, whichever comes first. And Plan C is COTS-D, if and when, when and if, if ever.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 01:15 pm
William,
While I have high hopes for them, I really don't think COTS is mature enough to make any firm plans around yet.   That horse has yet to prove it can complete a race distance (deliver *anything* to ISS), let alone win one.   For at least the next 5 years, I will be placing my own bets on a different horse :)


But the point about continuing Shuttle is a really excellent one.

NLS proved conclusively that Shuttle and an extremely similar in-line variant could be produced and operated at the same time with very reasonable cost-sharing options.   <A HREF="">At the back of this technical paper[/url] is a complete run-down of exactly how 9 ET's and 14 NLS Core Stages could be manufactured at exactly the same time using (mostly) existing MAF tooling.

Now, NLS' plans were for LWT ET's and we now have SLWT, but the principle of what is shown here remains exactly the same -- This can be done very cost-effectively while closing the gap to as short as we are willing to pay for.

DIRECT intends to keep the SRB and ET infrastructure and workforce intact.   To continue flying Shuttle you need them anyway, so why not plan to do both together?

There is a strong case to be made for continuing to fly Shuttle at a low flight rate (2-3 per year) and while we do that, to use the same facilities and workforce to re-develop the ET into the Core Stage.   The cost difference is NOT vast.

And this option could result in a zero-year "gap".

Hmmm, I think I feel the urge to ask Philip to photo-retouch one of the recent pictures of both Shuttle's on the pad at the same time into a Jupiter-120 & Shuttle on the Pad at the same time image...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/28/2008 01:16 pm
We should include the possibility that Shuttle + ISS becomes Plan B until 2020 or next Shuttle failure, whichever comes first. And Plan C is COTS-D, if and when, when and if, if ever.

Plan B could very well be Shuttle + ISS with the VSE delayed, but not cancelled. If that happens, NASA's budget remains roughly as it is, but with both candidates promising an additional $2 billion for NASA's budget, the Jupiter-120 + Orion could be developed in parallel, slower than if it had the whole budget, but enough to make real progress.

In that case, Shuttle would stand down as Orion-Jupiter stands up, first just as the Jupiter-120 and then as the Jupiter-232. VSE is saved, but the schedule goes to the right; not by a LOT, but definitely to the right. Big bonus: NO gap. In addition, there is no question about the workforce. They stay and earn their keep.

All in all, that's a Plan-B I could definitely get behind.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/28/2008 02:26 pm
Having read (most) of the ESAS Report, you now need two more documents for comparison:-

Got the files, Ross. I will be reviewing them soon.

So, the whole Ares architecture came down from the mountain with Griffin when he was appointed to lead NASA out of the wilderness? No wonder the ESAS came up with the exact same idea!

Regarding all of the other stuff going on, Delta, EELV, Griffin rumors: While we may all have some idea of what is going to happen, and whether that would be good or bad, let's not give up the good fight. DIRECT is still the answer to the questions posed by the VSE. Not Ares. Not EELV.

Cheers!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 02:36 pm
We are still "fighting the good fight" :)

But I think it all comes down to crunch-time within the next 3-4 months.   I would be really surprised if the choice isn't already in place by February, although it might take a while longer before the public starts hearing about it.   I think we will have an answer by Spring '09.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/28/2008 02:46 pm
Hmmm, I think I feel the urge to ask Philip to photo-retouch one of the recent pictures of both Shuttle's on the pad at the same time into a Jupiter-120 & Shuttle on the Pad at the same time image...

Ross.

How about another one with both a J-120 and a J-232, or two J-232's ala a lunar flight?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 10/28/2008 02:49 pm
Constellation debate deleting Ares tests to beat 2015:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/10/constellation-deleting-ares-test/

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14769.new#new
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 10/28/2008 02:52 pm
It is been a while since I visited this thread.
I just want to say that IMHO DIRECT is much better than Ares and I still support you guys 100%.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 02:55 pm
Thanks Yegor!   And don't be a stranger :)

I'm currently 99% convinced things are going to change in the next few months.

I just don't yet know if they will change in our direction or not.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 10/28/2008 03:14 pm
"As the budget for FY08 and FY09 is coming in at lower than requested levels..."
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/10/constellation-deleting-ares-test/

There is Russian sayings "It is better to have a chickadee in your hands than a stork in the skies" and "Better is the enemy of the good"

I am sorry to see at what is going on with Ares-I right now knowing how much better it could have been with DIRECT. With Ares-I Orion is thrown back by at least 4 years and the whole Constellation program IMHO is delayed by at least 3 years. Ares-V is too big and therefore is risky to be canceled like it was with other big LVs Saturn-V, N-1 and especially Energia. :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 03:21 pm
Exactly.

Ares-I was supposed to be the much cheaper, simpler and swifter rocket, yet it is in very real danger of being canceled altogether right now.

Does anyone still have the slightest bit of confidence that Ares-V will be easier, cheaper or less risky?

No.   It is, and always was, a pipedream.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/28/2008 04:03 pm
Hmmm, I think I feel the urge to ask Philip to photo-retouch one of the recent pictures of both Shuttle's on the pad at the same time into a Jupiter-120 & Shuttle on the Pad at the same time image...

Ross.

How about another one with both a J-120 and a J-232, or two J-232's ala a lunar flight?

I'll second that motion! Either version, actually. I saw that photo on NASA's web site and grabbed it right away. It is currently my desktop background. I particularly like the very subtle rainbow effect in the background. I choose to indulge my superstitious side and take it as a good sign, since the rainbow has always been a promise for the future.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 05:45 pm

If Ares is cancelled, will ATK switch to Jupiter for Plan B, or will they back the mini-Ares they put up for ISS resupply?

I personally believe that if Ares-I is indeed canceled that ATK would have little choice but to back the only game in town still using their products.   Every other serious option in the game results in closing down that entire division of their business and losing any chance of profits, so what real choice would they have?

I think they have been watching the situation closely, have seen the writing on the wall already, and have been considering exactly what they should do in this situation.

ATK have been remarkably non-confrontational with us this entire year.   But just on the offhand that anyone is reading this from ATK, I sure would appreciate it if they'd be good enough to take down that old "Mythbusters" stuff from their site some time soon...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 05:51 pm
Having read (most) of the ESAS Report, you now need two more documents for comparison:-

Got the files, Ross. I will be reviewing them soon.

Mark, here are some other texts which you might be interested in rustling-up.   These are some of NLS documents from NASA's Technical Reference Server:-

Cycle 0(CY1991) NLS trade studies and analyses report. Book 1: Structures and core vehicle : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930007493
Note: This ^^^ section has a detailed review of how the Michoud Assembly Facility could produce 9 Shuttle ET's and 14 NLS Core Stages each year, together, on the same production line

Cycle O (CY 1991) NLS trade studies and analyses, book 2. Part 1: Avionics and systems : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930013987

Cycle O(CY1991) NLS trade studies and analyses report. Book 2, part 2: Propulsion : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930014526

National Launch System cycle 1 loads and models data book : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19920020972

NLS cycle 1 and NLS 2 base heating technical notes. Appendix 3: Preliminary cycle 1 NLS base heating environments. Cycle 1 NLS base heating environments. NLS 2 650K STME base heating environments : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930012823

The National Launch System Advanced Development Program A brief overview : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19940007104 (Order)

National launch system overview with focus on cargo transfer vehicle : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19930013047 (Order)

Overview of National Launch System with emphasis on cargo transfer vehicle : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)


National Launch System KSC facilities and operations : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Flame trench analysis of NLS vehicles : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19940018776 (Order)

NLS propulsion - Government view : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

National Launch System Space Transportation Main Engine : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Single element injector testing for STME injector technology : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

NLS propulsion design considerations : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Cryogenic propellant prestart conditioning for NLS : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)


National Launch System comparative economic analysis : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

NLS Advanced Development - Launch operations : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Trajectory optimization for a National Launch System vehicle : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Guidance and dispersion studies of National Launch System ascent trajectories : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

NLS Flight Simulation Laboratory (FSL) documentation : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19950018019

A shadowgraph study of the National Launch System's 1 12 stage vehicle configuration and Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle configuration : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19950005297

Aerodynamic characteristics of the National Launch System (NLS) 1 12 stage launch vehicle : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19940033066 (Order)

Ascent Flight Aerodynamic Characteristics of the National Launch System 1 12-Stage Launch Vehicle: NLS-2 : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19970002923

NLS base heating CFD analysis : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19950017012 (Order)


Other Related Reading:
Project Columbiad: Mission to the Moon. Book 1: Executive Summary. Volume 1: Mission trade studies and requirements. Volume 2: Subsystem trade studies and selection : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930009044

Project Columbiad Reestablishment of human presence on the Moon : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19940021194 (Order)

First Lunar Outpost Earth to orbit concepts and issues : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19920024075 (Order)

Cargo transfer vehicle - An element of the National Launch System : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Evaluation of the national launch system as a booster for the HL-20 : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Advanced Transportation System Studies Technical Area 2 (TA-2) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Development Contract : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19970016354

Advanced transportation system study: Manned launch vehicle concepts for two way transportation system payloads to LEO : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19940028594

Advanced transportation system study: Manned launch vehicle concepts for two way transportation system payloads to LEO. Program cost estimates document : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19940030406

Aerodynamic flight control to increase payload capability of future launch vehicles : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19940011059

Design verification test matrix development for the STME thrust chamber assembly : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930018062


Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/28/2008 05:58 pm
ATK have been remarkably non-confrontational with us this entire year.   But I sure would appreciate it if they'd be good enough to take down that old "Mythbusters" BS from their site some time soon

You previously mentioned that you were considering going to 5-segment to placate ATK for J-232.  Here is another idea that may improve your standing in their eyes.  Why not push for an uprated J-232 for the Mars program?  for J-232M(ars) propose using a 5-segment, composite booster with the electromechanical actuators, and unrelated the uprated J-2X and RS-68.  I know this sounds like allot, however it would probably be made easier by doing block upgrades to the system ala Ariane 5.  It may not and probably will not all happen, but offering up the solutions might let ATK get more comfortable with the design vs Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 06:13 pm
There's loads of work for ATK under the DIRECT umbrella.

1) The 4-segs will still need some work to re-qualify them for use on Jupiter.

2) The 4-segs currently use avionics equipment that is seriously old.   ATK need to be contracted to update those anyway.

3) We plan to need 416 SRB segments to support all Jupiter flights thru 2020, compared to 60 for all the Ares flights over the same period.

4) While it isn't our baseline, I personally think the 5-segs are a pretty good idea for the Lunar J-232 configurations.

5) If we need more performance for Mars there's no reason why ATK couldn't also proposed the composite case upgrades too.


We've generally avoided making a big deal of this *specifically* so that ATK/NASA could do so.   This gives them the opportunity to "lay claim" to the ideas as "invented here".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/28/2008 06:42 pm
Mark, here are some other texts which you might be interested in rustling-up.   These are some of NLS documents from NASA's Technical Reference Server:-

Holy cow, Ross! It's the motherlode. I might have to go back and finish out my aero degree to be able to grok all that. And take a few months off from work...

Thanks for the links!
Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 10/28/2008 07:17 pm
By the way, how is all of this powered supposedly?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/28/2008 07:43 pm
By the way, how is all of this powered supposedly?

Um... With rockets?
:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/28/2008 08:33 pm
Is it possible to get a non-man rated J120 built soon enough to haul ISS parts up?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 10/28/2008 08:46 pm
Mark, here are some other texts which you might be interested in rustling-up.   These are some of NLS documents from NASA's Technical Reference Server:-

Holy cow, Ross! It's the motherlode. I might have to go back and finish out my aero degree to be able to grok all that. And take a few months off from work...

Thanks for the links!
Mark S.



What Mark said...holy cow! Thanks though.
Trying to make a Canadian poorer in these times (with the $ of the CDN dollar)? Might have to wait until next year for these babies.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 08:48 pm
By the way, how is all of this powered supposedly?

What's the context of the question?

I'll answer it if I can, but I can't tell which particular aspect you're asking about :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 10/28/2008 08:50 pm
I hope after all of this blows over, NASA writes a report, "How Not to Design a Rocket: The Ares I Story". There are lessons to be learned here, just like in any failure.
I'm hoping the new administration goes straight to DIRECT, however, a Plan B where the Shuttle flies and DIRECT is developed slowly is not a bad idea.

Everyone acts as if the Shuttle is a ticking time bomb ready to go off, however, that is ANY launch vehicle. If anything, as long as the safety standards put in place after Columbia remain, the Shuttle is the safest launch vehicle we have right now.
Flying for another 5 years or more while DIRECT is developed is not too bad of an idea.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 08:53 pm
*Someone* is sure going to write a book about this.

It'll make "The Shuttle Decision" look totally sane.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/28/2008 09:18 pm
The sad thing here is that the leadership style that led to the current Ares I situation is limited to not just NASA, not just the federal government, but seemingly the entire nation.  Leaders demand that they are given numbers to support their rocket choice, leaders demand numbers to support their case for war, ceo's demand numbers to make their business look good.  I think there is a huge leadership problem in this country and we need an overhaul.  I dont want a leader who knows all the answers, I want a leader who can listen and deduce those answers from people who know the facts.

So heck Ill ask, how about Colin Powell for NASA administrator?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 09:21 pm
I fear you have a good point Ron,

If that is the case then the US will not going to be in a good position as so many other nations are building their infrastructures and expanding their capabilities.   If we aren't trying to stay at the top of the pile, we won't.

But this really isn't the right place for such a discussion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/28/2008 09:23 pm
So heck Ill ask, how about Colin Powell for NASA administrator?

No idea.   But I would *love* to see someone like Robert Gates take the bull firmly by the horns and shake it to spring-clean the chaff out of the agency.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 10/28/2008 10:19 pm
By the way, how is all of this powered supposedly?

What's the context of the question?

I'll answer it if I can, but I can't tell which particular aspect you're asking about :)

Ross.

Electrically powered.  The orbiter contains the electrical power system, the buses and nearly all the avionics.  So where does all this fit on the Jupiter and how is it powered?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 10/28/2008 10:36 pm
Is it possible to get a non-man rated J120 built soon enough to haul ISS parts up?


The J-120 by itself is not sufficient. You need a tug (e.g. an unmanned Orion) to get the parts to ISS once the J-120 inserts them into orbit.

So the answer is, more or less, no - Orion would become the long pole in the schedule and it doesn't matter if you skip the manrating of the J-120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 10/28/2008 11:24 pm
Its not possible to build some kind a maneuvering pallet, how did the Russians get their large modules up there, certainly not with a Soyuz attached?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/28/2008 11:30 pm
Its not possible to build some kind a maneuvering pallet, how did the Russians get their large modules up there, certainly not with a Soyuz attached?

Large Russian modules (Kvant-2, Zarya, Kristall) Either have their own maneuvering systems or use a space tug.  US systems would also require a tug, which would be Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 10/28/2008 11:45 pm
Its not possible to build some kind a maneuvering pallet, how did the Russians get their large modules up there, certainly not with a Soyuz attached?

Large Russian modules (Kvant-2, Zarya, Kristall) Either have their own maneuvering systems or use a space tug.  US systems would also require a tug, which would be Orion.

Right. Kvant used a detachable tug, and the other modules had their own maneuvering systems (essentially, the tug functionality was built in).

All of the "ISS parts" remaining to be launched for the US segment of the station, of course, do not have their own maneuvering capability.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2008 01:01 am
Electrically powered.  The orbiter contains the electrical power system, the buses and nearly all the avionics.  So where does all this fit on the Jupiter and how is it powered?

That's a good question.   I've never asked about that sub-system.   I do know that there is a mass allocation of 1,487kg for "Power: Electrical" included in the Core Stage mass breakout.   That's in addition to separate items for "Power: Hydraulic" @ 921kg and "Avionics" @ 350kg.

I've never tried finding out what the Electrical breakout item consists of, I haven't got a clue.   I will ask and try to get a specific answer for you though.   Give me a little time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2008 01:05 am
Is it possible to get a non-man rated J120 built soon enough to haul ISS parts up?


The J-120 by itself is not sufficient. You need a tug (e.g. an unmanned Orion) to get the parts to ISS once the J-120 inserts them into orbit.

One idea that has been floated is possibly to use modified ATV hardware as the basis for a Tug.

There are a couple of other options too, including Orion-derived equipment.

I think it would all depend on the exact nature, size and mass of the payload and the nature of the intended orbit too.   For some situations the Core Stage might be sufficient to deliver it completely, separate then de-orbit itself.   For others you might need a complete Upper Stage.   We're already planning to use some Orion-derived RCS systems on the SSPDM, we're already planning to integrate an EELV Upper Stage and the EDS, so we're already planning to cover a number of the different bases.

Tell me what you want to launch, and I'll see what we might be able to offer to do it :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/29/2008 01:49 am
Hmmm, I think I feel the urge to ask Philip to photo-retouch one of the recent pictures of both Shuttle's on the pad at the same time into a Jupiter-120 & Shuttle on the Pad at the same time image...

Are you proposing to use the Shuttle as the LON for the first manned Orion on Jupiter-120 flight?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/29/2008 01:54 am
Hmmm, I think I feel the urge to ask Philip to photo-retouch one of the recent pictures of both Shuttle's on the pad at the same time into a Jupiter-120 & Shuttle on the Pad at the same time image...

Are you proposing to use the Shuttle as the LON for the first manned Orion on Jupiter-120 flight?

A soyuz could do that, since it is only two men.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 10/29/2008 03:12 am
Ross,
I do not know if you discussed it before, here is a couple of ideas on how to increase payload mass thru TLI:

1) EOR-LOR mission profile. First launch - send EDS into a special high elliptical orbit. In the second launch (the one that launches CEV & LSAM) use  the EDS to push CEV & LSAM into the same high orbit. Small amount of propellant in EDS will allow to do it. Docking. That high elliptical orbit will be calculated in such way that it will allow to send more payload toward the moon with less amount of propellant.

2) EOR-LOR mission profile. Use a bigger LSAM descent stage so CEV & LSAM would be about 100 mT on LEO. CEV & LSAM docks with EDS. EDS pushes CEV & LSAM toward the moon but it is not able to give the full necessary delta V. After EDS separates LSAM uses the extra propellant in the descent stage to send CEV & LSAM toward the MOON.

What do you think?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/29/2008 03:53 am
Emily at the Planetary Society reports that NASA is scheduling a Constellation press conference at the same time as a previously announced MESSENGER conference:
http://planetary.org/blog/article/00001714/
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/29/2008 04:58 am
Yegor, both options give substantial performance improvements.

For option 1 and an EDS final mass of 32.5 t (more conservative than Direct with 29.5 t) and 96.6 t available propellant at 241 km, a TLI delta-V of 3180 m/s, exhaust speed of 4393.4 m/s for orbital insertion (J-2X at 100%) and 4403.2 m/s for TLI (J-2X at 80%), TLI mass increases from 58.6 t at 241 km to 73.6 t at 4289 km apogee, an increase of 26%. Disadvantages are having to rendezvous in a highly elliptical orbit, phasing of the perigee to be in the right position (you might only get one chance), and radiation exposure for the crew from the Van Allen belts.

Option 2 avoids all the problems of Option 1 and has better performance. Assuming an RL-10B-2 engine (exhaust speed of 4530.7 m/s) on the LSAM, this increases TLI mass from 58.6 t to 82.4 t, a 41% increase! An advantage of this option is that it tests the LSAM engine before Lunar orbit insertion. The delta-V break down is 2459 m/s for the EDS and 721 m/s for the LSAM, requiring 14.2 t extra propellant mass in the LSAM.

I calculate a single Jupiter 232 launch has a TLI mass of 32.5 t. This assumes 325.3 t propellent (252.4 t to LEO, 66.4 t for TLI and 6.5 t reserve and unusable), 1.0 t RCS propellant and 22.7 t empty EDS mass.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 10/29/2008 12:02 pm
Steven, Thank you for the reply!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/29/2008 12:04 pm
Yegor, both options give substantial performance improvements.

For option 1 and an EDS final mass of 32.5 t (more conservative than Direct with 29.5 t) and 96.6 t available propellant at 241 km, a TLI delta-V of 3180 m/s, exhaust speed of 4393.4 m/s for orbital insertion (J-2X at 100%) and 4403.2 m/s for TLI (J-2X at 80%), TLI mass increases from 58.6 t at 241 km to 73.6 t at 4289 km apogee, an increase of 26%. Disadvantages are having to rendezvous in a highly elliptical orbit, phasing of the perigee to be in the right position (you might only get one chance), and radiation exposure for the crew from the Van Allen belts.

Option 2 avoids all the problems of Option 1 and has better performance. Assuming an RL-10B-2 engine (exhaust speed of 4530.7 m/s) on the LSAM, this increases TLI mass from 58.6 t to 82.4 t, a 41% increase! An advantage of this option is that it tests the LSAM engine before Lunar orbit insertion. The delta-V break down is 2459 m/s for the EDS and 721 m/s for the LSAM, requiring 14.2 t extra propellant mass in the LSAM.

I calculate a single Jupiter 232 launch has a TLI mass of 32.5 t. This assumes 325.3 t propellent (252.4 t to LEO, 66.4 t for TLI and 6.5 t reserve and unusable), 1.0 t RCS propellant and 22.7 t empty EDS mass.

Option 2 can be improved even further by housing the propellant used for the LSAM/TLI burn in drop tanks rather than larger propellant tanks so that the LSAM doesn't have to carry that additional mass down to the lunar surface.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 10/29/2008 02:19 pm
Option 2 can be improved even further by housing the propellant used for the LSAM/TLI burn in drop tanks rather than larger propellant tanks so that the LSAM doesn't have to carry that additional mass down to the lunar surface.
Yes! Drop tank is successfully used on the russian Proton/Briz-M stage.
In the first test flights they can carry less payloads to see that the tank dropping works successfully and later on they can carry heavier payloads.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/29/2008 02:26 pm

I don't think X-38 would delay VSE. I think X-38 would *destroy* VSE.

Elsewhere you accuse OV-106 of not putting his politician's hat on; *my* politician's hat tells me that X-38, once fielded, would create budgetary pressure to cancel Orion. That would effectively destroy VSE, regardless of what happens on the LV front, because the X-38 design is not amenable to reentry from lunar/Mars trajectories as Orion is.

Further, I don't think X-38 buys the US much of anything. If you're going to revive X-38, you're not going to wait for Ares I; you're going to launch it on something else. And if you've extended shuttle (which can handle crew rotation), you could launch X-38 on a non-man-rated booster and just use it for crew escape.

First, let me make clear that I am not advocating for X-38. I unintentionally allowed myself to get pulled into the position of being devil’s advocate. Just so you understand that.

I guess X-38 could have the affect you describe, in which case I would be against it. But I disagree that is likely. I suppose we will just agree to disagree on that point.

And yes, I would not be waiting for Ares-I. That LV can go into the abyss for all I care, and the sooner the better. Sorry for the strong statement, but there it is. That’s what I believe. As for the X-38 being launched by anything else but Shuttle – can’t happen. The entire structure is designed around the Shuttle Cargo Bay. It’s designed to be secured in the Cargo Bay just like any other payload. It would not be able to take the loads of being top mounted on something like an Atlas or a Delta.

Quote
I think that such a stripped-down Orion, decoupled from Ares I development, could be fielded just as quickly as X-38 (end of CY2012). (Indeed, the DIRECT studies assert that the *full up* Orion could be fielded by that time...). And unlike X-38, such a stripped-down Orion CRV provides a growth path to lunar/Mars capability, and represents almost zero "wasted work" from current CxP plans - it would merely involve reprioritizing development work that is going on right now.

There are no plans that I’m aware of for an ISS-only version of Orion. There is talk on L2 of different ways to use Orion for ISS that would make it lighter, most of which involve crew size differences and cargo manifests. But there is no ISS-design variant. If you know different, please provide a link.

Quote
Would you make that trade if it meant *no* VSE, rather than a delayed VSE? Because I think that's what it means, if you choose X-38. It represents a much larger investment by the government than the COTS options.

No, I would not make that trade. Actually, in keeping with what I said about being devil’s advocate above, what I actually prefer is to keep Shuttle flying, twice a year using the current STS budget, and a separate budget increase (like both candidates have pledged) to develop and field Orion on a Jupiter-120 in parallel while Shuttle remains operational, on a revised schedule based on reality, not politics. If it takes longer, then it takes longer; so what. In that case there would not be a need for any gap-filler, because I would actually prefer a 12-18 month overlap between Shuttle and Orion/Jupiter, during which Shuttle would begin to and ultimately stand down and be retired. That’s what we should have done in the first place, regardless of the ultimate VSE launch vehicle. Shutdown and retirement of Shuttle should not have been a hard and fast date dictated by politics, but tied to the operational capability of its replacement. Would that have cost more? For sure it would. Space flight is, and always will be expensive. That’s just how it is. But we had a POTUS who isn’t smart enough to realize that you can’t do more with less in this field. He proposed the best direction for the space agency to go in that we’ve seen in decades, but was too dumb to realize (1) how good it was, (2) the necessity to actually pay for it and (3) how completely stupid his timeframe was.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: EE Scott on 10/29/2008 02:51 pm
Emily at the Planetary Society reports that NASA is scheduling a Constellation press conference at the same time as a previously announced MESSENGER conference:
http://planetary.org/blog/article/00001714/

Interesting - I've let myself get my own hopes up for things like this in the past, so I won't let myself hope too hard that this is maybe an end of Ares I and beginning of Ares II (Jupiter-120).
 ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/29/2008 03:03 pm
Emily at the Planetary Society reports that NASA is scheduling a Constellation press conference at the same time as a previously announced MESSENGER conference:
http://planetary.org/blog/article/00001714/

Interesting - I've let myself get my own hopes up for things like this in the past, so I won't let myself hope too hard that this is maybe an end of Ares I and beginning of Ares II (Jupiter-120).
 ;D


No, it's going to be "Everything is fine here, nothing to see.  These are not the droids you're looking for.  Move along, move along . . ." :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: EE Scott on 10/29/2008 03:05 pm
Great response Herb!  Thanks.  Humor is important in times like these at NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2008 07:02 pm
Are you proposing to use the Shuttle as the LON for the first manned Orion on Jupiter-120 flight?

No, that isn't the plan.

If the decision were made to continue Shuttle, there would be a point where at least a few Shuttle missions would be on the Pad at the same time as the Jupiter-120-X, -Y, -Z test flights in 2011/12.

If STS were extended all the way, the very last Shuttle would also possibly be on the Pad at the same time as the first crewed J-120/Orion would be being prepared.

Remember that while our goal is to have Jupiter-120/Orion's sit at the Pad for no more than 2 weeks, the very first crewed mission is likely to be out there for an awful lot longer than that.   I'll suggest 2-3 months.   That provides quite an opportunity to have the final Shuttle flight go while the first crewed Orion is being prepared a few miles away.

All assuming the Shuttle is extended at all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2008 07:07 pm
Ross,
I do not know if you discussed it before, here is a couple of ideas on how to increase payload mass thru TLI:

1) EOR-LOR mission profile. First launch - send EDS into a special high elliptical orbit. In the second launch (the one that launches CEV & LSAM) use  the EDS to push CEV & LSAM into the same high orbit. Small amount of propellant in EDS will allow to do it. Docking. That high elliptical orbit will be calculated in such way that it will allow to send more payload toward the moon with less amount of propellant.

2) EOR-LOR mission profile. Use a bigger LSAM descent stage so CEV & LSAM would be about 100 mT on LEO. CEV & LSAM docks with EDS. EDS pushes CEV & LSAM toward the moon but it is not able to give the full necessary delta V. After EDS separates LSAM uses the extra propellant in the descent stage to send CEV & LSAM toward the MOON.

What do you think?

Someone here suggested some things similar a few months back, I forget who (you?).

I passed the ideas along to our trajectory guys and they said it would limit the daily opportunities for launching the missions, but that there may be some ways to mitigate it.   They ran some *very* preliminary numbers and there *are* significant performance benefits to be had - at least theoretically.

It was their opinion that this is worth further investigation, but due to the amount of work involved they recommend it only once the specifications of the vehicles are more bolted-down.

This also fits with another option to fly a third-stage EDS launch configuration too.   Early figures indicate that this would offer even more performance improvements thru TLI as the burnout mass of the EDS could be dropped to around just 11-12mT.   But its more expensive.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2008 07:16 pm
Option 2 can be improved even further by housing the propellant used for the LSAM/TLI burn in drop tanks rather than larger propellant tanks so that the LSAM doesn't have to carry that additional mass down to the lunar surface.
Yes! Drop tank is successfully used on the russian Proton/Briz-M stage.
In the first test flights they can carry less payloads to see that the tank dropping works successfully and later on they can carry heavier payloads.


The only problem with drop-tanks on the LSAM is how to configure the spacecraft to use them given the payload envelope limitations.   It's a 'mare.   The only workable solution I have seem so far is to have them fitted 'up' around the Ascent Stage module.   Another problem is what do you do if one fails to separate the way it should?

I prefer the option of a 'dedicated multi-purpose EDS' myself.   Using the 3rd stage I just mentioned in the above post (Jupiter-3333 config, with the EDS powered by 3 RL-10's), it is possible to launch a configuration where the EDS is optimized to perform all the TLI, TMC, LOI, Plane Change burns, and about 75% of the Descent burn as well.

This would massively reduce the size (height mostly) & weight of the LSAM, meaning it could be *much* more stable during landing and much more usable.   The only down-side, is you would be including a separation event during Descent -- its not a high risk, but its an extra risk, none-the-less.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2008 07:58 pm
We have a brand-new 11-page paper on our website today entitled:  "The Jupiter Launch System - A Direct Derivative of the Space Transportation System (STS)" (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/IAC-08.A5.3.4.pdf).

It is essentially an updated summary version of our 131 page paper from 2007, put together for our presentation at the recent IAC 2008 conference in Glasgow.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/29/2008 08:49 pm
The only down-side, is you would be including a separation event during Descent -- its not a high risk, but its an extra risk, none-the-less.

Ross.

One more downside- you have to pay for a new stage. One of the chepaer components of the whole system, sure, but still not free.

(by the way I have long been a fan of this idea and posted a thread about it a while back, called 'Alter Altair to Benefit Ares' I think)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/29/2008 09:11 pm
--snip--

This would massively reduce the size (height mostly) & weight of the LSAM, meaning it could be *much* more stable during landing and much more usable.   The only down-side, is you would be including a separation event during Descent -- its not a high risk, but its an extra risk, none-the-less.

Ross.

What I really like about DIRECT is that once the basic plan is in place, there are so many different ways to extend and enhance the system without starting over from scratch.

When I look at the current Ares plans, I see a system that was designed for a single scenario, and which is pretty much locked in to that scenario unless major changes are made. For instance, a dual Ares-V mission profile would be a problem because the Ares-V is not man-rated, and even if it was the PLOC would be too high to meet current guidelines.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2008 09:17 pm
The only down-side, is you would be including a separation event during Descent -- its not a high risk, but its an extra risk, none-the-less.

Ross.

One more downside- you have to pay for a new stage. One of the chepaer components of the whole system, sure, but still not free.

(by the way I have long been a fan of this idea and posted a thread about it a while back, called 'Alter Altair to Benefit Ares' I think)

I briefly noted that in the prior post, but you're absolutely correct.

We have looked into convergence of the Upper Stage and Dedicated EDS to find cost savings for that approach, and there are plenty of ways to get very good cross-over and to use the same tooling for most of the elements of both.   But there are still additional overheads for every extra stage you plan.

This is the precise reason why we are keeping to the current SRB+Core+EDS arrangement for our baseline approach for now.

That and the fact that what we really want to push -- a Propellant Depot architecture -- makes the whole issue irrelevant anyway.

But this remains an option and we still don't have to make any final decisions on this until after we already have the change from Ares-I to Jupiter-120 already in the bag.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2008 09:30 pm
What I really like about DIRECT is that once the basic plan is in place, there are so many different ways to extend and enhance the system without starting over from scratch.

When I look at the current Ares plans, I see a system that was designed for a single scenario, and which is pretty much locked in to that scenario unless major changes are made. For instance, a dual Ares-V mission profile would be a problem because the Ares-V is not man-rated, and even if it was the PLOC would be too high to meet current guidelines.

E*X*A*C*T*L*Y.

Mark, you have nailed one of the key issues right on the head.

Ares locks us into just one way of launching crew and cargo for all missions to come in the next 40 years.   The Ares system is never going to be any more flexible -- unless NASA chooses to hypocritically throw its own much-touted safety rules (the ones used by ESAS to bash Atlas-V and Delta-IV out of contention, I remind everyone) out the window and launch the Orion on the under-1:1000 LOC Ares-V that is.   Mind you, I believe this has been Griffin's plan all along, albeit a really stupid one given how much it compromises crew safety and how that flies in the face of all the CAIB recommendations.


DIRECT allows for an extremely wide array of configurations to be used for a multitude of purposes.

One example is that Orion's can be launched on safe (above 1:1000 LOC) Jupiter-232 launchers and sent all the way to Lunar Orbit on a single flight if required.   This capability alone paves the way for such diverse architectures such as using reusable Lunar Landers, or for L-2 staging of missions to Mars -- and a host of other options besides.

Yet DIRECT is also cheaper and faster to implement.   Is it any wonder a government agency doesn't like it?   :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: arachnitect on 10/29/2008 09:57 pm
We have a brand-new 11-page paper on our website today entitled:  "The Jupiter Launch System - A Direct Derivative of the Space Transportation System (STS)" (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/IAC-08.A5.3.4.pdf).

It is essentially an updated summary version of our 131 page paper from 2007, put together for our presentation at the recent IAC 2008 conference in Glasgow.

Ross.

Would this be a good document to include with a personal letter to my congressman? At eleven pages it's concise, and has a good mix of graphics and hard data. Am I on the right track, or does the team have a "summary for policy makers" type of document?

Any objection from the professionals?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/29/2008 10:34 pm
That's pretty obnoxious to schedule a conflict with a science mission and then not have anything to say.

Emily at the Planetary Society reports that NASA is scheduling a Constellation press conference at the same time as a previously announced MESSENGER conference:
http://planetary.org/blog/article/00001714/

Interesting - I've let myself get my own hopes up for things like this in the past, so I won't let myself hope too hard that this is maybe an end of Ares I and beginning of Ares II (Jupiter-120).
 ;D


No, it's going to be "Everything is fine here, nothing to see.  These are not the droids you're looking for.  Move along, move along . . ." :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2008 11:03 pm
Would this be a good document to include with a personal letter to my congressman? At eleven pages it's concise, and has a good mix of graphics and hard data. Am I on the right track, or does the team have a "summary for policy makers" type of document?

Any objection from the professionals?

I think its a good one to send in that context.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/29/2008 11:04 pm
That's pretty obnoxious to schedule a conflict with a science mission and then not have anything to say.

Its spelled "K N E E J E R K".

I'm of the opinion it could probably even be shortened further... ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/29/2008 11:22 pm
ummm... this could be a stupid question... i don't know.....  but eventually, with the Direct architecture... you guys would like to have the implementation of Fuel Depots.  also... we have the idea of inflatable modules.... such as the bigelow modules.....    well, if you have a fuel depot, and you send a ship up to get fueled up, could you save space and weight by using inflatable fuel tanks?   just wondering.... perhaps nothing can stay flexible at cryogenic temperatures.... i don't know.... or maybe we could use fuels that don't need to be that cold... i don't know... just wondering if that is in the realm of the possiblie, or just the idiotic....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 10/29/2008 11:52 pm
Ross,
I do not know if you discussed it before, here is a couple of ideas on how to increase payload mass thru TLI:

1) EOR-LOR mission profile. First launch - send EDS into a special high elliptical orbit. In the second launch (the one that launches CEV & LSAM) use  the EDS to push CEV & LSAM into the same high orbit. Small amount of propellant in EDS will allow to do it. Docking. That high elliptical orbit will be calculated in such way that it will allow to send more payload toward the moon with less amount of propellant.

2) EOR-LOR mission profile. Use a bigger LSAM descent stage so CEV & LSAM would be about 100 mT on LEO. CEV & LSAM docks with EDS. EDS pushes CEV & LSAM toward the moon but it is not able to give the full necessary delta V. After EDS separates LSAM uses the extra propellant in the descent stage to send CEV & LSAM toward the MOON.

What do you think?

Someone here suggested some things similar a few months back, I forget who (you?).

I passed the ideas along to our trajectory guys and they said it would limit the daily opportunities for launching the missions, but that there may be some ways to mitigate it.   They ran some *very* preliminary numbers and there *are* significant performance benefits to be had - at least theoretically.

It was their opinion that this is worth further investigation, but due to the amount of work involved they recommend it only once the specifications of the vehicles are more bolted-down.

This also fits with another option to fly a third-stage EDS launch configuration too.   Early figures indicate that this would offer even more performance improvements thru TLI as the burnout mass of the EDS could be dropped to around just 11-12mT.   But its more expensive.

Ross.
No, I did not ask these questions before.
Thank you for answering!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/30/2008 12:09 am
ummm... this could be a stupid question... i don't know.....  but eventually, with the Direct architecture... you guys would like to have the implementation of Fuel Depots.  also... we have the idea of inflatable modules.... such as the bigelow modules.....    well, if you have a fuel depot, and you send a ship up to get fueled up, could you save space and weight by using inflatable fuel tanks?   just wondering.... perhaps nothing can stay flexible at cryogenic temperatures.... i don't know.... or maybe we could use fuels that don't need to be that cold... i don't know... just wondering if that is in the realm of the possiblie, or just the idiotic....

Interesting question, Lewis. I am not a rocket scientist. Or engineer. Or worker. But I suppose there must be some amount of flex piping to fill those huge tanks in the ET. Or is it all hard piping with some sort of flex joints?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Would anyone with more first-hand knowledge like to share the answer to this?

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 12:15 am
ummm... this could be a stupid question... i don't know.....  but eventually, with the Direct architecture... you guys would like to have the implementation of Fuel Depots.  also... we have the idea of inflatable modules.... such as the bigelow modules.....    well, if you have a fuel depot, and you send a ship up to get fueled up, could you save space and weight by using inflatable fuel tanks?   just wondering.... perhaps nothing can stay flexible at cryogenic temperatures.... i don't know.... or maybe we could use fuels that don't need to be that cold... i don't know... just wondering if that is in the realm of the possiblie, or just the idiotic....

I would be very concerned about MMOD hits on any inflatable structure situated for a long time in LEO.

I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is something which will have to be 100% dealt with before it would be workable.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: nacnud on 10/30/2008 12:27 am
I believe that one of the benefits of transhab and its descendants is an improved resilience to MMOD.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 12:33 am
ummm... this could be a stupid question... i don't know.....  but eventually, with the Direct architecture... you guys would like to have the implementation of Fuel Depots.  also... we have the idea of inflatable modules.... such as the bigelow modules.....    well, if you have a fuel depot, and you send a ship up to get fueled up, could you save space and weight by using inflatable fuel tanks?   just wondering.... perhaps nothing can stay flexible at cryogenic temperatures.... i don't know.... or maybe we could use fuels that don't need to be that cold... i don't know... just wondering if that is in the realm of the possiblie, or just the idiotic....

Interesting question, Lewis. I am not a rocket scientist. Or engineer. Or worker. But I suppose there must be some amount of flex piping to fill those huge tanks in the ET. Or is it all hard piping with some sort of flex joints?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Would anyone with more first-hand knowledge like to share the answer to this?

There are flexible joints in many places along the pipe-runs from the large tanks on the perimeter of the launch complex all the way to the Pad and up inside the MLP.   These flex-joints are there to handle the stretching & shrinking of the pipes as they cool from ambient Florida outdoor temperatures to cryogenic temperatures for feeding fuel - and then back again after use.

There is a particularly flexible pipe arrangement located in the Tail Service Mast which is designed to pull-away quickly from the vehicle as it launches.   Similar things have had to be done for most vehicles.   All cryo umbilicals for Atlas, Delta, Saturn, Shuttle and others have all got flex joints somewhere in their designs.   So the tech essentially already exists and is well-proven to do this sort of thing.

It has just never been done in space yet.   There are loads of existing designs and plans to do it there, but nobody has ever paid the necessary money to get the testing done and flown up there so far.   The cost is small (relatively!), but nobody has yet coughed it up because nobody has had a purpose for it.

There are a number of competing plans for creating a robust prop transfer system with lots of redundancies and backups included.   Apollo Applications did a huge amount of research into exactly this issue.   It was von Braun and Mueller's hope to use a Propellant Depot architecture to expand the capabilities of Apollo, but they never got the chance because the program was killed prematurely.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/30/2008 12:46 am
There are a number of competing plans for creating a robust prop transfer system with lots of redundancies and backups included.   Apollo Applications did a huge amount of research into exactly this issue.   It was von Braun and Mueller's hope to use a Propellant Depot architecture to expand the capabilities of Apollo, but they never got the chance because the program was killed prematurely.
Ross.

Thanks Ross! You're quite the treasure trove of NASA info. I always considered myself a space fan, but obviously it was from more of a distance than I had previously thought.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 10/30/2008 01:13 am
ummm... this could be a stupid question... i don't know.....  but eventually, with the Direct architecture... you guys would like to have the implementation of Fuel Depots.  also... we have the idea of inflatable modules.... such as the bigelow modules.....    well, if you have a fuel depot, and you send a ship up to get fueled up, could you save space and weight by using inflatable fuel tanks?   just wondering.... perhaps nothing can stay flexible at cryogenic temperatures.... i don't know.... or maybe we could use fuels that don't need to be that cold... i don't know... just wondering if that is in the realm of the possiblie, or just the idiotic....

I would be very concerned about MMOD hits on any inflatable structure situated for a long time in LEO.

I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is something which will have to be 100% dealt with before it would be workable.

Ross.

I would be more concerned about MMOD hits on any rigid aluminum structure situated for a long time in LEO.

Hypervelocity impact testing on Transhab at JSC demonstrated that inflatables are more impact-resistant than rigids.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 01:22 am
Thanks Ross! You're quite the treasure trove of NASA info. I always considered myself a space fan, but obviously it was from more of a distance than I had previously thought.

Glad to be of some service.

If there's one thing I have learned, it is that no matter how deeply you get into this, there's always vast amounts you can still learn.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 01:26 am
I would be more concerned about MMOD hits on any rigid aluminum structure situated for a long time in LEO.

Hypervelocity impact testing on Transhab at JSC demonstrated that inflatables are more impact-resistant than rigids.

Very interesting.   I did not know that.   Thanks Jorge.

I've been working under the impression that a permanent Depot in LEO would be deployed with a second barrier structure (in addition to the pressurized tanking) of some sorts specifically designed to handle (most) MMOD hits.   I wonder if there's mileage in an inflatable barrier instead of a rigid one or perhaps *in addition*...

For the Jupiter Depot, we currently plan to use an empty EDS as the Point of Depature for the unit - mainly because the tooling will already exist and it will provide up to 350mT of storage capacity which is more than sufficient to support at least 3 Lunar missions at any one time.

But for the launch we have over 100mT of payload capacity for all the additional equipment it would need to have installed.   How we use that capacity is still very-much open to debate, but it allows for an awful lot of options to be considered, such as multiple forms of MMOD protection.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 10/30/2008 01:36 am
ummm... this could be a stupid question... i don't know.....  but eventually, with the Direct architecture... you guys would like to have the implementation of Fuel Depots.  also... we have the idea of inflatable modules.... such as the bigelow modules.....    well, if you have a fuel depot, and you send a ship up to get fueled up, could you save space and weight by using inflatable fuel tanks?   just wondering.... perhaps nothing can stay flexible at cryogenic temperatures.... i don't know.... or maybe we could use fuels that don't need to be that cold... i don't know... just wondering if that is in the realm of the possiblie, or just the idiotic....

The problem with space are the large temperature swings if you get behind a fixed or moving body (Earth, Moon, Station). In that case you need a propellant, the container, and all the lines that can handle the temperature swing and all the expansion/contraction that goes along with it.

Most flexible elements of a non-metallic base do not work well at cryogenic temperatures. They also degrade when in contact with aggressive fluids like MMH & most hypergols. In this case, metal bellows are used to provide a certain (but limited) amount of flexibility. The good thing is that they can be fully welded to a metal tank.

The good thing about a 'dewar' is an insulated container to keep the contents at a relatively constant temperature, with minimal heat loss. To protect against mmod, this double-hull design, like a submarine, can be very effective in both manners. The metal bellows can be made in a similar fashion.

To utilize these for propellant depots, the best approach, imo, is metal tank design, with a vaccum separation to an outer debris shield/hull that incorporates something like aerogel on its inner surface to provide long-term energy absorption of mmod. All connections done with flexible bellows, protected seal surfaces at the connection points, and a small set of arrays to provide active heating/colling of the propellants and on-board control electronics.

The most difficult thing to store imo is helium for propellant pressurization; it's the smallest moecule so it passes through/by almost anything. Getting a bubble-tight seal to prevent leakage is a real chore on the ground; long-term on-orbit, difficult to contain; re-pressurization/refill attempt, good luck. That needs to stay with the spacecraft for now if you ask me, unless they've come up with some new method I haven't heard about.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 10/30/2008 01:48 am

I don't think X-38 would delay VSE. I think X-38 would *destroy* VSE.

Elsewhere you accuse OV-106 of not putting his politician's hat on; *my* politician's hat tells me that X-38, once fielded, would create budgetary pressure to cancel Orion. That would effectively destroy VSE, regardless of what happens on the LV front, because the X-38 design is not amenable to reentry from lunar/Mars trajectories as Orion is.

Further, I don't think X-38 buys the US much of anything. If you're going to revive X-38, you're not going to wait for Ares I; you're going to launch it on something else. And if you've extended shuttle (which can handle crew rotation), you could launch X-38 on a non-man-rated booster and just use it for crew escape.

First, let me make clear that I am not advocating for X-38. I unintentionally allowed myself to get pulled into the position of being devil’s advocate. Just so you understand that.

Fair enough.

Quote
And yes, I would not be waiting for Ares-I. That LV can go into the abyss for all I care, and the sooner the better. Sorry for the strong statement, but there it is. That’s what I believe. As for the X-38 being launched by anything else but Shuttle – can’t happen. The entire structure is designed around the Shuttle Cargo Bay. It’s designed to be secured in the Cargo Bay just like any other payload. It would not be able to take the loads of being top mounted on something like an Atlas or a Delta.

Nonsense. There were proposals to evolve the X-38 CRV into a CTV that would launch on expendables and perform crew rotation as well as emergency crew return.

Not a lot of info out there on Google for "X-38 CTV", and some of it is unrelated (since CTV is a fairly generic acronym), but it's there. X-38 was cancelled so it *didn't* happen, but saying it *can't* happen is an overreach.

http://www.leica-geosystems.com/no/no/lgs_1992.htm

But very well, if you insist: scratch the part about launching X-38 on an expendable, and instead, rotate it using an extended shuttle program. Doesn't matter. The fact remains: X-38 doesn't buy us any time. It can't be fielded before the end of CY2012.

Quote
Quote
I think that such a stripped-down Orion, decoupled from Ares I development, could be fielded just as quickly as X-38 (end of CY2012). (Indeed, the DIRECT studies assert that the *full up* Orion could be fielded by that time...). And unlike X-38, such a stripped-down Orion CRV provides a growth path to lunar/Mars capability, and represents almost zero "wasted work" from current CxP plans - it would merely involve reprioritizing development work that is going on right now.

There are no plans that I’m aware of for an ISS-only version of Orion.

There are no plans that I'm aware of to revive X-38, either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this discussion based on the notion that plans can change - and after the election, quite likely *will*? For that matter, isn't the entire DIRECT thread based on the same notion? If you're going to dismiss a proposal based on the fact that there are no plans to do it, isn't this whole thread a waste of time?

We're just discussing *different* changes to the plan. But reviving X-38 is change I can't believe in.

Quote
There is talk on L2 of different ways to use Orion for ISS that would make it lighter, most of which involve crew size differences and cargo manifests. But there is no ISS-design variant. If you know different, please provide a link.

I know of no such link. I know this because *I* originated the idea of the variant in question. There wouldn't be any links about it unless I put them there.

So very well, if you insist: let's scrap the idea of a stripped-down Orion CRV variant. This fact remains: the DIRECT proposal asserts that the *full-up* Orion, freed from Ares schedule constraints, could be fielded before the end of CY2012. I trust you won't ask me for a link to *that*, will you?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 10/30/2008 01:55 am
I would be more concerned about MMOD hits on any rigid aluminum structure situated for a long time in LEO.

Hypervelocity impact testing on Transhab at JSC demonstrated that inflatables are more impact-resistant than rigids.

Very interesting.   I did not know that.   Thanks Jorge.

No problem, Ross. Here's a link to an IAC paper on the subject (see p. 7):

http://www.ilcdover.com/products/aerospace_defense/supportfiles/habitats.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 10/30/2008 02:05 am
well.... this has turned very interesting....  actually i hadn't thought of using the inflatable/flexible material for the propellant depot...  i was actually asking about using it on the EDS/LSAM that you send to get fueled up AT the depot...  i know not having to throw the fuel up there with the cargo will make for all kinds of available weight... but empty ridged tanks would still be large and bulky.... and if you could use inflatable ones instead... you might be able to utilize the room in the J232 much more efficiently than if you had to use much of that room for the space for the tanks....   any thoughts on that?    these tanks obviously wouldn't have a prolonged period in space in which you'd have to worry about MMOD as much...  they are just sent up with the mission and discarded afterwards....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/30/2008 03:12 am
The only problem with drop-tanks on the LSAM is how to configure the spacecraft to use them given the payload envelope limitations.   It's a 'mare.   The only workable solution I have seem so far is to have them fitted 'up' around the Ascent Stage module.   Another problem is what do you do if one fails to separate the way it should?

I prefer the option of a 'dedicated multi-purpose EDS' myself.   Using the 3rd stage I just mentioned in the above post (Jupiter-3333 config, with the EDS powered by 3 RL-10's), it is possible to launch a configuration where the EDS is optimized to perform all the TLI, TMC, LOI, Plane Change burns, and about 75% of the Descent burn as well.

This would massively reduce the size (height mostly) & weight of the LSAM, meaning it could be *much* more stable during landing and much more usable.   The only down-side, is you would be including a separation event during Descent -- its not a high risk, but its an extra risk, none-the-less.

Ross.

Why not have the drop tanks in the middle and the ascent stage on an retractable boom/framework. Failure to separate could be mitigated with a second attachment point higher up on the pipe (although it introduces extra problems).

Alternatively, have a straight layout like the Space 1999 Eagle (minus aft nozzles) and the cheaperbetterfaster lander. Tanks could be mounted laterally and if they don't separate, the lander could still land. Cargo could be swapped around to offset the centre of mass change. Engines could be gimballed so that, mounted on the ends, they kick dirt away in two main plumes and also provide some extra throttling ability, albeit at the cost of fuel wasted by vectoring against each other. You also get a much better view of the surface, less dirt kicking the windows, airlock close to the ground and some easy rad shielding by draining the descent tanks and filling them with dirt, wastewater etc. Mounting the LOX tanks "above" the H2 tanks and using them that way will also work. Additionally, the ascent stage tanks can also be mounted on top of the ascent stage and provide noon radiation shielding. The Orion access hatch can be built into the floor and only need be built for strain / pulling loads. Likewise the Orion itself also hangs from the hatch under acceleration. The stage thruster plumes are well away from the Orion.

Anyway, it probably won't work for whatever reason. The load paths are a real pain.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 03:17 am
No problem, Ross. Here's a link to an IAC paper on the subject (see p. 7):

http://www.ilcdover.com/products/aerospace_defense/supportfiles/habitats.pdf

Thanks for the link.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 10/30/2008 03:22 am
Kaputnik,
Yes, that new rebuttal is still in-work.   It's a really big job, but its coming together nicely and will actually serve to showcase the latest configurations too.

I have been toying with the idea of not actually releasing it until the New Year - to coincide with another very important release then (which I'm not allowed to talk about yet, sorry).   The two together would produce a double-whammy sucker-punch effect, far more effective than either one alone could be.

It all depends on whether we start to lose ground by not releasing the rebuttal first - and we haven't actually lost any ground so far, so I don't think its all that urgent.   If it looks like we might, we could release a preliminary version of the rebuttal in the interim just as a place-holder.

Ross.
I am looking forward for this rebuttal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 03:43 am
well.... this has turned very interesting....  actually i hadn't thought of using the inflatable/flexible material for the propellant depot...  i was actually asking about using it on the EDS/LSAM that you send to get fueled up AT the depot...  i know not having to throw the fuel up there with the cargo will make for all kinds of available weight... but empty ridged tanks would still be large and bulky.... and if you could use inflatable ones instead... you might be able to utilize the room in the J232 much more efficiently than if you had to use much of that room for the space for the tanks....   any thoughts on that?    these tanks obviously wouldn't have a prolonged period in space in which you'd have to worry about MMOD as much...  they are just sent up with the mission and discarded afterwards....

That's an unusual, but interesting idea.

I'm unaware of anyone ever proposing inflatable cryogenic propellant tanking before.   I can foresee a number of hurdles with trying to make it work, but if it could be made to work it might offer some mass improvements.

I think the idea should be studied, but I don't think we're the right group to get involved -- we've kinda got enough on our plate already :)

The TRL (Technology Readiness Level) is really low for this right now, so I don't think it should be part of any critical path plan.   I don't even think a Propellant Depot should be a critical element either.   But this idea might offer some advantages, so I would like to see more investigation of it by someone.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/30/2008 03:58 am

The TRL (Technology Readiness Level) is really low for this right now, so I don't think it should be part of any critical path plan.   I don't even think a Propellant Depot should be a critical element either.   But this idea might offer some advantages, so I would like to see more investigation of it by someone.

If the mass including test equipment can be reduced to about 400 kg a mini-version could be tested using a Pegasus or Falcon 1 LV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 04:00 am
Why not have the drop tanks in the middle and the ascent stage on an retractable boom/framework. Failure to separate could be mitigated with a second attachment point higher up on the pipe (although it introduces extra problems).

We have spare performance through TLI so the extra mass of a retractable structure might be allowable, but as you suggest there are other concerns too.   For one, I'd prefer not to include the extra mechanical components.


Quote
Alternatively, have a straight layout like the Space 1999 Eagle (minus aft nozzles) and the cheaperbetterfaster lander. Tanks could be mounted laterally and if they don't separate, the lander could still land. Cargo could be swapped around to offset the centre of mass change. Engines could be gimballed so that, mounted on the ends, they kick dirt away in two main plumes and also provide some extra throttling ability, albeit at the cost of fuel wasted by vectoring against each other. You also get a much better view of the surface, less dirt kicking the windows, airlock close to the ground and some easy rad shielding by draining the descent tanks and filling them with dirt, wastewater etc. Mounting the LOX tanks "above" the H2 tanks and using them that way will also work. Additionally, the ascent stage tanks can also be mounted on top of the ascent stage and provide noon radiation shielding. The Orion access hatch can be built into the floor and only need be built for strain / pulling loads. Likewise the Orion itself also hangs from the hatch under acceleration. The stage thruster plumes are well away from the Orion.

Anyway, it probably won't work for whatever reason. The load paths are a real pain.

While I'm all for shortening the LSAM's height to get its CofG lower and make it more stable, completely changing the fundamental design is not on the cards here.   We believe that the underlying idea of using the same approach as Apollo for the lander is a very wise one because it is already proven to work and work well.   In our opinion, the LSAM as conceived right now is too tall and could be improved with the right architecture, but the fundamental approach is not something we want to throw out.

If there are better ideas for the LSAM, I'm sure DIRECT's Jupiter launchers could lift those as well, but right now we want to avoid getting involved in any vehicle design disputes beyond the launchers.   As I mentioned earlier, we already have enough on our plate with the Ares vs Jupiter tussle :)   Whatever else, I don't want to overreach our team.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 10/30/2008 07:56 am
Typo:
"Under the current plan a return to the Moon will only
be possible after the largest most expensive rocket every
developed by man is completed, figure 8."

ever, not every.

The second half of the document (propellant, Mars, etc.) doesn't really mention launch vehicles at all, much less explain why the Jupiter is superior.

We have a brand-new 11-page paper on our website today entitled:  "The Jupiter Launch System - A Direct Derivative of the Space Transportation System (STS)" (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/IAC-08.A5.3.4.pdf).

It is essentially an updated summary version of our 131 page paper from 2007, put together for our presentation at the recent IAC 2008 conference in Glasgow.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 10/30/2008 09:26 am
We have a brand-new 11-page paper on our website today entitled:  "The Jupiter Launch System - A Direct Derivative of the Space Transportation System (STS)" (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/IAC-08.A5.3.4.pdf).

It is essentially an updated summary version of our 131 page paper from 2007, put together for our presentation at the recent IAC 2008 conference in Glasgow.

Ross.

Would this be a good document to include with a personal letter to my congressman? At eleven pages it's concise, and has a good mix of graphics and hard data. Am I on the right track, or does the team have a "summary for policy makers" type of document?

Any objection from the professionals?

The new Direct document is good but I believe that it has too much emphasis on the Propellant Depot option to be a good "selling tool" to Congress. At this point, it is better to promote options that would simplify the moon architecture rather than making it more complex. For example, one option which could be presented to Congress is the fact that Direct could allow the implementation of a smaller but cheaper/safer 3 astronauts moon mission using a J-120 rocket plus a J-232 rocket if the NASA budget becomes too tight in the future for a 4 astronauts moon mission using 2 J-232 rockets.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 10/30/2008 10:03 am
I agree. That document should stop at the J232. Is propellent transfer needed to put men back on the moon and close the gap? No. Do we need to know about mars landing technology right now? No. KISS!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 10/30/2008 10:29 am
It would be worthwhile to create two separate document streams: One aimed at convincing the new Congress and Administration we can close the Gap and return to the Moon for less money, the other aimed at convince rocket scientists, planetary scientists, astronomers, and space enthusiasts to get behind the Jupiter paradigm. It's the second one should talk about propellant depots, NEO missions, telescopes, manned Mars missions, and outer-planets orbiter/lander missions. All the politicos and bean counters need to know is, the can close the Gap and save $15bln at the same time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: simcosmos on 10/30/2008 11:47 am
Ross, you are perhaps remembering a few conceptual 'side brainstorms' we (some members of the team) had (more than one year ago) regarding different TLI setups (such as 'partial TLI' procedures, in lack of better generic term) and under several specific contexts related with multiple topics such as disposal of EDS (and, in an eventual far future, even eventual reuse options, by keeping it in a high elliptical Earth orbit), TLI abort options, also 'what ifs' regarding conceptually different LSAM designs and the relation of such designs in things such as CEV-LSAM-EDS/J232 integration, etc, etc.


As you have noted, the official DIRECT position is to keep, as best as possible, the current Constellation spacecraft assumptions.




Some Personal Notes

Despite that, and please reminding the readers that I'm talking now on a *personal* note (independently of DIRECT Team), I think that for something like a J232 dual launch architecture (and even outside it) there could exist a range of optimisations that could be done... Focusing in the LSAM: if keeping the current 'Apollo' design assumptions, perhaps it would be nice to at least replace those multiple LH2/LO2 tanks by something more friendly from the mass / boil-off reductions points of view.


What will write next hasn't really any value – again, outside of a specific context and without further professional analysis – but another option for the LSAM could be to go to an horizontal configuration with something like a ~5.5m diameter Wide Body Centaur / ACES derived design integrated at the rear and then, a 'chassis' in the middle, linking payload to that stage (with side structural 'rails'). Such 'chassis / structure' would also support a number of smaller landing / hover thrusters (+RCS), landing gears, radiators, solar panels, etc (in the end, it would look something very similar to one of Lockheed Martin's horizontal lander concepts).

The key idea would be to perhaps try to make the LSAM design assumptions to be a bit more modular than what is happening today (number and location of RCS / Hover Pods could be physically (software too) tweaked depending of payload properties, the WBC stage properties - such as propellant load - could also be tweaked not only depending of payload but also of eventual different mission modes…).

Last but not least, the lander's 'chassis / main structure' could perhaps allow a smoother integration between the EDS-LSAM-CEV: in a dual J232 lunar mission scenario, the LSAM-CEV would act like a more integrated 'joint-spacecraft', perhaps even with CEV keeping launch configuration until after TLI (but without the need to carry the SLA after LEO ascent or without having to transpose + dock before TLI). Giving some excess of performance in the J232 that carries the LSAM-CEV to orbit, perhaps the LSAM could see its 'rear WBC /ACES' properly enlarged in order to convert that excess of launcher lift capability into LSAM main propellants, which could use more efficient engines than the J-2X on the EDS (this was also mentioned recently).

As yet another side note, there was also some highly conceptual discussion regarding toroidal common bulkhead tanks integrations possibilities in some of such conceptual LSAMs... 


Summary:

Once more, my *personal opinion* is that independently of launcher assumptions being considered for architecture A or B or C, some kind of high efficient (mass / boil-off reduction) LSAM descent stage design will be needed...

... And if that is the case, why not seriously consider the investment into something like a Wide Body Centaur for the LSAM's descent stage? If the LSAM design was also a bit more modular in nature, such kind of investment could then share synergies with EELV upper stage upgrades and, bringing now back the focus to something like a dual J232 based lunar architecture, the J232 EDS role could be later optimised with a third mission stage (based in that same Wide Body Centaur / ACES assumptions) being almost fully delivered into LEO...

As yet another side note, something like the J120 core could eventually also support - in the future - a slightly more flexible configuration than some people might at first think (hint: imagine that instead of a Delta IV Heavy Upper Stage – being currently assumed because of 'near-time availability' option to improve J12X core mission flexibility -  something a little more capable – such again, a *properly sized / powered Wide Body Centaur / ACES* design – could be integrated instead at the top of a J12X core, without using 8.4m diameter SLA to enclose such stage... Focusing on lunar capabilities, for example, smaller cargo or Orion delivery, this could open a number of very interesting options while, never enough to remember, sharing synergies with a number of other developments / capabilities)


Anyway, end as started (here goes the disclaimer!): these are just and only some *personal observations* which may or not reflect past / present or future (?) opinions of other DIRECT (public / non-public) Team members and which do not pretend to reflect eventual official positions of DIRECT.

António

PS: This is why will not share here 3D renderings, etc about what have just written above, although might eventually do it under a different context (non-DIRECT / non current Constellation related).



Ross,
I do not know if you discussed it before, here is a couple of ideas on how to increase payload mass thru TLI:

1) EOR-LOR mission profile. First launch - send EDS into a special high elliptical orbit. In the second launch (the one that launches CEV & LSAM) use  the EDS to push CEV & LSAM into the same high orbit. Small amount of propellant in EDS will allow to do it. Docking. That high elliptical orbit will be calculated in such way that it will allow to send more payload toward the moon with less amount of propellant.

2) EOR-LOR mission profile. Use a bigger LSAM descent stage so CEV & LSAM would be about 100 mT on LEO. CEV & LSAM docks with EDS. EDS pushes CEV & LSAM toward the moon but it is not able to give the full necessary delta V. After EDS separates LSAM uses the extra propellant in the descent stage to send CEV & LSAM toward the MOON.

What do you think?

Someone here suggested some things similar a few months back, I forget who (you?).

Ross.

Option 2 can be improved even further by housing the propellant used for the LSAM/TLI burn in drop tanks rather than larger propellant tanks so that the LSAM doesn't have to carry that additional mass down to the lunar surface.
Yes! Drop tank is successfully used on the russian Proton/Briz-M stage.
In the first test flights they can carry less payloads to see that the tank dropping works successfully and later on they can carry heavier payloads.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 10/30/2008 11:56 am
I'm with Crispy and William on this one.. the whole Prop Depot and Mars topics may be fine for a science/space conference paper(which this was.. correct?) but may serve to undermine(seem too far out there) the DIRECT case with politicians right now.  You could put it as an addendum perhaps, but not part of the main argument.  Sell it on your ability to do much more, much sooner, for much less money. That's what I think they want to hear.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 10/30/2008 12:08 pm
I agree with others that the level of detail the document goes into is overkill for your typical politician and it would probably be more worthwhile to shorten it to bring a more concise punchline on why DIRECT is better than Ares.

Btw, Ross, I absolutely love the breakout view of the Jupiter 232 in figure 9, is there a higher resolution version of it somewhere (say one that's not inside a PDF, rather a PNG or something)? I'd love to print that out and stick it on a wall somewhere.  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 10/30/2008 02:03 pm
I agree.  In fact, since your main fight is with the launch vehicle, I would produce a document that solely concentrates on the advantages of the Jupiter vs Ares series of launch vehicles.  Leave out everything that is superflous to that argument.  Almost everything else, propellent depots, telescopes, cargo pallets, and mars mission concepts detract from the LV argument and are too long term for politicians to pay any attention to, especially with all the stuff that they will be hit with in January...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/30/2008 04:13 pm
Question regarding the launch infrastructure and Ares-I. Hope it's not too off-topic.

Why is NASA waiting on the Shuttle launch pads for Ares-I? Aren't there a lot of other launch pads that can be modified as easily as 39A&B, maybe even easier?

I mean, there have to be lots of ELV-class launch pads available, some of them even entirely unused. Sure the Ares-I is very tall, but it doesn't have nearly as large of a footprint as the Shuttle, nor does it weigh nearly as much.

And if they're going to have to make such drastic modifications, why not just start clean, instead of tear-down and rebuild?

Of course I am completely ignorant on this. But it seems to me that this could have been planned out a little differently.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 10/30/2008 04:21 pm
Well, if NASA used another pad for Ares I they wouldn't be able to destroy shuttle infrastructure.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 04:27 pm
I agree with others that the level of detail the document goes into is overkill for your typical politician and it would probably be more worthwhile to shorten it to bring a more concise punchline on why DIRECT is better than Ares.

I'll tell you what:   Why not make it worth our while...

If at least ten of you are willing to commit to printing it in color, bind it professionally, write your own cover letter to go with it, and send it to at least one of your political representatives, I will *guarantee* that a slightly simpler version of that document is released in the next few days.

How's that for a deal?   :)   ***Answers by PM only please***


Quote
Btw, Ross, I absolutely love the breakout view of the Jupiter 232 in figure 9, is there a higher resolution version of it somewhere (say one that's not inside a PDF, rather a PNG or something)? I'd love to print that out and stick it on a wall somewhere.  ;)

Your wish is my command...

Desktop Wallpapers are here:-
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/wallpapers/

And here are a few other direct links to hi-res versions of some of Philip Metschan's other DIRECT artwork from our website:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/direct_at_launchpad_final_title_big.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/jupiter-120_exploded_Fix2.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/jupiter-232_exploded.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/jupiter-232_exploded_Wide.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/jupiter_beauty_titles2.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/michoud_tanks_titles.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/out_to_the_pad_title.jpg
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/images/pad_approach_clouds-1.jpg

Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 04:41 pm
Question regarding the launch infrastructure and Ares-I. Hope it's not too off-topic.

Why is NASA waiting on the Shuttle launch pads for Ares-I? Aren't there a lot of other launch pads that can be modified as easily as 39A&B, maybe even easier?

It was looked at.   I have even seen some of the studies.   LC-36A & B (Atlas-II), LC-40 (formerly Titan-4, now Space-X Falcon) and LC-37A (formerly Saturn-1, now right next to LC-37B where Delta-IV flies) were all considered at some time or another, but were each rejected for various reasons.

I was shocked to see a recent (within the last year) report on LC-40 especially because it included a cost roundup of it vs. LC-39 including re-development costs and annual operational costs.

I won't publish anything of the sorts on a public forum due to the proprietary nature of the data, but I will tell you that LC-39 surprised me because it is a LOT cheaper overall, and I'm talking hundreds of millions of dollars over the lifecycle.

I had always assumed that it would be the other way around.   But the report makes a very solid and hard-to-argue case why that isn't actually correct.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 10/30/2008 05:06 pm
Your wish is my command...

Desktop Wallpapers are here:-
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/wallpapers/

And here are a few other direct links to hi-res versions of some of Philip Metschan's other DIRECT artwork from our website:-
<snip>

Now THAT's what I'm talking about, thanks!

It's really some seriously impressive artwork, and that's coming from my nitpicky eye (when it comes to CGI).

As for writing to political representatives, I'd love to do that, but seeing as I don't live in the U.S. you wouldn't have much use of it...  :-\
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 05:12 pm

As for writing to political representatives, I'd love to do that, but seeing as I don't live in the U.S. you wouldn't have much use of it...  :-\

Why don't you do it anyway?   Why don't you write a letter, representing the concerns of a close partner nation and send it to the Presidential nominee next week?   Foreign partners have as much to gain/lose over this decision as anyone, because if NASA flunks the Ares test none of us are going back to the moon until the Chinese do - and they probably won't be carrying any ESA, NASDA or RSA personnel along with them.

It is still in *YOUR* interests to add your voice to this debate even though you may not be a voter here.   I'm not, yet do you see me staying quiet?

If you really want to thank us for those wallpapers, go get that pad of paper out right this second and do what you know to be right and responsible.   Do it for yourself, as much as for us.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 10/30/2008 06:57 pm
Ross,
Does Canada participate in the Constellation? (I am a Canadian citizen)
Do you have an example of this kind of latter?
If you do I can sign it and send it from myself.
I will need the address where to send it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 07:33 pm
Yegor,
Constellation is actively seeking valuable contributions from any and all potential partner programs around the world -- Canada included.

I do not yet have any specific information about what Canada is going to do for CxP, but I am sure they are now, and have been for a while, involved in talks about a lot of different things they could do.   When the result of such negotiations will become announced publicly, I can't tell yet, but I would happily bet you a pint (a 'real' 20oz one) that Canada *will* be involved somehow.   Because of Canada's prior involvement with the Shuttle and ISS programs I am convinced that's a 'given', not just a 'possibility'.

From where I sit, I hope that every single nation on Earth, both those with a space program of their own and those without, will all be able to take an active part in this future program.   Space has been a uniting force for this world already and I think it has a responsibility to be a bridge to friendly nations, and even an olive-branch to non-friendly nations.   Apollo-Soyuz proved that could be an extremely valuable political bonus of the space program, so lets plan on doing it again.

In fact, we in DIRECT are explicitly planning that every single nation can be involved thru our propellant depot architecture.   That is a truly great way to solicit for active involvement and valuable contribution from any and all nations of the Earth who wish to send either experiments, or their own astronauts to the surface of the Moon.   And that's only one way they can contribute -- there are many, many others.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/30/2008 07:48 pm

I do not yet have any specific information about what Canada is going to do for CxP, but I am sure they are now, and have been for a while, involved in talks about a lot of different things they could do.   When the result of such negotiations will become announced publicly, I can't tell yet, but I would happily bet you a pint (a 'real' 20oz one) that Canada *will* be involved somehow.   Because of Canada's prior involvement with the Shuttle and ISS programs I am convinced that's a 'given', not just a 'possibility'.

There is just one issue that I see.  Until now Canada's main contribution to the US manned space program have been robotics (Canadarm, Canadarm2, the mobile base system, DEXTRE)  and as far as I have seen none of these are applicable to Orion.  so would Canada have to enter a new field to offer some sort of support?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 10/30/2008 08:05 pm

I do not yet have any specific information about what Canada is going to do for CxP, but I am sure they are now, and have been for a while, involved in talks about a lot of different things they could do.   When the result of such negotiations will become announced publicly, I can't tell yet, but I would happily bet you a pint (a 'real' 20oz one) that Canada *will* be involved somehow.   Because of Canada's prior involvement with the Shuttle and ISS programs I am convinced that's a 'given', not just a 'possibility'.

There is just one issue that I see.  Until now Canada's main contribution to the US manned space program have been robotics (Canadarm, Canadarm2, the mobile base system, DEXTRE)  and as far as I have seen none of these are applicable to Orion.  so would Canada have to enter a new field to offer some sort of support?

I can see Canada offering assistance for mobile rover scoops, robotic surgical instruments, and automatic beer dispensers :)
Also, with a good bit of knowledge in the area of geology and water resources, we should fit in nicely. Remember, first step: the moon!

After that, the same Canadarm technology can be used for asteroid exploration & mining.

Next step: Mars! All the above applies with the inclusion of ski-doos that are dry-ice capable...lol. Seriously though, if you are going to mine the ice on Mars, you will need heavy equipment capable of operating in sub-zero temperatures. Sounds like tracks to me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/30/2008 08:44 pm
As Robert says there will be multiple applications for new CanadaArm's on the moon, from small robotic arms on rovers to large cranes which will be needed for taking payloads off the top of the LSAM's.

I can imagine a whole range of small robotic drones which will scour the local area too, each of which could have robotic parts provided by the same Canadian experts.

And my understanding is that the Canadian space program wishes to expand its capabilities beyond just providing manipulator arms like this.   There are going to be a lot of different things which we can do on the moon, and I'm sure that the Canadian team is more than capable of doing other things.   I think the question is really "What would Canada like to do for the effort?"

And the same goes for ESA, RSA, NASDA and every other agency/company around the world:   "What can you offer to help?"

Ross.
Title: Re: RS-68 as manned powerplant
Post by: Dewd on 10/30/2008 09:27 pm
I'm brand new to these forums , as of today . Didn't feel like reading 250 pages of this thread , either, but I did skim the Direct proposal  and do some digging.

One thing jumps out right off.  My close friend  who was on the team that developed the  RS-68 engine for  Rocketdyne  since Day 1  swears it is NOT a man rated  engine and cannot be ( easily) made a man rated engine . Too far out of spec  for both safety and throttleability requirements. Uh oh...did I miss something  here in these discussions ?

Have you ever wondered why a Boeing Delta IV has to sit on the pad for weeks or months before launch , being fussed over, whereas an  LM  Atlas V is rolled out just a few days before ?  Russian engines, that's why ...

FWIW.  Hope I'm mistaken , because the STS-derived Jupiter launch system looks totally peachy . On the other hand, no way could you pay me enough to fly to orbit on top of a single-stick SRB. I used to rodeo. You only had to stay on a bucking snorting animal for 8 seconds, not 2-3 minutes.  Ares-1  is a Widowmaker.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 10/30/2008 09:50 pm
     I wonder could a single Jupiter 120 plus a delta IV upper stage be used to send a 13ton or smaller vehicle like Dragon,the CVX or Dream Chaser plus a small lander in the Apollo LEM's class or even a super light lander like the Langley lander to TLI?

This is assuming one of the other two vehicles were funded of course.
The CXV is by far the lightest of the three vehicles but also is the smallest and most cramped.

I figure the lander, the upper stage, or even an extra stage like a breeze-M or an ATV propulsion module would have to perform LOI though the CVX and dream chaser likely have more then enough delta V to perform the departure burn as is not sure on Dragon though.
But I heard Dragon does have more delta V then Soyuz though worst case replace the cargo trunk with an ATV propulsion module.
Title: Re: RS-68 as manned powerplant
Post by: Jim on 10/30/2008 10:06 pm

1. cannot be ( easily) made a man rated engine .

2.  Too far out of spec  for both safety and

3. throttleability requirements.

4. Have you ever wondered why a Boeing Delta IV has to sit on the pad for weeks or months before launch , being fussed over, whereas an  LM  Atlas V is rolled out just a few days before ?  Russian engines, that's why ...


1.  Based on what?
2.  What spec?
3. What throttleability requirements?
4.  Incorrect, it has nothing to do with the engines
Title: Re: RS-68 as manned powerplant
Post by: Patchouli on 10/31/2008 01:53 am

Have you ever wondered why a Boeing Delta IV has to sit on the pad for weeks or months before launch , being fussed over, whereas an  LM  Atlas V is rolled out just a few days before ?  Russian engines, that's why ...
Quote

I think it has a lot more to do with the fuels used then the engine plus the payload and range availability are also issues.

I believe the Delta IV usually carries bigger more expensive payloads I could be wrong on this but the Delta IV-H is much more powerful then the Atlas 552.
 They are going to be more conservative with a 500M to 1B USD payload then they are with a 200M to 400M payload.

Atlas is a hydrocarbon rocket they are inherently easier to deal with then liquid hydrogen fueled rockets.

As for manrating the RS-68 it has a better record then the LR89 did in the mercury program and even better then that of the J2 during Apollo.

I don't think the RS-68 has any records of failure at all.

As for making it more throttlable well they did make an RL10 do things it wasn't originally designed to do for the DCX program and that was throttle very deeply though it is a simpler expander cycle engine.

Though on the Jupiter 232 the existing two throttle settings might be enough since there are three engines.
Such as all three could run 102% at lift off then the center engine throttle down to 57% after 2 minutes.
Maybe at 5 minutes I'm guessing here the outer two can throttle down and then the center engine throttled back up.
At 40 seconds before shut down all three can be throttled down to 57%.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 10/31/2008 02:53 am
I'm going to throw something out here, not necessarily related to engines, but more along the lines of the kind of junk that gets thrown at DIRECT.

In this article:

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20081029/D944CCKG0.html

Steve Cook says:

"If NASA were to drastically redesign the rocket at this point as some have suggested, it would push everything back three years, said Steve Cook, the Ares project manager at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

"Everybody's entitled to an opinion," Cook told reporters in a conference call. "But I think you've got to stick to the facts of engineering and project management, and the fact that we're three years into this. You'd basically back yourself up three years and start over again, so just watch the gap grow."

The letters I've written to both Obama and McCain, as well as to my Congresscritters all say that Cook and the rest of the mouthpieces are intentionally skewing the information available, if not outright lying when they say things like this.

What sort of information could I put into letters, to make that point much more noteworthy and credible?
Title: Re: RS-68 as manned powerplant
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/31/2008 03:00 am

Have you ever wondered why a Boeing Delta IV has to sit on the pad for weeks or months before launch , being fussed over, whereas an  LM  Atlas V is rolled out just a few days before ? 

It is partly because Atlas V sits inside a vertical integration building being fussed over for weeks rather than on the pad like Delta IV.  In addition, Atlas V is rolled out to the pad with little fanfare once or twice during the weeks prior to launch for wet dress rehearsals, etc. 

  - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/31/2008 04:07 am
I realised after making my post that I had forgotten to include the two J2-X engines for the EDS! I have also updated my program to calculate reserves and boiloff. Here are the TLI masses

               TV (kg)  SSP (kg)
Single Launch  33,623   25,870
Direct 2.0     62,995   48,261
HEOR           78,481   65,181
Dual TLI       86,337   77,197

The TV column uses the Team Vision EDS with 359,065 kg total propellant and 22,435 kg stage mass (including 950 kg RCS propellant). This has a stage (less 4944 kg engine mass) to propellant mass ratio of 4.9%, which I consider to be too optimistic. The SSP column has 351,273 kg propellant and 30,227 kg stage mass, giving a ratio of 7.2%, in line with historic Saturn-V S-IVB and S-II data.

The high Earth orbit rendezvous technique involves a rendezvous in an elliptical orbit with 240.8 km perigee and 4112 and 5729 km apogee for TV and SSP, respectively. The Dual TLI mission has the LSAM loaded up with extra propellant so that the EDS puts the LSAM and CEV into an elliptical orbit. At the end of the EDS burn, the LSAM separates and immediately performs the rest of the burn. This requires 716 and 816 m/s for TV and SSP, respectively.

As we can see, even with an overly optimistic EDS, Direct 2.0 can not achieve NASA's requirement of 75.1 t TLI mass. The option that will work is Dual TLI where the TLI mass is 77.2 t using a conservative EDS tank.

Here are my calculations which show that Direct 2.0 does not meet NASA's requirements. These numbers are from "Baseball J232 34.4022.3 EDS.pdf".

Ascent Burn      252,396 kg
Boiloff            1,402 kg
TLI Burn          98,228 kg
Reserve            5,279 kg
Ullage             1,760 kg
---------------------------
Total Propellant 359,065 kg

Empty Stage       16,541 kg
Engine Mass        4,944 kg
RCS Propellant       950 kg
---------------------------
Total Stage       22,435 kg
Total Full EDS   381,500 kg
TLI Mass          62,995 kg

J-2X speed        4393.4 m/s (448 s)

Delta-V = 4393.4*ln(1 + 98228/(22435 + 5279 + 1760 + 62995)) = 3180 m/s
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/31/2008 04:08 am
And here are a few other direct links to hi-res versions of some of Philip Metschan's other DIRECT artwork from our website:-
<<snip>>
Enjoy,

Ross.
I have most of these on my PC @ work as screen savers and just about everyone who pops by likes how these vehicles look and even, ocassionally, let me bend their ears as to how cohesive the designs are.

Philip's work is just stunning and really enhances the entire effort. You guys are so lucky to have this sort of link between your dreams and the general puplic's ussally limited ability to visualise.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 10/31/2008 04:27 am
And my understanding is that the Canadian space program wishes to expand its capabilities beyond just providing manipulator arms like this.   There are going to be a lot of different things which we can do on the moon, and I'm sure that the Canadian team is more than capable of doing other things.   I think the question is really "What would Canada like to do for the effort?"
While I can't say what we are working on, there has been a fair amount of activity over an extended period of time that has the potential to involve Canada in several areas of the Constellation program, depending upon how it all plays out. And, as Ross says, not only making arms. We're much more than a "one trick ski-doo" up here. Our recent (and continuing) experience in Mars instruments, orbital assembly, prox ops and man-machine interfaces positions us to do an awful lot to help any exploration program, be it LEO, Lunar or Martian.

Don't worry, we're in there swinging. If you want to pitch in, you can write your local MP or to the Industry Minister (I think it's still Prentis) and indicate your support for greater Canadian support for space, in general, or Constellation, in particular. Our politicians respond to personal letters just like American ones do. :)

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/31/2008 02:30 pm
Here is a graphic showing the notional SSPDM as currently envisaged.

It is shown with a module the same dimensions as the Destiny Lab just as an example of it's size.

You can also clearly see the optional "Airlock Module" (here, not attached to the payload and with no "to space" doors, only the docking hatch for Orion and the PMA).

This arrangement would mean Orion would only have to be designed to use the LIDS adapters and would never have to fly with any Shuttle-compatible docking hatch - that functionality would be provided by the airlock module.

Also depicted here is an RCS pack on both 'aft' sides of the SSPDM - to provide sufficient control authority.   The hardware should be off the same production line as the Orion's RCS system to keep costs down.   It would be controlled by Orion, not a separate system.   Needs software, but that's obvious.

Also pictured here is the optional RMS system on the SSPDM itself too.   Probably not required for any ISS flight, but such a system would be particularly useful for Hubble missions.

Ross.

Here is your SSPDM

http://www.unitedlaunchalliance.com/docs/publications/ULA/AIAA%20Space%202008%20Paper_MarkAFoster_pdf.pdf

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 10/31/2008 03:55 pm
Quote
Btw, Ross, I absolutely love the breakout view of the Jupiter 232 in figure 9, is there a higher resolution version of it somewhere (say one that's not inside a PDF, rather a PNG or something)? I'd love to print that out and stick it on a wall somewhere.  ;)

Your wish is my command...

Desktop Wallpapers are here:-
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/wallpapers/

The exploded views of the Jupiter-120 and the Jupiter-232 CLV are great.  Any chance of a similar treatment for the Jupiter-232 EDS configuration?  It would nicely complete the set of the Jupiter siblings.

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 10/31/2008 05:55 pm
Here is a graphic showing the notional SSPDM as currently envisaged.

It is shown with a module the same dimensions as the Destiny Lab just as an example of it's size.

You can also clearly see the optional "Airlock Module" (here, not attached to the payload and with no "to space" doors, only the docking hatch for Orion and the PMA).

This arrangement would mean Orion would only have to be designed to use the LIDS adapters and would never have to fly with any Shuttle-compatible docking hatch - that functionality would be provided by the airlock module.

Also depicted here is an RCS pack on both 'aft' sides of the SSPDM - to provide sufficient control authority.   The hardware should be off the same production line as the Orion's RCS system to keep costs down.   It would be controlled by Orion, not a separate system.   Needs software, but that's obvious.

Also pictured here is the optional RMS system on the SSPDM itself too.   Probably not required for any ISS flight, but such a system would be particularly useful for Hubble missions.

Ross.

Here is your SSPDM

http://www.unitedlaunchalliance.com/docs/publications/ULA/AIAA%20Space%202008%20Paper_MarkAFoster_pdf.pdf

Thank you Jim. This is very interesting.
Title: Re: RS-68 as manned powerplant
Post by: kraisee on 10/31/2008 06:04 pm
I'm brand new to these forums , as of today . Didn't feel like reading 250 pages of this thread , either, but I did skim the Direct proposal  and do some digging.

Welcome to the site.   I don't mind going over the details again from time to time to help newcomers.   So feel free to ask whatever questions you need.


Quote
One thing jumps out right off.  My close friend  who was on the team that developed the  RS-68 engine for  Rocketdyne  since Day 1  swears it is NOT a man rated  engine and cannot be ( easily) made a man rated engine . Too far out of spec  for both safety and throttleability requirements. Uh oh...did I miss something  here in these discussions ?

There are a number of issues.   I've got to be careful with what I say because some of the info is probably proprietary in nature, but I'll describe what I can -- at least as *I* understand it.

There are issues with the current RS-68 which need to be resolved before crews can fly upon it.   NASA's older 8702A standards would have required ~250 items to be fixed, but those standards were recently relaxed in order to help Ares-I.   My understanding is that the changes in the new 8702B version now means there are only ~80 items which still need addressing.

Many of those items are fairly simple, such as adding sensors and adding backups for actuators in various locations.   Others are more demanding, such as adding a new health-monitoring electronics suite and the fact that the software in use right now would never pass scrutiny for human use -- primarily because it is all single-thread currently and needs a backup.   New software is one of the biggest issues for the entire thing because both engine controllers and health monitoring packs will need completely new code to meet the more demanding standards of human use.


Another issue is that the RS-68 has not yet been tested as thoroughly as would be needed for human use.   There's absolutely no question that the existing units passed all its unmanned qualification testing with really flying colors (three engines being run all the way to the maximum duration the test stand could handle!) but it will still need plenty more testing for human use.


And then there is the infamous 'flame ball' issue.  It must be noted that in reality it does not pose much of a danger to the vehicle at all.   The Delta-IV has been designed with it in mind from the very start and Jupiter would be too.

What the flame-ball requires from the vehicle, is to have a good TPS system to protect it.   But these vehicles must already have a good TPS system due to issues such as PIFS and Base Heating.

I have attached the photo's of STS-1's White External Tank as it fell away. Note the extreme scorching on the bottom of the Tank -- that's PIFS & Base Heating in action.

Also note the flames creeping half way up the side of every Saturn-V as it climbed away -- that's one of the clearest views you will ever see of these effects, but every single rocket going to orbit experiences this and must be designed with a TPS to handle the extreme heat generated by it.   Compared to PIFS and Base Heating, the "flame ball" is actually a rather minor -- if ugly -- concern.

None-the-less the flame ball needs addressing because it is extremely ugly and scares people.   There are a number of different approaches to reducing the flame ball, but my understanding is that it can probably be fixed by tightening up the start sequence timing and testing the new sequence thoroughly.   This is, I understand, work already being implemented for the USAF RS-68A variant which recently went through its CDR so is well-under-way.



Quote
Have you ever wondered why a Boeing Delta IV has to sit on the pad for weeks or months before launch , being fussed over, whereas an  LM  Atlas V is rolled out just a few days before ?  Russian engines, that's why ...

Oh c'mon...   That's just not a fair thing to say.

The Delta-IV Heavy had a design issue on its first flight (cavitation in the fuel feedline) which needed resolving before its second flight, and there have been a couple of incidents with batteries, but the vehicle has *NOT* been the cause of any of the recent delays -- it has been the payloads which have been the issue.

Blaming the DIV or RS-68 for the delays is like blaming the Shuttle Program or the SSME for the latest Hubble Servicing Mission delays.

For clarity:   RS-68 has *NOT* been the cause of any of the delays.   That assertion is completely untrue.

IMHO, you ought to take that back, because there are a lot of good folk here on the forum who work on Delta and they won't be happy by being tarred with the wrong brush.


Quote
FWIW.  Hope I'm mistaken , because the STS-derived Jupiter launch system looks totally peachy.

I don't think it's been described quite that way before, but ... okay! :)


Quote
On the other hand, no way could you pay me enough to fly to orbit on top of a single-stick SRB. I used to rodeo. You only had to stay on a bucking snorting animal for 8 seconds, not 2-3 minutes. Ares-1  is a Widowmaker.

Ouch.   A part of me flinched when I read that last line, but on reflection I find a larger part of me agrees...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/31/2008 06:15 pm
     I wonder could a single Jupiter 120 plus a delta IV upper stage be used to send a 13ton or smaller vehicle like Dragon,the CVX or Dream Chaser plus a small lander in the Apollo LEM's class or even a super light lander like the Langley lander to TLI?

In short, yes it most certainly could.   That configuration can send the 20.2mT Orion successfully thru TLI.

The problem is "braking" into Lunar Orbit at the other end though.   You have to perform the LOI burn when you arrive or you'll just swing straight past the moon and, depending on trajectory, either come back around towards Earth (hopefully) or head off into deeper space.

Carrying the extra fuel for the LOI, and then also enough for the TEI to get you home afterward, is the key issue we're having getting Orion into Low Lunar Orbit (LLO) using that J-120+DIVHUS configuration.   We can do the swing-by with no problems at all.   We can do some braking, enough to get into a Highly Elliptical Lunar Orbit (HELO) with a periapsis reasonably close to the surface, but not enough to get down to circular LLO.   That looks like it would require a stretched DIVHUS with about 2.1 times as much propellant in it.

I'm personally of the opinion that the HELO option would be good enough for an Apollo-8 style mission.

As for other planned spacecraft like Dragon & Dreamchaser, I don't believe their designs currently have sufficient propellant yet to perform the TEI, nor do any of the LOI, so they're essentially in exactly the same boat because they will probably weigh just as much as an Orion whenever they are re-designed to support the same amount of fuel to do the same job.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/31/2008 07:21 pm
Stephen,
I have a number of issues with your post above.

First, we have *not* proposed any such mission profile yet.

Second, we have never -- repeat: NEVER -- proposed that the LSAM complete the TLI burn.  It could be done, but we have rejected the idea as overly complex and more risky than we wish to support.

Third, completely forget the TV numbers.   They're more than a year out of date.

Fourth, we have hard data in-hand to show that a full-stage pmf as high as 0.95 should be quite achievable with this design of stage.   Yet our current baseline (LV 34.4022.3) has an extremely conservative pmf of just 0.895.  Please forgive me, and with all due respect, but I will continue to rely upon the industry-sourced data which has been provided to us, not your opinions.   Actual *evidence* of this is coming, but you're going to have to wait until mid-January for it.

Fifth, you haven't yet factored the change in the Cradle/ASE mass from 3,000kg down to 890kg.

Sixth, you need to revise your L2/L3 margins downward by 4,000kg to match CxP's updated requirements.   The target hasn't been 75.1mT for a while.


Comparing all figures directly with NASA's (without our additional arbitrary margins), we end up after 4 days loiter in LEO (120nmi, 29deg having degraded 10nmi from 130nmi insertion) with an EDS massing 28,776kg (burnout), still containing 109,204kg of usable propellant for the TLI Burn.   This is docked, using 500kg of Latches, to the 890kg LSAM Cradle, the 53,839kg Altair LSAM and the 20,185kg Orion CEV.

We close CxP's previous performance targets (72,975kg) by 1,049kg and their current (since ~PDR) targets (68,975kg) by 5,049kg.

And we still have the option in our back-pockets to deploy 5-seg SRB's to improve performance even further (~ +3-4,000kg).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/31/2008 07:27 pm
Philip's work is just stunning and really enhances the entire effort. You guys are so lucky to have this sort of link between your dreams and the general puplic's ussally limited ability to visualise.

Paul

Philip will be delighted when he hears about the reaction from you guys, but he's on a well-earned vacation right now, so remember to thank him again in a couple of weeks time :)


mrbliss - I will check with Philip about that when he gets back.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/31/2008 07:29 pm
Here is your SSPDM

http://www.unitedlaunchalliance.com/docs/publications/ULA/AIAA%20Space%202008%20Paper_MarkAFoster_pdf.pdf

Now *THAT* is very interesting.   Thanks for the link Jim.

What I would give to see some more technical details about that...   We currently have a chap working hard on a preliminary structural design for our SSPDM and I think he would be very interested to see how ULA are doing theirs.

If this does get built, it could certainly be lofted on a Jupiter for Orion to utilize.   It looks short enough to fit 'as is', but if the PLF has to be stretched a little, that's quite 'doable' too.

I would really like to know more about the development and per-unit cost profiles and the expected workforce expectations for ULA's module too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/31/2008 09:34 pm
Ross, you previously mentioned that DIRECt would only require a "lighter" version of the J-2X.  Is that still the case?  I only ask this because I looked through some recent ULA PDF's mentioning that they want to upgrade the Delta Iv's upper stage engine, and if it is cheap enough how about ULA, DoD, and NASA share the development as well as production of the J-2X?  Seems to give the kind of savings and mutual support the RS-68A would get.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 10/31/2008 10:10 pm
Ron,
Quite a while ago PWR settled on using some key parts from the RS-68 for the J-2X instead of parts based on the old J-2.   That decision made the J-2X almost equal in terms of cost and development schedule, so there really isn't any advantage to be had by using the J-2XD variant.   We changed over at the point where our analysis showed there would be no further advantages.

As for using the 294,000lbf thrust J-2X on the Delta-IV, that engine would be serious overkill, its got too much thrust.   They need something much smaller -- more like the 25,000lbf thrust RL-60 for that, not the J-2X.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 11/01/2008 10:33 am
Just a theoretical musing - what will be the Jupiter`s (both of them) performance with 3 SRBs?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 11/01/2008 10:45 am
What's the point of contemplating 3 SRBs when that would kill DIRECT's major selling point - commonality with shuttle architecture? You'd have to redesign the pad, redesign the ET structure, put a heavier payload on top if you don't want the thing to just jump off the pad and encounter crazy aerodynamic and G loads, then when those boosters fall off you'd probably need more than 3 RS-68 to keep going with the heavier payload, etc.

Adding another SRB would bring it closer to Ares's departures from SDLV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 11/01/2008 11:10 am
What's the point of contemplating 3 SRBs when that would kill DIRECT's major selling point - commonality with shuttle architecture? You'd have to redesign the pad, redesign the ET structure, put a heavier payload on top if you don't want the thing to just jump off the pad and encounter crazy aerodynamic and G loads, then when those boosters fall off you'd probably need more than 3 RS-68 to keep going with the heavier payload, etc.

Adding another SRB would bring it closer to Ares's departures from SDLV.

I said theoretical.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 11/01/2008 11:14 am
I said theoretical.

I know. I replied it's not a simple calculation but ought to be a complex analysis on how adding a SRB would impact structural and hence mass requirements of the vehicle. It's not a simple matter of adding a booster and calculating payloads with the rest of the vehicle unchanged. That wouldn't be a theoretical consideration, it would be a back-of-the-envelope consideration.

Again, what would be the point of such a theoretical musing?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/01/2008 11:56 am
I said theoretical.

I know. I replied it's not a simple calculation but ought to be a complex analysis on how adding a SRB would impact structural and hence mass requirements of the vehicle. It's not a simple matter of adding a booster and calculating payloads with the rest of the vehicle unchanged. That wouldn't be a theoretical consideration, it would be a back-of-the-envelope consideration.

Again, what would be the point of such a theoretical musing?

Adding a 3rd SRB would increase the performance capability by a fair amount. However, the Jupiter-232 is capable of placing well in excess of 100mT into LEO. It will be a very long time, *if ever*, when we need to exceed that performance capability. Not anytime in our lifetime, and by the time we need to do that, I predict we would not be using chemical rockets with solid boosters at all; it will be nuclear of some kind.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 11/01/2008 12:12 pm
Adding a 3rd SRB would increase the performance capability by a fair amount. However, the Jupiter-232 is capable of placing well in excess of 100mT into LEO. It will be a very long time, *if ever*, when we need to exceed that performance capability. Not anytime in our lifetime, and by the time we need to do that, I predict we would not be using chemical rockets with solid boosters at all; it will be nuclear of some kind.

Purely theoretical musing. I was thinking of a different sort of Ares V. One that goes to launch pad with only 2 SRBs (so the stack supports itself), then more (one or two) are attached. The point is to avoid upgrading the crawlers.

Ignoring the technical problems (no place on pad etc.), could something like that have enough performance capability to do Constellation lunar missions Apollo-style, with one launch only?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 11/01/2008 12:41 pm
Just a theoretical musing - what will be the Jupiter`s (both of them) performance with 3 SRBs?

Using CEPE, I came up with estimates of 17.5 mT extra payload for the J-120 and 20 mT extra payload for the J-232.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/01/2008 01:15 pm
The current iteration of the Ares-V with only 2 SRB's is already too heavy for the crawler as it is. A new crawler is already required, and, btw, the crawlerway itself has load limits which the Ares-V also exceeds. It will need to be rebuilt as well. Stacking 2 SRB's in the VAB and then a 3rd at the launch pad buys nothing for the program.

Look. There comes a point, using chemical rockets, when the rocket is just too darn big. The Jupiter-232 is near the top of the eficiency ladder and would begin to become inefficient if it got much bigger. The Ares-V is just way out of the park too big and too inefficient. It sucks all the air out of the room as it is, leaving no Congressional dollars available to actually do anything with it. It isn't very smart to spend the entire treasury on the biggest rocket in the world if that leaves you begging for pennys to build spacecraft to ride on it. That's just dumb. Just because we are the richest nation on earth doesn't give us the right to squander that wealth. All too often we forget that there are limits to what is practical and we go off, time and time again, and build stuff that we always end up later saying "I wish we hadn't done that". We need to learn that lesson and then quit doing that.

Technical musings or not, I believe the future trend will be for smaller, more efficient launch vehicles, while maintaining a single heavy lift capability in the ~100mT range. Can we build bigger chemical rockets that that? Yes, like the Ares-V. Can we afford to actually fly them? No. They simply cost too much.

Doing anything really substantial with the VSE that is actually affordable requires a heavy lift capability, at the very least as a kick start. There is no way to afford to *robustly* impliment the VSE without a heavy lift capability, but there are limits to what that effectively means. 100mT is more or less as good as it can get, and exceeding that capacity by any substantial amount, at least with chemical and expendable launch vehicles starts down the other side of what is an effective use of limited dollars.

Want to put more than that into orbit? First you would need to justify payloads larger that that, and I think a pretty good case can be made for limiting payloads to that mass, more or less. You'd have a really hard time finding something that massed more than 100mT that *HAD* to be launched as a single unit. Think about it. 100mT is a LOT! Then the launch vehicle needs to be reusable, not expendable, and probably nuclear powered (that's a "technical" musing) because we have already squeezed about as much as is possible to get from chemical systems. For the life of me I cannot even envision a reusable launch vehicle capable of inserting 150-200mT of actual payload into LEO. It would be the size of the Titantic. Think of it. We have the Shuttle, a reusable launch system. It already puts well in excess of 100mT into LEO, but the payload is only around 25mT! The rest of it is the Orbiter itself! Imagine how big it would get to be able to deliver 100, 150 or 200mT of payload into orbit. It would be as big as the Titantic.

The goal is to establish a space-based civilization, not a one-agency-controls-it-all launch vehicle project. That means not wasting precious dollars on launch vehicles that are ecconomically inefficient. The Ares-V is already well past the efficiency point and to make it even more powerful would not help the ultimate goal. It would jepordize it. The Ares-V does not need a 3rd SRB. It needs to get smaller, back to around a 100mT lift capacity and get rid of the bottle rocket it wants to use for crews. The answer is a 2-launch solution using 2 approximately equal launch vehicles of the same design, not a little rocket and a monster rocket of totally different designs.

The answer is the Jupiter-232.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/01/2008 10:16 pm
-snip-
The goal is to establish a space-based civilization, not a one-agency-controls-it-all launch vehicle project.
-snip-
The answer is the Jupiter-232.

Chuck, that is a very informative and thought provoking post. What it tells me is that we need to start thinking about what we can build in LEO in 100mT chunks. We already built a space station in, I suppose, 25mT chunks, since it was built primarily with the Space Shuttle. And it seems to be pretty roomy, from the videos that I have seen.

Assuming 100mT mass, what kind of volume could we put up with the J-232 in a single launch, assuming that the volume is more or less empty, like the ISS segments? From what I have been reading, it seems possible to design such segments using a 10 meter diameter baseline. Or maybe just stick with the existing ET 8.4m diameter. Either way.

I'm not thinking of another space station, but of a modular spacecraft that would be assembled in orbit, then fueled in orbit. Say for instance, one segment for crew and consumables, another for fuel tanks, and a final section containing the engines and probably some more tankage.

Obviously this is very long term, not something for the initial lunar or Mars missions. But I think we need to move away from the idea of launching deep space missions based on how much we can loft in just one or two launches. I can't even imagine going to Mars in something the size of the Orion capsule.

Sorry if this is too far off topic. I'm just trying to think of how to best utilize the new DIRECT-based VSE launch infrastructure, which, as the Aldridge commission stated, we will be using for decades into the future.

Cheers!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/01/2008 11:03 pm
What about replacing the 2 SRB with 2x2F1 kerosene/LOX boosters?

Just a theoretical musing - what will be the Jupiter`s (both of them) performance with 3 SRBs?

Using CEPE, I came up with estimates of 17.5 mT extra payload for the J-120 and 20 mT extra payload for the J-232.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 11/01/2008 11:15 pm
I'm not thinking of another space station, but of a modular spacecraft that would be assembled in orbit, then fueled in orbit. Say for instance, one segment for crew and consumables, another for fuel tanks, and a final section containing the engines and probably some more tankage.

Obviously this is very long term, not something for the initial lunar or Mars missions. But I think we need to move away from the idea of launching deep space missions based on how much we can loft in just one or two launches. I can't even imagine going to Mars in something the size of the Orion capsule.

Of course Orio is too small and incapable of supporting a crew on a trip to Mars, and nobody is proposing that it be used like that; Orion is merely a return capsule taken along for the ride.
However, there is no need to build an ISS-sized spacecraft for the journey either. For a nominal six month trip, and a crew of four to six people, 30t or less should do it- think Salyut sized module.
The heavy lift requirement is really to allow TMI stages and/or wide-diameter payloads for Mars atmospheric entry- not habiatebl spacecraft modules.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 11/01/2008 11:38 pm
What about replacing the 2 SRB with 2x2F1 kerosene/LOX boosters?

That would, as I understand it, be in direct contravention of the NASA Authorization act of 2005, which specified that as much of the STS infrastructure and components as possible, be used for the new LV.

Some of the more knowledgeable RS's can correct me if I've oversimplified.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/02/2008 12:51 am
What about replacing the 2 SRB with 2x2F1 kerosene/LOX boosters?

That would, as I understand it, be in direct contravention of the NASA Authorization act of 2005, which specified that as much of the STS infrastructure and components as possible, be used for the new LV.

Some of the more knowledgeable RS's can correct me if I've oversimplified.

Everything with Ares (I and V, or VI...) is so far from what was originally conceived, I can't see how that could make much of a difference now? Well, except never happening since ATK wouldn't allow it (politics).

But I see LOX/Kerosense as a practical way to keep 1st stage costs down, down the road. Feed ATK the 4-segment contract for now, then when we're ready for heavy lift to the moon/mars, go with LOX/Kerosene. By that time the engines should be ready.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: randomly on 11/02/2008 06:11 pm
Sorry this is somewhat out of sync. Going back to the orbital fuel depot discussion and inflatable tanks.

Since you are lofting the fuel with expendable rockets, why can't you just use the tanks the fuel is lifted with? Connect them together with a pipe/pump header. When the fuel is used and the tank empty, discard it.

The only structure with long term space exposure to MMD is the piping/pump structure since you keep replacing tanks with new ones. Even if one of the tanks suffers an MMD puncture you only lose the fuel from one tank.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 11/03/2008 01:09 am
randomly.... i think that's a pretty good idea.... just design whatever tanking you are sending the fuel up in to simply fit right in to the central piping/pumping structure, or fit them with adapters... or let the central section have different adapters....  either way... but yes, i think that's a good idea.  once the tank is empty, you really wouldn't have any need for it up there anyway... because new shipments will have to be shipped up in another tank anyway....

but when i started that idea in this thread, i was actually talking about putting the inflatable tanks on the vehicle that you're sending up to refuel at the fuel depot.  let that vehicle have the deflated tanks all folded up inside, taking up very little space.... and you launch it that way... and then when you get up to the fuel depot, you fill the tanks up and they expand.    was mainly an idea for volume savings, but could lead to mass savings as well, i think.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/03/2008 02:50 am
2 days, 2 days.

Then the gears for a new administrator start moving and the count down for days left for Ares 1 begins.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/03/2008 03:22 am
kraisee wrote on 10/31/2008 09:21 PM

>First, we have *not* proposed any such mission profile yet.

Not sure which mission profile you are referring to.

>Second, we have never -- repeat: NEVER -- proposed that the LSAM complete the
>TLI burn.

The HEOR and Dual TLI profiles were never mentioned as Direct 2.0 mission profiles. I listed the "Direct 2.0" mission profile assuming that everyone knows the LSAM and CEV dock to the EDS, firing only the EDS.

>Third, completely forget the TV numbers. They're more than a year out of
>date.

Sorry for the confusion of using the TV acronym. As I wrote, I used the numbers from "Baseball J232 34.4022.3 EDS.pdf", which uses the current baseline LV 34.4022.3 values, not the data from a year ago.

>Fourth, we have hard data in-hand to show that a full-stage pmf as high as
>0.95 should be quite achievable with this design of stage.   Yet our current
>baseline (LV 34.4022.3) has an extremely conservative pmf of just 0.895.

According to your definition of usable propellant divided by total mass for pmf we have from "Baseball J232 34.4022.3 EDS.pdf" that pmf = (252396+99629)/(359065+21485) = 0.925. This does not agree with your stated value of 0.895.

>Actual *evidence* of this is coming, but you're going to have to wait until
>mid-January for it.

Why can't you present your evidence now?

>Fifth, you haven't yet factored the change in the Cradle/ASE mass from 3,000kg
>down to 890kg.

As you can see from the mass budget I listed, I forgot to include the Cradle/ASE mass! This means the TLI masses I listed should all be reduced in value. The ASE (latches only) mass is stated as being 500 kg in "Baseball J232 34.4022.3 EDS.pdf".

>Please forgive me, and with all due respect, but I will continue to rely upon
>the industry-sourced data which has been provided to us, not your opinions.

The EDS values I'm using are not based on opinions, but on historical data.

>Sixth, you need to revise your L2/L3 margins downward by 4,000kg to match CxP's
>updated requirements.   The target hasn't been 75.1mT for a while.

The 71.1 t value was chosen only because Ares-V could not meet the 75.1 t requirement. This only provides 30% Lunar surface access with 90% temporal (percentage of time avaiable for lift off from Moon I believe) or 50% access with 50% temporal. Increasing TLI mass to 75.1 t increases Lunar surface access to 65% with 90% Temporal or 80% access with 50% temporal.

By the way, the SI unit mT stands for milli Tesla (0.001 T) for magnetic field strength. The correct SI unit for 1000 kg is the tonne, abbreviated t.

>Comparing all figures directly with NASA's (without our additional arbitrary
>margins), ...

Then you need to update your published figures without your 10% arbitrary margin.

>we end up after 4 days loiter in LEO (120nmi, 29deg having degraded 10nmi from
>130nmi insertion) with an EDS massing 28,776kg (burnout), still containing
>109,204kg of usable propellant for the TLI Burn.   This is docked, using 500kg
>of Latches, to the 890kg LSAM Cradle, the 53,839kg Altair LSAM and the 20,185kg
>Orion CEV.

Usable propellant   109,204 kg
EDS burnout          28,776 kg
ASE Latches             500 kg
LSAM Cradle             890 kg
LSAM                 53,839 kg
Orion CEV            20,185 kg
Delta-V                3180 m/s
J-2X speed           4393.4 m/s (448 s)

The rocket equation is

dv = ve*ln(1+mp/(ms+mc))

with mp = 109,204 kg, ms = 28,776 kg, ve = 4393.4 m/s, and dv = 3180 m/s we have

mc = mp/(exp(dv/ve)-1)-ms = 74,025 kg

TLI mass. We have 500+890+53839+20185 = 75414 kg, which exceeds the TLI mass by 1,389 kg. Coincidently, the ASE Latches and LSAM Cradle mass is 500+890 =  1390 kg. I believe the error here is that you have included the ASE Latches and LSAM Cradle mass in the LSAM mass. The LSAM mass should be 52,449 kg.

>We close CxP's previous performance targets (72,975kg) by 1,049kg and their
>current (since ~PDR) targets (68,975kg) by 5,049kg.

I agree with these values, 72975+1049 = 74024 kg which is 1 kg less than my estimated value. So, Direct 2.0 will work with your assumed EDS mass, but you need to remove your arbitrary 10% margin from your published values.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/03/2008 04:12 am
Steven,
NASA, as with many things, has its own peculiar way of calculating pmf.   I do not agree with it myself, actually preferring the same method as yourself, but when "they" are the umpire in charge of this game, I'm going to continue doing it their way, not ours.   Please feel free to complain to them as loudly as you wish.   I'll sign any petition you want :) and the minute you get them to change their policies, we will gladly change ours to match too.   NASA's way of calculating pmf is essentially:-

   usable propellant/GLOW

Obviously, this isn't quite 'right'.   But as long as the reserves & residuals are always accounted for by using the same percentage, it is actually still a reasonably fair way for comparisons to be done.   I'd like to change it, but to get the comparisons between our baseball cards and NASA's own to align, we're doing it NASA's way.   Every other approach results in apples-to-oranges comparisons so is, essentially, meaningless in this context.

BTW, in case there is any confusion from any quarter, pmf itself has nothing to do with calculating the mass of the stage itself.   It isn't used in determining how heavy the tanking, or the electrical system, or the TPS will be.   That is all calculated via other (engineering-data driven) means and the resulting total mass is then one of the factors used to calculate a figure for the pmf.   So anyone new to this issue should not assume that you can just design a stage to a specific pmf -- that isn't how it works.

I'm going to leave this subject with a single thought.   In 1968 the Centaur-D had a pmf of 0.838 (our 'correct' calculation method, not NASA's).   At the same time the S-II stage (the closest historical stage to the capacity of the Jupiter US) had a pmf of 0.875 in the same year.

Today, 40 years later, the Centaur has improved its pmf to 0.911 -- approximately a 45% improvement over the last 40 years.   Applying the same *proven* linear improvement to the S-II would give it a pmf of about 0.931 today.   History has already demonstrated the improvement which can be achieved on real flight hardware.   Trying to compare Jupiter's US with a stage from 40 years ago simply fails to account for the improvements which have been made in that time -- and there aren't any other reference point for a stage this size except Shuttle's ET -- and that has an even higher pmf again.

Given our data, now from both LM and Boeing sources, I have no qualms at all in saying a pmf of 0.94 is a very reasonable target for a stage the size and configuration of the Jupiter-232's EDS.   The sources are both firmly of the opinion that 0.95 is quite achievable too.   Yet, even then, we are NOT proposing that the stage be that aggressive.   We are aiming for just 0.923 -- and just reminding you, that's 12% below where Saturn's S-II should be today and 28% below what we have been told is still an achievable target.   If you think 28% margin (plus regular GR&A structural margins) isn't good enough, then that's your opinion.   I disagree.


I have gone back already and double-checked for you and yes, you correctly noted the 1,390kg issue.   For clarification, I have 109,204kg of usable propellant being used to push 102,800kg of non-propellant mass through TLI.


We are in the process of preparing a release of our latest data.   I have already provided a heads-up to you and other readers here on this thread with the 34.4022.x baseball cards.   You guys get all the data first :)   The official release of that information will be integrated into an upcoming document we are working on still which I hope to have finished in the next few weeks.   You should note that on those baseball charts are BOTH sets of performance numbers, both NASA equivalent figures, and ours with the extra margins.   And just for the purposes of disclaimer, I better say that while those particular figures are still current as I type this, they are always subject to alteration as our ongoing analysis work continues -- a work in progress :)


And I completely agree with you regarding the SI unit issue.   But we end up in a position, exactly as with the pmf issue above, that as long as NASA continues to use its own methods, we're going to match them as closely as we can.   You have to realize that the US does not generally use the SI system at all.   It is not taught globally in all the schools or universities here and is not the most common system used by the engineering community here either.   In fact there is still a great deal of resistance to changing from the "current" imperial system.   Things are beginning to change, but its still very early days here compared to much of Europe, who (mostly) switched over when I was a young lad.   If you can somehow convince *them* to use SI correctly, I would be *delighted* and would realign our team immediately too.   But we are not going to do any such a thing until they do -- that's just another fight which we don't need to be fighting.   Keep in mind that it is not the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (http://www.bipm.org/en/home/) whom we are trying to appeal to here...   NASA is the target here, and they are the current umpire on this issue.   Thus, they have their own way and we just are not interested in arguing the issue.   Although you really ought to give us *some* credit for sneaking-in a number of SI correlations on our baseball cards already such as kilo's and Pascals ;)


And finally, the date the 'evidence' is coming out is not determined by anyone involved with the DIRECT Team -- we have zero control over it and would dearly love to have the info released right now if we could.   The date of its release is in the hands of the publishers themselves and mid-January is what they are telling us.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/03/2008 06:39 pm
Question re: aerodynamics of Jupiter vs. STS

    I was wondering if the calculations for DIRECT include any expected improvements in the aerodynamic qualities versus the Shuttle. While the Shuttle is a little more sleek than your average brick, it does present a significant cross section to the direction of travel. It also contributes a significant amount of surface area to the stack, which would increase drag. Finally, due to the offset configuration of the SSME's, the whole stack 'crabs' through the air at an oblique angle, which also increases the effective cross section during aerodynamic flight.

    The Jupiter stack does not suffer from any of these qualities, so it should have a much easier time punching through the lower atmosphere. Granted, this would only be a significant factor for the first couple of minutes of flight. But I think the improved aerodynamics would add up to a measurable amount of decreased drag, hence increased capacity.

Or am I way off (again)?

Thanks,
   Mark S.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BogoMIPS on 11/03/2008 06:49 pm
    I was wondering if the calculations for DIRECT include any expected improvements in the aerodynamic qualities versus the Shuttle.

Mark, you are correct that the engine arrangement and "nose-on" cross section of the vehicle is more efficient.  Someone smarter than I would have to get you the math to compare STS to an "equivalent" inline rocket if you wanted more detail.

But, keep in mind that both Ares I and Ares V/VI/VII are also inline vehicles, so they too have the same "benefit", so this isn't really a point that can be used as a pro or a con in comparing the vehicles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/03/2008 07:10 pm
Question re: aerodynamics of Jupiter vs. STS

    I was wondering if the calculations for DIRECT include any expected improvements in the aerodynamic qualities versus the Shuttle.


It is actually the other way around.  The shuttle configuration has to take into account negative effects of the offset thrust vector and drag of the orbiter in its performance calculations.  Direct doesn't have to do anything
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/03/2008 07:13 pm
    I was wondering if the calculations for DIRECT include any expected improvements in the aerodynamic qualities versus the Shuttle.

Mark, you are correct that the engine arrangement and "nose-on" cross section of the vehicle is more efficient.  Someone smarter than I would have to get you the math to compare STS to an "equivalent" inline rocket if you wanted more detail.

But, keep in mind that both Ares I and Ares V/VI/VII are also inline vehicles, so they too have the same "benefit", so this isn't really a point that can be used as a pro or a con in comparing the vehicles.

Well, no, I don't really expect to be given a detailed analysis, my math-fu is weak. I was just curious to know if the improved aerodynamics were accounted for.

And the reason I compared it to the Shuttle is that, with the exception of the SSME's and the orbiter itself, everything else basically IS the Shuttle stack. My (admittedly non-technical) reasoning tells me that with the same boosters, same tankage and fueling, and equivalent amount of thrust, the J-120 should be able to put more mass in orbit than the Shuttle, not less.

Of course, the RS-68's are not as efficient as the SSME's, so that probably has a lot to do with it.

As far as the Ares vehicles go, NASA can do their own calculations. I'm sure they have done due diligence and taken all possibilities under consideration.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/03/2008 08:42 pm
And my understanding is that the Canadian space program wishes to expand its capabilities beyond just providing manipulator arms like this.   There are going to be a lot of different things which we can do on the moon, and I'm sure that the Canadian team is more than capable of doing other things.   I think the question is really "What would Canada like to do for the effort?"
While I can't say what we are working on, there has been a fair amount of activity over an extended period of time that has the potential to involve Canada in several areas of the Constellation program, depending upon how it all plays out. And, as Ross says, not only making arms. We're much more than a "one trick ski-doo" up here. Our recent (and continuing) experience in Mars instruments, orbital assembly, prox ops and man-machine interfaces positions us to do an awful lot to help any exploration program, be it LEO, Lunar or Martian.

Don't worry, we're in there swinging. If you want to pitch in, you can write your local MP or to the Industry Minister (I think it's still Prentis) and indicate your support for greater Canadian support for space, in general, or Constellation, in particular. Our politicians respond to personal letters just like American ones do. :)

Paul

The cat's out of the bag on that call, Paul.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14822.0

Couldn't resist. Too overjoyed.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/03/2008 08:44 pm
Mark,
Yes, the calculations do account for the different aerodynamic properties of the different configurations.   But the difference is fairly marginal when you actually work it out.   In fact, the disposal of the PLF on the in-line actually makes a bigger difference to performance overall :)

The aerodynamics vary quite a bit between Shuttle, Ares-I, Ares-V/VI/VII, Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 and both NASA and ourselves account for the specific requirements of each particular vehicle configuration on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis.

You are also right to 'feel' that the J-120 (assuming the same engines purely for comparison purposes) should be able to loft slightly more payload than the Shuttle purely because of the lower aerodynamic cross-section.

In the 3xSSME configuration the J-120 would have greater payload performance to LEO.   In that situation, essentially the same amount of fuel and the same engines would be lifting almost exactly the same total mass to insertion.   But instead of a 26mT ET, a 99mT Orbiter and 16mT of payload (Total: ~141mT), the In-Line configuration would lift a 69mT Core Stage (now including all the engine mass and associated plumbing) and about 75mT of payload to the same orbit (Total ~144mT).   Almost all of that ~3mT difference comes from disposing of the ~6mT PLF, not the aerodynamics though.

Interestingly, using the exact same amount of fuel, the same 3 SSME's but going with a Side-Mount configuration (Shuttle-C) hurts performance a fair bit because the side-mount arrangement requires more structure mass to be used.   Final performance results for this 'comparable' arrangement are 26mT ET, 53mT of Cargo Carrier and 62mT of payload for an almost identical-to-Shuttle total of ~141mT.


But overall, the change to In-Line makes a significant improvement to the overall efficiency of the propulsion elements.   But the change from the $180m worth of 3x SSME's to the less efficient, but much cheaper, $40m value of 2x RS-68 engines hurts performance quite a bit too, dropping all these performance numbers by approximately 30mT each (part of that is lower performance, another part is extra weight in the RS-68's compared to the SSME's).

But that $140m per-flight cost-saving causes a 30mT performance hit which would completely overwhelm Shuttle's payload performance.   And it would leave Shuttle-C with only about half its performance.

But, while the J-120 In-Line is equally hurt by this too (down to ~60% performance), the larger "partner vehicle" configuration with 3x RS-68's -- the J-232 -- *really* benefits from the change.

J-232 configuration now has a whopping 50% improvement in thrust for its first stage (where thrust is far more important than efficiency) than the SSME variants ever would have been able to offer.   That makes it work really well and still costs about $120m less than a 3xSSME configuration would.

So the large J-232 is the ultimate goal.   You need to reverse backwards to see what the smaller J-120, based on the same hardware, is able to do.   It just so happens that when you do this, the smaller vehicle is able to lift about 20mT of payload with each Orion crew -- and that's more than equivalent to Shuttle's current performance/capabilities.   Because it is a 45mT launch system it also offers a lot of flexibility and capability for manned and unmanned use too -- capabilities we simply haven't had for more than 30 years.

With just J-120 alone, we could have launched the 300mT of current ISS configuration in just 7 flights -- one single year's flight manifest.   Better still, we could finish the whole thing with just two more flights.   This Heavy Lift capability is something we have almost entirely forgotten to even dream about today.   It is a capability which makes today's 20-25mT "Heavy" systems look rather small, yet J-120 is the first step on an extremely logical and cost-effective path to an even larger 110mT capability which is safe enough for both crew and cargo usage.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/03/2008 09:22 pm
Back in the day before Saturn was dismantled, we never talked about anything under 75mT as "heavy" lift. Heavy lift was "generally" understood to be between 75 to 125 metric tons to LEO. There was never any formal definition of course, but that was the general usage. Under 75mT was considered "medium". By those standards, today's EELV-families are low to medium lift, depending on the configuration.

It has been so long sense we flew genuine heavy lift capacity launch vehicles that we've forgotten what they are, so that today, good people without the benefit of personal hindsight think 25-30mT is "heavy lift" It’s not. I much prefer to stay with the long established tradition of 75mT of IMLEO being the lower threshold of heavy lift.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/03/2008 09:25 pm
I can't agree more Chuck.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 11/03/2008 09:26 pm
Back in the day before Saturn was dismantled, we never talked about anything under 75mT as "heavy" lift. Heavy lift was "generally" understood to be between 75 to 125 metric tons to LEO. There was never any formal definition of course, but that was the general usage. Under 75mT was considered "medium". By those standards, today's EELV-families are low to medium lift, depending on the configuration.

It has been so long sense we flew genuine heavy lift capacity launch vehicles that we've forgotten what they are, so that today, good people without the benefit of personal hindsight think 25-30mT is "heavy lift" It’s not. I much prefer to stay with the long established tradition of 75mT of IMLEO being the lower threshold of heavy lift.


But Saturn V flew so few times that it shouldn`t be considered at all.

I say heavy lift should be above 1000mT of payload. That would give something to aspire for.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 11/03/2008 10:00 pm
I say heavy lift should be above 1000mT of payload. That would give something to aspire for.

Two fully completed ISS's worth - now that would be a sight to see on launch  ;D

(or perhaps you meant milli-Tesla  ;) )
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/03/2008 10:13 pm
Can the RS-68 be shut down and restarted in case of ignition failure, or does the whole rocket have to be rebuilt?

For example, the shuttle gets the orbiter engines running at full power before the SRB's light, presumably so that they can can the mission if an SSME isn't running correctly.

But with the Jupiter, if  RS-68 #2 fails to reach nominal performance before SRB ignition, and the liftoff is canned, does that the fully functional RS-68 #1 engine has to be thrown out?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/03/2008 10:30 pm
Can the RS-68 be shut down and restarted in case of ignition failure, or does the whole rocket have to be rebuilt?

For example, the shuttle gets the orbiter engines running at full power before the SRB's light, presumably so that they can can the mission if an SSME isn't running correctly.

But with the Jupiter, if  RS-68 #2 fails to reach nominal performance before SRB ignition, and the liftoff is canned, does that the fully functional RS-68 #1 engine has to be thrown out?


Remember, the engines can and do fire multiple times for qualification.  After a launch abort, the engines can be used again.  There will be some refurbishment before the next attempt.

This is common to most liquid engines
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/03/2008 11:22 pm
The current RS-68 is certified for up to 8 separate ignitions and up to 1,200 seconds of operation each.

As part of the qualification process three of the development engines were started more than 25 times.   The same three engines were also operated through to the point where the test stand's water supply ran out, around 4,000 seconds in a single burn!   None of the three suffered any failures during this testing and actually none of the dozen test engines experienced a catastrophic failure at all.

PWR have not yet managed to seriously "kill" one yet (there were a handful of early development parts which failed & were re-designed, but nothing catastrophic), they just know that everything they've so far thrown at them on the test stands -- conditions *well* beyond any they will ever experience in flight -- they've taken.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/03/2008 11:38 pm
What is the water for? 

The current RS-68 is certified for up to 8 separate ignitions and up to 1,200 seconds of operation each.

As part of the qualification process three of the development engines were started more than 25 times.   The same three engines were also operated through to the point where the test stand's water supply ran out, around 4,000 seconds!   None of the three suffered any failures during this testing and actually none of the dozen test engines experienced a catastrophic failure at all.

PWR have not yet managed to seriously "kill" one yet (there were a handful of early development parts which failed & were re-designed, but nothing catastrophic), they just know that everything they've so far thrown at them on the test stands -- conditions *well* beyond any they will ever experience in flight -- they've taken.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/03/2008 11:42 pm
What is the water for?

Cooling the test stand itself.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 11/03/2008 11:46 pm
Cooling water for the test stand's flame deflector and for sound supression.
The big pond at Stennis that the water is drawn from only lasts about 30 minutes (1800 seconds) :>)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/04/2008 12:22 am
Mark,
Yes, the calculations do account for the different aerodynamic properties of the different configurations.

  -snip-

   This Heavy Lift capability is something we have almost entirely forgotten to even dream about today.   It is a capability which makes today's 20-25mT "Heavy" systems look rather small, yet J-120 is the first step on an extremely logical and cost-effective path to an even larger 110mT capability which is safe enough for both crew and cargo usage.

Ross.

Thanks Ross. As always, your answers are informative and entertaining.

The other day I submitted a post, about thinking ahead a little bit, about what kind of things we can build in LEO in 100mT chunks. I guess I was putting the cart before the horse, because I didn't get too many responses.

But once DIRECT is in place, and we have the ability to lift 100mT pieces of equipment in a single launch on a regular basis, I think it will change the whole way we think about space. And about what our role out there will be.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 11/04/2008 12:34 am
Mark, I admire your thinking. That's how NASA *should* be thinking. Unfortunately, we're all getting the short end of the Stick. We have to utilize the best available means of getting into space reliably and as cost-effectively as possible, and so far, we're not there yet.

One can only hope that after tomorrow, everyone will see the handwriting on the wall.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/04/2008 12:48 am
Mark S I sure hope your right.

Direct would be very different from the current Ares.  In many ways a better configuration I think.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/04/2008 01:22 am
One can only hope that after tomorrow, everyone will see the handwriting on the wall.

From your lips to the great maker's ears.

BTW, shouldn't your profile actually say "tutus simplex ocius"?

;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rumble on 11/04/2008 01:52 am
BTW, shouldn't your profile actually say "tutus simplex ocius"?

oof...  for those without their latin dictionaries handy...   can either (both) be translated?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 11/04/2008 02:25 am
Well, I intended it to mean "Better, Faster, Cheaper" but my knowledge of Latin is so bad, it could really be dimensions for Playmate of the Month...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/04/2008 02:53 am
Lancer & rumble,
"Better, Faster, Cheaper" translates fairly well to "Celerius Parcus Satius".   It was the motto of Dan Goldin, a former NASA Administrator from 1992-2001.   Many here believe that this approach of his forced some rather unpleasant and debatably harmful things upon to the agency in the end, so you might want to reconsider using that one.

"Tutus Simplex Ocius" translates to "Safer, Simpler, Sooner" ;)

You could add "Ut Astrum" on the end though, for good measure...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/04/2008 04:10 am
I like the scale Ross, might be cool to see some examples of launch vehicles on there and where they lie.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/04/2008 06:33 am
kraisee wrote on 11/03/2008 05:12 AM

>I'm going to leave this subject with a single thought.   In 1968 the Centaur-D
>had a pmf of 0.838 (our 'correct' calculation method, not NASA's).

Yes, I agree with that. All my pmf calculations are using your method: total (not usuable) propellant divided by total mass.

>At the same time the S-II stage (the closest historical stage to the capacity
>of the Jupiter US) had a pmf of 0.875 in the same year.

From the MSFC Apollo 14 flight book, the S-II has a total mass of mt = 490.78 t and a total propellant mass of mp = 451.73 t. This gives a pmf of 0.920, much better than your calculation.

>Today, 40 years later, the Centaur has improved its pmf to 0.911 --
>approximately a 45% improvement over the last 40 years.

That's for the Centaur V1. The Centaur V2 has a pmf of 0.902.

>Applying the same *proven* linear improvement to the S-II would give it a pmf
>of about 0.931 today.

I could not work out how you got 0.931.

>We are aiming for just 0.923

My calculations below give a pmf of 0.941 for your EDS.

>If you think 28% margin (plus regular GR&A structural margins) isn't good
>enough, then that's your opinion.   I disagree.

You don't have any margin as your pmf is 0.941, not 0.923.

Here are my updated TLI mass numbers (this includes ASE Latches, LSAM Cradle, LSAM and CEV) without the 10% arbitrary margin. I've also updated the dual TLI and HEOR schemes so that crewed launches have 6000 kg (estimated) less payload compared to non-crewed launches, included the ASE latch mass where relevant, and updated the LSAM engine speed from the RL-10B-2 value of 4530.7 m/s to 4378.4 m/s (estimated) for the modified RL-10 engine with 82.857 kN thrust.

              34.4022.3 (kg)  SSP (kg)
Single Launch    37,171       29,418
Direct 2.0       74,025       59,291
HEOR             88,399       75,648
Dual TLI         93,632       84,204

For Direct 2.0 the mass breakdown is

Ascent Burn      241,271 kg
Boiloff            1,551 kg
TLI Burn         109,204 kg
Reserve            5,279 kg
Ullage             1,760 kg
---------------------------
Total Propellant 359,065 kg

Empty Stage       16,541 kg
Engine Mass        4,944 kg
RCS Propellant       950 kg
ASE Latches          500 kg
---------------------------
Total Stage       22,935 kg
Total Full EDS   382,000 kg

After TLI:
Empty Stage       16,541 kg
Engine Mass        4,944 kg
RCS Propellant       252 kg
Reserve            5,279 kg
Ullage             1,760 kg
---------------------------
EDS Burnout       28,776 kg
TLI Mass          74,025 kg   
J-2X speed        4393.4 m/s (448 s)

Delta-V = 4393.4*ln(1 + 109204/(28776+74025)) = 3180 m/s

This gives a pmf of 359,065/(382,000 - 500) = 0.941. Using historical data for the EDS, the mass breakdown is

Ascent Burn      241,271 kg
Boiloff            1,448 kg
TLI Burn         101,667 kg
Reserve            5,164 kg
Ullage             1,722 kg
---------------------------
Total Propellant 351,272 kg

Empty Stage       24,334 kg
Engine Mass        4,944 kg
RCS Propellant       950 kg
ASE Latches          500 kg
---------------------------
Total Stage       30,728 kg
Total Full EDS   382,000 kg

After TLI:
Empty Stage       24,334 kg
Engine Mass        4,944 kg
RCS Propellant       252 kg
Reserve            5,164 kg
Ullage             1,722 kg
---------------------------
EDS Burnout       36,416 kg
TLI Mass          59,291 kg
   

Delta-V = 4393.4*ln(1 + 101667/(36416+59291)) = 3180 m/s

This gives a pmf of 351,272/(382,000 - 500) = 0.921 matching the S-II pmf, even though it contains 100.4 t less propellant.

Direct 2.0 claim a TLI mass of 74.0 t with a pmf of 0.941. However, when a more realistic pmf of 0.921 is used, the TLI mass drops considerably to 59.3 t, below NASA's 71.1 t requirement by 11.8 t. Even using five-segment SRB's will not be sufficient to meet NASA's requirments. The option that will work is a dual TLI burn where the LSAM completes the TLI burn. The LSAM only requires an additional 15.1 t of propellant to perform this task, increasing TLI mass to 84.2 t and exceeding NASA's requirements by 13.1 t.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 11/04/2008 12:11 pm
Quote
I could not work out how you got 0.931.

Kraisee claimed a 45% improvement.

1 - .875 = .125
.125 * (1-.45) = .06875
1 - .06875 = .93125

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 11/04/2008 12:23 pm
Quote
This gives a pmf of 351,272/(382,000 - 500) = 0.921 matching the S-II pmf, even though it contains 100.4 t less propellant.

Direct 2.0 claim a TLI mass of 74.0 t with a pmf of 0.941. However, when a more realistic pmf of 0.921 is used, the TLI mass drops considerably to 59.3 t, below NASA's 71.1 t requirement by 11.8 t.

So, Kraisee shows how technology over the last few decades has allowed a vast improvement in pmf, and then you say his starting point of .875 was too low, he should have started with the more realistic value of .92.  I think that, right there, shows how a higher pmf in the range of .941 would be even more feasible than he originally suggested.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 11/04/2008 12:35 pm
Lancer & rumble,
"Better, Faster, Cheaper" translates fairly well to "Celerius Parcus Satius".   It was the motto of Dan Goldin, a former NASA Administrator from 1992-2001.   Many here believe that this approach of his forced some rather unpleasant and debatably harmful things upon to the agency in the end, so you might want to reconsider using that one.

"Tutus Simplex Ocius" translates to "Safer, Simpler, Sooner" ;)

You could add "Ut Astrum" on the end though, for good measure...

Ross.

You know, now that I know the back story behind it, I think you're right...

It looks pretty good as an LV patch though, don't you think?  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/04/2008 01:12 pm
BTW, shouldn't your profile actually say "tutus simplex ocius"?

oof...  for those without their latin dictionaries handy...   can either (both) be translated?[

If only MG would listen. Verbum sapiente sat!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rumble on 11/04/2008 01:19 pm
"Tutus Simplex Ocius" translates to "Safer, Simpler, Sooner" ;)
Hopefully not to be confused with "Safe, Simple, Soon," which we're still waiting to see how dangerous and complicated it's going to be...if we ever get it.

Go DIRECT!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/04/2008 08:14 pm
It looks pretty good as an LV patch though, don't you think?  ;)

Oh, hell yeah! :)

You've done a great job on your patch there and so too, gladiator has done a great job converting the Shuttle Program logo into a Jupiter one too.   You guys are doing wonderful things there!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/04/2008 08:44 pm
Steven,
   I want to deal with this issue, but not *right now*.   Can I get you to ask this again, two weeks from now, once my current deadlines have passed?   I can then devote the amount of time needed to address this fully.   Would that be okay?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Vacuum.Head on 11/05/2008 03:02 am
DIRECT = Rocket Equations + Latin Quotations
This is why I just love this _singular_ thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg315291#msg315291
(Sorry to be self referential.)
Here's another:
a posse ad esse "from the possible to the actual"
Especially as at 4.00 GMT the BBC called for Obama!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 11/05/2008 03:14 am
So now that Obama has won, I would imagine all your efforts have been switched to persuade him.  Will it be easier or harder now that he won?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 11/05/2008 03:29 am
I totally agree that Gladiator did a fine job with the STS-->Jupiter design. I had done one of my own, converting the existing Ares one to Jupiter, and hadn't posted or used it since I saw his before I used it. But now that we're talking about it, I think I'll show it. Along with the updated Jupiter patch design.

I feel like I ought to make up a few of these patches now... LOL


(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/two-Jupiter-1.gif)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/05/2008 03:31 am
Ross, its up to you to decide when you respond to the EDS mass issue. What I would like to see is your mass breakdown and how you derived your EDS mass.

Guru, thanks for that clarification. The issue of the EDS mass is more complicated than just looking at how pmf has increased over the years. The Centaur D was a twin engine vehicle and so a modern comparison should be with the Centaur V2.

Centaur                C     D/E     V2
Stage Mass (t)        1.954  2.631   2.25   
Propellant Mass (t)  13.604 13.627  20.80
Total Mass (t)       15.558 16.258  23.05
pmf                   0.874  0.838   0.902

We see here something very suspicious. The earlier Centaur C has a pmf of 0.874, while the D/E stage has a much lower pmf of 0.838. Basically, propellant mass increased very slightly, while stage mass increased by 35%! Compared to other Centaur stages, the Centaur D/E value is inconsistant. I suspect the stage mass is incorrect. If anyone has some accurate data on the Centaur D/E, that would be much appreciated

We can see that compared to Centaur C, stage mass has increased by 15% and propellant mass has increased by 53%. The increases in propellant mass come from increasing the stage length from 9.14 m to 12.68 m. The larger stage mass results from longer tanks and heavier engines. Modern electronics would have helped compensate for these increases. The percentage increase of V2 over C is 22%, instead of 45% for V1 over D/E which should be not be used as V1 has only one engine and the D/E value is suspect.

In any case, to apply this overall 22% increase to the S-II is dumb. We are not increasing the propellant mass, but decreasing it by 100t, so this will hurt pmf. Also, we have to add RCS, re-ignition capability and thermal control which again hurt pmf.

As I'm not an aerospace engineer, I wanted a model of a hydrogen oxygen upper stage. I plotted all hydrogen oxygen stages in the following log-log graph. The vertical axis is the propellant mass to stage mass (less engines) ratio. The bottom axis is the propellant mass in tonnes (t). We can see a general trend that as propellant mass increases the stage becomes more efficient. I also plotted an average line (in green) mp/ms = 18.6*mp^0.114. Basically, stages below the green line are stages with conformal tanks, while those above the line have separate tanks. We can see that the Ares-V EDS and the Direct 2.0 Core are on the green line (both stages being separate tank designs).

The blue line is the green line reduced by 10%. This is what I've been using. This line goes through the S-IV and S-II stage performance which I believe is a conservative choice. Modern materials and methods should help to compensate for addition of RCS, re-ignition and thermal control. Also, I find it disconcerting that the J-2X at 2472 kg is 77% heavier than the J-2S, with only 15% more thrust. So much for modern methods! The blue line is also close to the Ares-I conformal upper stage, so anyone using the blue line will be in line with what NASA is using.

I have also plotted the Direct 2.0 EDS. It is so far below the experience base that it is not funny. It lies nowhere near what modern stages achieve.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/05/2008 03:53 am
I totally agree that Gladiator did a fine job with the STS-->Jupiter design. I had done one of my own, converting the existing Ares one to Jupiter, and hadn't posted or used it since I saw his before I used it. But now that we're talking about it, I think I'll show it. Along with the updated Jupiter patch design.

I feel like I ought to make up a few of these patches now... LOL


(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/two-Jupiter-1.gif)

Those look great!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: lewis886 on 11/05/2008 04:34 am
Steven,
   I want to deal with this issue, but not *right now*.   Can I get you to ask this again, two weeks from now, once my current deadlines have passed?   I can then devote the amount of time needed to address this fully.   Would that be okay?

Ross.
Ross, its up to you to decide when you respond to the EDS mass issue. What I would like to see is...


umm... he said he'd be able to get back to you in a couple weeks.... not right now....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/05/2008 06:05 am

My calculations below give a pmf of 0.941 for your EDS.

Here are my updated TLI mass numbers (this includes ASE Latches, LSAM Cradle, LSAM and CEV) without the 10% arbitrary margin. I've also updated the dual TLI and HEOR schemes so that crewed launches have 6000 kg (estimated) less payload compared to non-crewed launches, included the ASE latch mass where relevant, and updated the LSAM engine speed from the RL-10B-2 value of 4530.7 m/s to 4378.4 m/s (estimated) for the modified RL-10 engine with 82.857 kN thrust.

              34.4022.3 (kg)  SSP (kg)
Single Launch    37,171       29,418
Direct 2.0       74,025       59,291
HEOR             88,399       75,648
Dual TLI         93,632       84,204

For Direct 2.0 the mass breakdown is

Ascent Burn      241,271 kg
Boiloff            1,551 kg
TLI Burn         109,204 kg
Reserve            5,279 kg
Ullage             1,760 kg
---------------------------
Total Propellant 359,065 kg

Empty Stage       16,541 kg
Engine Mass        4,944 kg
RCS Propellant       950 kg
ASE Latches          500 kg
---------------------------
Total Stage       22,935 kg
Total Full EDS   382,000 kg

After TLI:
Empty Stage       16,541 kg
Engine Mass        4,944 kg
RCS Propellant       252 kg
Reserve            5,279 kg
Ullage             1,760 kg
---------------------------
EDS Burnout       28,776 kg
TLI Mass          74,025 kg   
J-2X speed        4393.4 m/s (448 s)

Delta-V = 4393.4*ln(1 + 109204/(28776+74025)) = 3180 m/s

This gives a pmf of 359,065/(382,000 - 500) = 0.941. Using historical data for the EDS, the mass breakdown is

I get 0.924 including residuals. Is that your beef, the residual mass?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/05/2008 08:21 am
Steven,
I haven't had a good night's sleep in over a week.   I know I'm not going to get one for two more weeks.   I'm therefore not in a great mood right now.   Your latest comments are, frankly, beginning to annoy me -- a lot.

I'm not sure what your motive is for this, but I have asked you to wait until I can reply fully because I don't have time right now to do such a full reply.   You seem to have ignored that request and seem to be more interested in continuing with what I now classify as "trolling" -- and I have absolutely no tolerance at all for that, even when I am fully rested.   This is seriously discouraging me to engage with you at all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/05/2008 08:26 am
I totally agree that Gladiator did a fine job with the STS-->Jupiter design. I had done one of my own, converting the existing Ares one to Jupiter, and hadn't posted or used it since I saw his before I used it. But now that we're talking about it, I think I'll show it. Along with the updated Jupiter patch design.

I feel like I ought to make up a few of these patches now... LOL


(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/two-Jupiter-1.gif)

Schweet :)

I *really* like that pentagonal one.

Did my own for the Baseball cards too...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/05/2008 10:11 am
So now that Obama has won, I would imagine all your efforts have been switched to persuade him.  Will it be easier or harder now that he won?

Ron,
Actually none of our plans have changed a bit with this decision.

Our plans appeal equally to both candidates, albeit because of slightly different reasons.

I think the only practical difference is our estimates regarding how quickly the two camps would be able to move on this.   I think McCain would have probably taken a bit longer to get around to dealing with NASA's issues.   I think President Elect Obama will move more quickly. mostly because he will be putting his own cabinet together from day 1 and is extremely unlikely to retain anyone from Bush's era.

Obama's entire campaign has been all about "change".   I don't think we're going to need to sell this "change" to him in any hard way.   DIRECT is clearly a change, it's a change for a Safer, Simpler, Sooner option which also offers greater performance and costs a lot less.

We know our concept has already been doing the rounds within his team of advisers and I firmly believe that we are going to have a real ball game on our hands shortly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 11/05/2008 01:05 pm
Also, I find it disconcerting that the J-2X at 2472 kg is 77% heavier than the J-2S, with only 15% more thrust. So much for modern methods!

The J-2X is designed for better vacuum performance as measured in specific impulse.  This necessitated the use of a larger nozzle.

The J-2S you mention was never used in flight.  The improvement in thrust over the J-2 that was actually used on the Saturn V is 26%, while the J-2X is 68% heavier.  The Isp increased from 421 to 448 seconds.  Both the improvement in thrust and specific impulse, in spite of the increased engine mass, actually increases the payload for the Ares I in a single engine configuration.  The J-2S didn't have the performance needed to orbit an Orion spacecraft.  More importantly, though, it increases the Lunar payload capability of the Ares V due to the improved Isp, and it would do the same thing for Jupiter.

To bring up another point: The S-II had five engines, while the Jupiter U/S is designed with two.  The engine mass thus decreases from 5 x J-2 masses on S-II to 3.36 x J-2 masses on the Jupiter 232 U/S, and plumbing weight also drops with the increased simplicity.

You're asking some good questions, Steven, and I really appreciate that you're trying to figure out the details of the flight hardware.  Keep it up.  Just, don't bother Kraisee with it.  I don't mind answering what I can, though, little as that may be.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 11/05/2008 01:42 pm
Steven,
I haven't had a good night's sleep in over a week.   I know I'm not going to get one for two more weeks.   I'm therefore not in a great mood right now.   Your latest comments are, frankly, beginning to annoy me -- a lot.

I'm not sure what your motive is for this, but I have asked you to wait until I can reply fully because I don't have time right now to do such a full reply.   You seem to have ignored that request and seem to be more interested in continuing with what I now classify as "trolling"

Ross.

Ross, I am living in a free software world and what you just did is very similar to what project maintainers do - the worse part of them does. You are attacking your "users".

Some software project maintainers do this too. Yes, they are overworked. Yes, some users ask stupid questions or otherwise are annoying.

This is a bad excuse for venting your anger on them!

A user, or in your case a space enthusiast or professional posted some doubts about your project on an internet forum. If you can respond right away, good. If you need more time to re-check the numbers and explain where he is wrong, take that time.

But you can't require people to wait for you. Lashing out on them because they continue to talk instead of shutting up and waiting for your highness to respond, is even worse.

Your good reputation, just like a good reputation of successful big software projects (like Linux) is earned by consistently good performance of the project team. In this case, DIRECT's reputation will benefit when you respond to Stephen's posts and show him where he is wrong, or acknowledge that he found some real discrepancy in your numbers. The second case would be an equivalent of somebody reporting a bug in software, and is not a bad thing per se. Happens all the time and helps make software better.

Responding with a post with no numbers but with anger does not help one iota. It only creates frustration and enemies. It only makes you look less reputable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rumble on 11/05/2008 02:00 pm
Steven,
I haven't had a good night's sleep in over a week.   I know I'm not going to get one for two more weeks.   I'm therefore not in a great mood right now.   Your latest comments are, frankly, beginning to annoy me -- a lot.

I'm not sure what your motive is for this, but I have asked you to wait until I can reply fully because I don't have time right now to do such a full reply.   You seem to have ignored that request and seem to be more interested in continuing with what I now classify as "trolling"

Ross.

Ross, I am living in a free software world and what you just did is very similar to what project maintainers do - the worse part of them does. You are attacking your "users".

Some software project maintainers do this too. Yes, they are overworked. Yes, some users ask stupid questions or otherwise are annoying.

This is a bad excuse for venting your anger on them!

A user, or in your case a space enthusiast or professional posted some doubts about your project on an internet forum. If you can respond right away, good. If you need more time to re-check the numbers and explain where he is wrong, take that time.

But you can't require people to wait for you. Lashing out on them because they continue to talk instead of shutting up and waiting for your highness to respond, is even worse.

Your good reputation, just like a good reputation of successful big software projects (like Linux) is earned by consistently good performance of the project team. In this case, DIRECT's reputation will benefit when you respond to Stephen's posts and show him where he is wrong, or acknowledge that he found some real discrepancy in your numbers. The second case would be an equivalent of somebody reporting a bug in software, and is not a bad thing per se. Happens all the time and helps make software better.

Responding with a post with no numbers but with anger does not help one iota. It only creates frustration and enemies. It only makes you look less reputable.
I disagree. 

There is only so much time in a day, and the amount of Ross's life he has dedicated to this effort is nothing short of amazing.

I didn't see Ross's response as anger...  I saw it as accurately pointing out that Steve continues to push even after Ross said priorities must use his time elsewhere for the next two weeks.

The general request of everyone in this thread is for the DIRECT team to move things forward and let everyone know where things are.  I suspect the next couple of weeks for Ross will be precisely that.

You can't make everyone happy.  Eventually you have to decide where one's time is best spent then move forward.  Just because someone leads a launch vehicle development movement or a major open source software project doesn't mean there is any sort of divine inspiration/intervention taking place here; these are ordinary people dedicating themselves to doing extraordinary things.

I know what "not enough time in the day" feels like, so I can relate here.  No matter how much you want to do everything for everyone, you can't.  Something(s) have to win; something(s) have to lose.  Ross isn't even saying "No," he's just asking for patience.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 11/05/2008 02:00 pm
I have to agree with gospacex here. I didn't get the impression Steven was expecting an answer right away and his post is quite far away from what I'd consider trolling. He does seem a bit assertive about his conclusions, but at least he explained his reasonings.
Now... *someone* obviously neglected something in his calculation because each others' figures don't match, but that doesn't mean others here can't contemplate on reasons for the discrepancy before the two weeks are out and Ross is able to adress the matter fully.

Or does it?

I for one found the discussion on pmf figures of different stages interesting and certainly not off-topic to DIRECT.

Just my 2c.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 11/05/2008 02:11 pm
My question is.. Why did Steven wait this long, then all of a sudden come out with both barrells blazing? 

I have no problem with him wanting to make sure the numbers add up.. I think that is good for everyone, but he does seem to be a little too pushy and negative to be as constructive as he could be. 

Is his goal to try to shoot DIRECT down, or to help make sure the numbers make sense?

If I may be so bold..
Steven.. what are your real intentions? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rumble on 11/05/2008 02:11 pm
I have to agree with gospacex here. I didn't get the impression Steven was expecting an answer right away and his post is quite far away from what I'd consider trolling. He does seem a bit assertive about his conclusions, but at least he explained his reasonings.
Now... *someone* obviously neglected something in his calculation because each others' figures don't match, but that doesn't mean others here can't contemplate on reasons for the discrepancy before the two weeks are out and Ross is able to adress the matter fully.

Or does it?

I for one found the discussion on pmf figures of different stages interesting and certainly not off-topic to DIRECT.

Just my 2c.

Absolutely.  Another thing of the beauty of the "open source" nature of this forum.  Guru had roughly the same sentiments a couple of posts earlier.

Also keep in mind Ross is running on fumes.  He may have worded his response differently being fully rested.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/05/2008 02:13 pm
I for one found the discussion on pmf figures of different stages interesting and certainly not off-topic to DIRECT.

Not off topic, but how many of those stages where AlLi? I suspect most where Stainless or Al... That alone should account for some of the diffs.

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 11/05/2008 02:28 pm
I have another two questions.

1. How much can Jupiter-130 configuration launch to orbit?
2. This one not only about DIRECT. Why RS-68 and SSME engines are turned on at launch, and not after booster separation? And would it increase perfomance if they were?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 11/05/2008 02:33 pm
(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/two-Jupiter-1.gif)

I like the one on the right.  The triangle shape frames the "up and away" feeling of a launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: texas_space on 11/05/2008 02:46 pm
(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/two-Jupiter-1.gif)

I like the one on the right.  The triangle shape frames the "up and away" feeling of a launch.

Second that.  I like the triangle better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 11/05/2008 02:47 pm
2. This one not only about DIRECT. Why RS-68 and SSME engines are turned on at launch, and not after booster separation? And would it increase perfomance if they were?

SSMEs aren't air-startable and neither are RS-68 engines. RS-68 in particular needs some heavy ground support equipment to start - e.g. dumping a lot of helium to spin-up each engine.
In principle, the best way (in terms of performance) to get into orbit is as fast as you possibly can. Not starting the engines at liftoff means less thrust which means more gravity losses which means a payload capacity hit, not increase. Saving all propellant after the boosters are jettisoned means you're not wasting it on lifting useless SRB mass, but it comes at a price of higher gravity losses.

The optimum is likely somewhere in-between, say ground start of all engines and then throttling the liquids down at some point before SRB jettison, then throttle up again.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 11/05/2008 03:01 pm
Quote
In any case, to apply this overall 22% increase to the S-II is dumb. We are not increasing the propellant mass, but decreasing it by 100t, so this will hurt pmf.


Remember, the Jupiter U/S is not being constructed using the same techniques as the S-II; it's more like a Centaur. You've already shown a modern two engine Centaur V2 with a pmf of .902.  That stage only has 20 tonnes of propellant, while the Jupiter U/S has 360 tonnes.  As you pointed out, larger stages with more propellant have better pmf-s.

I've done something like this somewhere else on this forum, but oh well:   In this case, there is about eighteen times as much propellant in the EDS as there is in the Centaur V2.  Without changing the shape of the tank, each dimension needs to increase linearly by a factor of 2.62 = 18^(1/3).  This means that there needs to 6.87 times (2.62^2) as much tankage surface area, and the walls need to be 1.618 times as thick (2.62 times as much pressure requires 2.62 times as much strength, and strength increases with the square of the thickness, so 2.62 ^ (1/2) = 1.618), for a total of 1.618*6.87 = 11.12 times as much tankage material.

11.12 times the tankage mass of the Centaur V2 (2.05 tonnes, which includes everything except the engines and propellant, things like electronics wouldn't actually need to be this heavy) is 22.8 tonnes.

Another way of looking at this is to see that the propellant to tankage mass fraction has increased by a factor of 18/11.12 = 1.62.  Tanks with a less elongated shape (wider and shorter) could improve that even more.

Next, we need to consider the engines.  The RL-10-B2 engines have a T/W ratio of 37.  Compare that to the J-2X, which has a T/W ratio of 54.  If the RL-10-B2 had a T/W ratio of 54, the Centaur V2 would have a pmf of .91 even at that small size. 

Now, let's put it all together.  The 2 J-2X engines weigh a total of 4.95 tonnes.  The "tanks" weigh 22.8 tonnes.  That adds up to 27.75 tonnes of dry mass.  That's 4-5 tonnes more than what is being claimed, but it's still a pmf of about 0.928, which is close to what the DIRECT folks are actually claiming.  If you throw out the couple of tonnes of overinflated guidance, control, instrumentation, and communication systems (which got thrown in with the tanks in this model),  the dry weight would be about 25-26 tonnes and the pmf would be .933.
 
Quote
Also, we have to add RCS, re-ignition capability and thermal control which again hurt pmf.

The Saturn V upper stages had re-ignition capability, so you don't need to add extra weight for it.  For most gas generator cycle engines like the J-2, re-start only requires a larger helium bottle (or a second one of the same size in the case of the Ares V U/S) to spin-start the turbine.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 11/05/2008 04:22 pm
Steven,
I haven't had a good night's sleep in over a week.   I know I'm not going to get one for two more weeks.   I'm therefore not in a great mood right now.   Your latest comments are, frankly, beginning to annoy me -- a lot.

I'm not sure what your motive is for this, but I have asked you to wait until I can reply fully because I don't have time right now to do such a full reply.   You seem to have ignored that request and seem to be more interested in continuing with what I now classify as "trolling"

Ross.

Ross, I am living in a free software world and what you just did is very similar to what project maintainers do - the worse part of them does. You are attacking your "users".

Some software project maintainers do this too. Yes, they are overworked. Yes, some users ask stupid questions or otherwise are annoying.

This is a bad excuse for venting your anger on them!

A user, or in your case a space enthusiast or professional posted some doubts about your project on an internet forum. If you can respond right away, good. If you need more time to re-check the numbers and explain where he is wrong, take that time.

But you can't require people to wait for you. Lashing out on them because they continue to talk instead of shutting up and waiting for your highness to respond, is even worse.

Your good reputation, just like a good reputation of successful big software projects (like Linux) is earned by consistently good performance of the project team. In this case, DIRECT's reputation will benefit when you respond to Stephen's posts and show him where he is wrong, or acknowledge that he found some real discrepancy in your numbers. The second case would be an equivalent of somebody reporting a bug in software, and is not a bad thing per se. Happens all the time and helps make software better.

Responding with a post with no numbers but with anger does not help one iota. It only creates frustration and enemies. It only makes you look less reputable.

I agree ... BUT Ross has just had a heart attack and his health is obviously still suffering and he sounds overworked too and therefore full allowances should be made for his post which was very uncharacteristic as he normally is so generous in giving his free time and the copious detail in his replies. Even if Steven is completely right I believe there is 20+ mT slack in the Orion/LSAM J-232* so a dual-TLI approach could be used *if* needed. DIRECT has surplus margin to burn, it fits like a glove and it can and will do the job admirably if Ares I stumbles and falls.

* http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg321064#msg321064
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 11/05/2008 05:29 pm
2. This one not only about DIRECT. Why RS-68 and SSME engines are turned on at launch, and not after booster separation? And would it increase perfomance if they were?

SSMEs aren't air-startable and neither are RS-68 engines. RS-68 in particular needs some heavy ground support equipment to start - e.g. dumping a lot of helium to spin-up each engine.
In principle, the best way (in terms of performance) to get into orbit is as fast as you possibly can. Not starting the engines at liftoff means less thrust which means more gravity losses which means a payload capacity hit, not increase. Saving all propellant after the boosters are jettisoned means you're not wasting it on lifting useless SRB mass, but it comes at a price of higher gravity losses.

The optimum is likely somewhere in-between, say ground start of all engines and then throttling the liquids down at some point before SRB jettison, then throttle up again.

... and ground starting the big engines lets you check their health before lighting off the SRBs ... I suspect a ground abort is always preferable than shutting down an engine at altitude.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 11/05/2008 06:54 pm
A user, or in your case a space enthusiast or professional posted some doubts about your project on an internet forum. If you can respond right away, good. If you need more time to re-check the numbers and explain where he is wrong, take that time.

But you can't require people to wait for you. Lashing out on them because they continue to talk instead of shutting up and waiting for your highness to respond, is even worse.

Your good reputation, just like a good reputation of successful big software projects (like Linux) is earned by consistently good performance of the project team. In this case, DIRECT's reputation will benefit when you respond to Stephen's posts and show him where he is wrong, or acknowledge that he found some real discrepancy in your numbers. The second case would be an equivalent of somebody reporting a bug in software, and is not a bad thing per se. Happens all the time and helps make software better.

Responding with a post with no numbers but with anger does not help one iota. It only creates frustration and enemies. It only makes you look less reputable.

I agree ... BUT Ross has just had a heart attack and his health is obviously still suffering and he sounds overworked too and therefore full allowances should be made for his post which was very uncharacteristic as he normally is so generous in giving his free time and the copious detail in his replies.

I didn't know about that. Hope you are ok Ross.
I know that sometimes it is not easy to control emotions and accept criticism rationally. Happens to me too :(

Quote
Even if Steven is completely right I believe there is 20+ mT slack in the Orion/LSAM J-232* so a dual-TLI approach could be used *if* needed. DIRECT has surplus margin to burn, it fits like a glove and it can and will do the job admirably if Ares I stumbles and falls.

Steven's post is actually *useful* for DIRECT, not detrimental. For DIRECT, it is important to check whether Steven found some discrepancy or not, regardless of who Steven is and what his motives are. Sweep emotions aside. If he found something, it's an objective fact and if DIRECT team needs to revise numbers, it's always better to do it earlier than later. Nothing to be angry about, if you think about it this way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/05/2008 07:25 pm
This whole issue is getting silly now.

Steven, for all his knowledge, is *NOT* working with mass figures derived from engineering data.   His 'analysis' has no data regarding how heavy the tank domes are, nor the barrels sections, the common bulkhead, the drain & fill feedlines, the skirts, electronics, hydraulics, tps, thrust structure, rcs systems, etc, etc.   He has not got any figures for any of those items.

To me, he clearly demonstrated his lack of solid data with his comments regarding the mass of the J-2X vs. J-2.   The weight difference is mostly because of that enormous ablative nozzle extension -- ablative nozzles are damned heavy.   If the J-2X's nozzle were the size of a regular J-2 nozzle (much smaller) and were 100% regen, not just 40-50% regen, they could save quite a bit of weight.   But the cost of the engine would go up a lot more and the risk of failure would also increase too.   A secondary mass-difference is that the turbo-pump & combustion chamber machinery on J-2X is quite a bit larger than J-2 was too, being based more on RS-68 designs than J-2.


Anyway, Steven's figures are all based around an analysis of the pmf figure ALONE.   It's like making an argument that a car can't possibly achieve a specific mpg figure without ever looking at the specific data about the type of engine and manufacturing techniques used to make the car (I'm talking the difference between Steel, Aluminum or Composite body & chassis and also the difference between SUV, Truck or Hatchback design).

He is looking purely at the *result* and trying to work out why it isn't what he is personally used to.

But real engineering does NOT work that way.   In fact, it works completely the opposite way around.   Engineering is the process of designing and building something to generate a desired result -- but the result is always the product of the method -- it is not a part of the method itself.


To continue the mpg metaphor further, his argument boils down to the equivalent of "no your car can't possibly offer 40mpg, I don't believe that claim".   He is then refusing to listen to the fact that we aren't talking about a regular car anymore, that we're using a hybrid -- and the hybrid sure can exceed 40mpg; probably more than 50mpg.


I do agree, that *if* we were looking at a 'traditional' car (MSFC designed, like Ares-I US, Ares-V Core and Ares-V EDS) instead of the hybrid (Centaur, Wide Body Centaur and ACES stages) we would not be able to get "40mpg".   The old 'traditional' tech just can't do it.   I agree.   That's *why* we have never proposed such a thing.

Unless Steven has somehow managed to isolate himself in a sound-proof box for the last 18 months, I'm pretty sure he can't have missed the fact that we have been consistently making a VERY big deal of using the 'hybrid' technology and forgetting the old stuck-in-the-mud 'traditional' approaches.


If Steven (or any of you) really wishes to contact the Centaur or equivalent Boeing guys, he can possibly negotiate an appropriate NDA and then he will be able to see some of the same *hard engineering data* which our design guys have access to.

Until he does something of the sort, there is NO WAY to convincingly bring his own data up-to-date with the new hybrid technology and I don't believe any amount of me telling him otherwise is ever going to change his mind.

Until he does that, for himself, he is essentially trying to justify a position WITHOUT ALL OF THE APPROPRIATE FACTS.   He needs to go to the source directly.   That's what we did.   Once he has his data straightened out and updated he will see it for himself.   But as long as he refuses to believe that LM/Boeing have better technology than the stuff he is currently familiar with, this whole issue will only ever be a really stupid "I believe vs. You believe" situation.

Sorry, I really don't have time for that sort of domestic dispute.

Attached is the plot of mass & pmf for the Wide Body Centaur for different capacities, plus some others for comparison.   Note the ICES figures.   That's what LM believe they can actually do -- WBC is nowhere near that aggressive though.   It should be noted that WBC is actually quite a bit less aggressive than the existing Centaur flown on Atlas-V!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/05/2008 11:57 pm
[rant retracted]

To Steve:

All you are doing is arguing with some 40+ aeronautical engineers about what constitutes pmf. Pmf is the easier number to use when figuring out the deltaV. It typically includes the unburnt fuel and pressurant. Dry mass (ie structure) vs. wet mass (what you are thinking) or all-burnt mass vs. wet mass, which is what pmf is. Pmfs for 747s include cargo, passengers and reserve fuel, and are around 0.5. Dry mass is something different. A stage pmf (as used by NASA) just ain't the dry mass ratio (which is more important to the engineers who are designing it).

http://books.google.com/books?id=-UebVg1YqsoC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=s-ivb+dry+weight&source=bl&ots=EudMps-IBW&sig=KZgDSOZnevvnHSSv49XDK8rN7KI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA64,M1

Have a look at this book and see what STRUCTURAL MASS percentages they are quoting for the S-II stage back in the 60s. Then look at what they actually got (see page 2):

drushel.cwru.edu/apollo13/13_report_ch03.pdf

Dry mass: 78 050 lb
Wet mass: 1 075 000lb

Which gives us a dry mass percentage of 7.2% = 0.928 (what the blueprint boys were claiming they could get). The same report gives us a dry mass of 9.5% = 0.905 (minus interstage) for the S-IVB.

[EDIT] Ross' figures are lower for S-II, theu look like they probably include the interstage, but I would take his data, coming from industry, over mine, coming from google.

So, there you go. Are you satisified? And, please, give the guy a break. He's working his butt off to salvage the Moon in our lifetime, so are his contacts (and they're risking their jobs).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/06/2008 12:05 am
Ross,

Building a Centaur that's 18 times bigger than the current model still seems like it might encounter some development trouble, just because of the size of the scale-up (thermal issues between the tanks, perhaps).  What is your estimate of the risk involved with this approach and how much extra development time it might require assuming things go as they usually do - with unexpected problems?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/06/2008 12:11 am
Ross,

Building a Centaur that's 18 times bigger than the current model still seems like it might encounter some development trouble, just because of the size of the scale-up (thermal issues between the tanks, perhaps).  What is your estimate of the risk involved with this approach and how much extra development time it might require assuming things go as they usually do - with unexpected problems?

Lee Jay,

You should check out guru's post at the top of the page. I think he sums up the issues pretty well!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/06/2008 12:14 am
Lee Jay,

You should check out guru's post at the top of the page. I think he sums up the issues pretty well!

Either I'm looking at the wrong posts, or I don't understand how that answers my question.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/06/2008 12:23 am
I have another two questions.

1. How much can Jupiter-130 configuration launch to orbit?
2. This one not only about DIRECT. Why RS-68 and SSME engines are turned on at launch, and not after booster separation? And would it increase perfomance if they were?

1. Less. Extra RS-68 drinks fuel too fast. Extra thrust stresses payload.

2. RS-68 and SSME require ground start equipment. Air-starting SSME would require megabucks and years of time. Easier to resurrect J-2. Using J-2s (say 5) basically means a bigger version of Stumpy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/06/2008 12:28 am
Lee Jay,

You should check out guru's post at the top of the page. I think he sums up the issues pretty well!

Either I'm looking at the wrong posts, or I don't understand how that answers my question.

Well, thermal issues are different, and in fact somewhat easier because of the smaller surface area to volume ratio. Strength issues are pretty much what he addresses: you have to increase thickness to counter pressure (so increase by the square of the pressure increase). As for stage strength, that comes from the internal pressure because the Centaur is basically a flying balloon.

Development for a stage is pretty much straightforward. There is no fantastic new technology in the construction which is the long pole, which is really just the J-2X. In terms of project management, there's plenty of slack in DIRECT 2.0 for such problems (and yes, they do crop up, but this is not SpaceX building rockets from scratch). Other than that, I really can't comment further because I R not rocket enjuneeyah.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/06/2008 12:42 am
I was thinking along the lines of the bulkhead thermal issues, and the manufacturing technology required for the far-larger stage.  I can do scaling-law design trades too, but that's rarely the last word on an actual scale-up of a complex piece of machinery.  Scaling up something by this amount does incur some risk, but I have no idea how much, so I'm asking.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/06/2008 01:13 am
Ahhh, I see. In my naiveness, I'm tempted to think that there could be some thermal issues, particularly along the bulkhead rim, but I don't think it's real stumbling block. If it were composites like the Ares VI EDS, yeah, then perhaps you'd get bigger issues, especially with loitering. Maybe Chuck would know.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/06/2008 02:21 am
Ross wrote on 11/05/2008 09:21 AM

>I'm not sure what your motive is for this...

To me this is an interesting intellectual challenge. I am all for the basic premise of Direct 2.0 over that of Ares I and V. I am not here to undermine Direct 2.0. I have some strong technical criticisms of the design which I am trying to explain.

>but I have asked you to wait until I can reply fully because I don't have time
>right now to do such a full reply. You seem to have ignored that request and
>seem to be more interested in continuing with what I now classify as "trolling"

I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking. I was responding to what Guru had written and I got carried away in analysing this new piece of information. I did not intend to troll, and I am sorry if my post appeared that way. I will refrain from further technical comments until two weeks time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 11/06/2008 02:57 am
This whole issue is getting silly now.

Steven, for all his knowledge, is *NOT* working with mass figures derived from engineering data.   His 'analysis' has no data regarding how heavy the tank domes are, nor the barrels sections, the common bulkhead, the drain & fill feedlines, the skirts, electronics, hydraulics, tps, thrust structure, rcs systems, etc, etc.   He has not got any figures for any of those items.

To me, he clearly demonstrated his lack of solid data with his comments regarding the mass of the J-2X vs. J-2.   The weight difference is mostly because of that enormous ablative nozzle extension -- ablative nozzles are damned heavy.   If the J-2X's nozzle were the size of a regular J-2 nozzle (much smaller) and were 100% regen, not just 40-50% regen, they could save quite a bit of weight.   But the cost of the engine would go up a lot more and the risk of failure would also increase too.   A secondary mass-difference is that the turbo-pump & combustion chamber machinery on J-2X is quite a bit larger than J-2 was too, being based more on RS-68 designs than J-2.


Anyway, Steven's figures are all based around an analysis of the pmf figure ALONE.   It's like making an argument that a car can't possibly achieve a specific mpg figure without ever looking at the specific data about the type of engine and manufacturing techniques used to make the car (I'm talking the difference between Steel, Aluminum or Composite body & chassis and also the difference between SUV, Truck or Hatchback design).

He is looking purely at the *result* and trying to work out why it isn't what he is personally used to.

But real engineering does NOT work that way.   In fact, it works completely the opposite way around.   Engineering is the process of designing and building something to generate a desired result -- but the result is always the product of the method -- it is not a part of the method itself.


To continue the mpg metaphor further, his argument boils down to the equivalent of "no your car can't possibly offer 40mpg, I don't believe that claim".   He is then refusing to listen to the fact that we aren't talking about a regular car anymore, that we're using a hybrid -- and the hybrid sure can exceed 40mpg; probably more than 50mpg.


I do agree, that *if* we were looking at a 'traditional' car (MSFC designed, like Ares-I US, Ares-V Core and Ares-V EDS) instead of the hybrid (Centaur, Wide Body Centaur and ACES stages) we would not be able to get "40mpg".   The old 'traditional' tech just can't do it.   I agree.   That's *why* we have never proposed such a thing.

Unless Steven has somehow managed to isolate himself in a sound-proof box for the last 18 months, I'm pretty sure he can't have missed the fact that we have been consistently making a VERY big deal of using the 'hybrid' technology and forgetting the old stuck-in-the-mud 'traditional' approaches.


If Steven (or any of you) really wishes to contact the Centaur or equivalent Boeing guys, he can possibly negotiate an appropriate NDA and then he will be able to see some of the same *hard engineering data* which our design guys have access to.

Until he does something of the sort, there is NO WAY to convincingly bring his own data up-to-date with the new hybrid technology and I don't believe any amount of me telling him otherwise is ever going to change his mind.

Until he does that, for himself, he is essentially trying to justify a position WITHOUT ALL OF THE APPROPRIATE FACTS.   He needs to go to the source directly.   That's what we did.   Once he has his data straightened out and updated he will see it for himself.   But as long as he refuses to believe that LM/Boeing have better technology than the stuff he is currently familiar with, this whole issue will only ever be a really stupid "I believe vs. You believe" situation.

Sorry, I really don't have time for that sort of domestic dispute.

Attached is the plot of mass & pmf for the Wide Body Centaur for different capacities, plus some others for comparison.   Note the ICES figures.   That's what LM believe they can actually do -- WBC is nowhere near that aggressive though.   It should be noted that WBC is actually quite a bit less aggressive than the existing Centaur flown on Atlas-V!

Ross.

What about replacing the J2X with three or four RL-60s?
It would save on R&D and the RL-60 has a higher ISP plus having multiple engines on the EDS would get rid of some LOM failure modes.

It may not save mass but the increased ISP should really benefit the payload in much the same way and a lot more then a full regen J2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 11/06/2008 03:01 am
What about replacing the J2X with three or four RL-60s?
It would save on R&D and the RL-60 has a higher ISP plus having multiple engines on the EDS would get rid of some LOM failure modes.

And add others (risk of engine failure increases)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/06/2008 08:30 am
As it stands right now, the J-2X is at about the same or slightly past the level at which the RL-60 was at before cancellation. If RL-60 was already in existence instead of being cancelled/deferred (same thing, really) about 2004, they would have already looking at uprating it to a 80-to-100K thrust, 465-second Isp level and the J-2X might merely be an academic discussion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/06/2008 09:00 am
Hey Ross,
Is there anything we punters can do to share your workload a bit?  I don't know squat about rockets, but I'm happy to proofread and/or do technical drafting.  Not much time at the moment, but I just got handed a month's notice, so mid Dec might see me looking for something to do, and I can certainly do some light editing stuff in the coming weeks.
cheers,
Chuck
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/06/2008 01:16 pm
Ross,

Building a Centaur that's 18 times bigger than the current model still seems like it might encounter some development trouble, just because of the size of the scale-up (thermal issues between the tanks, perhaps).  What is your estimate of the risk involved with this approach and how much extra development time it might require assuming things go as they usually do - with unexpected problems?

Lee
We put this very question to the Centaur people at Atlas when we were doing the technical down-select for the Jupiter-232 upper stage. Essentially, they indicated that the upscale would not be a difficult thing to do; not simple, but not too difficult. They did not forsee any problems that were not readily addressable; no show stoppers. The most difficult item they identified was adapting the thrust structure to the Centaur upscale to handle the J-2X, because that would be a new structure. As you know, the aft end of the Centaur is RL-10 based. But they did not see that as a problem of any kind; just a new design effort. Essentially, just about everything else seemed to scale quite well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/06/2008 01:31 pm
Thanks for the answer, Chuck.  Do you believe the US development would incur about the same risk as the adaptation of the STS tank to the Jupiter first stage, or is one harder than the other?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/06/2008 02:17 pm
Thanks for the answer, Chuck.  Do you believe the US development would incur about the same risk as the adaptation of the STS tank to the Jupiter first stage, or is one harder than the other?

I have no risk analysis documentation in front of me but my sense is that the US development would be higher risk than the ET adaptation. The ET adaptation is using existing and well understood structures, while the US adaptation also involves creating a new, larger structure as the Centaur is upscaled. Just because the existing Centaur is exceptionally well understood, does not automatically translate to a trouble-free upscale.

Having said that, I reiterate that the Centaur people did not see that as a problem. It's additional effort, which incurs additional risk, that the ET adaptation does not go through.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/06/2008 02:25 pm
Now I have always been under the impression that the Centaur does not use slosh baffles, I assume if you "scale up" the Centaur to be the Direct upper stage you would also not include the baffles?

If yes,

Is this wise? has it been looked at and given a pass? Is there a weight allowance available in case they are needed?

It might be worth having those answers in the pocket in case they are asked.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/06/2008 02:26 pm
Thanks for the answers, Chuck.  Best of luck closing the deal with the new administration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/06/2008 02:46 pm
Now I have always been under the impression that the Centaur does not use slosh baffles, I assume if you "scale up" the Centaur to be the Direct upper stage you would also not include the baffles?

If yes,

Is this wise? has it been looked at and given a pass? Is there a weight allowance available in case they are needed?

It might be worth having those answers in the pocket in case they are asked.

Interesting and important question Kevin. However, we are not at liberty to discus the internal configurations of the Centaur. While a lot of it is public knowledge, a lot of that stuff is also proprietary. We agreed long ago to just forgo discussion of areas that could get gray in that regard. It's the best way to avoid making a mistake with Centaur sensitive data. We have obligations to the Atlas Advanced Systems Team to consider. I hope you understand.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 11/06/2008 03:04 pm
Steven, I recall you presenting the same or similar figures a few months ago on this forum.  Then as now your figures don't appear to include the Shuttle SLWT.  That is essentially a stage without engines, and one including significant structural members for the SRB attachments. (The intertank weighs more than the LOX tank!)

As one of the more modern stage designs and at the high end of propellant mass, why have you not included it? With a pmf of .965, (.956 with residuals) would it be too far off your curve?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/06/2008 04:51 pm
Interesting and important question Kevin. However, we are not at liberty to discus the internal configurations of the Centaur. While a lot of it is public knowledge, a lot of that stuff is also proprietary. We agreed long ago to just forgo discussion of areas that could get gray in that regard. It's the best way to avoid making a mistake with Centaur sensitive data. We have obligations to the Atlas Advanced Systems Team to consider. I hope you understand.

Understood, the NSF forum is to use our eyes to discover any pitfalls in the thinking, I hope you have the answer to it if really asked ... Good job and good luck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/06/2008 10:53 pm
Does the Jupiter 232 upper stage have greater or lesser technical challenges than the upper stage of the Ares 5/6?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 07:00 am
Ross,

Building a Centaur that's 18 times bigger than the current model still seems like it might encounter some development trouble, just because of the size of the scale-up (thermal issues between the tanks, perhaps).

We have been assured that the complexity of 8.4m diameter Jupiter Upper Stages would be broadly equivalent to the Ares-I Upper Stage.   There are some areas where it would be easier (less demanding dynamic flight environment) and others where it would be more complex (loiter boiloff), but it pretty-much balances-out overall.   The long-pole of both though, is the J-2X, not the stage itself.

Large diameter common bulkheads have been done before on both S-II and S-IVB stages.   They require sound engineering to get right, but they aren't a new or unproven technology.

I'm not personally sure what Boeing's approach is to thermal control of a common bulkhead, but LM's is an interesting combination of careful use of various insulation materials, careful design limiting the number and size of perforations into the tanking as these represent the primary heat conduction paths and use of a semi-active cooling using excess GH2 which has already boiled-off, being circulated to act as 'vapor cooling' around all the heat conduction paths into the tanking.   Another key purpose of their design is to keep the much denser and heavier LOX protected from boil-off more-so than the LH2, because the LOX is so much more expensive to lift than the LH2.   The argument is that it is much easier to lift a little excess H2 to cover this, than to lose any of the heavy O2 to boil-off.   This should reduce total boil-off mass to around 0.1% per day (all H2).


Quote
What is your estimate of the risk involved with this approach and how much extra development time it might require assuming things go as they usually do - with unexpected problems?

"Unexpected problems" are always expected :)

But there is a difference between trying something which has never been attempted before and trying something which has heritage.   Putting an upper stage on top of a 3.5m lb thrust SRB is a fairly unique idea.   Putting a stage on top of another liquid stage is not.   When it comes to the technical and dynamic analysis, the two approaches are a world apart.

Overall, while all such rocket stage development work is always an engineering challenge, we consider that the single Jupiter Upper Stage program, being based entirely on proven ACES technologies, will prove to be vastly less costly, vastly challenging and considerably less risky than first building an Upper Stage for Ares-I which must fly through a really nasty dynamic environment, and then also building a second, brand-new composite-based EDS for Ares-V later as well.

Easy?   No.   Easier?   Oh, hell yes... :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 07:09 am
I have another two questions.

1. How much can Jupiter-130 configuration launch to orbit?

We looked at the idea of the J-130.   It would fly but has 'issues'.

First, to get it to orbit you have no choice but to throttle down all the engines pretty early in the flight or you burn through all your propellant before achieving orbital velocity.   The propulsion guys really don't like it when any engines are throttled because as they go up or down the internal frequencies change a lot and can set up some rather destructive harmonics sometimes.   Throttling is something they prefer to avoid if at all possible.

Second, even with all the engines throttled down fully you will still exceed the maximum 4g limits for crew use, so you must shut down one engine prematurely.

Third, you are carrying the extra mass of another RS-68 all the way to orbit on each Core.   That extra mass reduces payload performance by almost exactly the same amount.   So that $25m for the extra engine just bought you a 7mT loss in payload performance.

Given those issues, I'm sure you can see why we recommend using just two engines on the smaller configuration and just "capping" the plumbing of the middle engine.


Quote
2. This one not only about DIRECT. Why RS-68 and SSME engines are turned on at launch, and not after booster separation? And would it increase perfomance if they were?

The RS-68 and SSME both need tons and tons of equipment to get them to start, and the SSME in particular is *extremely* sensitive to the environment around it when it is started.   This makes starting either engine in the air a major issue.   Throw enough time and money at it and I'm sure PWR could find a way to do it, but I'm not convinced that's the most efficient use of our available resources.


And no, it doesn't increase performance -- at least not with the size of ET we have today.   The ET is currently sized (on both Shuttle and Jupiter-120) so that about 25% of its fuel is gone by the time the SRB's are jettisoned.   If you try flying the full ET higher before draining any of that fuel it would reduce performance.

To make a smaller Core Stage would many millions in extra costs, but would still not make much improvement because for the first two minutes of flight the 3xSSME's or the 2xRS-68's are providing an extra 1m lb of thrust which would be removed.   An optimal design might buy you a little extra performance, but the costs ot change the tank and to re-design the main engines for air-start would blow all the cost advantages completely out of the water.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 07:43 am
What about replacing the J2X with three or four RL-60s?

I like the RL-60, but I don't think it could be made quicker or cheaper than J-2X now, and time & cost are both significant factors.

Also the Jupiter Upper Stage would need about 8 of them to get the same sort of performance as the two J-2X's.   That would start to hurt the risk numbers quite a bit.

But I would like to see RL-60 developed in the future because there are some excellent configurations possible for 1-launch Jupiter missions using a Propellant Depot.   It is a future upgrade option IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 07:52 am
Hey Ross,
Is there anything we punters can do to share your workload a bit?

Not really, but thanks for the offer Chuck.   DIRECT is not the source of my time constraints.   I've only got four projects on right now for DIRECT and only one of those is time-critical right now and it should be finished next week.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 08:05 am
Now I have always been under the impression that the Centaur does not use slosh baffles, I assume if you "scale up" the Centaur to be the Direct upper stage you would also not include the baffles?

My understanding is that both the LOX and LH2 tanks on the Upper Stage will include baffles, but that there is a belief that these can possibly be deleted after a number of test flights.   I'm not sure exactly what mass improvement their deletion would produce though, but I believe it is in the order of 250-300kg.

Either way, there are anti-vortex baffles in the lower dome of both tanks at an absolute minimum.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 08:16 am
Does the Jupiter 232 upper stage have greater or lesser technical challenges than the upper stage of the Ares 5/6?

Significantly less challenging.

For a start, the Jupiter Upper Stage won't be made from new composite materials.   It will be made from proven Al-Li alloy, essentially the same as the External Tank.

Also we aren't going to be 'hanging' the extremely heavy LOX tank from a separate structure located above it (note how the Ares-V EDS narrows to fit completely inside the Interstage).   On Ares-5/6 this Intertank structure will need to be designed to handle both tension forces during the Core Stage portion of the flight and then Compression forces during its own powered usage.   This increases the design complexity of that structure as there are now two completely different loads to design for.

NASA's stage design, being separate tanking with Intertank structure, also increases the total heat=absorbing surface area of NASA's EDS.   That is not going to be any help in preventing heat conduction into the propellant tanks.

Jupiter's entire stage need only be designed for compression loads, which makes things a fair bit easier, and by using a common bulkhead we keep the surface area to a minimum too.

One other option we are considering is a jettisonable "umbrella" on the Fwd end of the Jupiter EDS -- closely resembling a large 10m diameter Orion Solar Array -- which will unfurl and provide a shield from the sun's rays, to reduce heat transfer even more.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 08:31 am
Understood, the NSF forum is to use our eyes to discover any pitfalls in the thinking, I hope you have the answer to it if really asked ... Good job and good luck.

It's even more complicated than you could guess :)

There's stuff which all of us are allowed to see.   Then there's stuff which Steve and Chuck are allowed to see which I'm not, because I'm not a resident here.   And then there's stuff only the NASA guys can get hold of through internal channels which even Chuck and Steve don't have any access to.

The only things we can ever put on this thread and on our website is the top-level stuff all foreigners are allowed to see.   None of us will ever do otherwise.   I can't because I never see it in the first place (I wish I did!).   Chuck and Steve won't share what they're not allowed to.   And the NASA guys won't even reveal their identities.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 08:40 am

I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking. I was responding to what Guru had written and I got carried away in analysing this new piece of information. I did not intend to troll, and I am sorry if my post appeared that way. I will refrain from further technical comments until two weeks time.

Thanks.

I'm sorry if came over like a bit of an @$$hole before, you just touched on a raw nerve at just the wrong time.   We have been fighting this issue for a while with NASA and I have gotten particularly sick of their arguments because they don't hold any water.   It's exactly like the claims Steve Cook & co keep clinging to regarding the EELV's suffering from "blackzones" when everyone who is paying any attention at all is already fully aware that those issues were all resolved years ago.

Recently I've been going over all their old BS on this issue, for the umpteenth time, in preparing our rebuttal document.   It's not your fault, but my patience has been wearing very thin indeed regarding this issue.

Then other non-DIRECT things are going on which have left me very short-tempered recently.   Again, not your fault at all.

You just so happened to paint a really big bullseye on your back and run around on the firing range at the wrong moment...

Please forgive me for 'venting' my frustrations so harshly in your direction.   You aren't the intended target.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 10:11 am
Okay,
A bit of news...

The recent aerodynamic testing of the Ares-V confirmed a problem which had been doing the rounds at MSFC for the last ~6 months or so.   We have known about this issue throughout, but we have been waiting for the aero results to see if the problem was confirmed or not.   If they were, our suggested changes would need to be implemented on Jupiter.   We now think they do.

Essentially there are PIFS/Base Heating concerns with both leading designs of 6-engined Ares-V.   I believe both the '6-around the perimeter' approach and also the unusual '2 triangles of 3 engines w/ big fairings' approach (which Chris showed on L2 a few months ago) have each encountered this same issue.

My understanding of the exact issues are a little sketchy still, but there appears to be a "funnel effect" caused by the interaction of the exhaust from these clusters of engines.   They are creating a 'tornado' of recirculating hot exhaust gas between them.   This is occurring between the 3-engines of the 'triangle' arrangements and also between the 6-engines of the 'perimeter' arrangement also.   The natural PIFS effect is then redirecting these hot gasses up between the engines and impacting the aft face of the stage causing some pretty significant Base Heating there -- essentially creating a blow-torch on the bottom of the rocket throgh the gap between the engine clusters.   The heat is also interacting with the ablative nozzles in a bad way too and any exposed engine machinery as well.

Apparently this is not a problem with Delta-IV Heavy because all three of its engines are in a row, not a cluster, so there are no such "hot-spots" created between them.   Also the airflow between the Cores also helps a bit at lower altitudes.

We were told recently that our three-engines-in-a-row arrangement of the Jupiter looks to be a much cleaner arrangement and that we were very wise to locate the engines as far apart as we did too (something we did specifically due to concerns over PIFS in the first place.   But we have been recommended to alter the Engine Compartment so it tapers a lot more, to allow a greater airflow, more similar to the Delta, and also to reduce the surface area of the base panel as much as possible.

So our guys have been trimming and cutting our aft engine compartment recently to suit this.   I haven't got any drawings from them yet, but I whipped up something suitable myself quickly tonight to 'demonstrate' what I'm talking about.   I thought you might all want to take a look.

On the left is what I refer to as the 'Simple Cone' arrangement, which I suppose has been our baseline.   In the middle is the 'Pods' arrangement, where each engine has its own extended cylindrical housing below the main Engine Compartment, each of which are inter-changeable.   And on the right is what I will call the new 'Tapered Cylinder + Pods' arrangement -- which is designed to specifically address this Base Heating issue.

Whether this might also offer a slight weight saving is also being checked, but I have no news yet.

This is likely to become our new baseline over the next few weeks.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 11/07/2008 11:09 am
Quote from: kraisee

We looked at the idea of the J-130.   It would fly but has 'issues'.

Thank you.

Would J-110 fly? Or maybe Jupiter-110 with two J-2 added to the first stage?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 11/07/2008 11:34 am
Quote from: kraisee

We looked at the idea of the J-130.   It would fly but has 'issues'.

Thank you.

Would J-110 fly? Or maybe Jupiter-110 with two J-2 added to the first stage?

J110:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10870.msg215105#msg215105

Yes, it would be a 25mT-class launcher, so would compete directly with EELV-Heavy launchers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 11:35 am
Eerie,
The J-110 ended up being severely underpowered.   Early versions looked doable, but later versions of the Core Stage grew more weight and made it impossible -- even if you offload an optimal amount of propellant.   Current calcs show that it reaches orbit successfully, but it's payload capacity is really awful -- only about 8mT!

We thought about a mixed engine arrangement a while back too -- including the exact configuration you mention (1xRS-68, 2xJ-2X on the Core).   But we still need the high-thrust of the 3xRS-68's if we're to make a 100mT booster to support the 2-launch Lunar missions, so the engines would have to be interchangeable somehow.   The mixed configuration would only be useful on a lower-performance configuration and a pure guess on my part is that performance would be in the 50mT range at best.

But making engines interchangeable is a *lot* easier said than done.   Each engine has very different way of mounting and transmitting its power into the structure of the rocket, each needs its own diameter of plumbing for its optimal fuel flow rates and each has totally different electrical & hydraulic connections.   So, to have one stage support multiple types of engine would require a fairly extensive doubling-up of a lot of these sub-systems.   That gets really complicated, really quickly.   It means significantly greater development costs for sure, higher production costs, and it guarantees extra weight in the stage as well, so performance would drop too.

We worked out that there were few, if any, real benefits and a whole lot of headaches involved.

The "Keep It Simple, Stupid" (K.I.S.S.) rule-of-thumb suggests it isn't an optimal approach and that there are going to be simpler options instead.


We decided that a single Core Stage able to fit three identical engines was a good configuration for the 100mT launcher with an appropriate Upper Stage.   And with just one of those engines removed, the exact same Core Stage on its own happens to also offer a surprisingly good performance option for ISS missions too -- allowing not just the Orion, but Shuttle-sized payloads to also be flown at the same time, so we won't actually lose any lift capabilities once Shuttle retires.

We figured it was an elegantly simple solution and fulfills all the requirements for all the missions which are actually being planned.

And if a mid-capacity booster were to also required, there are cheaper options available by using the Upper Stage from either the Delta-IV or Atlas-V to supplement performance of the basic J-120.   With one of those, performance climbs into the ~70-75mT range.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DaveJes1979 on 11/07/2008 08:34 pm
Interesting, Ross.  That tapered design might significantly reduce the aero drag of the rocket, since it would reduce the amount of flow separation off the back end of the rocket.

It is hard to say for sure, however, without CFD modeling, since all bets are off once you get to the exhaust plume.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 08:42 pm
Dave, exactly.   It probably only makes a positive difference at sub-sonic speeds, so only very early in the flight, but 'every little helps' is my understanding.

The primary benefit is to reduce the surface area of the base of the rocket and thereby reduce the area which can be affected by Base Heating.   The sidewalls will still get some, but the effect should be greatly reduced there with this design.

But, as you say, we won't know for sure until we get CFD modeling or, better still, some real wind tunnel testing.   And I don't know when either of those might be possible.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 11/07/2008 09:25 pm
Eerie,
The J-110 ended up being severely underpowered.   Early versions looked doable, but later versions of the Core Stage grew more weight and made it impossible -- even if you offload an optimal amount of propellant.   Current calcs show that it reaches orbit successfully, but it's payload capacity is really awful -- only about 8mT!

We thought about a mixed engine arrangement a while back too -- including the exact configuration you mention (1xRS-68, 2xJ-2X on the Core).   But we still need the high-thrust of the 3xRS-68's if we're to make a 100mT booster to support the 2-launch Lunar missions, so the engines would have to be interchangeable somehow.   The mixed configuration would only be useful on a lower-performance configuration and a pure guess on my part is that performance would be in the 50mT range at best.

But making engines interchangeable is a *lot* easier said than done.   Each engine has very different way of mounting and transmitting its power into the structure of the rocket, each needs its own diameter of plumbing for its optimal fuel flow rates and each has totally different electrical & hydraulic connections.   So, to have one stage support multiple types of engine would require a fairly extensive doubling-up of a lot of these sub-systems.   That gets really complicated, really quickly.   It means significantly greater development costs for sure, higher production costs, and it guarantees extra weight in the stage as well, so performance would drop too.

We worked out that there were few, if any, real benefits and a whole lot of headaches involved.

The "Keep It Simple, Stupid" (K.I.S.S.) rule-of-thumb suggests it isn't an optimal approach and that there are going to be simpler options instead.


We decided that a single Core Stage able to fit three identical engines was a good configuration for the 100mT launcher with an appropriate Upper Stage.   And with just one of those engines removed, the exact same Core Stage on its own happens to also offer a surprisingly good performance option for ISS missions too -- allowing not just the Orion, but Shuttle-sized payloads to also be flown at the same time, so we won't actually lose any lift capabilities once Shuttle retires.

We figured it was an elegantly simple solution and fulfills all the requirements for all the missions which are actually being planned.

And if a mid-capacity booster were to also required, there are cheaper options available by using the Upper Stage from either the Delta-IV or Atlas-V to supplement performance of the basic J-120.   With one of those, performance climbs into the ~70-75mT range.

Ross.

However, could it be advantageous to use the J-110 rocket as an experimental first test flight for Jupiter? Initially modifying current space shuttle launch equipment for a J-110X rocket should be easier than a for the J-120 rocket. For example, the main engine hole in the MLP could be made smaller/less intrusive to only accommodate the Jupiter center engine.  Hopefully, this could allow to MLP to remain able to subsequently launch space shuttles (this could be a key advantage if it is decided to extend space shuttles flights beyond 2010).

Being a test vehicle not required to carry a payload (other than possibly some leftover propellant as ballast), in order to save time/money the J-110X core tank could also keep the current ogive shape of the ET to allow propellant loading with current space shuttle ground equipment.  The concept of a test J-110X would allow to divide the Jupiter modifications to the ET in two phases: first the bottom part (engines pod) and then later the top part (payload/EDS interface).

Contrary to the Ares-1X flight, a J-110X rocket could flight test a good portion of "real" Jupiter hardware and reach LEO. Food for thought.

PaulL

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 10:02 pm
However, could it be advantageous to use the J-110 rocket as an experimental first test flight for Jupiter? Initially modifying current space shuttle launch equipment for a J-110X rocket should be easier than a for the J-120 rocket. For example, the main engine hole in the MLP could be made smaller/less intrusive to only accommodate the Jupiter center engine.  Hopefully, this could allow to MLP to remain able to subsequently launch space shuttles (this could be a key advantage if it is decided to extend space shuttles flights beyond 2010).

Probably not.   Any significant change to the MLP in this fashion is going to cost between $100-200m no matter what it is.   And you really don't want to have to do a second chop a few years later at double the cost.   You would be better off just biting the bullet and doing it all in one.

The other issue is the internal wall structures already within the MPL is actually better-suited to opening up that hole between the existing SRB holes only the one time.   See the attached diagram.

There are two primary things which need to be done with the MLP to 'convert' it for Jupiter:-

1) Re-route all of the plumbing and electrical connections to suit the new configuration -- including the necessary preparations for supporting a Minimal-LUT (M-LUT) to later be integrated on the MLP's deck in support of the J-232 configuration.

2) Open the 'hole' between the SRB holes, reinforce the walls there, and then line the new hole with suitable blast shielding.


Part 1 must be done whether you go the J-110 or J-120 route.   If you're going to do that extensive re-work anyway, there's little point in only going 'half way' on part 2.   It won't reduce costs by much and will only incur a second round of work & costs later -- which will add delays and end up being higher cost overall.


Quote
Being a test vehicle not required to carry a payload (other than possibly some leftover propellant as ballast), in order to save time/money the J-110X core tank could also keep the current ogive shape of the ET to allow propellant loading with current space shuttle ground equipment.  The concept of a test J-110X would allow to divide the Jupiter modifications to the ET in two phases: first the bottom part (engines pod) and then later the top part (payload/EDS interface).

If you're going to all the effort of putting a Thrust Structure together at all, you should be planning to make it as close as possible to the one you eventually intend to operate.   You should also plan to fly the engine configuration you plan to operate too.   If you don't do that, you are qualifying an extra configuration and still have to re-qualify everything for the real configuration.   That's just a duplication of effort which you don't really need.


Our suggestion is to plan to get the MLP completely ready to support a J-120 flight in January 2011.   We plan a 'stronger than standard' Thrust Structure & Tanking (think the original SWT ET's) for the very first Jupiter-120-X test flight.   We use 2 standard non-human-rated RS-68's on it and fly that with a dummy PLF/Orion/LAS on top -- Ares-I-X's would be usable if that test is canceled.   This flight would then test every single system in an almost identical flight configuration to what we eventually want, except using a low-value payload.   It's flight dynamics are *exactly* the same as the operational configuration, it's thrust, max-q, heating and trajectory are all identical so we get 100% relevant data back from the first second of the flight.

This gets followed by Jupiter-120-Y 9 months later which has another 'stronger than standard' Core Stage for gathering flight load data, but which tests a preliminary health monitoring system for the RS-68's and also attempts to deploy an early drop-test Orion test vehicle into a sub-orbital trajectory as if during a late-in-the-ascent abort.   That validates all of the data from flight X, and also usefully tests the Orion abort capability late in the flight.   Valuable data can be gathered regarding an emergency shut-down of the RS-68's too.

Jupiter-120-Z flies in mid-2012 with a flight-spec Core Stage (think the difference between the SWT and the LWT first flown on STS-6).   It is essentially a full-up dress rehearsal for the first crew flight, but hasn't got a crew in the seats.   Both Jupiter-120 and Orion are as close to flight-spec as humanly possible.

Jupiter-120 IOC comes in late-2012.   Another flight comes 4-5 months after that and FOC (flight #6) comes in mid-2013.   The first ~10 Jupiter flights should all be highly instrumented to gather as much quality data of flight conditions as possible.   After that, one in every ~10 flights should also carry a full instrumentation suite to ensure data-gathering never gets as old as some of Shuttle's has and continues to build into an extensive library.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: beb on 11/07/2008 10:55 pm
[snip]
  And the NASA guys won't even reveal their identities.

Ross.

This makes DIRECT sound like flipping spy novel! :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/07/2008 11:01 pm
Funny you should say that, I had one guy who wanted to send me a pack of files one time and who wanted to organize a real 'dead drop' :)

I managed to convince him it really wasn't worth it, and that his job wouldn't be placed in any danger if we met up in a Starbucks instead!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 11/08/2008 12:04 am
What kind of Corporate Mentality do they have at a PUBLIC FREAKING AGENCY when the people who work there have to go around in fear of their careers, just because they have a different idea?


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 11/08/2008 12:15 am
What kind of Corporate Mentality do they have at a PUBLIC FREAKING AGENCY when the people who work there have to go around in fear of their careers, just because they have a different idea?




You seriously don't believe that at private company everyone is able to walk around openly discuss products for anything and everything, say that is a bunch of crap and you should be doing this instead of that without some sort of reprecussion do you?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 11/08/2008 01:37 am
In the government agency I work for, we can openly and honestly discuss our misgivings with our superiors without worrying about losing our jobs. I did just that, this very afternoon. I was commended for being willing to speak up and address an unpopular and delicate topic. If my agency's director created an atmosphere like the one I see at NASA, one of two things would happen:

1) He'd be out on his can so fast his head would be swimming, and his stick would go with him.

2) The media would be crawling all over every political figure in the area wondering why #1 hadn't already happened.

This is the United States, not 1950s Russia, in case you hadn't noticed.

So to answer the the question you should have asked, instead of the loaded, skewed, and pre-framed question you actually did ask: Yes. I do. It's a PUBLIC agency. When the lowly minions live in fear of the Head Honcho, something's terribly wrong...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulG on 11/08/2008 06:09 am
From NASA Publication - Shuttle Derived Vehicles circa 1977:
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m286/benrest/Space/shuttlederived.jpg)
Hmmm...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/08/2008 06:14 am
What kind of Corporate Mentality do they have at a PUBLIC FREAKING AGENCY when the people who work there have to go around in fear of their careers, just because they have a different idea?




You seriously don't believe that at private company everyone is able to walk around openly discuss products for anything and everything, say that is a bunch of crap and you should be doing this instead of that without some sort of reprecussion do you?

It is bad enough that this mentality exists at NASA. It is even worse that this mentality exists close to 6 years after Columbia.
Look what happens when engineers are not listened to, and management charges ahead without listening to the right people.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/08/2008 07:58 am
From NASA Publication - Shuttle Derived Vehicles circa 1977:
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m286/benrest/Space/shuttlederived.jpg)
Hmmm...


PaulG,
Thank-you for rustling it up for us.   I don't recall where I've seen that diagram before, but I've been trying to track it down for about a year :)

That's a Jupiter-140 Heavy right there.   120mT performance they say?   That's impressive if true.   With all that weight it would require a major effort at the Pads and Crawlers, like for Ares-V, but can you imagine what its performance would be like with an Upper Stage as well? :)

I'd guess that engine arrangement would have this new PIFS/Base Heating issue, and the tail service masts would need to be pretty skinny to reach in between the SRB's.   Upper umbilicals would have to get out of dodge before those SRB's come through.   It uses 4 SSME's there so wouldn't have the max-q and acceleration issues of the higher thrust 4xRS-68 config.   But man, that is sure one heckuva'n upgrade option for the future.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulG on 11/08/2008 09:42 pm
From NASA Publication - Shuttle Derived Vehicles circa 1977:
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m286/benrest/Space/shuttlederived.jpg)
Hmmm...


PaulG,
Thank-you for rustling it up for us.   I don't recall where I've seen that diagram before, but I've been trying to track it down for about a year :)

That's a Jupiter-140 Heavy right there.   120mT performance they say?   That's impressive if true.   With all that weight it would require a major effort at the Pads and Crawlers, like for Ares-V, but can you imagine what its performance would be like with an Upper Stage as well? :)

I'd guess that engine arrangement would have this new PIFS/Base Heating issue, and the tail service masts would need to be pretty skinny to reach in between the SRB's.   Upper umbilicals would have to get out of dodge before those SRB's come through.   It uses 4 SSME's there so wouldn't have the max-q and acceleration issues of the higher thrust 4xRS-68 config.   But man, that is sure one heckuva'n upgrade option for the future.

Ross.

Ross,

The NASA Publication was "Space Settlements" NASA SP-413 published 1977 and grew out of a conference held at Ames in 1975. Copies are still available on Amazon.com and I believe it has been reprinted.

It's a shame there wasn't more detail or citations but you can clearly see what NASA had in mind 30+ years ago. The 120mT capability was a must for the design study LEO requirement. And I don't think impact on infrastructure was even a concern in the study. At this point in time NASA would have spec'd the SSME on just about anything... notice it's also shown on the bottom vehicle for LEO to L5 transport. (Not that the SSME isn't a great design but jeeze!)

I do agree that given the current requirement, replacing the SSMEs with the RS-68 makes a lot of sense. My background is with the Titan III so I won't get started with the virtues of hypergolic fuels and delayed main stage ignition :)

Glad I could help with this little piece of history.

Regards,

PaulG
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/09/2008 09:47 pm
Thanks, that was enough information to find the whole document online:   Space Settlements: A Design Study, 1977 (http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Services/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Table_of_Contents1.html).

That image seems to be from figure 4-14 (http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Services/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/figure4.14.gif), which is referenced right on the first line of Appendix M (http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Services/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/4appendM.html).


I started running the performance numbers for that configuration and I can't get their performance without an upper stage.   I'm now convinced that the 120,000kg payload performance would have needed one even though it isn't mentioned.   I'd also bet that the upper stage would probably have been powered by an SSME given the tone of the rest of the document :)

Thanks for sparking the hunt for this Paul!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/10/2008 06:49 am
From NASA Publication - Shuttle Derived Vehicles circa 1977:
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m286/benrest/Space/shuttlederived.jpg)
Hmmm...



Ross,

The NASA Publication was "Space Settlements" NASA SP-413 published 1977 and grew out of a conference held at Ames in 1975. Copies are still available on Amazon.com and I believe it has been reprinted.

It's a shame there wasn't more detail or citations but you can clearly see what NASA had in mind 30+ years ago. The 120mT capability was a must for the design study LEO requirement. And I don't think impact on infrastructure was even a concern in the study. At this point in time NASA would have spec'd the SSME on just about anything... notice it's also shown on the bottom vehicle for LEO to L5 transport. (Not that the SSME isn't a great design but jeeze!)

I do agree that given the current requirement, replacing the SSMEs with the RS-68 makes a lot of sense. My background is with the Titan III so I won't get started with the virtues of hypergolic fuels and delayed main stage ignition :)

Glad I could help with this little piece of history.

Regards,

PaulG
[/quote]

Hey guys

There is a July 1976 article in National Geographic ("first colony in space" featuring what look like derivatives of these orbital tugs. Can't find any scans of them online but they are essentially the same, with an Apollo / Orion type capsule on top of the stack.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robert_d on 11/10/2008 11:59 am
Since they locked the modification thread, I would like to ask if it would be possible to launch just the descent stage of the LSAM on a Jupiter 231 and the Orion/Ascent stage on a 231 or 232. Then you could do LOR only, but with the advantage of doing TLI "eyeballs out" and having the "lifeboat" feature available.  Don't know the details of the design, but it would not seem that different to dock the two stages instead of the orion/LSAM to the EDS.  Also wondered if the power for the ascent stage was from the descent stage.  could Orion power it on the way out?  Would help towards moving to a reusable acent stage, and total TLI mass, I think.

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/10/2008 03:09 pm
Since they locked the modification thread, I would like to ask if it would be possible to launch just the descent stage of the LSAM on a Jupiter 231 and the Orion/Ascent stage on a 231 or 232. Then you could do LOR only, but with the advantage of doing TLI "eyeballs out" and having the "lifeboat" feature available.  Don't know the details of the design, but it would not seem that different to dock the two stages instead of the orion/LSAM to the EDS.  Also wondered if the power for the ascent stage was from the descent stage.  could Orion power it on the way out?  Would help towards moving to a reusable acent stage, and total TLI mass, I think.

Robert,
That is a very demanding option.   You would have to very carefully thread the engine nozzle of the AS inside the DS structure during docking -- that would be a trick.   And you'd have to do it while you're still 3 days away from Earth.   It's doable, I'm sure.   But it is a riskier proposition than many of the other options.


IMHO, the better option is to come up with a usable architectures to start the program off with.   But then we evolve the program into the full evolution by using a Propellant Depot architecture as soon as humanly possible.

That architecture allows for 1-launch missions to the moon of virtually any capacity (up to 300mT LSAM's if you really wanted!).

It allows NASA to take advantage of the new wave of cheap launchers, ones which don't include the high costs of human rating, to regularly lift the propellant loads (and allows international partners to pay for that valuable service too).

It also simplifies the human-launch mission considerably, launching EDS, LSAM and CEV together in a standard stack with only a single transition required after the TLI has been completed -- just as Apollo flights did.

That one development improves Lunar payload performance significantly, it simplifies the crew launch missions and it reduces NASA's costs -- which allows for additional missions to be funded.   It's a win-win-win approach worthwhile aiming for.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 11/10/2008 04:40 pm
I have to admit, I really like the idea of drop tanks, mentioned earlier.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/12/2008 03:42 am
How does the 2 launch moon mission work?  Do you launch one J232 with all the spacecraft (capsule, service module, lander), and use most of the fuel in the EDS to get to orbit, then launch an empty J232 which retains enough fuel in the EDS to mate with the mission spacecraft and propel them into lunar orbit?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/12/2008 11:59 am
How does the 2 launch moon mission work?  Do you launch one J232 with all the spacecraft (capsule, service module, lander), and use most of the fuel in the EDS to get to orbit, then launch an empty J232 which retains enough fuel in the EDS to mate with the mission spacecraft and propel them into lunar orbit?

Launch 1: J-232 with Full EDS. Uses part of the EDS propellant to achieve LEO.

Launch 2: J-232 with Orion and LSAM. Rendezvous with Launch 1 EDS, dock and restart Launch 1 EDS for TLI burn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 11/12/2008 08:24 pm
How does the 2 launch moon mission work?  Do you launch one J232 with all the spacecraft (capsule, service module, lander), and use most of the fuel in the EDS to get to orbit, then launch an empty J232 which retains enough fuel in the EDS to mate with the mission spacecraft and propel them into lunar orbit?

Launch 1: J-232 with Full EDS. Uses part of the EDS propellant to achieve LEO.

Launch 2: J-232 with Orion and LSAM. Rendezvous with Launch 1 EDS, dock and restart Launch 1 EDS for TLI burn.


And of course if you have a propellant depot, you can delete launch 1 and simply top-off the EDS from Launch 2
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/12/2008 08:40 pm
How does the 2 launch moon mission work?  Do you launch one J232 with all the spacecraft (capsule, service module, lander), and use most of the fuel in the EDS to get to orbit, then launch an empty J232 which retains enough fuel in the EDS to mate with the mission spacecraft and propel them into lunar orbit?

Launch 1: J-232 with Full EDS. Uses part of the EDS propellant to achieve LEO.

Launch 2: J-232 with Orion and LSAM. Rendezvous with Launch 1 EDS, dock and restart Launch 1 EDS for TLI burn.


And of course if you have a propellant depot, you can delete launch 1 and simply top-off the EDS from Launch 2

With a propellant depot architecture, we could do a single-launch Jupiter-232 lunar mission with an 85mT lander. But the depots will come later. We need to get Jupiter flying first.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 11/12/2008 09:58 pm
No, you pay the cost for the propellent cost earlier and perhaps more expensively than if you do it yourself.  Must make a profit after all, if you are the propellent vendor.

How does the 2 launch moon mission work?  Do you launch one J232 with all the spacecraft (capsule, service module, lander), and use most of the fuel in the EDS to get to orbit, then launch an empty J232 which retains enough fuel in the EDS to mate with the mission spacecraft and propel them into lunar orbit?

Launch 1: J-232 with Full EDS. Uses part of the EDS propellant to achieve LEO.

Launch 2: J-232 with Orion and LSAM. Rendezvous with Launch 1 EDS, dock and restart Launch 1 EDS for TLI burn.


And of course if you have a propellant depot, you can delete launch 1 and simply top-off the EDS from Launch 2
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/12/2008 10:02 pm
Does the launch 2 EDS make it to orbit with any spare fuel than can be pumped across?  Or is that intermediate between the basic launch and the fuel depot?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/12/2008 10:18 pm
Does the launch 2 EDS make it to orbit with any spare fuel than can be pumped across?  Or is that intermediate between the basic launch and the fuel depot?

There are some residual cryos remaining, but we will not be doing any propellant transfers. At the early stages of the lunar missions, we do not want to unnecessarily complicate our tasks by beginning to introduce what will ultimately become the propellant depot in orbit. Let's get the moon base established first.

Back when we released the AIAA paper in 2007, we baselined a small propellant transfer, but in less than one week after the release of that paper a new analysis we'd been waiting for came back which showed definitively that a propellant transfer was not required at all. Pity that the analysis wasn't ready when the deadline for the paper arrived. We were reasonably sure that the transfer wouldn't be required but the analysis simply wasn't ready by the time we absolutely HAD to submit the final copy to the AIAA, so we included it for completeness. It would have been preferable to baseline the missions without it in the paper, but Full Monte analyses just take time, a lot of time. Unfortunately; it wasn't ready in time, so we included the cryo transfer to ensure that the mission closed in the paper.

But bottom line is that no propellant transfer is needed, and we do not intend to complicate things by including one. Our baseline not only does handles the 45mT lander called for, but we baseline the lander at 50mT; without a propellant transfer.That process will need to wait for the program that develops the propellant depot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/13/2008 12:08 am
If you have the extra fuel, it seems like a good trick to keep on hand for later lunar missions, in case you need to deliver an oversized piece of equipment, or land at the poles.  How many extra tons thru TLI can you buy that way?

Does the launch 2 EDS make it to orbit with any spare fuel than can be pumped across?  Or is that intermediate between the basic launch and the fuel depot?

There are some residual cryos remaining, but we will not be doing any propellant transfers. At the early stages of the lunar missions, we do not want to unnecessarily complicate our tasks by beginning to introduce what will ultimately become the propellant depot in orbit. Let's get the moon base established first.

Back when we released the AIAA paper in 2007, we baselined a small propellant transfer, but in less than one week after the release of that paper a new analysis we'd been waiting for came back which showed definitively that a propellant transfer was not required at all. Pity that the analysis wasn't ready when the deadline for the paper arrived. We were reasonably sure that the transfer wouldn't be required but the analysis simply wasn't ready by the time we absolutely HAD to submit the final copy to the AIAA, so we included it for completeness. It would have been preferable to baseline the missions without it in the paper, but Full Monte analyses just take time, a lot of time. Unfortunately; it wasn't ready in time, so we included the cryo transfer to ensure that the mission closed in the paper.

But bottom line is that no propellant transfer is needed, and we do not intend to complicate things by including one. Our baseline not only does handles the 45mT lander called for, but we baseline the lander at 50mT; without a propellant transfer.That process will need to wait for the program that develops the propellant depot.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 11/13/2008 12:20 am
I wonder if any of this will involve NASA and a review of it's programs.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/obama-team-taps.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/13/2008 01:19 am
If you have the extra fuel, it seems like a good trick to keep on hand for later lunar missions, in case you need to deliver an oversized piece of equipment, or land at the poles.  How many extra tons thru TLI can you buy that way?

Does the launch 2 EDS make it to orbit with any spare fuel than can be pumped across?  Or is that intermediate between the basic launch and the fuel depot?

There are some residual cryos remaining, but we will not be doing any propellant transfers. At the early stages of the lunar missions, we do not want to unnecessarily complicate our tasks by beginning to introduce what will ultimately become the propellant depot in orbit. Let's get the moon base established first.

Back when we released the AIAA paper in 2007, we baselined a small propellant transfer, but in less than one week after the release of that paper a new analysis we'd been waiting for came back which showed definitively that a propellant transfer was not required at all. Pity that the analysis wasn't ready when the deadline for the paper arrived. We were reasonably sure that the transfer wouldn't be required but the analysis simply wasn't ready by the time we absolutely HAD to submit the final copy to the AIAA, so we included it for completeness. It would have been preferable to baseline the missions without it in the paper, but Full Monte analyses just take time, a lot of time. Unfortunately; it wasn't ready in time, so we included the cryo transfer to ensure that the mission closed in the paper.

But bottom line is that no propellant transfer is needed, and we do not intend to complicate things by including one. Our baseline not only does handles the 45mT lander called for, but we baseline the lander at 50mT; without a propellant transfer.That process will need to wait for the program that develops the propellant depot.


The available residuals are not worth the expense, complexity and schedule hit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 11/13/2008 01:49 am
I wonder if any of this will involve NASA and a review of it's programs.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/obama-team-taps.html (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/obama-team-taps.html)

Whoa! That one almost slipped in under the radar, OV!

I think that Obama is going to start looking at things with an eye to doing what works, rather than what we want to work. That's the impression I got from the speech on Election Night. Here's hoping that NASA's going to move along "direct"ly...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/13/2008 11:09 pm
I wonder if any of this will involve NASA and a review of it's programs.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/obama-team-taps.html

The problem I see with this approach is it involves big business. And like so many (not implying or implicating) they are apt to be 'persuaded' into a certain direction. At least Direct would still have ATK's blessing, along with many others. But nothing is sure-fire.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 11/13/2008 11:35 pm
I wonder if any of this will involve NASA and a review of it's programs.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/obama-team-taps.html (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/obama-team-taps.html)

The problem I see with this approach is it involves big business. And like so many (not implying or implicating) they are apt to be 'persuaded' into a certain direction. At least Direct would still have ATK's blessing, along with many others. But nothing is sure-fire.

Robert... You certainly raise an interesting point here.

Eisenhower warned about the "Military-Industrial Complex", and in fact, Apollo was really a middle-class jobs program which enhanced the bottom line of North American, Grumman, and a small host of other big and small corporations. So perhaps getting "big business" on board, or at least on the same page, might not be a bad idea. Sure it's Corporate Welfare, but if it keeps us at the top of the pile where space exploration is concerned, then perhaps it might be nothing more than a bitter pill to swallow. If the companies that have to build the thing are liking the paychecks they get, why wouldn't they want to get with the program?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/13/2008 11:43 pm
I only worry that we may end up right back where we started...
The part line (as it goes around the forum) is Ares came about to keep ATK happy. Because without that SRB for Ares I, they would have such a rosy stock value.

I think Obama has a chance (and Democrats) to resurrect NASA and put it on track to something truly great, as it was meant to be. It was looking so promising, first on the moon, Voyagers I & II, mars rovers..., but with so many failed projects as well & strained budgets, it's just lucky they haven't been thrown to the bottom of the pile in light of recent events. Strange, but I feel the only thing saving NASA & its future is ISS (at this moment).

I'm all for keeping the jobs (the good and important ones). AT this point in time it's suicidal for an administration to willingly cut high-paying, high-tech jobs. It increases a country's wealth (in knowledge) but also the taxes that flow back from those & spin-off jobs.

Jim and others have pointed out that it's industry that does it all really, with NASA just organizing and dictating (at least that's the general sense). Yes we need them, but having them make the decisions on how things play out on the political side seems like a major conflict of interest. I'd rather see something at arm's length. I posted something on the Ares area, I'll find it and attach. It has what I would consider the 'best-foot-forward' approach. EDIT: In the general section on "Now what's in store for NASA" when Jim indicated they were looking at graphite casings for Ares.

Excerpt:
"Get a strike team together, made up of rocket engineers & cost accountants (without any political or industry ties) from the various aerospace sectors required for manned space flight who knows this stuff, and make a meeting with Obama and hash the whole thing out once and for all. Prove it with ACTUAL numbers, engineering and financial data as to what works. No ESAS, no VSE BS, just the cold hard facts."

Complete response here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14836.msg331058#msg331058
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 11/14/2008 12:25 am
We're on the same page. Robert.

Your excerpt says exactly what I was thinking the evening I watched the aforementioned speech.

I didn't intend to suggest that the contractors and corporations should drive the project, but that they are a necessary part of actually tightening the nuts, bolts, and screws to get us back into the saddle. I think you (and others) are right when they say that NASA is sort of like the shepherd, tending the flock of contractors. I once read an old proverb that says, "The horse may pull the buggy, but you do not ask the horse where it wishes to go." I wish I could remember where I read that, but it pretty much sums it up. NASA is the driver. The contractors are the horses, and the buggy, well, that's Orion...

Excellent post.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/14/2008 02:09 am
We're on the same page. Robert.

Your excerpt says exactly what I was thinking the evening I watched the aforementioned speech.

I didn't intend to suggest that the contractors and corporations should drive the project, but that they are a necessary part of actually tightening the nuts, bolts, and screws to get us back into the saddle. I think you (and others) are right when they say that NASA is sort of like the shepherd, tending the flock of contractors. I once read an old proverb that says, "The horse may pull the buggy, but you do not ask the horse where it wishes to go." I wish I could remember where I read that, but it pretty much sums it up. NASA is the driver. The contractors are the horses, and the buggy, well, that's Orion...

Excellent post.

Well thanks for that Lancer. I've heard that saying of the horse before, but can't remember it's source either. Of course I wish the Direct team was part of that meeting, and a few others that I've read posts from on this site; it would make for some fierce proponents of a new direction for NASA that would serve the nation in the best possible way.

Think of what we're still learning about this planet each and every day; we're still discovering new and wonderous creatures in our oceans. Think of what we could learn out there, amongst our closest neighbour and our not too distant relatives.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/14/2008 02:53 am
Is there not another rebuttal due? Something to counter NASA's findings here:

www.nasa.gov/pdf/256922main_Direct_vs_%20Ares%20_FINAL_62508.pdf

and the main report here:
http://saturn.netwrx1.com/rfischer/docs/pcdocs/257003main_NASA%20Performance%20Assessment%20of%20(DIRECT%202)%20Compiled.0702.pdf
Here is my own rebuttal :) :

I claim that two Jupiter’s can perform the same lunar mission as Ares I + Ares V can perform.

Here is my simple empiric math:

Today’s Ares V should be able to carry about 188 tones (414,000 lb) to Low Earth orbit (LEO).
Jupiter is about 1.4 times smaller than Ares V so it should be able to carry about 134.3 tones to LEO (188 tones / 1.40), why:
1. Ares V uses two 5.5 segments SRBs,
 Jupiter uses two 4 segments SRBs, so they are 1.375 smaller;
2. Ares V uses 10-meter diameter for first stage and EDS,
 Jupiter uses 8.4-meter diameter for first stage and EDS, so the volume is about 1.42 smaller (R^2 / R^2 = 5m^2 / 4.2m^2 = 25 / 17.64 = 1.42)
Conclusion Jupiter in max configuration should be able to carry about 134.3 tones to LEO (188 tones / 1.4 = 134.3)
So whatever number NASA can achieve with Ares V the same numbers but divided by 1.4 you can achieve with Jupiter.

Ares I + Ares V = 21 tons + 188 tons = 209 tons
Jupiter with EDS + Jupiter with CEV&LSAM = 134.3 tons + 71 tons = 205.3 tons

Jupiter with EDS needs extra 3.7 tons, it is just 2.76% and can be easily achieved since it does not carry LSAM and therefore has extra heights.

So two Jupiter can perform the same lunar mission as Ares I + Ares V can perform.

It is all based on NASA numbers :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/14/2008 03:00 am
Is there not another rebuttal due? Something to counter NASA's findings here:

www.nasa.gov/pdf/256922main_Direct_vs_%20Ares%20_FINAL_62508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/256922main_Direct_vs_%20Ares%20_FINAL_62508.pdf)

and the main report here:
http://saturn.netwrx1.com/rfischer/docs/pcdocs/257003main_NASA%20Performance%20Assessment%20of%20(DIRECT%202)%20Compiled.0702.pdf (http://saturn.netwrx1.com/rfischer/docs/pcdocs/257003main_NASA%20Performance%20Assessment%20of%20%28DIRECT%202%29%20Compiled.0702.pdf)
Here is my own rebuttal :) :

I claim that two Jupiter’s can perform the same lunar mission as Ares I + Ares V can perform.

Here is my simple empiric math:

Today’s Ares V should be able to carry about 188 tones (414,000 lb) to Low Earth orbit (LEO).
Jupiter is about 1.4 times smaller than Ares V so it should be able to carry about 134.3 tones to LEO (188 tones / 1.40), why:
1. Ares V uses two 5.5 segments SRBs,
 Jupiter uses two 4 segments SRBs, so they are 1.375 smaller;
2. Ares V uses 10-meter diameter for first stage and EDS,
 Jupiter uses 8.4-meter diameter for first stage and EDS, so the volume is about 1.42 smaller (R^2 / R^2 = 5m^2 / 4.2m^2 = 25 / 17.64 = 1.42)
Conclusion Jupiter in max configuration should be able to carry about 134.3 tones to LEO (188 tones / 1.4 = 134.3)
So whatever number NASA can achieve with Ares V the same numbers but divided by 1.4 you can achieve with Jupiter.

Ares I + Ares V = 21 tons + 188 tons = 209 tons
Jupiter with EDS + Jupiter with CEV&LSAM = 134.3 tons + 71 tons = 205.3 tons

Jupiter with EDS needs extra 3.7 tons, it is just 2.76% and can be easily achieved since it does not carry LSAM and therefore has extra heights.

So two Jupiter can perform the same lunar mission as Ares I + Ares V can perform.

It is all based on NASA numbers :)


The official rebuttal document is almost done. Be patient.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 11/14/2008 10:00 am
Jupiter is about 1.4 times smaller than Ares V so it should be able to carry about 134.3 tones to LEO (188 tones / 1.40), why:
1. Ares V uses two 5.5 segments SRBs,
 Jupiter uses two 4 segments SRBs, so they are 1.375 smaller;
2. Ares V uses 10-meter diameter for first stage and EDS,
 Jupiter uses 8.4-meter diameter for first stage and EDS, so the volume is about 1.42 smaller (R^2 / R^2 = 5m^2 / 4.2m^2 = 25 / 17.64 = 1.42)
Conclusion Jupiter in max configuration should be able to carry about 134.3 tones to LEO (188 tones / 1.4 = 134.3)
So whatever number NASA can achieve with Ares V the same numbers but divided by 1.4 you can achieve with Jupiter.

That is utterly simplistic; J232 could not launch 134t. You cannot work out the numbers that way. I'm not being 'anti-Direct' but claims like that are pretty stupid.

IMHO, even if Direct couldn't match Ares for performance, it still makes more sense. In fact, I think that an EELV+Direct solution would work very well. Here is my thinking:

In Ares-I, NASA decided that an EELV didn't quite offer the safety and performance they needed, so they would spend a good deal of time and money raising the bar by a rather small margin. The EELV would have been a better value approach, and if the 'gap' and the costs had been given higher priority, an EELV would surely have made more sense, even if compromises had to be made with Orion. Today, it's debatable whether Ares even offers these advantages any more, whilst the high costs remain.

In Ares-V, again NASA decided that they needed just a little bit more performance, so decided to throw away all of the shuttle infrastructure. A very slightly smaller LV (e.g. NLS, Jupiter) would have been much better value. And, again, with if costs were given greater priority, e.g. by a new administration, then that is the route which should be chosen.

It's an example of the 'best' being the enemy of the 'good'.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 11/14/2008 11:12 am
A couple of thoughts (sort of organizing my futureward views):

It's starting to look a bit like Obama may wind up saying 1) Continue ISS to 2020+, 2) Reduce Constellation to Orion on EELV, and 3) Continue Shuttle until Orion on EELV flies (as late as 2015).

That doesn't seem like a catastrophe, because it does preserve the STS infrastructure intact throughout Obama's maximum term in office, which in turn means DIRECT can continue to be pursued. That seems better than having the infrastructure destroyed in 2010, with no great prospect that Ares I will fly before 2015, or Ares V ever.

Question: How much performance is lost (compared to Jupiter) if you convert the basic DIRECT components to a side-mount SDV, to serve as a cargo HLLV, as part of a resurrected Moon/Mars initiative once Orion on EELV is flying? That would be SRBs, ET as-is, Orbiter replaced by a thrust frame/cargo mount with 2/3 RS-68s at the bottom. The cargo mount could hold a cargo pod or an upper stage (EDS). I'm not saying this is the best idea, but like DIRECT it would be a possible "path of least resistance." Whatever happens with Obama, survival of the STS infrastructure for a few more years has to be treated as an opportunity, rather than a disaster.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/14/2008 11:36 am

Question: How much performance is lost (compared to Jupiter) if you convert the basic DIRECT components to a side-mount SDV, to serve as a cargo HLLV, as part of a resurrected Moon/Mars initiative once Orion on EELV is flying? That would be SRBs, ET as-is, Orbiter replaced by a thrust frame/cargo mount with 2/3 RS-68s at the bottom. The cargo mount could hold a cargo pod or an upper stage (EDS). I'm not saying this is the best idea, but like DIRECT it would be a possible "path of least resistance." Whatever happens with Obama, survival of the STS infrastructure for a few more years has to be treated as an opportunity, rather than a disaster.

You would essentially be resurrecting Shuttle-C, which would end up being a 4-launch solution for lunar missions. In addition, it is much more expensive to operate than DIRECT because it can only make economic sense as an “add-on” to a functioning and flying Shuttle program. It achieves its economies by piggy backing off the operational costs of the flying Shuttle. Without the Shuttle actively flying, the costs for this configuration go thru the roof. This has been looked at twice before, because on the surface it looks like a good idea. Both times however, the Congress absolutely choked at the sticker shock. It’s very expensive to fly on its own. We’d be right back to the same argument: Jupiter vs. Ares or Jupiter vs. Shuttle-C. In both cases, the costs and performance favor Jupiter by huge margins. In addition, the Jupiter is extendable, while the Shuttle-C is not.

Shuttle-C, or anything that resembles it, it a non starter for both cost and performance reasons.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/14/2008 12:23 pm
That is utterly simplistic; J232 could not launch 134t.
I did not say J232. I did say "Jupiter in max configuration" - something similar to J232 with 4 segments SRBs and 8.4-diameter first and EDS stages.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/14/2008 03:30 pm
How about to put LOX tank below LH tank in the common core?
SRBs will be attached to the common core in between 1st and 2-d section of SRB and between 3-rd and 4-s section of SRB.
Then stretch the common core to 1000 tons and shorten EDS to 200 tons.
Then EDS will use just one J-2.
Then you will get Jupiter-130 with 70-80 tons to LEO and Jupiter 231 with 135 tons to LEO.
Then Lunar mission will truly becomes 1.5 launch – one Jupiter 231 with EDS and one Jupiter-130 without EDS carrying CEV and LSAM to rendezvous with EDS in LEO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/14/2008 04:04 pm
How about to put LOX tank below LH tank in the common core?
SRBs will be attached to the common core in between 1st and 2-d section of SRB and between 3-rd and 4-s section of SRB.


The SRB attachment is on an enclosure on top of all the segment, not between them
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 11/14/2008 04:10 pm

Question: How much performance is lost (compared to Jupiter) if you convert the basic DIRECT components to a side-mount SDV, to serve as a cargo HLLV, as part of a resurrected Moon/Mars initiative once Orion on EELV is flying? That would be SRBs, ET as-is, Orbiter replaced by a thrust frame/cargo mount with 2/3 RS-68s at the bottom. The cargo mount could hold a cargo pod or an upper stage (EDS). I'm not saying this is the best idea, but like DIRECT it would be a possible "path of least resistance." Whatever happens with Obama, survival of the STS infrastructure for a few more years has to be treated as an opportunity, rather than a disaster.

You would essentially be resurrecting Shuttle-C, which would end up being a 4-launch solution for lunar missions. In addition, it is much more expensive to operate than DIRECT because it can only make economic sense as an “add-on” to a functioning and flying Shuttle program. It achieves its economies by piggy backing off the operational costs of the flying Shuttle. Without the Shuttle actively flying, the costs for this configuration go thru the roof. This has been looked at twice before, because on the surface it looks like a good idea. Both times however, the Congress absolutely choked at the sticker shock. It’s very expensive to fly on its own. We’d be right back to the same argument: Jupiter vs. Ares or Jupiter vs. Shuttle-C. In both cases, the costs and performance favor Jupiter by huge margins. In addition, the Jupiter is extendable, while the Shuttle-C is not.

Shuttle-C, or anything that resembles it, it a non starter for both cost and performance reasons.


I don't think that's really true. Shuttle-C was a specific configuration (basically a wingless, TPSless Orbiter with used-up SSMEs) and that's the only thing that should be called Shuttle-C, as it's the only configuration that, as you suggest, "achieves its economies by piggy backing off the operational costs of the flying Shuttle." What I'm talking about only resembles Shuttle-C in that it has a sidemount second stage. It's Jupiter with it's payload and RS-68 engines offset, and it achieves its economies by further minimizing the changes to the STS infrastructure, which is how Jupiter itself achieves its economies, while at the same time preserving the same political rationale. The reason I ask the question is not to derail DIRECT (which you know I generally support), but because space exploration advocates need to start looking for the cheapest possible redirection of STS infrastructure, rather than the best redirection. I suspect the Shuttle is going to fly to 2015, and the best we can hope for as a follow-on is Orion-on-EELV. The thing I'm describing could fly off a Shuttle pad that was still capable of hosting Shuttles. Could Jupiter? My feeling is, we're either going to shift to Jupiter next year, not until 2015, or never (if Obama decides to proceed with Ares).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/14/2008 04:38 pm
How about to put LOX tank below LH tank in the common core?
SRBs will be attached to the common core in between 1st and 2-d section of SRB and between 3-rd and 4-s section of SRB.


The SRB attachment is on an enclosure on top of all the segment, not between them
Why not to make a new attachment that will go in between of segments?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/14/2008 04:49 pm

Why not to make a new attachment that will go in between of segments?

There is no room.  The segments need to be next to each other for the propellant to burn.  The forward enclosure which has the attachments is half the length of a propellant segment.
Looking at the vehicles on the SRB's, the forward enclosure goes from the line below the attach point to the bottom of the nose cone.  There is no propellant in this section
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/14/2008 06:35 pm
There is no room.  The segments need to be next to each other for the propellant to burn.  The forward enclosure which has the attachments is half the length of a propellant segment.
Looking at the vehicles on the SRB's, the forward enclosure goes from the line below the attach point to the bottom of the nose cone.  There is no propellant in this section
Well it is even better! - if they make an attachment on the forward enclosure they can make a new kind of SRB sections that have this kind of attachments.

Here is a link where it is possible to see these attachments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:STS-117_rollback.jpg

It does not look like a rocket science to me to solve this problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/14/2008 06:41 pm
By the way IMHO it should improve LV performance to have more heavier LOX tank at the bottom since we do not need to hold more havier LOX tank on the top of the light LH tank. This is how they did it in Saturn-V. Shuttle is a totally different story since you have main engines in the orbiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/14/2008 06:50 pm
Here is the perfect picture of the SRB attachment:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Nose_cone_of_a_SRB_with_separation_rockets.jpg
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/14/2008 08:05 pm
By the way IMHO it should improve LV performance to have more heavier LOX tank at the bottom since we do not need to hold more havier LOX tank on the top of the light LH tank. This is how they did it in Saturn-V. Shuttle is a totally different story since you have main engines in the orbiter.

No, it doesn't.  Delta IV has the LOX on top.  There are controllability issues
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/14/2008 08:11 pm
Doesn't completely rebuilding the insides of everything kinda miss the whole point of direct?  Namely the reuse of assets we already have?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/14/2008 08:12 pm
Well it is even better! - if they make an attachment on the forward enclosure they can make a new kind of SRB sections that have this kind of attachments.


No.  Attachment system is not just the "bump" on the side the forward enclosure.  The whole forward enclosure is part of attaching the SRB's to the tank.

Anyways, modifying the SRB sections is not allowed.  That is part of the ground rules

And it is rocket science.  You just don't know what is involved
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/14/2008 09:09 pm
Planetary Society's vision statement for the new admin is up:
http://planetary.org/special/roadmap/beyond_the_moon.pdf
YMMV
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/14/2008 09:11 pm
Anyways, modifying the SRB sections is not allowed.  That is part of the ground rules
Why?
Isn't NASA breaking these ground rules by making 5 and 5.5 segments SRBs?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 11/14/2008 10:12 pm
Hi all, new here.  I was wondering how this will effect the DIRECT architecture moving forward:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9460.msg331414#msg331414

Will a functional J2X change anything (positively or negatively) at this stage?

Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 11/14/2008 10:20 pm
By the way IMHO it should improve LV performance to have more heavier LOX tank at the bottom since we do not need to hold more havier LOX tank on the top of the light LH tank.

LOX tank is mostly carried by SRB thrust applied to intertank, not by LH tank. In DIRECT, it will be the same in the first 2 minutes, then tank will be lighter.

Anyway, heavier tank is better kept farther away from engines to give them bigger shoulder for steering.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 11/15/2008 02:03 am
Anyways, modifying the SRB sections is not allowed.  That is part of the ground rules
Why?
Isn't NASA breaking these ground rules by making 5 and 5.5 segments SRBs?

To a much lessor extent. So far, NASA has kept the actual segments "as is" although you're right in that really, there isn't much left of the old shuttle heritage at the moment.

A bigger issue is the significantly different load path if you mount the boosters in the middle of the segment stack. As is the thrust loads all push up through all the segments & react to the tank at the top of the stack keeping the loads on segment joints in compression, a fundimentally stronger arrangement. If the SRBs are attached at a middle segment, the internal pressures in the booster want to push the segments above the tank connection away, putting them in tension, a much more difficult arrangement to seal and structurally support. The segments above the support would have to be very different than those below. All of a sudden you have a very, very, very different and very new solid booster. Long before you get to that point it makes far more sense to scrap the solids & go to a much more efficient liquid design that is optimally sized for the job at hand.

Sorry, but it really is a bad idea on a lot of fronts. If it seems you are being forced down that road, it's time to take an entirely different road.

Notwithstanding ocassionally flippant attitudes, generally "rocket science" really is rocket science. It usually doesn't lend itself to quick fixes or the rearrangement of existing components. I'm actually pretty stunned that DIRECT's rearrangment of basically shuttle components produces such a robust launcher concept.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/15/2008 02:16 am
Anyways, modifying the SRB sections is not allowed.  That is part of the ground rules
Why?
Isn't NASA breaking these ground rules by making 5 and 5.5 segments SRBs?


No, the segments are not modified
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/15/2008 02:40 am
To a much lessor extent. So far, NASA has kept the actual segments "as is" although you're right in that really, there isn't much left of the old shuttle heritage at the moment.

A bigger issue is the significantly different load path if you mount the boosters in the middle of the segment stack. As is the thrust loads all push up through all the segments & react to the tank at the top of the stack keeping the loads on segment joints in compression, a fundimentally stronger arrangement. If the SRBs are attached at a middle segment, the internal pressures in the booster want to push the segments above the tank connection away, putting them in tension, a much more difficult arrangement to seal and structurally support. The segments above the support would have to be very different than those below. All of a sudden you have a very, very, very different and very new solid booster. Long before you get to that point it makes far more sense to scrap the solids & go to a much more efficient liquid design that is optimally sized for the job at hand.

Sorry, but it really is a bad idea on a lot of fronts. If it seems you are being forced down that road, it's time to take an entirely different road.

Notwithstanding ocassionally flippant attitudes, generally "rocket science" really is rocket science. It usually doesn't lend itself to quick fixes or the rearrangement of existing components. I'm actually pretty stunned that DIRECT's rearrangment of basically shuttle components produces such a robust launcher concept.

Paul
I see what you are saying. Thanks!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/15/2008 03:27 am
Planetary Society's vision statement for the new admin is up:
http://planetary.org/special/roadmap/beyond_the_moon.pdf
YMMV

Arghh! Not even a mention of DIRECT, nor of the endless series of problems with, and underwhelming performance of, Ares I.

I agree with most of their points and general direction. Especially their recommendations for a gradual, staged buildup of manned missions from Earth, to NEO, to Mars. As they say, we went to the moon 40 years ago, been there, done that. It didn't lead us anywhere.

And I know we all agree with their call for a sustainable launch infrastructure. So how can they endorse the current Ares I / Ares V architecture?

Hasn't the DIRECT Team been in contact with the Planetary Society, or any of the other space advocacy groups? It seems like we should be able to get some more vocal backing, some strong public endorsements, some action in Congress, something.

Grr. Sorry, my frustration is showing....

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/15/2008 08:04 am
More info here:
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001741/

Planetary Society's vision statement for the new admin is up:
http://planetary.org/special/roadmap/beyond_the_moon.pdf
YMMV

Arghh! Not even a mention of DIRECT, nor of the endless series of problems with, and underwhelming performance of, Ares I.

I agree with most of their points and general direction. Especially their recommendations for a gradual, staged buildup of manned missions from Earth, to NEO, to Mars. As they say, we went to the moon 40 years ago, been there, done that. It didn't lead us anywhere.

And I know we all agree with their call for a sustainable launch infrastructure. So how can they endorse the current Ares I / Ares V architecture?

Hasn't the DIRECT Team been in contact with the Planetary Society, or any of the other space advocacy groups? It seems like we should be able to get some more vocal backing, some strong public endorsements, some action in Congress, something.

Grr. Sorry, my frustration is showing....

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulG on 11/15/2008 03:58 pm
"IT'S THE MOON (STUPID)"

No long range space program can exist without using the resources of the moon! There, I said it! (someone needed to) Let's face facts, heavy lift from earth via chemical propulsion is always going to be very expensive.

Besides, if we don't go back to the moon, how are we going to find and dig up that monolith ;)

Just my two unified currency units  -PaulG
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 11/15/2008 04:58 pm
Let's face facts, heavy lift from earth via chemical propulsion is always going to be very expensive.
If by this you mean that beyond-LEO travel shouldn't in the long term rely on conventional propulsion, then I agree. The key to an affordable Mars program will be developing a better propsulion system- probably one or more of SEP, NEP, or VASIMR. If we can do that, then the propellant requirements fall dramatically.

Quote
No long range space program can exist without using the resources of the moon! There, I said it! (someone needed to)

I don't agree. Assuming that by long range you refer to Mars, then it will be better to rely on Mars' resources themselves. The atmosphere, environmental conditions, known presence of water ice, and near 24hr day length all combine to produce a much more habitable place than the moon. It will not be too difficult to have the Mars outpost self-reliant in oxygen, water, food, and propellants. By contrast, trying to procure these resources on the moon is not only more difficult, but an expensive and difficult distraction, especially if you then have to ship them to another planet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/15/2008 08:59 pm
And which resources would those be?
There's no water, so you can't get hydrogen for confentional fuel.
There's no atmosphere, so you can't get noble gasses for ion propulsion.
There's no groundwater or free oxygen, so you can't form uranium deposits for nuclear fuel.

You have iron-titanium oxides, but titaniums isn't all that common in American rockets anymore.  What you really need is aluminum- which is locked up in hard-to-process silicates on the moon, and lithium, of where there is bugger all.

And in case you wanted to make solids instead, you're stuck trying to make ammonium perchlorate without any chlorine or nitrogen.



"IT'S THE MOON (STUPID)"

No long range space program can exist without using the resources of the moon! There, I said it! (someone needed to) Let's face facts, heavy lift from earth via chemical propulsion is always going to be very expensive.

Besides, if we don't go back to the moon, how are we going to find and dig up that monolith ;)

Just my two unified currency units  -PaulG
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/15/2008 09:55 pm
There’s one thing that the moon does have that is a good asset; gravity. Allow me to elaborate.

Working in zero-g is hard, really hard, and extremely dangerous, as any astronaut will attest. It has its advantages, to be sure, but it is still very difficult. The moon’s gravity, at 1/6 that of earth, provides enough to create a semi-normal working environment, and yet it is low enough that it is not a major impediment to leaving the earth-moon system. In terms of deltaV it costs almost nothing to get from the lunar surface to EML2 and back, which just happens to be half way to anyplace in the entire solar system.

Once a lunar base is established and operating, and I’m not talking about some glorified boy scout camp but an honest to goodness base (think Air Force base), then solar system operations will have a “home” to operate from that offers a reasonably benign and friendly environment to work in. Missions can depart from and return to the lunar base, by way of EML-2, without the constant expense (deltaV) of climbing the earth’s gravity well for every single mission with all of the expendables needed. Which brings me to:

Add to that the necessity for oxygen, LOTS of oxygen, for solar system exploration missions, and it soon becomes obvious that insitu-generated lunox has huge advantages over transporting all that tonnage up from the earth for every mission. There is almost unlimited potential for oxygen generation from the lunar rigoleth. And not only outbound missions, but ALL the oxygen that is needed for any manned mission anywhere, including any and all stations that may ultimately be in LEO. It can all come from the moon. Once lunox is a reality, we'll never again have to haul it up from the earth's surface; never again. Hauling oxygen up from the earth's surface accounts for 70-80% of all projected payload mass for manned lunar and/or Mars missions. We can totally eliminate that and get it from the moon instead.

The key to understanding where I’m going with this is to get beyond the image of manned and/or robotic solar system missions once or twice every few years, and think in terms of missions departing and/or returning every 3 to 4 months to somewhere. Not just boots and flags, but honest to God VSE exploration and colonization support missions. In other words, the Space-Based Civilization we all think about but nobody really talks a lot about. In that sense, the moon will be central.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/15/2008 10:10 pm
And which resources would those be?

{snip}
And in case you wanted to make solids instead, you're stuck trying to make ammonium perchlorate without any chlorine or nitrogen.


Burn what the moon has got as fuel.  A hybrid rocket using aluminium or magnesium as propellant.  The thrust comes from boiling unburnt Lox.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/15/2008 10:14 pm
Planetary Society's vision statement for the new admin is up:
http://planetary.org/special/roadmap/beyond_the_moon.pdf
YMMV

Arghh! Not even a mention of DIRECT, nor of the endless series of problems with, and underwhelming performance of, Ares I.

I agree with most of their points and general direction. Especially their recommendations for a gradual, staged buildup of manned missions from Earth, to NEO, to Mars. As they say, we went to the moon 40 years ago, been there, done that. It didn't lead us anywhere.

And I know we all agree with their call for a sustainable launch infrastructure. So how can they endorse the current Ares I / Ares V architecture?

Hasn't the DIRECT Team been in contact with the Planetary Society, or any of the other space advocacy groups? It seems like we should be able to get some more vocal backing, some strong public endorsements, some action in Congress, something.

Grr. Sorry, my frustration is showing....

Mark S.


No need to mention DIRECT at this stage. However Buzz Aldrin has spoken to DIRECT people and has expressed interest in the design. He favours a design called Aquila which is similar to shuttle-B. So the Planetary Council is aware of the option. However, they are right in that people are not interested that NASA is returning to the moon, it was just a soundbite from Bush.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: madscientist197 on 11/15/2008 11:45 pm
Planetary Society's vision statement for the new admin is up:
http://planetary.org/special/roadmap/beyond_the_moon.pdf
YMMV

Wow. It basically says f*** the moon - lets go to deep space instead. After a brief look it doesn't seem to say that heavy lift is a prerequisite either, although it does say that the Ares/Orion system should be built.

I have rather serious concerns about the lack of a clear goal with the deep space initiative though. In order to actually land on a NEO after all, requires a lander of some sort which will probably end up being fairly similar in cost to Altair.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/16/2008 04:53 pm
Space Lifestyle magazine -- a fairly new magazine -- has a new article on DIRECT.

http://www.spacelifestyle-digital.com/spacelifestyle/2008fall/?pg=63

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: EE Scott on 11/16/2008 05:08 pm
Good article.  I was surprised at the depth.  Given the newness of the publication, I hope it can get "out there" somehow to be read by a good number of people.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/17/2008 01:08 am
How about using 4 segments SRBs but adding 1.5 empty SRB segments and then stretching the 8.4-meter common core accordingly?
EDS will then use just one J-2 engine and will be smaller - Jupiter-231.

It is a 71% copy of the current Ares V and should be able to carry about 134.3 tones to LEO (188 tones * 71%).

It should be able to send 71 tons (current requirements) toward the moon in two-lunch architecture without propellant transfer - just docking (First lunch EDS, second launch CEV + LSAM, then they dock in LEO).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/17/2008 02:30 am
Yegor, Why?

If you don't need to, why spend the extra money?

That's precisely the problem with Ares.   They never asked "what do we actually need?" they focused entirely upon "what would we like?" and it grew and grew and grew -- completely out of control.

Every change you make away from the current Shuttle is something you have to pay for -- and we are on an extremely tight budget.   So minimizing the changes is a much better idea.

Don't ever get on the path of "if we just added this" -- it leads to the Dark Side.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 11/17/2008 03:12 am
How about using 4 segments SRBs but adding 1.5 empty SRB segments and then stretching the 8.4-meter common core accordingly?
EDS will then use just one J-2 engine and will be smaller - Jupiter-231.

It is a 71% copy of the current Ares V and should be able to carry about 134.3 tones to LEO (188 tones * 71%).

What will happen to T/W? Weight has grown, while thrust did not.

I say, if you need mega launcher, just replace SRBs with two more Jupiter cores :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 11/17/2008 04:25 am
Space Lifestyle magazine -- a fairly new magazine -- has a new article on DIRECT.

http://www.spacelifestyle-digital.com/spacelifestyle/2008fall/?pg=63 (http://www.spacelifestyle-digital.com/spacelifestyle/2008fall/?pg=63)

Ross.

What a great article for DIRECT, and a damning one for Griffin.

Ross, I didn't know you were an Englishman! My wife is English as well. Her dad was RN, and when he retired, they came to the US where he worked at a nuke plant. We even have PG Tips every day at 4 under a portrait of Her Majesty.  ;D

I think, from reading that article, that Griffin seems to have something to hide, and he knows it. It also looks like he's trying to keep people from finding out that he's hiding something.

Interesting...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 11/17/2008 02:17 pm
Good article, though it would be better if it had been written by an independent author rather than the very eloquent members of the Direct Team
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 11/17/2008 02:22 pm
Yegor, Why?

If you don't need to, why spend the extra money?

That's precisely the problem with Ares.   They never asked "what do we actually need?" they focused entirely upon "what would we like?" and it grew and grew and grew -- completely out of control.

Every change you make away from the current Shuttle is something you have to pay for -- and we are on an extremely tight budget.   So minimizing the changes is a much better idea.

Don't ever get on the path of "if we just added this" -- it leads to the Dark Side.

The only antidote to this sort of thinking is the firm hand of management keeping the engineers in line.  Unfortunately, we engineers like to tweak things to make them "just a bit better".  But in cases like this, tweaking is the LAST thing you want to do.  Tweaking, without proper oversight, can be a very bad thing.

That said, properly managed tweaking can help in the long run.  But it means management has to get the engineers to do a cost benefit analysis.  But that's a hard thing to get traditional aerospace engineers to do since they've been brainwashed into thinking that lower weight and/or higher payload are the key numbers to optimize in a design.

In a cost constrained program, like pretty much every NASA program, cost is a far more imortant metric.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 11/17/2008 04:44 pm
Good article, though it would be better if it had been written by an independent author rather than the very eloquent members of the Direct Team
I'm not sure that John George is a member of the Direct team, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on the quality of the article. I think it's poorly done. Certainly it's complimentary to DIRECT, but the background portion of the article has a number of serious errors, not the least of which is that it implies that an Ares I has already crashed!

Pg 64 second paragraph:
"For example, the vehicle vibrates so radically in what would be the first few moments of launch that a buckling in the structural features of the rocket occurred and when tested it ended up crashing into the ocean."

WTF??

One can imagine that the writer has transposed the possibility of a vibration induced accident into thinking that there has already been a failed test, but still, this would have been a pretty major event. I'm sure even Fox would have covered it. Someone writing for a space magazine surely should be interested enough in the subject matter to know if a major test article had augered in over the last two-three years. There are other less egregious errors in the sequence and interpretation of Ares program events that also lead me to believe the writer really doesn't know this stuff well. It also implies that the editorial staff don't know this stuff either as it also wasn't picked up at that stage.

Direct would have been served better if the writer had presented a more factually correct and more cogently written arguement for the concept. I'm going to read the rest of the issue to see if this magazine really has any depth or is just light bathroom reading.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/17/2008 05:05 pm
Good article, though it would be better if it had been written by an independent author rather than the very eloquent members of the Direct Team

John George is not a member of the DIRECT Team and has no association with us. He is a reporter for the on-line magazine, wanted to do a story on the DIRECT alternative to Ares and requested a few minutes of our time for a telephone interview, which we gladly provided. To the extent he used our specific comments, his article is correct. The remainder is background data that he developed on his own.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/17/2008 07:11 pm
Yegor, Why?

If you don't need to, why spend the extra money?
It allows to perform a 2-launch lunar mission without the need of propellant transfer.

Is it going to be much more expensive than the current DIRECT design?

IMHO development cost will be a little bit bigger than the current DIRECT design but production cost should be a little be lower than the current DIRECT design. At the same time it will be able to carry a much bigger payload than Jupiter-232.

Can the common core be assembled in VAB from two pieces: 1) LH tank with Aft Thrust Structure and Intertank and 2) LOX tank?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mjcrsmith on 11/17/2008 07:59 pm
Interesting read on CNN web site.

http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/17/will-change-hit-the-space-program/#comment-11098

There is an area for comments. 

Also noted that Miles O'Brien will be on CNN's "Situation Room" today to discuss Obama and the future of space policy.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 11/17/2008 08:15 pm
I stand corrected.  In between reading the authors byline and seeing the photos of Chuck and Steve, i forgot who wrote the article and mistakenly thought that Chuck and Steve had writtne it.  My error and apologies.



Good article, though it would be better if it had been written by an independent author rather than the very eloquent members of the Direct Team
I'm not sure that John George is a member of the Direct team, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on the quality of the article. I think it's poorly done. Certainly it's complimentary to DIRECT, but the background portion of the article has a number of serious errors, not the least of which is that it implies that an Ares I has already crashed!

Pg 64 second paragraph:
"For example, the vehicle vibrates so radically in what would be the first few moments of launch that a buckling in the structural features of the rocket occurred and when tested it ended up crashing into the ocean."

WTF??

One can imagine that the writer has transposed the possibility of a vibration induced accident into thinking that there has already been a failed test, but still, this would have been a pretty major event. I'm sure even Fox would have covered it. Someone writing for a space magazine surely should be interested enough in the subject matter to know if a major test article had augered in over the last two-three years. There are other less egregious errors in the sequence and interpretation of Ares program events that also lead me to believe the writer really doesn't know this stuff well. It also implies that the editorial staff don't know this stuff either as it also wasn't picked up at that stage.

Direct would have been served better if the writer had presented a more factually correct and more cogently written arguement for the concept. I'm going to read the rest of the issue to see if this magazine really has any depth or is just light bathroom reading.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 11/17/2008 08:16 pm
Chuck,

I stand corrected.  In between reading the authors byline and seeing the photos of you and Steve, i forgot who wrote the article and mistakenly thought that you and Steve had writtne it.  My error and apologies.

Mike

Good article, though it would be better if it had been written by an independent author rather than the very eloquent members of the Direct Team

John George is not a member of the DIRECT Team and has no association with us. He is a reporter for the on-line magazine, wanted to do a story on the DIRECT alternative to Ares and requested a few minutes of our time for a telephone interview, which we gladly provided. To the extent he used our specific comments, his article is correct. The remainder is background data that he developed on his own.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/17/2008 08:30 pm

Can the common core be assembled in VAB from two pieces: 1) LH tank with Aft Thrust Structure and Intertank and 2) LOX tank?

No, because the core is not self supporting.  It needs the SRB's to hold it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/17/2008 09:16 pm

Can the common core be assembled in VAB from two pieces: 1) LH tank with Aft Thrust Structure and Intertank and 2) LOX tank?

No, because the core is not self supporting.  It needs the SRB's to hold it.
I meant DIRECT common core during the LV assembly.
So yes, we stand SRBs first,
then we put LH tank with Aft Thrust Structure and Intertank between SRBs,
then can put common core LOX tank on top of that?
IMHO it does not seem so difficult.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/17/2008 09:30 pm
Yegor, Why?

If you don't need to, why spend the extra money?
It allows to perform a 2-launch lunar mission without the need of propellant transfer.

DIRECT already does that. No propellant transfer required.
The cryo transfer procedure was deleted on 24th September 2007 (just 4 days after the AIAA Presentation). The baseline ever since has been a 2xJupiter-232 launch, with no propellant transfer; just rendezvous, dock and depart for the moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/17/2008 09:40 pm
Yegor, Why?

If you don't need to, why spend the extra money?
It allows to perform a 2-launch lunar mission without the need of propellant transfer.

Just clarification, but our current J-232 EOR-LOR architecture doesn't need Propellant Transfer either, and still closes all of NASA's current targets by ~1mT, so this isn't actually needed.


Quote
Is it going to be much more expensive than the current DIRECT design?

As would be expected in such cases, any stretches to the Core incur increased costs for both development and infrastructure and the bigger the stretch, the bigger the cost difference.

I don't have the precise paperwork to hand as I write this, but I seem to recall that a stretch up to ~5ft was an easy option.   5-11ft is more costly, but not too much.   11-17ft started to get expensive.   Over 17ft required major, costly, changes.

So there's some wiggle-room, but not a lot.

The other issue is the bigger the Core Stage gets, the heavier it becomes.   The heavier the Core becomes the less performance the J-120 configuration will have because it is carrying a lot more dead weight up hill.   You don't want to stray very far from the current size or you will have to add that third engine to every J-120 flight too -- and that just burns up all the cost savings you were trying to get by dropping the J-2X on the larger vehicle.   Its a "see-saw" of delicate balance.


Quote
IMHO development cost will be a little bit bigger than the current DIRECT design but production cost should be a little be lower than the current DIRECT design. At the same time it will be able to carry a much bigger payload than Jupiter-232.

That's true as a percentage of costs, but when you convert the percentage into actual dollars the picture reverses.

Purely for demonstration purposes, lets say this change increases development costs by 5%, but saves 10% on production costs.   That initially looks good until you figure that out...   Increasing a $10,000m development cost by 5% costs you about $500m in up-front expenditure before you ever start flying.   Whereas saving 10% of a production cost of $130m only saves you $13m per flight.   It will take a lot of flights before you will ever recover the difference (39 flights is what I estimate in this example).

The other part of the equation is schedule.   More development guarantees a longer delay.

So where is the best path?   That's a subjective question and everyone has a different answer.

For us, the answer is to keep the costs to a minimum while getting the job done and trying our best not to extend the 'gap' any more than we absolutely must.


Quote
Can the common core be assembled in VAB from two pieces: 1) LH tank with Aft Thrust Structure and Intertank and 2) LOX tank?

Not realistically.   The touch-labor and the problems that introduces would kill you on the operational cost side of things, not to mention the additional tooling required at KSC on top of the tooling needed at MAF.   That's gonna hurt you in both your wallet and your calendar :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 11/17/2008 10:02 pm

Just clarification, but our current J-232 EOR-LOR architecture doesn't need Propellant Transfer either, and still closes all of NASA's current targets by ~1mT, so this isn't actually needed.


A bit of clarification please ... ~1mT with or without reserve margins?


Quote
Purely for demonstration purposes, lets say this change increases development costs by 5%, but saves 10% on production costs.   That initially looks good until you figure that out...   Increasing a $10,000m development cost by 5% costs you about $500m in up-front expenditure before you ever start flying.   Whereas saving 10% of a production cost of $130m only saves you $13m per flight.   It will take a lot of flights before you will ever recover the difference (39 flights is what I estimate in this example).

Nicely put Ross!

This is where I have a big issue with NASA's Ares plan.  They plan on spending $30B to develop 2 rocket systems and then say they are saving money by flying a cheap SRB and US for all the ISS / CEV launches ... totally ignoring the planned development cost ... never mind the real cost once all the bugs are worked out. 

If only they could develop an launch system for $15B ... they'd have and $15B towards the EDS/lander/etc ... oops ... choir ... never mind ...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/17/2008 10:05 pm

I meant DIRECT common core during the LV assembly.
So yes, we stand SRBs first,
then we put LH tank with Aft Thrust Structure and Intertank between SRBs,
then can put common core LOX tank on top of that?
IMHO it does not seem so difficult.


Why?  It doesn't help anything.  Just assemble it at the factory.  The launch site  and VAB is not factory.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/17/2008 11:02 pm

Just clarification, but our current J-232 EOR-LOR architecture doesn't need Propellant Transfer either, and still closes all of NASA's current targets by ~1mT, so this isn't actually needed.


A bit of clarification please ... ~1mT with or without reserve margins?

All NASA margins achieved successfully.   And I'm not talking about the new 'smaller' ones (5mT LSAM L3 margin), but the older 'larger' (4mT L2 + 5mT L3 = 9mT) margins.

Matching NASA's current LSAM margins, we clear their TLI targets by ~5mT.

And we still have the upgrade to 5-seg SRB's available in our pockets as a spare margin should we need it.   They would buy about 7mT more LEO performance.

Quote
Nicely put Ross!

This is where I have a big issue with NASA's Ares plan.  They plan on spending $30B to develop 2 rocket systems and then say they are saving money by flying a cheap SRB and US for all the ISS / CEV launches ... totally ignoring the planned development cost ... never mind the real cost once all the bugs are worked out. 

If only they could develop an launch system for $15B ... they'd have and $15B towards the EDS/lander/etc ... oops ... choir ... never mind ...

Agreed.   NASA keeps touting the launch cost proportion of the argument, and essentially telling everyone to just "ignore the billions behind the curtain".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/17/2008 11:30 pm
Yegor, Why?

If you don't need to, why spend the extra money?
It allows to perform a 2-launch lunar mission without the need of propellant transfer.

DIRECT already does that. No propellant transfer required.
The cryo transfer procedure was deleted on 24th September 2007 (just 4 days after the AIAA Presentation). The baseline ever since has been a 2xJupiter-232 launch, with no propellant transfer; just rendezvous, dock and depart for the moon.

Oh well, it is great then!!!

I read NASA Performance Assessment of (DIRECT 2) and then I download AIAA paper from your website
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-HighRes.pdf
that has old data.

I am very sorry for the confusion that I created.

If you can do 2-launch lunar mission without the need of propellant transfer than it is great!
Please ignore my Jupiter-231 posts then.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/17/2008 11:32 pm
Ross, thank you for your reply!

I am sorry for the confusion that I created.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 11/18/2008 12:27 am
I meant DIRECT common core during the LV assembly.
So yes, we stand SRBs first, then we put LH tank with Aft Thrust Structure and Intertank between SRBs, then can put common core LOX tank on top of that?

I'm forced to ask again, why? What does it buy you?
Quote
IMHO it does not seem so difficult.
Well, the parts don't just snap together like Lego blocks. If you have a joint in the structure where no joint was before, that means the load paths are different, the manufacturing is different and the testing is different. Splitting one piece into two means further testing to show the integration has gone correctly. Assembling in a new factory (the VAB) means new procedures, tooling and people need to be on site to take care of the new tasks. And the total amount of work is always greater for two pieces making one assembly than producing just the single piece.

I don't mean to be rude or presumptuous, but unlesss you are an engineer in the aerospace industry with manufacturing, systems, design or projects experience, statements like "IMHO it does not seem so difficult." show you are out of your depth. There is a reason that the phrase "rocket science" indicates something that is technically difficult.

If you aren't absolutely sure of these ideas, why not ask "would it be difficult to..." as opposed to "it does not seem so difficult" unless you have the knowledge to have a reasonable opinion about these things. Please continue to put forward interesting ideas or even really wacky ideas, but don't assume that what appears to be simple ever is, because in "rocket science" it almost never is.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/18/2008 04:43 am
And we still have the upgrade to 5-seg SRB's available in our pockets as a spare margin should we need it.   They would buy about 7mT more LEO performance.

How does the Jupiter fit on 5 segment SRB's?  Do you have to stretch the main tank, or do you put the standard tank on SRB 'stilts'?

Also, with the 2 launch lunar mission:
Assuming no propellant transfer, do you get the best performance by switching to the 1st launch EDS in the lowest possible orbit, or by doing the transfer in the highest orbit the heavy launch can reach?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 11/18/2008 08:13 am
Assuming no propellant transfer, do you get the best performance by switching to the 1st launch EDS in the lowest possible orbit, or by doing the transfer in the highest orbit the heavy launch can reach?

From an energy standpoint, I believe you get the higher bang per buck if you do the TLI burn deeper in Earth's gravity well. Since we're talking about orbital radii of cca. 6600 km, plus or minus 100 km doesn't make much difference in performance and air drag at lower orbits limits your loiter time anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 11/18/2008 10:40 am
Assuming no propellant transfer, do you get the best performance by switching to the 1st launch EDS in the lowest possible orbit, or by doing the transfer in the highest orbit the heavy launch can reach?

From an energy standpoint, I believe you get the higher bang per buck if you do the TLI burn deeper in Earth's gravity well. Since we're talking about orbital radii of cca. 6600 km, plus or minus 100 km doesn't make much difference in performance and air drag at lower orbits limits your loiter time anyway.

Ideally, the best orbit for the TLI burn is an elliptical one that allows you to do your TLI burn at perigee. The idea here is to have the highest pre-TLI speed while still being close to earth.

The only problem with an elliptical orbit is that it is hard to conduct the rendez-vous of a two-launch mission. However, this could be a very useful strategy for a one-launch mission where your EDS is a bit too small (such as the J-120 + Delta IV US mission considered by the Direct team).

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 10:48 am
I am very sorry for the confusion that I created.

Not to worry :)

It's actually useful for us to get some "out of the box" ideas like that.

It gives us the opportunity to double-check ourselves, one more time, to make sure we aren't missing a better configuration.   Your post was useful.   Thanks.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 10:56 am
How does the Jupiter fit on 5 segment SRB's?  Do you have to stretch the main tank, or do you put the standard tank on SRB 'stilts'?

We plan to do this precisely the same way as was planned for Shuttle.

Essentially a new attachment point would be fitted to the upper-most segment of each booster instead of on the Fwd Skirt located immediately above the segments.   This arrangement means you still guarantee every hot joint remains in compression, not tension, during flight -- and that's the most important thing.   The Fwd Skirt doesn't *have* to take those loads too, which means it could potentially even be made lighter too, which also improves performance a little.

You could stretch the tank as well, but that would require a fair bit of extra development work (costing both $$$ & schedule delays).   While that buys you quite a lot of additional performance in J-232 configuration (26mT+) it hurts the J-120 configuration's performance a *lot* -- enough to kill any chance of carrying up Shuttle-sized payloads with Orion's, which is something we want to be able to do.

Seeing as we achieve all the performance targets with margin to spare, we don't believe the extra cost needs to be front-loaded into the program at this time -- especially given the economically difficult period we are in today.   So, stretching the Core is a "Future Growth Option.   It's ranked #2 of 6 on our shortlist.   The 5-seg SRB upgrade is #1 because work has already commenced upon that option and it's politically expedient too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 11/18/2008 11:04 am
Assuming no propellant transfer, do you get the best performance by switching to the 1st launch EDS in the lowest possible orbit, or by doing the transfer in the highest orbit the heavy launch can reach?

From an energy standpoint, I believe you get the higher bang per buck if you do the TLI burn deeper in Earth's gravity well. Since we're talking about orbital radii of cca. 6600 km, plus or minus 100 km doesn't make much difference in performance and air drag at lower orbits limits your loiter time anyway.

Ideally, the best orbit for the TLI burn is an elliptical one that allows you to do your TLI burn at perigee. The idea here is to have the highest pre-TLI speed while still being close to earth.

True, but I was comparing circular parking orbits only. If your upper stage had a bit of performance leftover, yes it would be ideal to use it to boost apogee. Even then, for a given apogee, the closer the perigee to Earth the more efficient your burn will be.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 11:09 am
I meant DIRECT common core during the LV assembly.
So yes, we stand SRBs first,
then we put LH tank with Aft Thrust Structure and Intertank between SRBs,
then can put common core LOX tank on top of that?
IMHO it does not seem so difficult.

CxP considered doing precisely that for the Ares-V Core -- because it has grown to such an enormous size and is well-on-the-way to being completely unmanageable already.

But they choked when they found out how much that would cost in terms of both infrastructure elements, but mostly in terms of processing times (delays) within the VAB.

You see, one of the key targets is to be able to process a vehicle in the VAB in 4-6 weeks at most, thereby allowing a high flight rate to be achieved.

6 weeks in the VAB = 8 vehicles per High Bay each year.   2 High Bays = 16 launch limit.

6 weeks in the VAB + 2 weeks at the Pad = 8 weeks total launch processing = 6 vehicles per MLP each year.   3 MLP's = 18 launch limit.

Those are reasonable numbers.


But if the vehicle has to have a lot of assembly, that's going to create major delays.   All the while, taking up a High Bay and an MLP.   IIRC, CxP found it would add an extra 6+ weeks inside the VAB.   If each MLP is only available to handle a maximum of 3-4 flights per year and each High Bay is limited to 4 vehicles per year, that drops your maximum flight rate a *lot*.

While that isn't such a problem for Lunar missions, it is going to be a major problem when we start Mars missions and need up to 6 big vehicles launched in as short a period as possible to support those missions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 11/18/2008 11:48 am
In the current DIRECT proposal on the directlauncher website, on page 7 in the mars Forward Lunar architecture section, it states:

"It is also much easier to return, inspect, repair and replace equipment on the Moon than is practical for Mars making the learning process for
equipment design evolution more rapid and less dangerous for the crew"

The part I'm interested in is the "return" statement.  Is there anything in the current DIRECT proposal that would allow the return of large equipment such as a rover to the earth for this design review process?  Or is that capability something we are losing with Shuttle?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/18/2008 01:56 pm
Ross,
Thank you very much for the detailed reply!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/18/2008 02:38 pm
We plan to do this precisely the same way as was planned for Shuttle.

Essentially a new attachment point would be fitted to the upper-most segment of each booster instead of on the Fwd Skirt located immediately above the segments.   This arrangement means you still guarantee every hot joint remains in compression, not tension, during flight -- and that's the most important thing.   The Fwd Skirt doesn't *have* to take those loads too, which means it could potentially even be made lighter too, which also improves performance a little.

Is there anyway to show a picture of this?  Not arguing or doubting you that shuttle planned to do this, but as I understand it, the SRB's are in tension during flight and compression before launch.  The reason I would like some picture, is that in my mind's eye, I am imagining that the SRB's would attach to the ET along their sides, and not at the top.  The issue (not much of one) would be that the load path would be very different.  Instead of pressure reacting with the upper dome and transferring force in to the IT and crossbeam, you would be pulling the tank up by the field joint on the SRB (then into the IT and crossbeam).

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/18/2008 03:19 pm
Planetary Society's vision statement for the new admin is up:
http://planetary.org/special/roadmap/beyond_the_moon.pdf
YMMV

Wow. It basically says f*** the moon - lets go to deep space instead. After a brief look it doesn't seem to say that heavy lift is a prerequisite either, although it does say that the Ares/Orion system should be built.

I have rather serious concerns about the lack of a clear goal with the deep space initiative though. In order to actually land on a NEO after all, requires a lander of some sort which will probably end up being fairly similar in cost to Altair.

Sorry for posting this in Direct 2.0 thread, but I thought it was worthy of a follow up to this original posting, and haven't seen a posting yet for it on this site. And I mean WORTHY. The link says the e-mail is making it's way around...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=29813

It also gives you food for thought on gloabal warming. Interesting read.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 11/18/2008 04:15 pm
Is there anyway to show a picture of this?  Not arguing or doubting you that shuttle planned to do this, but as I understand it, the SRB's are in tension during flight and compression before launch.

Er, no.  The thrust from the SRB's vastly exceeds that of the SSMEs at launch.  Those segment joints are definitely in compression.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 11/18/2008 04:40 pm
So how practical would it be for Michoud to manufacture both standard-length Cores for J-120 and stretched-length Cores for J-232 Heavy on the same line if the extra performance is eventually needed for the J-232? And how practical would that be for the VAB work platforms and other KSC LC-39 infrastructure like the crawlers, MLPs, umbilical towers, and FSS towers?
 

You could stretch the tank as well, but that would require a fair bit of extra development work (costing both $$$ & schedule delays).   While that buys you quite a lot of additional performance in J-232 configuration (26mT+) it hurts the J-120 configuration's performance a *lot* -- enough to kill any chance of carrying up Shuttle-sized payloads with Orion's, which is something we want to be able to do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/18/2008 04:53 pm
Somebody probably suggested it before:

One of the future upgrades to DIRECT could be lightening the common core for Jupiter 120 version. In this case it will be less common since it will be used in Jupiter-120 version only but still 95% common.
Howe much it could be lighten in this case? 20 tons? To 70 tons payload to LEO?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 05:48 pm
In the current DIRECT proposal on the directlauncher website, on page 7 in the mars Forward Lunar architecture section, it states:

"It is also much easier to return, inspect, repair and replace equipment on the Moon than is practical for Mars making the learning process for
equipment design evolution more rapid and less dangerous for the crew"

The part I'm interested in is the "return" statement.  Is there anything in the current DIRECT proposal that would allow the return of large equipment such as a rover to the earth for this design review process?  Or is that capability something we are losing with Shuttle?

We have no specific plans for a particular piece of hardware to do that.

But we do provide the enabling capability to allow it to happen.

1) We aren't sucking all the air ($$$) out of the room with our launcher development and operations costs, so there will be quite a bit of spare money available in the budget to develop and fly such things.

2) This is a subtle thing, so follow me along here...   We are trying to create a truly *robust* and *sustainable* architecture here.   Because we have spare money compared to Ares, we can afford to use these systems a lot more often.

Our current baseline system would happily support 8 full Lunar missions each year.   That's compared to 4 for Ares.   So obviously, we could get things completed on the moon in half the time.   I'm specifically talking about launching all the Lunar Base elements in half the time Ares can do it in.

If we can get our Propellant Depot plans going too, we essentially offload a lot of the launch costs to our international partners and that allows us to concentrate on making more spacecraft instead (a variable cost item only, also subject to economies of scale, so improving overall per-mission costs in the process too!).   With PD, we are looking at being able to support up to 16 full Lunar missions every year -- all for a total program cost of ~$8-9bn per year, not the ~$11-12bn costs expected for Ares currently.

We can realistically achieve all our mission goals 4 times faster than Ares can ever afford to do.   *THAT* is how you build a truly sustainable architecture which is worthwhile spending these large amounts of money on.   Yet it *still* wouldn't cost as much as Ares will!

Now, if you have finished building the Lunar base in 3 years instead of 12, now you can move on to other things much sooner too.   You can re-direct your money to new things much sooner.   Things like Mars exploration, NEO exploration, ISRU capabilities, Nuclear Propulsion development and also your "Lunar Return capabilities" all enter the schedule a lot sooner under DIRECT than under Ares.


So, no, DIRECT itself propose a capability to return major hardware from the moon, but it does provide a sustainable architecture which would allow such things to happen in a reasonable time-frame and for a reasonable cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/18/2008 05:52 pm
Somebody probably suggested it before:

One of the future upgrades to DIRECT could be lightening the common core for Jupiter 120 version. In this case it will be less common since it will be used in Jupiter-120 version only but still 95% common.
Howe much it could be lighten in this case? 20 tons? To 70 tons payload to LEO?


There are absolutely no plans to have a different weight core on the Jupiter-120 and the Jupiter-232. One of the hallmarks of this design is the shared commonality between the two flight configurations. The differences are in the deletions to the Jupiter-232 that cause it to become the Jupiter-120 (center RS-68 and upper stage).

This is a CRITICAL concept to understand: We are NOT building the Jupiter-120. We are building the Jupiter-232! We fly the Jupiter-232 minus the upper stage and the center RS-68 and “call” that configuration the Jupiter-120. We will NEVER optimize the Jupiter-120 alone – ever. They are ONE launch vehicle, flown with or without the 3rd engine and US as a “flight configuration” difference; they are not 2 similar launch vehicles that share a lot in common. It is the Jupiter-232 only that is optimized. The Jupiter-120 flight configuration is not optimised; it takes the performance hit by design, in order to actually fly just the one launch vehicle, with 2 flight configurations.

This saves Constellation an enormous amount of money that can be used for other aspects of the VSE.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 05:55 pm
Is there anyway to show a picture of this?

Not of the way the compression/tension loads work, sorry, I don't have anything to help you there.

There is high pressure inside the SRB which tries to push the SRB segments apart.   But those forces are nowhere near equivalent to the specifically directed forces which are generated by the nozzle, which are then being transmitted back up the structure.   The 3.3m lb of thrust pushing upwards from the nozzle is the far greater force.   You can tell its compression, not tension, because the rocket goes forward because of that force :)

But below I have attached one of ATK/NASA's early study's showing how the mountings of the 5-seg SRB would have been accomplished for Shuttle use.   It should be enough to give you the idea.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/18/2008 06:27 pm
Somebody probably suggested it before:

One of the future upgrades to DIRECT could be lightening the common core for Jupiter 120 version. In this case it will be less common since it will be used in Jupiter-120 version only but still 95% common.
Howe much it could be lighten in this case? 20 tons? To 70 tons payload to LEO?


There are absolutely no plans to have a different weight core on the Jupiter-120 and the Jupiter-232. One of the hallmarks of this design is the shared commonality between the two flight configurations. The differences are in the deletions to the Jupiter-232 that cause it to become the Jupiter-120 (center RS-68 and upper stage).

This is a CRITICAL concept to understand: We are NOT building the Jupiter-120. We are building the Jupiter-232! We fly the Jupiter-232 minus the upper stage and the center RS-68 and “call” that configuration the Jupiter-120. We will NEVER optimize the Jupiter-120 alone – ever. They are ONE launch vehicle, flown with or without the 3rd engine and US as a “flight configuration” difference; they are not 2 similar launch vehicles that share a lot in common. It is the Jupiter-232 only that is optimized. The Jupiter-120 flight configuration is not optimised; it takes the performance hit by design, in order to actually fly just the one launch vehicle, with 2 flight configurations.

This saves Constellation an enormous amount of money that can be used for other aspects of the VSE.

I understand that DIRECT is going to be built with absolutely the same common core and I totally for it - it saves time and money right now.

I just want to say that if at some point in future, let us 20 years from now, there would be a need for a 70 tons launch vehicle there is a possibility to lighten Jupiter-120 core. Isn't it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 06:37 pm
Sorry for posting this in Direct 2.0 thread, but I thought it was worthy of a follow up to this original posting, and haven't seen a posting yet for it on this site.

This is one of those extremely highly charged political hot potatoes.   If we officially come out on one side or the other we only alienate half our audience, so there's absolutely no benefit to us to do so.

Having said that, we do have a lot of concerns with the Planetary Society's recent position.


Obviously, we don't agree with their position of supporting the Ares because we see that as being an untenable position fiscally -- even if all the technical problems magically vanished overnight.


We also refuse to accept the basic premise that this Vision must be an either/or situation regarding destination.

I don't want this to be LEO or Moon or Mars or NEO's or Robotic missions.   That is divisive and guarantees a lot of opponents.

That division is 100% caused by a lack of funding.   The lack of funding is being 100% caused because the two Ares vehicles are so damned expensive (both developmentally and operationally).

So if we fix that core problem, we would have the necessary money to allow us to afford to do multiple things.   With an efficient launch system, we don't have to be a one-trick pony.

I don't want this to be LEO and Moon and Mars and NEO's and Robotic missions.   And I believe DIRECT offers a way to do it in an affordable way.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 07:01 pm
I understand that DIRECT is going to be built with absolutely the same common core and I totally for it - it saves time and money right now.

I just want to say that if at some point in future, let us 20 years from now, there would be a need for a 70 tons launch vehicle there is a possibility to lighten Jupiter-120 core. Isn't it?

There are such options for the future, yes.   But it would require a specific reason to make it worthwhile.

Also there would need to be no other ways to do it that are cheaper :)   Those would probably get priority.

But fundamentally, another "Super Light-Weight Tank" style upgrade is theoretically possible for the Core Stage: The "Mega Light-Weight Tank" anyone? LOL

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 07:15 pm
So how practical would it be for Michoud to manufacture both standard-length Cores for J-120 and stretched-length Cores for J-232 Heavy on the same line if the extra performance is eventually needed for the J-232? And how practical would that be for the VAB work platforms and other KSC LC-39 infrastructure like the crawlers, MLPs, umbilical towers, and FSS towers?

It is possible.

The NLS effort shows very clearly that even standard Shuttle External Tanks and these Cores could be made at the same time on the same tooling.   NLS planned for 9 ET's and 14 Cores to be the maximum throughput every year from Michoud.

The only real question is cost.   The tooling modifications needed to support a longer tank are more costly than for supporting a standard-capacity tank.   Ditto at KSC.

The overall difference is probably in the order of ~$200m to switch from one to the other, and probably another ~$100m if you want to do both at the same time.

In addition to that, you also need to perform exhaustive testing & qualifications on both designs separately. I would easily put aside a half billion extra, including booking three years on the various test stands to do it, plus a few test flights too.

So overall, you could do it, but you're quickly approaching a billion bucks additional costs for a second major development effort.

And now you're flying half your flights with one tank design, and half with another.   The fixed costs for the infrastructure aren't very different.   But by splitting the variable element in two, neither benefits from quite the same economies of scale any more.   The costs there will go up a bit more too -- probably in the order of ~$10-20m extra per flight.

It can be done.   But I think you need a specific reason to justify the additional costs.   At present, I don't really see one.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 11/18/2008 07:27 pm

<snip>
That division is 100% caused by a lack of funding.   The lack of funding is being 100% caused because the two Ares vehicles are so damned expensive (both developmentally and operationally).

<snip>
Ross.

Sorry Ross, the lack of funding is 100% driven by the President and the Congress not authorizing/providing sufficeint funding for the program to be properly executed, whether or not it is Saturn, Ares, or Jupiter...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 07:44 pm
Sorry Ross, the lack of funding is 100% driven by the President and the Congress not authorizing/providing sufficeint funding for the program to be properly executed, whether or not it is Saturn, Ares, or Jupiter...

No Mike,
Ares was proposed (by ESAS) in the expectation that $2bn extra would be given to NASA every year.   In the event, they actually need more like $4bn now.

But Jupiter doesn't cost anything like the same amount as Ares.   Not to develop and not to operate.   Jupiter is in a totally different cost bracket.   DIRECT is low enough cost that we could still  accomplish the CxP baseline mission plan of 2 x ISS, 2 x Lunar Crew & 2 x Lunar Cargo per year, even if NASA's budget were trimmed by more than a billion bucks.

If we can retain the current budget level, we are going to have close to 2 billion unallocated each year.   That's enough to fly many more missions (human & robotic) and pay for a lot of other development work as well.

Initially, around 2009-2013, we plan to use that extra money to speed up Orion's development to get FOC in 2013, speed up Jupiter's development and to immediately re-fund the Aeronautics & Science Directorates back to their FY2000 levels again (Science can then pay for more telescopes, probes & rovers!).

From about 2014, we use that extra money to fly more missions and develop new hardware which we aren't planning currently.   I think we should start funding things like an extension to ISS's lifespan, nuclear propulsion systems, Propellant Depot technology, ISRU systems, NEO systems, Mars hardware.   We should fund as many of those as we can afford to :)

Ross.
(Woo, 5500 posts!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/18/2008 07:54 pm

<snip>
That division is 100% caused by a lack of funding.   The lack of funding is being 100% caused because the two Ares vehicles are so damned expensive (both developmentally and operationally).

<snip>
Ross.

Sorry Ross, the lack of funding is 100% driven by the President and the Congress not authorizing/providing sufficeint funding for the program to be properly executed, whether or not it is Saturn, Ares, or Jupiter...

Mike,

     There is plenty of funding available and planned, with talk of adding billions more from Obama and others to extend Shuttle flights and/or support VSE.

    The problem is that NASA under Griffin is not using the allocated funds wisely or in a fiscally prudent manner. The Ares project went off the rails way back when the SSME versions of Ares-I and -V were rejected. Griffin has been unwilling to face that fact, so the costs go up, the schedules get stretched, and the capabilities get reduced. So the problem is not the amount of funding. The problem is the unwillingness of Griffin to see that the elephant in the room is his precious Ares architecture.

    You must tailor your program to fit within the expected budget. Not plan a huge-ass project without political backing, and then expect the budget to be expanded to fit your whims.

     If NASA dropped the Ares and picked up DIRECT on Jan. 20th, we could have the first test launch of Jupiter-120 within two years, the first manned launch with three years, and the first J-232 test launch within four and a half years. Ares? Not so much.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/18/2008 08:03 pm
Ross,

   By the way, is there an updated Ares manifest available anywhere? The version I have shows the first manned launch in Sept. 2014, whereas I thought that had been pushed back to sometime in 2016.

   Also in that vein, do you post notices here whenever new or updated materials are put on the DIRECT web site?

Thanks,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/18/2008 08:28 pm
Is there not another rebuttal due? Something to counter NASA's findings here:

www.nasa.gov/pdf/256922main_Direct_vs_%20Ares%20_FINAL_62508.pdf

and the main report here:
http://saturn.netwrx1.com/rfischer/docs/pcdocs/257003main_NASA%20Performance%20Assessment%20of%20(DIRECT%202)%20Compiled.0702.pdf
Page 14: "Ares 1: Current PDR Estimate is 1/2400 for contribution to PLOC (after 3 years of iterated analysis)"

The report is from after October 2007 when there were already plenty of problems with Ares 1.

Now number 1/30 to LOC has surfaced:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9460.780

What this suppose to mean?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 08:32 pm
Mark,
Usually we post new material here first, or at least a link to whatever we put on the website.


I'm not aware of a recent Ares schedule being released showing the new delays.   I don't believe any of the recent MPIM's are including the delays yet -- for obvious reasons.

[EDIT: The Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is listed for ~March 2015 in this Q3 2008 MPIM (http://sas.ivv.nasa.gov/pdf/255656main_MPIM-rev-FY2008-Q3-(FINAL).pdf).   Remember that IOC is 12 months before Full Operational Capability (FOC) -- which is the first time the Orion can actually be *used* for something useful]

I have one of my own if that helps?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rdale on 11/18/2008 08:34 pm

Now number 1/30 to LOC has surfaced:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9460.780

What this suppose to mean?

It means that some anonymous blog somewhere has thrown out numbers that may or may not mean anything.

When there is documentation - then we discuss.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 08:35 pm
What this suppose to mean?

I'm not sure yet.   We will need to watch this and see -- probably over on the other thread though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/18/2008 08:52 pm
Is there anyway to show a picture of this?

Not of the way the compression/tension loads work, sorry, I don't have anything to help you there.

There is high pressure inside the SRB which tries to push the SRB segments apart.   But those forces are nowhere near equivalent to the specifically directed forces which are generated by the nozzle, which are then being transmitted back up the structure.   The 3.3m lb of thrust pushing upwards from the nozzle is the far greater force.   You can tell its compression, not tension, because the rocket goes forward because of that force :)

But below I have attached one of ATK/NASA's early study's showing how the mountings of the 5-seg SRB would have been accomplished for Shuttle use.   It should be enough to give you the idea.

Ross.
Ross,
     Thank you for the .pdf, it's always very interesting to see design concepts.  But I believe that your thinking is wrong, it's the internal pressure forces which are much greater than the thrust force.  A high pressure inside the SRB is around 900 (lbf/in2), multiply that by a conservative dome area of PI*(R^2), where Radius = 50 inches (OML is 73 inches), and you get a force of 7,068,583.5 lbf.  More than double the peak thrust of the SRB.  Currently I am helping with loads calculations and we have to put in correction forces to represent the "case stretch."

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/18/2008 08:55 pm
Sorry for posting this in Direct 2.0 thread, but I thought it was worthy of a follow up to this original posting, and haven't seen a posting yet for it on this site.

{snip}
I don't want this to be LEO and Moon and Mars and NEO's and Robotic missions.   And I believe DIRECT offers a way to do it in an affordable way.

Ross.

Sorry Ross, I didn't intend for that 'particular side' of things to be the issue. I just posted it as a follow-up to what I belived to be a skewed report from the Planetary Society, and now some key people-figures don't agree with the approach.

I'll drop it now.

I'm still chewing my nails waiting on word from Obama and his camp, while still holding my fingers crossed for Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 11/18/2008 09:32 pm
Ross, with regard to funding, you state: "Ares was proposed (by ESAS) in the expectation that $2bn extra would be given to NASA every year.   In the event, they actually need more like $4bn now."

And the reason that 2 billion dollars (now 4) is not provided is due to the President/Congress not providing it.  NOT due to NASA grandious plans to develop new launch vehicles.  The funding was inadequate to support both the turn down of shuttle operations and the ramp up of new design efforts.

Mark, you state "     There is plenty of funding available and planned, with talk of adding billions more from Obama and others to extend Shuttle flights and/or support VSE."

Obama has yet to submit a budget and the congress has yet to vote on the non-submitted budget.  With 770B allocated to financial rescue operations, the amount of money need to prosecute and/or wind down the war, the perceived need to do something about the auto industry, health care, and the massive public debt, I expect that NASA funding will not be very high on the priority list.

Having said that, I agree that spending money on Direct rather than Ares is the way to go.  Unfortunantly, Joe the Plumber does not care about the space program 1/100 as much as those of us on this board do and no one has been able to articulate a need to spend the money in a way that generates a willingness to do so since John Kennedy.

While I personnally believe that the need to go to the Moon and Mars is in keeping with the American Psyche, Manfest Destiny, mom, and Apple Pie, until such time as it becomes a profit making enterprise, I don't expect much more than the current level of effort.

Colonization of the America's succeeded because it was profitable.  Other than earth support satellites (meaning commuinication and weather satellites, perhaps to a lesser extent GPS, and their ilk) and maybe - maybe - launch vehicles, nothign associated with the space program returns a profit.  The fact that the money is spent on Earth does not apparently hold much weight with non-believers.

I am looking for arguments in favor of the manned space program that will help convert the non-believers, I just can't think of them.  Help me out here.

Kind regards

Mike



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/18/2008 09:36 pm
Mike,

The greatest advantage, as Ross points out, is keeping most of the the workforce. So "joe the Plumber' would also be those men and women working on the space program all over the USA, from those at NASA, to the contractors, down to all the spin-off and secondary jobs.

I'm not really sure what the direct and indirect revenues (& taxes) are, but I'd say a lot of that money goes right back into the economy & the treasury.

Last thing you need, on top of the auto sector, is the aerospace sector to get cut off at the knees at this time. It makes economic sense, now more than ever imo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 09:36 pm
Robert,
Sorry, I wasn't complaining about your post at all! :)

My complaint was about the way some groups (like TPS in this case) keep trying to divide this business up into factions.   That is a practice which is really bothering me.

If it weren't for the ridiculous cost of Ares-I and then Ares-V, we could all get along.   There's actually a number of ways we can work together.

Here is a good example:
Around 2016-2020 the ISS will be getting really old.   If someone developed a new module with all the necessary life support systems, power generation systems, recycling systems, control systems and a bunch of other systems, it could be lofted to ISS to extend the station's usable life.

Identical systems from that module could then also form the basis for a Lunar habitat module to be landed by an LSAM.

Identical systems from that module could then also be the basis for a habitat module which an NEO mission could use to go visit an asteroid.

And identical systems from that module could also then form the basis for a Mars habitat module too.

You get to test the module & systems close to Earth in LEO first, then you can apply whatever necessary design changes before taking it to the Moon.   Having been tested thoroughly for a number of years in LEO and on the Moon, and after more evolutionary improvements the same project forms the backbone for year-long voyages well beyond Earth's proximity.   Having been thoroughly proven via three exhaustive rounds of 'tests', the same design finally goes to Mars where it will hopefully be reliable enough to use for a long, long time.

That's the sort of synergy which is possible if we don't blinker ourselves to plans which are exclusionary 'just Moon' or 'just Mars' approaches.

Ross.

PS - And here's an idea...   What if we got a reliable partner space agency to design such a module for us?   ESA would sure love to do something like that.   And it would be very valuable indeed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/18/2008 09:40 pm
Exactly...on all fronts. I completely agree. That's the sense that needs to be put out there. Are you vying for that (coughs) NASA position?  :)
Thanks for that post, Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 11/18/2008 09:54 pm
Mike,

The greatest advantage, as Ross points out, is keeping most of the the workforce. So "joe the Plumber' would also be those men and women working on the space program all over the USA, from those at NASA, to the contractors, down to all the spin-off and secondary jobs.

I'm not really sure what the direct and indirect revenues (& taxes) are, but I'd say a lot of that money goes right back into the economy & the treasury.

Last thing you need, on top of the auto sector, is the aerospace sector to get cut off at the knees at this time. It makes economic sense, now more than ever imo.

Let me start by ensuring that I am not trying to be deliberately dense or argumentive.

"Joe the Plumber" is not a highly specialized aerospace worker but a skilled workman in any number of fields.

The number of jobs represented by space shuttle workers is not nearly as large as the automotive industry nor even a major percentage of the aerospace community at large.  While this would be a major blow to Brevard County (I saw it the first time in high school after Apollo), its effect on the nation would probably not be nearly as important as the complete meltdown of the autmotive industry.

The reference to direct and indirect income and taxes merely equals my observation that the money is spent on Earth.

I also recognize that for the cost of 1 day in Iraq and Afghanistan on sustained yearly basis, NASA could field a robust program of manned and unmanned exploration with sustainment of the space station, a deep space exploration vehicle, and another vehicle optimized for delivery of cargo and crew to the ISS, possibly winged and reusable (as in, it is 2001 and where is Pan Am flying to the moon and space station.)

The sad fact is America is rich enough to defend itself, help raise up the poor, AND support a robust, sustainable space program.  But, those arguments are not going to sway the people and the congress.

Kind regards

Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 10:03 pm
Ross, with regard to funding, you state: "Ares was proposed (by ESAS) in the expectation that $2bn extra would be given to NASA every year.   In the event, they actually need more like $4bn now."

And the reason that 2 billion dollars (now 4) is not provided is due to the President/Congress not providing it.  NOT due to NASA grandious plans to develop new launch vehicles.  The funding was inadequate to support both the turn down of shuttle operations and the ramp up of new design efforts.

It was, at best, "hopeful" to plan an architecture which relied entirely upon extra funding from Congress.   Hindsight clearly shows we should have planned a more conservative architecture and used any extra funding to enhance it instead of relying upon it.

From the very first moment the money values from the 'secret' ACI version of the ESAS Report started to become public, Griffin's cost plans were highlighted as a problem by many experienced people all over the industry.   Griffin refused to listen to any advice on this issue, and is about to pay the price for that mistake.   He should have listened to advice instead of just charging headlong into his "pipedream program".


Quote
Obama has yet to submit a budget and the congress has yet to vote on the non-submitted budget.  With 770B allocated to financial rescue operations, the amount of money need to prosecute and/or wind down the war, the perceived need to do something about the auto industry, health care, and the massive public debt, I expect that NASA funding will not be very high on the priority list.

Agreed.   I just hope his campaign promises are borne-out in practice.   A $2bn one-time shot-in-the-arm will be very welcome by DIRECT.

More so, some "change" would also be welcome too.   IMHO we need an independent review of all the options, with technical and cost factors worked out independently.   Then we can really decide what we want to do and how much we are willing to pay for it.   I will pit DIRECT against any opposition on a level playing field.


Quote
Having said that, I agree that spending money on Direct rather than Ares is the way to go.  Unfortunantly, Joe the Plumber does not care about the space program 1/100 as much as those of us on this board do and no one has been able to articulate a need to spend the money in a way that generates a willingness to do so since John Kennedy.

I would say you're right on the money there.   NASA's budget represents 0.58% of Federal Discretionary Spending (pre-bailout).   I would not be at all surprised if the average Joe the Plumber cares about it more than that same 0.58% too.   But 0.58% is still a lot better than 0.2% or 0.0%.


Quote
While I personnally believe that the need to go to the Moon and Mars is in keeping with the American Psyche, Manfest Destiny, mom, and Apple Pie, until such time as it becomes a profit making enterprise, I don't expect much more than the current level of effort.

Exactly.   I think we will actually be quite lucky to keep NASA's current budget levels intact.

We need a new program which will work within those boundaries and which will do it sustainably, robustly and *impressively*.   If we can show a *value* for the program, actually impress people, we have a much better chance of keeping the current budget or maybe even requesting a little more.

Ares just won't ever allow us to do more than the bare minimum -- because it will cost too much.   That just isn't going to impress anyone, so we're going to be stuck, just like Shuttle, with a damned expensive system, used very infrequently because we don't want to pay any more.


Quote
Colonization of the America's succeeded because it was profitable.  Other than earth support satellites (meaning commuinication and weather satellites, perhaps to a lesser extent GPS, and their ilk) and maybe - maybe - launch vehicles, nothign associated with the space program returns a profit.  The fact that the money is spent on Earth does not apparently hold much weight with non-believers.

Agreed.   It is going to be a long time before space makes money.   What we really need are new markets 'up there'.   We need manufacturing in LEO or on the Moon/Mars.   Those manufacturing bases will produce materials mostly for that base, but some items will eventually get shipped back as high-priced exclusive items and that will be the start of a new "trading" partnership.   It will obviously be very slow at the start, but will ultimately build into something significant.

I don't think it is going to happen for at least a hundred years, but it will take a hundred years after we take our first steps in that direction.   And that's what we need to start doing now.  Waiting just puts that inevitable day off ever further.

Small steps lead to bigger ones.   But if we never even bother to start walking, we never will reach the destination.   Someone else will.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 11/18/2008 10:43 pm
Marc,
Which is a more realistic number for the area that the 1000 psi pressure acts on: a 50-inch radius you used, or the 73-inch radius?  Using the larger radius gives a net force which is over two times greater than your 7+ Mlb result.  Dividing this 14 Mlb by the case circumference gives a tensile running load of just over 30,500 lbs/in., and a stress of 61,000 psi (0.5 in.-thick case). This gives a (reasonable?) factor of safety of 3.3 when using a 200 ksi yield for the D6AC steel, whereas your FS would be 6.6 (perhaps too high?).

Ross,
A different way of thinking about this is that the 7 or 14 Mlbs are pushing on the forward dome of the RSRM, and the same 7 or 14 Mlbs are pushing on the aft dome, less the 3 Mlb thrust running out of the big hole in the back end!  These forces on the domes are what load the joints between them in tension.

I think that the 5-segment SRB with the ET attachment on the pressure case would relieve some of the axial load on the forward dome, but not enough to put the upper joints into compression.

F=ma.


Is there anyway to show a picture of this?

Not of the way the compression/tension loads work, sorry, I don't have anything to help you there.

There is high pressure inside the SRB which tries to push the SRB segments apart.   But those forces are nowhere near equivalent to the specifically directed forces which are generated by the nozzle, which are then being transmitted back up the structure.   The 3.3m lb of thrust pushing upwards from the nozzle is the far greater force.   You can tell its compression, not tension, because the rocket goes forward because of that force :)

But below I have attached one of ATK/NASA's early study's showing how the mountings of the 5-seg SRB would have been accomplished for Shuttle use.   It should be enough to give you the idea.

Ross.
Ross,
     Thank you for the .pdf, it's always very interesting to see design concepts.  But I believe that your thinking is wrong, it's the internal pressure forces which are much greater than the thrust force.  A high pressure inside the SRB is around 900 (lbf/in2), multiply that by a conservative dome area of PI*(R^2), where Radius = 50 inches (OML is 73 inches), and you get a force of 7,068,583.5 lbf.  More than double the peak thrust of the SRB.  Currently I am helping with loads calculations and we have to put in correction forces to represent the "case stretch."

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/18/2008 10:54 pm

Mark, you state "     There is plenty of funding available and planned, with talk of adding billions more from Obama and others to extend Shuttle flights and/or support VSE."

Obama has yet to submit a budget and the congress has yet to vote on the non-submitted budget.

 ----

I am looking for arguments in favor of the manned space program that will help convert the non-believers, I just can't think of them.  Help me out here.

Kind regards

Mike





Mike,

    Obama has not submitted a budget, but he did change from an anti-space position early in his campaign to a more-or-less pro-space stance later on. But with "Change we can believe in." We will just have to keep our fingers crossed for now.

   Also, I think he is smart enough to know that when the storm clouds are rolling in and troubles have you surrounded, a little inspiration goes a long way. And if nothing else, a successful space program can be very inspirational indeed. Besides, if we can afford 700B to bail out bankers and risky investment schemers, surely we can afford a paltry 18-20B to keep our high-tech aerospace economy healthy too. I don't think anyone is inspired by bailing out Wall Street or Detroit. Disgusted and amazed, maybe, but not inspired.

    A big part of the problem is definitely getting the message out to Joe the Plumber, and Sarah the Waitress, and Bill the Programmer. Most people have been indoctrinated to believe that "billions and billions" are being thrown away in outer space, thanks to Proxmire and his ilk. They have been lead to believe that NASA is a huge percentage of the federal budget, on the order of 15% to 25%. If we could get the message out that it is way less than 1%, most people would be shocked, and would actually be more supportive of space. At least, that is my personal experience when explaining the numbers to people I talk to.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/18/2008 11:12 pm
From our contacts, I'm of the opinion that Obama is willing to support a fiscally sane exploration program, but is unwilling to support the ludicrous one in place right now.

If he/his administration can find an option which isn't just another boondoggle, I think he is willing to throw strong support behind it.

That's just my opinion.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/19/2008 12:00 am
From our contacts, I'm of the opinion that Obama is willing to support a fiscally sane exploration program, but is unwilling to support the ludicrous one in place right now.

If he/his administration can find an option which isn't just another boondoggle, I think he is willing to throw strong support behind it.

That's just my opinion.

Ross.

Good to know, thanks. Well I sure hope that transpires. NASA has been through some '*' lately, and they need a chance at a 'real' advanced space program. Obama-Direct. He always was 'direct'  ;) (in his messages)

EDIT: okay, one or two hick-ups...he's human. That's a good thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 11/19/2008 12:08 am

Here is a good example:
Around 2016-2020 the ISS will be getting really old.   If someone developed a new module with all the necessary life support systems, power generation systems, recycling systems, control systems and a bunch of other systems, it could be lofted to ISS to extend the station's usable life.

Identical systems from that module could then also form the basis for a Lunar habitat module to be landed by an LSAM.
.
.
.
You get to test the module & systems close to Earth in LEO first, then you can apply whatever necessary design changes before taking it to the Moon.   Having been tested thoroughly for a number of years in LEO and on the Moon, and after more evolutionary improvements the same project forms the backbone for year-long voyages well beyond Earth's proximity.   Having been thoroughly proven via three exhaustive rounds of 'tests', the same design finally goes to Mars where it will hopefully be reliable enough to use for a long, long time.


Hi Ross,

I have to disagree with you a bit with regards to testing.  I don't think most of the systems developed and tested in LEO are going to be usable on the Moon or Mars ... gravity is going to change things a lot.  LEO would be a great place for testing Mars transfer habitat / systems ... but not grounded applications.

Secondly, I notice in the chart above that you have July or August 2010 as the initial test launch of Jupiter 120.  I would have believed that a year ago had we started on it then ... but starting now and flying in under 2 years ... I'm skeptic.  I think the best you can hope for is a change of Direction (pun intended) 4-6 months into the new administration.  Has that test flight date been shifted at all or is that still in its initial location from last November's release of 2.0?   What does a later start date do to the gap?

Cheers!

Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/19/2008 01:20 am
From our contacts, I'm of the opinion that Obama is willing to support a fiscally sane exploration program, but is unwilling to support the ludicrous one in place right now.

If he/his administration can find an option which isn't just another boondoggle, I think he is willing to throw strong support behind it.

That's just my opinion.

Ross.

Ross,  Good summary. 

That's how my understanding of his position has evolved but I wasn't able to articulate it that clearly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/19/2008 03:00 am
And Jupiter-120 can be launched carrying nothing but a CEV too.

You place a simple ballast tank filled with water inside the payload shroud and it would allow an Orion to fly on its own. Such a ballast tank would also act as a partial 'bullet-proof shield' if anything ever goes wrong during a launch. And Jupiter-120 provides engine-out capabilities starting from around T+45 seconds.

I just don't get why that is being perceived as a lesser solution?

Ross.

I wonder if the water tank/shield could be used as a useful payload for ISS water needs or just left in LEO for any private group to take advantage of?

Just one tank would take care of ISS's water needs for a year and even allow better living conditions on ISS.

Maybe they could sale the excess water tanks to Bigelow or other private station operators.

Other uses propellant for NTR stages or solar thermo stages.
Maybe host an xprize competition for a stage that can use the ballast water for propellant.

Other uses just store it on or near ISS or Bigelow's station in a depot and use it for shielding on a NEO or Mars mission.

I see a gold mine of opportunities in this.

I'm sold on the J120 for use as the CLV because of the excess cargo and engine out capability.
It's better and safer then all the options even the EELVs.

Any good crew launch vehicle should be able to loose an engine on the way up and still complete it's mission this saved Apollo and later the Shuttle a few times.

Even private companies like Spacex and Planetspace see the importance of this feature on a crew vehicle.



I'm slowly working my way through this thread (I've only reached page 114), and I've come across this post from several months ago. Sorry to dredge it up, but I wanted to question something that I don't understand.

OK, so now you've got 20 mT of water in orbit from every ISS flight. I guess it would freeze solid, meaning it can't leak away?

Now this is just H2 & O2 in an inert form, but I'm guessing it would survive for years without any of the expensive cryogenics needed for LH2 / LO2?

Why can't your proposed Propellent Depot collect these "iceballs", melt them and electrolyse the water, then liquefy the O2 fraction?

I guess you'd call it ISRU in LEO???

I'm presuming you'd need to discard the H2 because I've read comments (re the PD) that keeping already-liquid LH2 from boiling off is too difficult at present, so liquefying "hot" H2 in orbit must be just about impossible. I don't know if there's any way to utilise the discarded hydrogen to help with cooling of the O2 (eg transfer heat from O2 to H2, then use the hot H2 to melt some more water before it's vented).

Even though liquefying O2 sounds like it should be easier than H2, it's obviously still a much more difficult task than just stopping already liquid O2 from boiling off, so I can see that would be a problem.

As I see it, one J120 flight to ISS per year between say 2012 & 2017 would also give you 120 tonnes of "free" water, which could give you over 100 mT of LO2 in your PD (presuming no O2 would be lost in the electrolysis operation).

Obviously there'd be a mass penalty for lofting electrolysis equipment, bigger solar cells and more powerful cryogenic equipment with the PD, but it's got to be worth it for 100+ mT of "free" LO2 (more if there's more than one ISS flight per year or flights continue after 2017 - when does NASA plan to abandon ISS?)

Also, if you leave the water in the frozen state until you need it, it's not going to boil away - trading long term boil-off of LO2 against the more powerful short-term cooling required to electrolyse and liquefy the O2 just before you need it.

How quickly could LO2 be produced using this scheme? Would it take days / weeks / months / years to produce enough fuel to fuel up an EDS?

Assuming a sensible size for the solar cells, might LO2 even boiloff faster than it could be generated?



How cold does water/ice (or whatever) get if left inert in LEO? It must be a lot warmer than LO2, because I understand LO2 will boil off if not actively cooled. Is it cold enough that you could cool gaseous O2 substantially towards the condensation point by running it through the ice (whilst also helping to melt more ice for electrolysis)?

I don't know how you'd melt the ice in the tank, but I'd guess this must be a mature technology as used in the propellent tanks of deep-space probes (a radiant heater, a laser inside the tank, or ????)

What am I missing here? What are the issues I've missed re using this apparently "free" O2 in the PD?

*********

Extending this concept, I've also read comments about nations lofting LO2 for the Depot, and especially using cheap "don't care if they blow up" rockets for this.

If you want to get really cheap, does it make sense for them to loft 8 mT of (not exorbitant, but not free either) LO2 in some expensive (high tech / high pressure / boil off controlled) tank?

Instead they could launch 9 mT of (? cryogenically deep-frozen ?) ice (maybe with a sacrificial crust of CO2 dry ice (or even O2) to keep it cool during ascent). The tank could be lightened to only have the strength necessary to contain the frozen contents in space. On the ground / in ascent, all rigidity would be provided by the ice which was frozen in place as (? distilled ?) water was added into the tank.

(I don't suggest doing this on a Jupiter ascent because it seems to add unnecessary complication, but if a block of ice + lighter tank provides better protection...

Obviously that's not going to be practical if the J120 needs to be able to dump that liquid water ballast in an abort situation.)

cheers, Martin

PS be gentle with me, only my second post.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/19/2008 04:17 am
Space Lifestyle magazine -- a fairly new magazine -- has a new article on DIRECT.

http://www.spacelifestyle-digital.com/spacelifestyle/2008fall/?pg=63 (http://www.spacelifestyle-digital.com/spacelifestyle/2008fall/?pg=63)

Ross.

What a great article for DIRECT, and a damning one for Griffin.

Ross, I didn't know you were an Englishman! My wife is English as well. Her dad was RN, and when he retired, they came to the US where he worked at a nuke plant. We even have PG Tips every day at 4 under a portrait of Her Majesty.  ;D

I think, from reading that article, that Griffin seems to have something to hide, and he knows it. It also looks like he's trying to keep people from finding out that he's hiding something.

Interesting...

Heavens! An American who knows the difference between a Briton and an Englishman! Sir, I doff my hat to you. :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/19/2008 04:27 am

I'm slowly working my way through this thread (I've only reached page 114), and I've come across this post from several months ago. Sorry to dredge it up, but I wanted to question something that I don't understand.

OK, so now you've got 20 mT of water in orbit from every ISS flight. I guess it would freeze solid, meaning it can't leak away?

Now this is just H2 & O2 in an inert form, but I'm guessing it would survive for years without any of the expensive cryogenics needed for LH2 / LO2?

Why can't your proposed Propellent Depot collect these "iceballs", melt them and electrolyse the water, then liquefy the O2 fraction?

I guess you'd call it ISRU in LEO???

I'm presuming you'd need to discard the H2 because I've read comments (re the PD) that keeping already-liquid LH2 from boiling off is too difficult at present, so liquefying "hot" H2 in orbit must be just about impossible. I don't know if there's any way to utilise the discarded hydrogen to help with cooling of the O2 (eg transfer heat from O2 to H2, then use the hot H2 to melt some more water before it's vented).

Even though liquefying O2 sounds like it should be easier than H2, it's obviously still a much more difficult task than just stopping already liquid O2 from boiling off, so I can see that would be a problem.

As I see it, one J120 flight to ISS per year between say 2012 & 2017 would also give you 120 tonnes of "free" water, which could give you over 100 mT of LO2 in your PD (presuming no O2 would be lost in the electrolysis operation).

Obviously there'd be a mass penalty for lofting electrolysis equipment, bigger solar cells and more powerful cryogenic equipment with the PD, but it's got to be worth it for 100+ mT of "free" LO2 (more if there's more than one ISS flight per year or flights continue after 2017 - when does NASA plan to abandon ISS?)

Also, if you leave the water in the frozen state until you need it, it's not going to boil away - trading long term boil-off of LO2 against the more powerful short-term cooling required to electrolyse and liquefy the O2 just before you need it.

How quickly could LO2 be produced using this scheme? Would it take days / weeks / months / years to produce enough fuel to fuel up an EDS?

Assuming a sensible size for the solar cells, might LO2 even boiloff faster than it could be generated?



How cold does water/ice (or whatever) get if left inert in LEO? It must be a lot warmer than LO2, because I understand LO2 will boil off if not actively cooled. Is it cold enough that you could cool gaseous O2 substantially towards the condensation point by running it through the ice (whilst also helping to melt more ice for electrolysis)?

I don't know how you'd melt the ice in the tank, but I'd guess this must be a mature technology as used in the propellent tanks of deep-space probes (a radiant heater, a laser inside the tank, or ????)

What am I missing here? What are the issues I've missed re using this apparently "free" O2 in the PD?

*********

Extending this concept, I've also read comments about nations lofting LO2 for the Depot, and especially using cheap "don't care if they blow up" rockets for this.

If you want to get really cheap, does it make sense for them to loft 8 mT of (not exorbitant, but not free either) LO2 in some expensive (high tech / high pressure / boil off controlled) tank?

Instead they could launch 9 mT of (? cryogenically deep-frozen ?) ice (maybe with a sacrificial crust of CO2 dry ice (or even O2) to keep it cool during ascent). The tank could be lightened to only have the strength necessary to contain the frozen contents in space. On the ground / in ascent, all rigidity would be provided by the ice which was frozen in place as (? distilled ?) water was added into the tank.

(I don't suggest doing this on a Jupiter ascent because it seems to add unnecessary complication, but if a block of ice + lighter tank provides better protection...

Obviously that's not going to be practical if the J120 needs to be able to dump that liquid water ballast in an abort situation.)

cheers, Martin

PS be gentle with me, only my second post.

Don't worry, you'll soon learn the hard facts of rocket science. Sensei Jim will tutor you quickly in this regard, at the cost of many bruises to one's ego. The Golden Rule of armchair rocketry is usually Keep It Simple Stupid. It's complicated enough with the frightening performance of these machines.

In reality your idea would introduce operational complications. Operational complications basically equal extra time and money, for little benefit really. The ice won't just "stay up there," its orbit will decay over time and as such has to be watched. Also, the water actually makes it a hazard on reentry. If the water is not vented or sublimated, it will act as a heat sink and coolant, possibly allowing the tank to survive to the ground and would certainly pulverise anything beneath it because of the water left inside.

Electrolysis also requires lots of electricity, zero-gee plumbing, plus on-orbit liquefaction equipment... AFAIK cryogenic liquefaction is an unproven tech.

This water could possibly be used for ISS for the O2 generation system there but I don't see a simpler use for it. Rather baseline some other form of cargo for Jupiter-120's extra mass. If you *can* justify something like this, then it may well be useful, but like all the suggestions for the STS's ET, if there is no money, it won't happen.*

*Actually maybe this should be the Golden Rule of armchair rocket science?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/19/2008 06:00 am
Forgive me for not searching this thread for the answer to my question - I'm sure you've covered it before.  But I assume the rationale for sending up thousands of lbs of water ballast is that even at a price of $### / lb, you still save money by not having another launcher which doesn't need ballast?  Cause it does seem really silly to develop a light weight, low margin space vehicle just to load it with ballast for certain missions...  But I can understand this if the concept is that it is cheaper to send up the same LV with ballast then it is to develop / modify a smaller and more efficient LV that does not need ballast.  Is this the case?

But now that I think about it, why waste the money with liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to lift ballast to orbit?  Is there another configuration where you can keep the same components yet fill the tank to a lower level and run either a single engine or power down the 120?

Then again, I don't think anyone could seriously tell me that there isn't something important to send into space on every mission.  I think I do agree with you there Ross, that the ISS should have upgrades and new modules - the biggest tragedy would be to watch the ISS burn up because we let our "modular" station get too old...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 11/19/2008 07:07 am
Good idea would be to auction the "free" mass of Jupiter-120. Or to allocate it to universities for free. You could squeze lots of small satellites inside this thing...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 11/19/2008 01:18 pm

We have no specific plans for a particular piece of hardware to do that.

But we do provide the enabling capability to allow it to happen.

<snip>


Ross, thanks for your detailed reply.  My question is really about any return to earth capabilities including LEO to earth (those that we have with shuttle) and what the scientific and economic impact of losing that capability will be after shuttle retires.  Since that is a non-DIRECT-specific (indirect?) question, but rather applies to all the shuttle replacement proposals I have seen, I will ask it in another thread.

That said, based on your proposal for a robust and sustainable launch architecture I wonder which would be more cost effective in a possible future where DIRECT is embraced by the new administration, keeping shuttle on a very reduced flight schedule, or constructing a new vehicle that could ride a common core that would have these capabilities?

Do you have an estimate of what additional dollars would be required to keep Shuttle and Jupiter running concurrently?  Does anyone know the dollar-value of earth return capabilities that we currently have, that has been used for SPACELAB, SPACEHAB, SPARTAN, Satellite return, etc?

Thanks,

-Ian

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/19/2008 02:10 pm
Good idea would be to auction the "free" mass of Jupiter-120. Or to allocate it to universities for free. You could squeze lots of small satellites inside this thing...

Placing a flock of cube sats in the same orbit as the ISS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/19/2008 02:14 pm

Ross, thanks for your detailed reply.  My question is really about any return to earth capabilities including LEO to earth (those that we have with shuttle) and what the scientific and economic impact of losing that capability will be after shuttle retires. 
Do you have an estimate of what additional dollars would be required to keep Shuttle and Jupiter running concurrently?  Does anyone know the dollar-value of earth return capabilities that we currently have, that has been used for SPACELAB, SPACEHAB, SPARTAN, Satellite return, etc?


The bulk of the shuttle's return capability wasn't really needed. 
1.  Spacecraft and Payloads like SPARTAN, SPAS, ATLAS, ASTRO were better suited for free flying non returning spacecraft.  They would get longer flight time and a cheaper ride.   It was shown that ATLAS pallets missions would have been done cheaper and received more data if  a fleet of UARS type spacecraft were used

2.  Science on Spacelab and spacehab has be replaced by the ISS.  Orion, CRS (COTS), Soyuz, will provide a down mass capability for science samples.

Spacex is offering a recoverable spacecraft

3.  There is little need for logistics return under the new ISS ConOps.  So MPLM and Spacehab aren't needed

4.  There were very few spacecraft (less than a hand full) returned on the shuttle that weren't launched on the same flight.   This required that empty "space" be launched on the shuttle, which was inefficient and expensive

In all, the total capability won't be missed much.  The real requirement is science sample return.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/19/2008 02:23 pm
{snip} That said, based on your proposal for a robust and sustainable launch architecture I wonder which would be more cost effective in a possible future where DIRECT is embraced by the new administration, keeping shuttle on a very reduced flight schedule, or constructing a new vehicle that could ride a common core that would have these capabilities? {snip}

-Ian

Ian;
It depends entirely upon the budget that the Obama administration is willing to sign off on, with the cooperation of the Congress. Whether we fly 2 or 6 Shuttles per year doesn’t really affect the annual cost of the Shuttle program. The vast majority of the annual expenditures are for the STS workforce, which is paid whether Shuttle flies or not. So a reduced flight rate has more to do with improving the odds for safe flying than it does for making funding available.

That said, IF the Obama administration follows thru with its pledge to add $2 billion dollars to the NASA budget, and IF he maintains that funding level until Orion and Jupiter are both operational, then the best thing, in my opinion, is to fly Shuttle twice per year to maintain the US presence on the ISS using US assets until Orion-Jupiter FOC, with the development and deployment schedule accelerated as much as is reasonably possible, based on the additional funding. My opinion is predicated on my personal belief that turning US access to the ISS over to the Russians for several years, with no US capability in the interim, is a security risk to the nation, for 2 reasons.

First, and probably most important, is the fact that we would all then be dependant on a single launch system to service ISS. Mankind’s access to space would effectively be not even single fault tolerant. Should anything happen to the Russian ability to launch Soyuz, whether in the spacecraft, the launcher or the launch facilities, the ISS could well be abandoned as a matter of necessity.  Some on this forum would think that a good thing, but I personally do not. The ISS represents a huge investment in dollars and hope for the entire scientific community on earth. If we ever actually complete and fully staff it, it will be an invaluable resource to the scientific community around the world. We simply must complete and use it.

Secondly, Russia is an independent nation with its own agenda. Russia has so far proven to be a reliable partner in all things space related, and I fully expect that to continue. But the fact remains, that could change. There are any number of reasons why it might be in the Russian national interest to change the rules, and it is unwise for any nation to place a significant piece of its own national interests in the hands of another nation. Having said that, I do NOT expect that to happen, but the fact remains that it “could”.

If, on the other hand, additional funding does not become available, for whatever reason, I would still recommend continuing to fly Shuttle, at the reduced rate of twice per year, for the same two reasons cited above, and stretch out the IMS for Orion-Jupiter FOC to the right. Spend what we can from the existing budget, and bring Orion-Jupiter online when it comes online, whenever that may be. As much as I seriously want to get us back to the moon as soon as possible, the fact remains that the world will not end if that is not accomplished by 2020. It is more important, in my mind, to maintain the US presence in the manned space arena and to bring Orion-Jupiter online with all due diligence. This will be the “generational spacecraft and launch system” that we all originally talked about. If it’s worth doing, then it’s worth doing right – no shortcuts, and no unreasonable politically motivated schedules, however long that takes
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 11/19/2008 02:50 pm
Placing a flock of cube sats in the same orbit as the ISS?

Don`t have to be free flight sats and you don`t have to put them on the same orbit as ISS.

Or you could put them ON the ISS, on a special rack.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 11/19/2008 02:55 pm
clongton, thing about keeping flying Shuttle is you will still have to buy a Souyz to serve as a lifeboat, until you have Orion or something else. So you have to rely on Russia anyway.

And I think that NOT relying on a partner you signed an agreement with is unrespectful and wrong, unless you have a precedent of unreliability.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Danny Dot on 11/19/2008 03:13 pm
clongton, thing about keeping flying Shuttle is you will still have to buy a Souyz to serve as a lifeboat, until you have Orion or something else. So you have to rely on Russia anyway.

You are correct.  Extending shuttle does not solve the problems.

Danny
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/19/2008 03:15 pm
clongton, thing about keeping flying Shuttle is you will still have to buy a Souyz to serve as a lifeboat, until you have Orion or something else. So you have to rely on Russia anyway.

There is a difference between "Teaming" with Russia, which is what the agreement with Russia is (Soyuz + Shuttle) and "Relying exclusively" on Russia, which is what the agreement is NOT.

Quote
And I think that NOT relying on a partner you signed an agreement with is unrespectful and wrong, unless you have a precedent of unreliability.

Like I said, there is a difference. I, for one, absolutely do NOT want to place the future of American manned access to space in the hands of another nation, any other nation than my own. I will gladly team up with them, which is what we have done and what the "agreement" specifies, but I will not exclusively rely on them, which is not part of the agreement.

And btw, the "agreement" you talk about requires Shuttle to be flying. If Shuttle retires, then the rules are changed, and a new "agreement" needs to be negotiated because the existing one will be voided. Just thought I'd toss that in.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/19/2008 03:18 pm

....and you don`t have to put them on the same orbit as ISS.


Ummm how do you do that for ISS flights? Yes you could put them in a lower orbit with the same inclination, but you have to either release them from orion before it finishes it's final burn or the J-120 core has to be placed in orbit before releasing them. My gut says both ways are bad ideas. One complicates the Orion mission and increases the LOM the other leaves an inert J-120 core in orbit that can land anywhere on the planet (Plus sheds all sorts of foam while it sits in orbit).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 11/19/2008 03:34 pm
There is a difference between "Teaming" with Russia, which is what the agreement with Russia is (Soyuz + Shuttle) and "Relying exclusively" on Russia, which is what the agreement is NOT.

USA can`t team with Russia on a lifeboat, USA just don`t have one. There is no choice here until you get Orion, Dragon or whatever.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 11/19/2008 03:37 pm
Are there ISS failure modes such that the crew couldn't be rescued by a LON Shuttle? Just curious.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 11/19/2008 03:40 pm

....and you don`t have to put them on the same orbit as ISS.


Ummm how do you do that for ISS flights? Yes you could put them in a lower orbit with the same inclination, but you have to either release them from orion before it finishes it's final burn or the J-120 core has to be placed in orbit before releasing them.

Doesn't a rendezvous orbit start off lower than ISS anyway so the Orion can catch up to it? Orion itself maneuvers the rest of the way afterward and the satellites could be left in a lower orbit after Jupiter injects the stack into the "chase" orbit. Where they wouldn't last very long.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/19/2008 05:00 pm
There is a difference between "Teaming" with Russia, which is what the agreement with Russia is (Soyuz + Shuttle) and "Relying exclusively" on Russia, which is what the agreement is NOT.

USA can`t team with Russia on a lifeboat, USA just don`t have one. There is no choice here until you get Orion, Dragon or whatever.

The lifeboat is part of the teaming agreement , as is logistics supply and crew rotation via Shuttle. It's a "Team" effort. When one party can no longer fulfill its part of the agreement, then the agreement is broken.

Keep flying Shuttle until Orion and the Jupiter launch vehicle are ready. That would actually be in accordance with the agreement we have with Russia. Relying exclusively on Russia for all crewed access is a violation of the current agreement. Continuing to fly Shuttle alleviates that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 11/19/2008 08:34 pm
Doesn't a rendezvous orbit start off lower than ISS anyway so the Orion can catch up to it? Orion itself maneuvers the rest of the way afterward and the satellites could be left in a lower orbit after Jupiter injects the stack into the "chase" orbit. Where they wouldn't last very long.
I guess we're just about on topic with uses of the spare Jupiter-120 payload capacity.... so I'll just add that you only need a very modestly-sized thruster to (slowly) deploy satellites well above the ISS orbit once you have them even in that low chase orbit, where they could then last a very long time. The difference, of course, is that you are no longer lifting mass directly against gravity.

That said, the original note of auctioning spare payload mass cannot be taken literally; NASA spacecraft do not carry commercial payloads. However an academic "auction" of the best space research ideas would be perfectly reasonable, and a great way to get more science out of the same lift capacity. I'm sure a similar process occurs now on a smaller scale for the experiments taken up by the Shuttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 11/19/2008 09:21 pm
Are there ISS failure modes such that the crew couldn't be rescued by a LON Shuttle? Just curious.

Arguably yes, a good number of them (and I speak as a former ARS ECLSS design guy who had to think about stuff like that a lot a long time ago in a previous life).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/19/2008 10:00 pm
I guess we're just about on topic with uses of the spare Jupiter-120 payload capacity.... so I'll just add that you only need a very modestly-sized thruster to (slowly) deploy satellites well above the ISS orbit once you have them even in that low chase orbit, where they could then last a very long time. The difference, of course, is that you are no longer lifting mass directly against gravity.

It would have to be well above since drag will over time bring any "cube sat" down to the ISS's orbit. The advantage of a lower orbit is eventually it will reenter and because of periodic  reboost, ISS will always be above it. Putting a propulsion system on a "cube sat" defeats the cube sat KISS principle..

My big problem is lets say there are two ISS flights a year, and each deploys a half dozen cube sats and they last in orbit for say two years (how long that very dense low drag ammonia tank stayed up), so you have 24 unguided cube sats in a similar but lower orbit than ISS that can collide with each other along with other debris (think Chinese weather sat bits). These collisions can be quite high energy and will throw stuff into higher orbits that can put the ISS at risk.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 11/19/2008 10:39 pm
It would have to be well above since drag will over time bring any "cube sat" down to the ISS's orbit. The advantage of a lower orbit is eventually it will reenter and because of periodic  reboost, ISS will always be above it. Putting a propulsion system on a "cube sat" defeats the cube sat KISS principle..
Absolutely, the cube sats shouldn't have propulsion. I was thinking that you have maybe a dozen cube sats and a simple deployment vehicle that takes them up from the chase orbit to (say) a 500km circular orbit, deploys the sats, then deorbits - all contingent on that "free ride" to initial orbit. However I can definitely see the argument for a simple deploy at lower altitude also.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 11/20/2008 02:53 am
Here is another idea for DIRECt eventual upgrades with money saved, how about working on the methane Orion service module?  I mean not for the first or even second block, but after the RS-68 and SRB upgrades.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/20/2008 03:30 am
Ron,
Methane has a great deal of benefit for Mars architectures.

For Lunar it would also improve performance, but the cost to develop the new engines is high and we don't have much money given all the other heavy development required right now, and also the schedule would be pushed out because the TRL is so low for Methane systems.

So, IMHO, the path to take is to go with proven tech in round 1.   Then begin the necessary development to get on top of the Methane systems in time to help with Mars.   As part of the development, it *might* be possible to test many of the early Methane systems within the Lunar architecture to prove them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/20/2008 04:30 am
Hi Ross,

I have to disagree with you a bit with regards to testing.  I don't think most of the systems developed and tested in LEO are going to be usable on the Moon or Mars ... gravity is going to change things a lot.  LEO would be a great place for testing Mars transfer habitat / systems ... but not grounded applications.

Dave,
If you design just for one or the other, yeah.   But you can design to handle both.

One such example is the Apollo Lunar Module.  It's systems were designed to operate in both zero-g and also in low-gravity situations.   The new LSAM will have to do the same thing too.

What I'm suggesting there are a set of 'generic' systems which are designed from the start with dual-use in mind -- specifically in order to try to keep costs down and to allow the systems to evolve over a series of missions instead of designing everything completely afresh each time.   Build a Generation-1 system for ISS, then evolve it for Lunar use, then NEO use, then Mars.   You just need to design it from the get-go to do that progression.


Quote
Secondly, I notice in the chart above that you have July or August 2010 as the initial test launch of Jupiter 120.  I would have believed that a year ago had we started on it then ... but starting now and flying in under 2 years ... I'm skeptic.  I think the best you can hope for is a change of Direction (pun intended) 4-6 months into the new administration.  Has that test flight date been shifted at all or is that still in its initial location from last November's release of 2.0?   What does a later start date do to the gap?

That chart isn't new.   It was prepared for a presentation in the middle of the year.   Our latest schedules are a little different.

We haven't yet released a newer manifest, but we have one coming in our rebuttal document.   I will try to post a separate copy on this thread as soon as I can.

FYI:   Our current schedules assume a "GO Order" in March 2009.   With that, we now have Jupiter-120/Orion IOC in December 2012 at a NASA-equivalent 65% confidence level.   That includes about 9 months of slippage in the schedule.   Jupiter-120/Orion FOC is currently scheduled for September 2013 at the same confidence level.

Note that this does *NOT* assume we get the $2bn shot-in-the-arm which has been promised by the new Administration.   We can meet this schedule without it.   With it, we can probably speed things up a bit.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/20/2008 04:54 am
clongton, thing about keeping flying Shuttle is you will still have to buy a Souyz to serve as a lifeboat, until you have Orion or something else. So you have to rely on Russia anyway.

And I think that NOT relying on a partner you signed an agreement with is unrespectful and wrong, unless you have a precedent of unreliability.

Tell that to the Indians. They bought "new" arms from the Russians in good faith, only to open the crates and find dented used & refurbished hardware with a concurrently high maintenance and failure rate.

Anyway, all countries should have backup plans. There is nothing disrespectful about this. Governments do this all the time with contracts - look at Kistler in COTS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/20/2008 04:55 am

I'm slowly working my way through this thread (I've only reached page 114), and I've come across this post from several months ago. Sorry to dredge it up, but I wanted to question something that I don't understand.

Eeep!   :)


Quote
OK, so now you've got 20 mT of water in orbit from every ISS flight. I guess it would freeze solid, meaning it can't leak away?

Now this is just H2 & O2 in an inert form, but I'm guessing it would survive for years without any of the expensive cryogenics needed for LH2 / LO2?

Why can't your proposed Propellent Depot collect these "iceballs", melt them and electrolyse the water, then liquefy the O2 fraction?

I haven't gone back through the thread, but I think the final resolution there was that we really don't need to lift vast quantities of water anyway.   Just supplies from time to time and 'ballast' on the Jupiter-120 flights which are flying with a 'protective water tank' Orion shield -- and those will be few and far between.

What you suggest seems quite feasible.   It requires suitable processing equipment and a great deal of energy, but solar could well be useful in doing such processing all 365 days of the year.

This approach would still need on-orbit cryo cooling systems anyway, and it would also need cryo propellant transfer technology perfected too.   At that point, you've already developed everything you need to support pre-prepared LOX & LH2 lifts anyway.

My question then is how much would this cost to develop and how does that compare to the cost of just launching the cryo liquids as they already are?   Whichever is the better value is the one to pursue IMHO.

I think its an idea worth investigating further, but I'm not sure that we're the right ones to be doing that :)

Ross.

PS - Welcome to the site!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/20/2008 05:04 am
It would have to be well above since drag will over time bring any "cube sat" down to the ISS's orbit. The advantage of a lower orbit is eventually it will reenter and because of periodic  reboost, ISS will always be above it. Putting a propulsion system on a "cube sat" defeats the cube sat KISS principle..
Absolutely, the cube sats shouldn't have propulsion. I was thinking that you have maybe a dozen cube sats and a simple deployment vehicle that takes them up from the chase orbit to (say) a 500km circular orbit, deploys the sats, then deorbits - all contingent on that "free ride" to initial orbit. However I can definitely see the argument for a simple deploy at lower altitude also.

I don't know if there's anything official, but as far as ESA and NASA seem to be concerned, cube sats need to be deployed in low orbits such that they burn up within a year (well past their usual operational times anyway). This also reduces the possibility of secondary debris impacts, such as puncturing a empty booster stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/20/2008 05:20 am

Ross, thanks for your detailed reply.  My question is really about any return to earth capabilities including LEO to earth (those that we have with shuttle) and what the scientific and economic impact of losing that capability will be after shuttle retires.  Since that is a non-DIRECT-specific (indirect?) question, but rather applies to all the shuttle replacement proposals I have seen, I will ask it in another thread.

I would love to see some sort of design for some sort of unmanned re-entry vehicle, possibly based on the outer mould-line of the 8.4m dia/10m barrel PLF.   That idea keeps making me think of that vehicle in the James Bond flick "You Only Live Twice" where SPECTER captures American and Soviet space capsules in orbit and returns them and their crews to Blowfeld's secret base.

While that film vehicle did a DC-X style active descent, you wouldn't need that with sufficiently large (say 8.4m dia) heatshield and a really big set of parachutes (three of the 5-seg SRB chutes maybe?).   Water landings might be a problem because I doubt it would be a water-tight vehicle, but I wonder if the Orion's Land-Landing airbag idea couldn't be dusted-off again.

A Jupiter-120 could lift a ~15mT return module, along with some sort of ~15mT 'Service Module' for orbital navigation and for de-orbiting.   That leaves about ~15mT for payload-related items like cradles & remote manipulator arms.   No guarantees, but it *should* be possible to do something like that.

I'd love to see someone design something like that.   Better still, I would like to see a purpose to justify the cost of developing it!!!   I don't think we're going to do it ourselves here in the DIRECT Team, but I would still like to see a proposal from somewhere one day.

BTW: "indirect" -- Heh heh!   >:D

Quote
That said, based on your proposal for a robust and sustainable launch architecture I wonder which would be more cost effective in a possible future where DIRECT is embraced by the new administration, keeping shuttle on a very reduced flight schedule, or constructing a new vehicle that could ride a common core that would have these capabilities?

Do you have an estimate of what additional dollars would be required to keep Shuttle and Jupiter running concurrently?  Does anyone know the dollar-value of earth return capabilities that we currently have, that has been used for SPACELAB, SPACEHAB, SPARTAN, Satellite return, etc

Actually, yes.   We have an estimate that operating Shuttle as well as Jupiter would cost about $1.2-1.5bn extra per year.   Many of the SRB, ET, Infrastructure and Manufacturing costs could be shared, but all of the high costs for SSME and Orbiter maintenance would remain exclusively on the Space Shuttle Program, just as PLF, RS-68, J-2X and EDS costs would all be exclusive to the Jupiter Program.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/20/2008 05:54 am
My big problem is lets say there are two ISS flights a year, and each deploys a half dozen cube sats and they last in orbit for say two years (how long that very dense low drag ammonia tank stayed up), so you have 24 unguided cube sats in a similar but lower orbit than ISS that can collide with each other along with other debris (think Chinese weather sat bits). These collisions can be quite high energy and will throw stuff into higher orbits that can put the ISS at risk.

I agree Kevin.   A constantly expanding constellation of cube-sats would concern me too.   I think that if we really wanted to throw a bunch of cube-sats up together it would be better to attach them all to some sort of strongback structure and deploy them together as a single module.

Otherwise, I'd consider deploying them by attaching them on the outside of the ISS.

There might be a specific purpose needed for one or two cube-sats to fly independently, but that should be on a 'we really need it' basis only.   And those should go in a lower orbit than ISS.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 11/20/2008 12:31 pm
Ross,
out of curiosity, have you used the Direct tools to run analyses of the costs and performance of other systems? The obvious one to try is Ares, of course, but what happens if you plug in the Shuttle or Saturn? It seems like a good way to verify your findings and check the accuracy of the tools that you're using.
(apologies if somebody already asked this... it's a long thread!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/20/2008 01:00 pm
Kaputnik,
Yes, we did exactly that early on to help "find our feet".   We hit Shuttle's numbers dead on the mark, and over-estimated (~10% over) Saturn's inflation-adjusted costs -- but that was always going to be a more tricky proposition.   We also did Atlas, Delta, Ares-I, Ares-V, Shuttle-C and even Sea Launch and Sea Dragon -- though that's just because I wanted to :)

Adjusted for inflation our tools were always fairly close, but never under -- which I consider to be a good thing.


We do have a couple of advantages beyond just calculating things in a vacuum though.    Our cost guys have the full breakdown of Shuttle's current costs.   The recent analysis done for estimating Shuttle's extension costs -- some of our guys were crunching those numbers in their day jobs.

For Jupiter we don't have to calculate, guess or estimate some of the numbers at all.   For example, we can use current hard data for everything to do with the 4-seg SRB's completely unchanged (excepting a new qualification program to ensure they will work with the rest of the Jupiter's systems).

We use current ET costs as a solid base for a large portion of the Core Stage -- and apply changes and margins to cover all of the differences.

And we have a lot of broken down cost data about the operating costs for KSC too and a lot of that remains much-the-same for Jupiter too.   Still, we are packing everything with plenty of margins 'just to be safe'.

We're using NASA's Ares-V RS-68B costs even for the early generation RS-68, but pack it with an extra 20% margins.

The biggest changes from a cost perspective were really extracting out all of the no-longer-needed Orbiter-only costs and replacing those with Orion costs sourced from CxP.   We are leaving in all of the current payload processing costs though.

The biggest 'black hole' of uncertainty though, is all focused around the J-2X and the Upper Stage.   We used NASA's Ares-I US and the early Ares-V EDS numbers.    We also have some provisional estimates for a WBC stage in the size range of what we're talking about.   And External Tank costs can also be used as a guide, being that it is an 8.4m diameter stage with about twice the capacity of our JUS.   When you work each of those all out, you find they all point to roughly the same cost region in terms of both development and operations.   You get a fairly tight cost 'box' with all the options so that gives you a fairly high degree of confidence in the estimates.   While those already include various cost margins, we apply our own 20% margin on top and go with that number.

I'm no expert at doing it, but I have been learning a lot from our cost guys over the last year.   Its fantastically complicated working out exactly how much needs to be spent in year x in order to get a result by year y and then how much it will cost to operate regularly in year z.   I hate mucking about with finances at the best of times, but this project is important enough to me to make me just grit my teeth and get into this aspect as well because I know that without a good grasp of the costs, everything else becomes pretty irrelevant.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/21/2008 05:44 am
I was listening to NPR today and they had a segment covering NASA and it's future as one of the critical challenges ahead for President-elect Obama. I was excited to hear mainstream coverage of NASA at all, even more so that it was generally acknowledged that NASA needs a shake-up and a top-to-bottom re-evaluation of goals and methods.

Here is the online version: "http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97273807"

They specifically mentioned the GAO report that includes US space policy as one of the top 13 issues to be addressed by the next administration. The biggest problems mentioned were the budget, the upcoming retirement of the Shuttle in 2010, and the ever-increasing 'space gap' before Ares-I would become operational.

There was also a short discussion of the recent Planetary Society proposal to re-align NASA's exploration goals and to possibly bypass the Moon. There was even a quote from Buzz Aldrin, who attended the PS press conference. My favorite part: "Aldrin says, 'We need change. That means flexibility to be able to change, not just proceed with a course.'"

Just as I thought they would start discussing the problems with Ares-I, and the existence of competing proposals (Direct, EELV, etc), the segment ended. So even though space issues were discussed to a level of detail not usually heard, I was still disappointed that DIRECT was not mentioned. NPR usually spends up to several minutes on a single news item, to make sure that the coverage is actually useful and not just a sound-bite.

So here's to NPR, for their mainstream coverage of a subject near and dear to our hearts! At least NASA was in the news, even if not in an entirely positive light. The more people who are aware that there is a problem, the more people who will be willing to listen to alternatives.

Cheers,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 11/21/2008 08:55 am
Ross- thanks for a very detailed reply there! Certainly gives more confidence in the numbers. Th reason I asked was because of the upper stage mass discussion earlier in the thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/21/2008 01:41 pm
I've hacked together a comparison image based on previous posted images and content from the DIRECT Flickr page. Let me know if it is inaccurate in any way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 11/21/2008 01:58 pm
I've hacked together a comparison image based on previous posted images and content from the DIRECT Flickr page. Let me know if it is inaccurate in any way.

Why did you list Ares V and Ares I as "new upper stage" (or something a bit more snarky) but Jupiter as "Upper Stage with J-2X", not mentioning it was also new?

Your graphic also suggests that the RS-68 can be used as-is on Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/21/2008 02:18 pm
I've hacked together a comparison image based on previous posted images and content from the DIRECT Flickr page. Let me know if it is inaccurate in any way.

Why did you list Ares V and Ares I as "new upper stage" (or something a bit more snarky) but Jupiter as "Upper Stage with J-2X", not mentioning it was also new?

Your graphic also suggests that the RS-68 can be used as-is on Jupiter.


Lighten up, Mars. This is Matthew's first post, and the commentary was already part of the graphic that he borrowed from the Direct project. If the comments in the pic are snarky, they are from Direct not Matthew. And the pic shows that there are two new upper stages for Ares, vs. a single new US for Jupiter.

I believe he is trying to show what a Mars-capable Jupiter-232 would look like with the 10m PLF and 5-segment SRB's. As he said, based on previous posts in this thread.

Good job, Matthew! A picture is worth a kiloword.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/21/2008 03:41 pm
Why did you list Ares V and Ares I as "new upper stage" (or something a bit more snarky) but Jupiter as "Upper Stage with J-2X", not mentioning it was also new?

Like Mark S. said, that was part of the original image I used and not something I added. I'll see what I can do about making the language neutral-but-informative.

Your graphic also suggests that the RS-68 can be used as-is on Jupiter.

Well, that's correct for Jupiter 232, since it's supposed to use RS-68B engines like the Ares V. However, the Jupiter 120 engines, as I understand it, are merely man-rated versions of the stock RS-68 engine currently used on the Delta IV. Thus, the caption could be considered correct for one but not the other. I'll see what I can do to clear that up, though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/21/2008 04:06 pm
I've hacked together a comparison image based on previous posted images and content from the DIRECT Flickr page. Let me know if it is inaccurate in any way.

Good job Matthew, and if I haven't said it already, welcome to the site!

Change the J-2XD reference to the full J-2X.   Within the last ~6 months we got to the point where there was no longer a cost or schedule advantage.

Mention the 'new' Upper Stage, but its also worth pointing out that the same stage then is used by all J-232's.

The Lunar J-232 now uses a 10m dia PLF as well, to suit the current Altair LSAM design.

The J-232 on the right, the one with the 5-segs, is now more of an 'option', rather than part of the plans.   While extra performance is always nice, we don't actually seem to need the extra to enable the Mars architectures, 100mT seems to be enough -- especially so, once you get the Prop Depot.   The 5-segs are, frankly, more of a political advantage than a technical one, now.

That should keep you going :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/21/2008 04:15 pm
The J-232 on the right, the one with the 5-segs, is now more of an 'option', rather than part of the plans.   While extra performance is always nice, we don't actually seem to need the extra to enable the Mars architectures, 100mT seems to be enough -- especially so, once you get the Prop Depot.   The 5-segs are, frankly, more of a political advantage than a technical one, now.

I was wondering about Matthew's depiction of the 5-seg SRB's. It looks like he left the upper attach points in the same place as the 4-seg SRB's, and I seem to recall a discussion about needing to keep the field joints in compression.

Would the ET need to be stretched to accommodate a higher upper attach point for the 5-seg SRB's? It seems to me like that would be the best way to keep the crossbar support under the LOX tank. Otherwise you would need some kind of heavy trusswork or cradle to transfer the load down to where it is needed.

Mark S.

P.S. Welcome aboard, Matthew! That was a nice start.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/21/2008 04:42 pm
The J-232 on the right, the one with the 5-segs, is now more of an 'option', rather than part of the plans.   While extra performance is always nice, we don't actually seem to need the extra to enable the Mars architectures, 100mT seems to be enough -- especially so, once you get the Prop Depot.   The 5-segs are, frankly, more of a political advantage than a technical one, now.

I was wondering about Matthew's depiction of the 5-seg SRB's. It looks like he left the upper attach points in the same place as the 4-seg SRB's, and I seem to recall a discussion about needing to keep the field joints in compression.

Would the ET need to be stretched to accommodate a higher upper attach point for the 5-seg SRB's? It seems to me like that would be the best way to keep the crossbar support under the LOX tank. Otherwise you would need some kind of heavy trusswork or cradle to transfer the load down to where it is needed.

No, he actually did it properly. The attachment is at the lower part of the 5th segment so all segment's joints are in compression.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/21/2008 05:36 pm
No, he actually did it properly. The attachment is at the lower part of the 5th segment so all segment's joints are in compression.

I believe you are correct, Yegor. I just didn't look at the pic closely enough. Nice work, Matthew!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/21/2008 06:11 pm
I was wondering about Matthew's depiction of the 5-seg SRB's. It looks like he left the upper attach points in the same place as the 4-seg SRB's, and I seem to recall a discussion about needing to keep the field joints in compression.

Would the ET need to be stretched to accommodate a higher upper attach point for the 5-seg SRB's? It seems to me like that would be the best way to keep the crossbar support under the LOX tank. Otherwise you would need some kind of heavy trusswork or cradle to transfer the load down to where it is needed.

You don't have to, because the critical field joints would all still be in compression.

Here is a rough diagram which I hope will explain things a little more clearly.   Let me know if this works for you or not :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/21/2008 06:17 pm
Of course, if you DO stretch the tank, you add more propellant load there too -- and that helps J-232 performance a lot (~26mT extra to LEO).   But that change also really hurts J-120 performance and would mean Orion's would no longer be able to bring up Shuttle-sized payloads to ISS.

We think what we have now is the best 'balance' because we can accomplish all the objectives with this configuration.   And we are planning that the Propellant Depot architecture will be the lever which we far rather prefer to use as the Primary Upgrade Path to improve the Lunar performance further.

If we start-out by planning that our evolved program will use the Propellant Depot architecture, we simply have no need to use 5-seg SRB's or Core Stage stretches.   We just don't need any further launch vehicle upgrades if PD is our "Phase 2" target.

PD simply makes vehicle upgrades irrelevant because PD can offer so much greater performance improvements while also levering other less tangible benefits, such as using cheap commercial launchers and international partners picking up large portions of Lunar mission launch costs.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/21/2008 06:45 pm
PD simply makes vehicle upgrades irrelevant because PD can offer so much greater performance improvements while also levering other less tangible benefits, such as using cheap commercial launchers and international partners picking up large portions of Lunar mission launch costs.

Ross.

Well if your going to reasonable and pragmatic.......

The idea of a standard core stage and reusing the existing 4 segment boosters as is must surely be adopted by the new administrator(ion).  Use existing equipment and procedures, minimal new hardware needed, close the gap, reduce costs, improve performance. 

Good luck Direct Team!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/21/2008 07:00 pm
Of course, if you DO stretch the tank, you add more propellant load there too -- and that helps J-232 performance a lot (~26mT extra to LEO).   But that change also really hurts J-120 performance and would mean Orion's would no longer be able to bring up Shuttle-sized payloads to ISS.

Ross.

Thanks Ross.

I don't want to stretch the ET, but I was concerned that we would need to stretch it to use the 5-seg SRB's. I much prefer the DIRECT approach of maximum re-use of existing hardware. I'm glad to see that I was mistaken, because a tank stretch would weaken our position regarding a more direct derivation from STS than Ares.

Nice drawing BTW.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 11/21/2008 07:20 pm
Do we know if any of the people on the NASA Transition team (Lori Garver, et al.) have ever commented about DIRECT?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/21/2008 07:36 pm
Okay, let's try this again...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 11/21/2008 07:36 pm
Ross,

Did you see my reply to you and jarmumd/Marc on page 183?
I'm pretty sure that all of the SRB joints, both field and factory,
will be under a LOT of tension during the SRB burn.

Let me know if you want to discuss this via PM.
F=ma

---------------------------

Marc,
Which is a more realistic number for the area that the 1000 psi pressure acts on: a 50-inch radius you used, or the 73-inch radius?  Using the larger radius gives a net force which is over two times greater than your 7+ Mlb result.  Dividing this 14 Mlb by the case circumference gives a tensile running load of just over 30,500 lbs/in., and a stress of 61,000 psi (0.5 in.-thick case). This gives a (reasonable?) factor of safety of 3.3 when using a 200 ksi yield for the D6AC steel, whereas your FS would be 6.6 (perhaps too high?).

Ross,
A different way of thinking about this is that the 7 or 14 Mlbs are pushing on the forward dome of the RSRM, and the same 7 or 14 Mlbs are pushing on the aft dome, less the 3 Mlb thrust running out of the big hole in the back end!  (net force on aft dome = 4 to 11 Mlb)  These forces on the domes are what load the joints between them in tension.

I think that the 5-segment SRB with the ET attachment on the pressure case would relieve some of the axial load on the forward dome, but not enough to put the upper joints into compression.

F=ma


I was wondering about Matthew's depiction of the 5-seg SRB's. It looks like he left the upper attach points in the same place as the 4-seg SRB's, and I seem to recall a discussion about needing to keep the field joints in compression.

Would the ET need to be stretched to accommodate a higher upper attach point for the 5-seg SRB's? It seems to me like that would be the best way to keep the crossbar support under the LOX tank. Otherwise you would need some kind of heavy trusswork or cradle to transfer the load down to where it is needed.

You don't have to, because the critical field joints would all still be in compression.

Here is a rough diagram which I hope will explain things a little more clearly.   Let me know if this works for you or not :)

Ross.

------------------------

Quote from: jarmumd on 11/18/2008 09:52 PM
Quote from: kraisee on 11/18/2008 06:55 PM
Quote from: jarmumd on 11/18/2008 03:38 PM
Is there anyway to show a picture of this?

Not of the way the compression/tension loads work, sorry, I don't have anything to help you there.

There is high pressure inside the SRB which tries to push the SRB segments apart.   But those forces are nowhere near equivalent to the specifically directed forces which are generated by the nozzle, which are then being transmitted back up the structure.   The 3.3m lb of thrust pushing upwards from the nozzle is the far greater force.   You can tell its compression, not tension, because the rocket goes forward because of that force

But below I have attached one of ATK/NASA's early study's showing how the mountings of the 5-seg SRB would have been accomplished for Shuttle use.   It should be enough to give you the idea.

Ross.

----------------------

Ross,
     Thank you for the .pdf, it's always very interesting to see design concepts.  But I believe that your thinking is wrong, it's the internal pressure forces which are much greater than the thrust force.  A high pressure inside the SRB is around 900 (lbf/in2), multiply that by a conservative dome area of PI*(R^2), where Radius = 50 inches (OML is 73 inches), and you get a force of 7,068,583.5 lbf.  More than double the peak thrust of the SRB.  Currently I am helping with loads calculations and we have to put in correction forces to represent the "case stretch."

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/21/2008 07:37 pm
Do we know if any of the people on the NASA Transition team (Lori Garver, et al.) have ever commented about DIRECT?

Not yet, at least not to my knowledge.

Of course nobody has been willing to put a bullseye target on their backs while Griffin held control.

I doubt anyone like Garver would have spoken against Griffin while he remained Administrator, because if they did he could have made things really difficult for them.

Now that they're on the transition team they don't have to worry about repercussions any longer, they have the power now.

But equally, now that they're on the transition team they aren't now going to be talking about anything until the President Elect actually announces his nominations -- and quite probably not even then.

We know our proposal has been on Lori Garver's desk.   We know people have talked about DIRECT with her previously.   I hope we made sense and that the idea is being considered.

I don't expect to ever hear anything publicly without an official announcement.   If we are in consideration though, I would like the opportunity to make our case and point out some of our 'behind the scenes' thinking.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/21/2008 07:52 pm
I've hacked together a comparison image based on previous posted images and content from the DIRECT Flickr page. Let me know if it is inaccurate in any way.

You know, every time I see a picture of the Ares-I now, such as in Matthew's launcher lineup, I cringe a little. I know this is not a technical comment, but the Ares-I just does not look like anything that should carry astronauts. It's just somehow... wrong.

Sure, I know everyone on the CxP team is doing their very best to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear, but come on. There just has to be a better way to LEO than that.

Obviously I believe that DIRECT is the answer, but what do the proponents of Ares / opponents of DIRECT have to say, other than "We're just too far down the path to change now."? Does anyone seriously believe that Ares is a better architecture than DIRECT? Besides Griffin, of course.

Sorry if that is too incendiary or not technical enough. I just keep finding myself shaking my head every time I see the Ares pics.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/21/2008 07:55 pm
Nice drawing Matthew.

You can add that Ares V will use a new again 5.5 SRBs

and six RS-68.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/21/2008 08:05 pm


You know, every time I see a picture of the Ares-I now, such as in Matthew's launcher lineup, I cringe a little. I know this is not a technical comment, but the Ares-I just does not look like anything that should carry astronauts. It's just somehow... wrong.

Well, I don't know a helluva lot about launch vehicles, but for model rocketry, designing a rocket with its center of pressure above its center of gravity is very dangerous and unstable. It looks obvious to me that the wide (and light) fuel tank causes the center of pressure to be above the center of gravity. So give your intuition more credit! That is a technical comment, even if it is one that can be engineered away (through active stabilization, fly-by-wire).

BTW, this is why fins are added to rockets. The fins on the bottom make the center of pressure lower.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/21/2008 08:13 pm
F=ma

So you're saying that all 3M+ lb of SRB thrust is generated by the top dome pulling the rocket along, and that thrust force is not transferred up the stack from the bottom of the rocket? So the steel casing between the dome and the upper attach point is carrying all of the net forces to the ET, the rest of the SRB is in tension from being pulled along.

Somehow, that doesn't seem right to me...

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/21/2008 08:14 pm
You know, every time I see a picture of the Ares-I now, such as in Matthew's launcher lineup, I cringe a little. I know this is not a technical comment, but the Ares-I just does not look like anything that should carry astronauts. It's just somehow... wrong.

Well let's see:

 * Really tall.
 * Top heavy.
 * Liquid fuel engines start in mid air.
 * No buffer between second stage and Orion capsule.
 * Single engine on first stage.

So generally, if that thing bows even slightly, or the engine thrust isn't translated perfectly straight through the central axis of the rocket, it'll shoot off to the side. Once your trajectory is FUBARed, that second stage won't be able to get you into orbit and just becomes a big bomb strapped to your back.

You can add that Ares V will use a new again 5.5 SRBs

Good grief! And here I was just thinking I just got the scale wrong.

and six RS-68.

I think they're RS-68Bs, but yeah, I was being lazy on that one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/21/2008 08:20 pm
Nice drawing Matthew.

You can add that Ares V will use a new again 5.5 SRBs

and six RS-68.



How the heck are they going to get SIX RS-68 engines under there? Even with a 10m tank that is going to be a very tight fit. Of course they can just have the engines stick way out and use large fairings. But that is going to butt-ugly. Not that that has stopped them with Ares-1.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 11/21/2008 08:36 pm
What can I say?  It's a 1000 psi balloon (=> big tension) with a nozzle on it.  The compression-loaded bit on the 4-seg SRB is the shell between the fwd dome and the attach fitting, as Ross drew.
I think that the thrust thru the attach fitting on the 5-seg will just relieve some of the tension load in the factory joint just above of the attach fitting.  Not enough to put it into compression, though.
F=ma

F=ma

So you're saying that all 3M+ lb of SRB thrust is generated by the top dome pulling the rocket along, and that thrust force is not transferred up the stack from the bottom of the rocket? So the steel casing between the dome and the upper attach point is carrying all of the net forces to the ET, the rest of the SRB is in tension from being pulled along.

Somehow, that doesn't seem right to me...

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/21/2008 08:37 pm
Well, I was going to leave this for another thread so I didn't get fussed at, but it might as well be here so everyone can see the progression.

I've included a pair of pictures which show why the field joints are in tension, not compression.  Basically, you get much more than 3 mil lbs at the forward dome, you get less than that force at the gimbal (in the opposite direction), and then the nozzle helps you regain some force lost due to the "hole" at the bottom of the SRB pressure vessel.

Bottom line is that while I haven't calculated the force due to the nozzle, even IF the nozzle made 3.3 mil lbs of force, the internal pressure force is much much higher than that.  SO the joints are in tension, not compression.  The SRB is a pressure vessel with an open end, not a liquid engine, which WOULD be in compression since all the internal forces in the liquid tanks would be balanced, and the liquid motor would create the thrust only at the gimbal.  If you want to think about it another way, the nozzle of a liquid engine doesn't only make the thrust, the imbalance of pressure in the combustion chamber also provides thrust.  In an SRB, the combustion chamber is the entire vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/21/2008 08:56 pm
Nice drawing Matthew.

You can add that Ares V will use a new again 5.5 SRBs

and six RS-68.


How the heck are they going to get SIX RS-68 engines under there? Even with a 10m tank that is going to be a very tight fit. Of course they can just have the engines stick way out and use large fairings. But that is going to butt-ugly. Not that that has stopped them with Ares-1.

Mark S.

Like this:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/08/new-engine-configuration-under-evaluation-for-ares-v-ptv-fails/
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/21/2008 09:04 pm


You know, every time I see a picture of the Ares-I now, such as in Matthew's launcher lineup, I cringe a little. I know this is not a technical comment, but the Ares-I just does not look like anything that should carry astronauts. It's just somehow... wrong.

Well, I don't know a helluva lot about launch vehicles, but for model rocketry, designing a rocket with its center of pressure above its center of gravity is very dangerous and unstable. It looks obvious to me that the wide (and light) fuel tank causes the center of pressure to be above the center of gravity. So give your intuition more credit! That is a technical comment, even if it is one that can be engineered away (through active stabilization, fly-by-wire).

BTW, this is why fins are added to rockets. The fins on the bottom make the center of pressure lower.

Doesn't apply to real launch vehicles. The CP & CG are often upside down. These launch vehicles use Thrust Vector Control (TVC) instead of fins.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 11/21/2008 09:23 pm
jarmumd,

Great drawings!  While I agree with you that the joints are in tension, I didn't agree with you on the magnitude of the loads.  Did you see my questions for you on page 183?  Here they are again:

Which is a more realistic number for the area that the 1000 psi pressure acts on: a 50-inch radius you used, or the 73-inch radius?  Using the larger radius gives a net force which is over two times greater than your 7+ Mlb result.  Dividing this 14 Mlb by the case circumference gives a tensile running load of just over 30,500 lbs/in., and a stress of 61,000 psi (0.5 in.-thick case). This gives a (reasonable?) factor of safety of 3.3 when using a 200 ksi yield for the D6AC steel, whereas your FS would be 6.6 (perhaps too high?).

In this reference, 
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880014605_1988014605.pdf
the authors talk about applying the entire 1000 psi to the forward dome ("The forward dome is loaded by internal pressure which results in the axial load in the remaining SRM segments.", page 15), which makes me think that 73 inches is the correct radius for the loads analysis.

F=ma


Well, I was going to leave this for another thread so I didn't get fussed at, but it might as well be here so everyone can see the progression.

I've included a pair of pictures which show why the field joints are in tension, not compression.  Basically, you get much more than 3 mil lbs at the forward dome, you get less than that force at the gimbal (in the opposite direction), and then the nozzle helps you regain some force lost due to the "hole" at the bottom of the SRB pressure vessel.

Bottom line is that while I haven't calculated the force due to the nozzle, even IF the nozzle made 3.3 mil lbs of force, the internal pressure force is much much higher than that.  SO the joints are in tension, not compression.  The SRB is a pressure vessel with an open end, not a liquid engine, which WOULD be in compression since all the internal forces in the liquid tanks would be balanced, and the liquid motor would create the thrust only at the gimbal.  If you want to think about it another way, the nozzle of a liquid engine doesn't only make the thrust, the imbalance of pressure in the combustion chamber also provides thrust.  In an SRB, the combustion chamber is the entire vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/21/2008 09:29 pm
jarmumd,

Great drawings!  While I agree with you that the joints are in tension, I didn't agree with you on the magnitude of the loads.  Did you see my questions for you on page 183?  Here they are again:

Which is a more realistic number for the area that the 1000 psi pressure acts on: a 50-inch radius you used, or the 73-inch radius?  Using the larger radius gives a net force which is over two times greater than your 7+ Mlb result.  Dividing this 14 Mlb by the case circumference gives a tensile running load of just over 30,500 lbs/in., and a stress of 61,000 psi (0.5 in.-thick case). This gives a (reasonable?) factor of safety of 3.3 when using a 200 ksi yield for the D6AC steel, whereas your FS would be 6.6 (perhaps too high?).

In this reference, 
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880014605_1988014605.pdf
the authors talk about applying the entire 1000 psi to the forward dome ("The forward dome is loaded by internal pressure which results in the axial load in the remaining SRM segments.", page 15), which makes me think that 73 inches is the correct radius for the loads analysis.

F=ma

Being conservative for the purposes of making my case.  Remember that both the pressure and the area are functions of time.  You are saying that max pressure happens at burnout (where the applied area is not covered up with propellant) - I don't know if that is a good assumption.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 11/21/2008 09:36 pm
I do understand what you're saying.  The 1000 psi I quoted as acting on the entire cross-section is the start-up pressure on ignition.  The reference I gave looked at the structural response from t=0 to 7.2 seconds after SSME start.  Burnout and sep occur at around 50 psi chamber pressure.
F=ma

[quote author=jarmumd
Being conservative for the purposes of making my case.  Remember that both the pressure and the area are functions of time.  You are saying that max pressure happens at burnout (where the applied area is not covered up with propellant) - I don't know if that is a good assumption.
[/quote]
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/21/2008 10:05 pm
What can I say?  It's a 1000 psi balloon (=> big tension) with a nozzle on it.  The compression-loaded bit on the 4-seg SRB is the shell between the fwd dome and the attach fitting, as Ross drew.
I think that the thrust thru the attach fitting on the 5-seg will just relieve some of the tension load in the factory joint just above of the attach fitting.  Not enough to put it into compression, though.
F=ma

F=ma

So you're saying that all 3M+ lb of SRB thrust is generated by the top dome pulling the rocket along, and that thrust force is not transferred up the stack from the bottom of the rocket? So the steel casing between the dome and the upper attach point is carrying all of the net forces to the ET, the rest of the SRB is in tension from being pulled along.

Somehow, that doesn't seem right to me...

Mark S.


Okay, so if the greatest majority of the force is transferred from the dome to the upper attach point, would the greater distance between them in the 5-seg configuration cause additional torsional stress on the upper segment? And would that be a problem?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/21/2008 10:17 pm

 1.  * Really tall.
 2.  * Top heavy.
 3. * Liquid fuel engines start in mid air.
 4.  * No buffer between second stage and Orion capsule.
 5.  * Single engine on first stage.

6.  So generally, if that thing bows even slightly, or the engine thrust isn't translated perfectly straight through the central axis of the rocket, it'll shoot off to the side.

1.  No big deal, see N-1, Saturn V
2.  No, it is bottom heavy.  The SRB weighs many times more
3.  Happens on all launch vehicles.  no big deal
4.  Not required
5.  No big deal and SOP, see Atlas, Delta, Zenit, etc
6.  No big deal.  All launch vehicles bow and that's why there is often a second set of rate gyro's placed in a different location on LV's
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/21/2008 10:42 pm
Okay, so if the greatest majority of the force is transferred from the dome to the upper attach point, would the greater distance between them in the 5-seg configuration cause additional torsional stress on the upper segment? And would that be a problem?

Mark S.

If you assume that the "normal" of the dome is no longer straight up, but is inward (pointing to the ET nose) then yes.  Your applied moment would not change (in fact it would go down a bit), but your shear load would go up, which would create a larger internal bending moment (and shear) at the attach point.  But I assume that the people who origionally developed this idea were smart people, and really to survive re-entry, the SRB's are overbuilt, so I'm sure this is a non-issue.  This still applies to Direct in that this (unlike the ET) wouldn't require very much development work since the concept has already been fielded.  And really, if Ares takes too much longer there may be a business case in taking the 5seg which has been developed for Ares-1, and using it in some version of the Jupiter.  (the longer Ares goes on, the more options you have for equipment that need not be developed)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/21/2008 10:53 pm
Mark,
What Fequalsma is talking about is not the whole picture though.   He is correctly talking about the internal pressures within the SRB.   His numbers are excellent for that subject.   But the internal pressure is not what makes the SRB's fly.

Figure 31 in that document (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880014605_1988014605.pdf), on Page 75 (marked p70), shows that the pressure applied on the internal structure of the whole SRB.   You see there that all the walls inside experiences between 880-990psi.   The pressure being applied to the Fwd Dome is broadly equal to -- only 81psi higher than -- the force being applied to the Aft Dome.

I think its pretty obvious that an 81psi on-balance force being applied to the Fwd Dome is *not* the primary force getting this thing in the air though.

The primary launch forces come from the nozzle.   It always does on any rocket.   As the exhaust gases exit, the nozzle is the thing which re-directs the explosive forces of the combustion into a positive forward acceleration for the rocket.   That thrust is then focused back up into the structure of the rocket, and in this case all the way up to the Fwd ET Attachment point where it 'pushes' the ET & Shuttle up with it.

There is ~3.3m lb thrust being focused up into that structure.   If you calculate the surface area of a cutaway section of the SRB cases (148" dia circle minus 147" dia circle, you get an area of about 231 inches.   3.3m lb thrust into 231in means the nozzle is focusing something like 14,286psi up into the SRB's structure.

That's roughly 15 times as much axial force being applied up through the structure of the SRB, than the internal pressure is applying around the joints inside.


Having said that, Fequalsma does make an excellent point, that the dynamic loads will change if you move the attachment point three-quarters the way down the side of the Fwd SRB case.   It looks pretty clear that such a change will apply some different lateral loads on the joint between the Fwd Segment and the one immediately below it.   He has identified a very interesting point which will require an engineering investigation.   My gut tells me the SRB joints have margins to spare, but given our previous experience with Challenger I sure wouldn't want to take any chances.   This needs both thorough CFM work and quite a bit of real-world testing to prove.   I believe ATK were doing such investigations for Shuttle anyway, but are no longer doing this for Ares.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 11/21/2008 11:00 pm
Mark S,

I just wrote a long reply to you, but got timed out when I hit send - grrr!  Let's see how much I can reconstruct...

Here's the way I'm thinking of it:  On the 4-seg SRB, the net thrust from the pressurized part "pushes" the forward unpress case and the ET attach fitting.  On the 5-seg, the forward dome "pulls" the ET attach fitting forward.  Pushing means compression, which also means that there's an additional 0.65 knockdown factor (i.e., 1/0.65 = 1.54) required, which means more weight.  Design for tension is much easier (lighter, cheaper) than when buckling is a failure mode.

Do you mean bending, rather than torsion?  The perpendicular moment arm from the ET attach fitting (a momentless connection to the ET, btw) to the SRB central axis is the same in both designs.  However, I think the 5-seg internal pressure is higher (don't know this number), so the bending moment would also be higher.  See also jarmumd's comments.  Should be doable to design for this, though.

Remember also that although the SRB thrust is 3 Mlb (more or less) at liftoff, around 2/3 of that is used to accelerate the SRB itself.  This is 1.3 Mlb x 1.5 liftoff T/W = 1.95 Mlb, for those of you counting along at home.  So, the net force pushing the ET and Orbiter along is about 1 Mlb.

I think that's most of what I had written before.
F=ma



Okay, so if the greatest majority of the force is transferred from the dome to the upper attach point, would the greater distance between them in the 5-seg configuration cause additional torsional stress on the upper segment? And would that be a problem?

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 11/21/2008 11:42 pm
Ross,

Thanks for your looking this over.  I agree with your comments about the nozzle, and its role in accelerating the flow and increasing the thrust.  However, I think you may be mixing pressures and stresses (versus apples and oranges) here. 

The 990 psi is a pressure acting on the (73 in. x 73 in. x pi) cross-sectional area of the SRB forward dome, which translates to 16.57 Mlb.  The 907 psi acts on the aft dome (throat diameter = 54 in. from http://www.astronautix.com/engines/srb.htm), for a force of 13.10 Mlb.  (Note the difference - 3.47 Mlb!)  So, the motor case tensile force resultants from these loads are Nx = 16.57 Mlb/(2 x pi x 73 in.) = 36.14 klb/in forward, and 28.58 klb/in aft. 

Even if you applied all of your 3.3 Mlb compression load to the SRB, your compressive force resultant in the motor case would only be 3.3 Mlb/(2 x pi x 73 in.), or 7.2 klb/in, much less than the pressure loads.  If you then divide 7.2 klb/in by the 0.5-in. case thickness, you get your 14.4 ksi stress.

F=ma


Mark,
What Fequalsma is talking about is not the whole picture.   He is correctly talking about the internal pressures within the SRB.

Figure 31 in that <AH REF="http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880014605_1988014605.pdf">document[/url], on Page 75 (marked p70), shows that the internal structure of the whole SRB experiences between 880-990psi.   The pressure being applied to the fwd dome is only 81psi higher than the force being applied to the aft dome as well.

I think its pretty obvious that an 81psi difference is not the primary force getting this thing in the air though.

The primary force comes from the nozzle.   It always does on any rocket.   As the exhaust gases exit, the nozzle is the thing which re-directs the explosive forces of the combustion into a positive forward acceleration for the rocket.   That thrust is focused back up into the structure of the rocket.

There is ~3.3m lb thrust being focused up into that structure.   If you calculate the surface area of a cutaway section of the SRB cases (148" dia circle minus 147" dia circle, you get an area of about 231 inches.   3.3m lb thrust into 231in means the nozzle is focusing something like 14,286psi up into the SRB's structure.

That's roughly 15 times as much axial force being applied up through the structure of the SRB, than the internal pressure is applying around the joints inside.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/22/2008 12:39 am
Fequalsma your calculation of the pressure loads is correct, and its role in accelerating the SRB upwards.  Sorry Ross, but you are failing to realize that in a typical liquid rocket, the combustion chamber is on one side of the gimbal, which means that compressible loads are straightforward.  The entire case of the SRB is a combustion chamber, so the same thinking does not apply. 

Fequalsma, your stress calculations (which is confusing to everyone else since it also uses psi) is incorrect.  The highest static stresses come from hoop stresses, which are defined by stress(psi) = (Pressure(psi) * radius(in)) / thickness (in).  so (907 * 73) / 0.5 = 132ksi.  Looking up D6AC steel, it has a yield strength of 200 ksi, so a generous factor of safety.

marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 11/22/2008 01:48 am
Marc,

Sorry, I can't help that confusion.  Pressure and stress can both be in psi until we go to metric, and I'm not holding my breath on waiting for that. 

You're correct in that I did not look at hoop stress in my reply to your earlier post.  Using 990 psi (pressure) at the forward case segment gives an axial stress of (p*r/2t) of 72,360 psi (stress) and a hoop stress of twice that, or 144,720 psi (stress).  Similar calcs for the aft case segment (907 psi pressure) give 66,210 psi axial stress and 132,420 psi hoop stress.  All of these stresses are tensile.

Now comparing my highest 144,270 psi stress to your 200,000 psi D6AC yield stress, we get a factor of safety of 1.38, which is a much better aerospace-like number than my earlier 3.3 calc.  The size of my earlier FS should have been my first sign that I'd done something wrong...

Also, did you follow my comment regarding the area that the SRB internal pressure acts on?  If you look at the bore of the forward segment, it's relatively small.  For example, look at http://www.safesimplesoon.com/assets/images/300highres/ARES%20I%20CUTAWAY%20axonometric.jpg
The 1000 psi (pressure) in the bore is transmitted directly to the case walls and domes through the relatively incompressible, low-stiffness propellant. 

F=ma



Fequalsma, your stress calculations (which is confusing to everyone else since it also uses psi) is incorrect.  The highest static stresses come from hoop stresses, which are defined by stress(psi) = (Pressure(psi) * radius(in)) / thickness (in).  so (907 * 73) / 0.5 = 132ksi.  Looking up D6AC steel, it has a yield strength of 200 ksi, so a generous factor of safety.

marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/22/2008 02:11 am
Marc,

Sorry, I can't help that confusion.  Pressure and stress can both be in psi until we go to metric, and I'm not holding my breath on waiting for that. 

You're correct in that I did not look at hoop stress in my reply to your earlier post.  Using 990 psi (pressure) at the forward case segment gives an axial stress of (p*r/2t) of 72,360 psi (stress) and a hoop stress of twice that, or 144,720 psi (stress).  Similar calcs for the aft case segment (907 psi pressure) give 66,210 psi axial stress and 132,420 psi hoop stress.  All of these stresses are tensile.

Now comparing my highest 144,270 psi stress to your 200,000 psi D6AC yield stress, we get a factor of safety of 1.38, which is a much better aerospace-like number than my earlier 3.3 calc.  The size of my earlier FS should have been my first sign that I'd done something wrong...

Also, did you follow my comment regarding the area that the SRB internal pressure acts on?  If you look at the bore of the forward segment, it's relatively small.  For example, look at http://www.safesimplesoon.com/assets/images/300highres/ARES%20I%20CUTAWAY%20axonometric.jpg
The 1000 psi (pressure) in the bore is transmitted directly to the case walls and domes through the relatively incompressible, low-stiffness propellant. 

F=ma

Well, I say if we want to talk about this anymore - lets make a new thread so as not to derail Direct - that is unless someone else wants to (or we have permission to!). 

Having said that, you are forgetting that the "star" grain at the top of the SRB is designed that way so that the large surface area can combust quickly.  So the "bore" you speak of is gone very soon after ignition and most of the dome is exposed.

(P.S. it doesn't matter if it's in SI or English - pressure(stress) is pressure(stress) whether it's psi or kpa)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 11/22/2008 07:32 pm
Fequalsma and jarmumd are of course correct.

On ignition, the SRM grows 1 inch in lenght, instantly. I know that from reading stuff authored by a guy named Bo Bejmuk.

Grows 1 inch in lenght. That means tension, not compression.

Cheers.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 11/22/2008 07:53 pm
The idea that the field joints would be under tension, rather than compression, seems intuitive to me. Of course, I'm not an engineer (though I was a mechanical engineering technician until about 25 years ago, when I decided those new-fangled microcomputers offered a warmer, dryer way to make a living). Rockets don't fly because something is "pushing" on something else, they fly by ejecting mass (a la Prof. Newton), and all the combustion does is provide the ejection energy (of the exhaust gas). So the situation inside a solid fuel motor is essentially the same as the situation inside the combustion chamber of a liquid fuel engine, the combustion energy is "inflating" the chamber or bore. It's just that in a solid motor, the combustion chamber is intergrated with the fuel tank. Anyway, that's how I explain it to myself, so if I'm an idiot, tell me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 11/22/2008 09:53 pm
The nozzle has a convergent-divergent shape because the hot gases, expanding from the high pressure, small convergent volume, to the low pressure, large divergent volume, are increasing in speed and are really "pushing" against the "bell".

But the SRM is still stiffened in tension by the huge internal pressure.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/23/2008 01:52 am
Yegor, Why?

If you don't need to, why spend the extra money?
It allows to perform a 2-launch lunar mission without the need of propellant transfer.

Just clarification, but our current J-232 EOR-LOR architecture doesn't need Propellant Transfer either, and still closes all of NASA's current targets by ~1mT, so this isn't actually needed.


1mT doesn't sound like a lot of margin. I'm thinking of the Wernher von Braun story re Apollo, where he planned for the lander masses to balloon fairly seriously (10% or more?), and even that wasn't enough.

I know you guys have quite rightly built that 10% margin (+ 1mT) into your scheme (with the Orion guys wishing wistfully that Ares would just stop taking their original mass allowance away). If you get to the point where even your margin has been used up, is there potential to make use of the second EDS to give you further margin? I'm thinking something like those big-ole freight trains with multiple locomotives, except these would be stacked at the back of the "train", not at the front.

My first thought was to get the currently-unused EDS to perform a partial TLI before detaching and allowing the original EDS to complete the job. However, I can see that this might introduce some uncertainty as to where the first EDS burn would leave you, and the second burn needs to take place quickly (gravity losses).

There was a discussion earlier in the thread that TLI performance could be substantially improved (do I remember 60-70mT instead of 50mT?) if starting from an elliptical orbit, but that this made for difficult rendezvous conditions (ie the second launch has only a single launch window).

I don't know how much propellent is left in the tank of the second EDS, but would there be enough to push EDS#1+CEV+LSAM into that elliptical orbit, or something like it? There should then be plenty of time for EDS#2 to undock and to understand the exact new trajectory before TLI burn by EDS#1 at Perigee (ie this latter is the EDS burn from the current plan). If there's some problem with the burn of EDS#2 (not enough propellent left, etc, etc), then an abort before TLI should be easily possible.

Actually, now I come to think of it, isn't one of the CxP config's to have the LSAM & CEV docked nose-to-nose [eyeballs in, I think] during TLI?. If both EDS's are left attached, EDS#2 could burn, drop away, EDS#1+CEV+LSAM rotate 180 degrees, then EDS#1 fires up, so no more docking is required than under the current scheme. However, crew & internal structures (tanks, etc) within CEV & EDS#1 would have to cope with one of the burns being "upside down" in this scheme and stresses on the CEV/LSAM connector would be even worse than currently, so I think the "twin locomotive" idea sounds easier from the POV of designing the various craft.

I know that Propellent Transfer would mean you'd only need to accelerate the mass of a single EDS, but this has rightly been vetoed as too complex. I completely agree with earlier comments that PT's and PD's should barely/not even be mentioned when trying to change hearts & minds at this delicate time. 2x232's will do the job, anything else will just sound grandiose to POTUS & Congress at present - not a good thing when they're reeling from the failure of Ares which was supposed to be low risk.

This way, you get some delta-V from the fuel in the second EDS that you would otherwise discard unused - it's something for (almost) nothing.

Reiterating what I said above, POTUS/Congress will be acutely aware that Ares is failing because it doesn't have the margins to cope when the design doesn't come out quite as you'd hoped. 5-seg SRB's are a good counter-argument to that, and maybe this could give you yet more margin.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Marsman on 11/23/2008 02:44 am
Yegor, Why?

If you don't need to, why spend the extra money?
It allows to perform a 2-launch lunar mission without the need of propellant transfer.

Just clarification, but our current J-232 EOR-LOR architecture doesn't need Propellant Transfer either, and still closes all of NASA's current targets by ~1mT, so this isn't actually needed.


1mT doesn't sound like a lot of margin. I'm thinking of the Wernher von Braun story re Apollo, where he planned for the lander masses to balloon fairly seriously (10% or more?), and even that wasn't enough.

I know you guys have quite rightly built that 10% margin (+ 1mT) into your scheme (with the Orion guys wishing wistfully that Ares would just stop taking their original mass allowance away). If you get to the point where even your margin has been used up, is there potential to make use of the second EDS to give you further margin? I'm thinking something like those big-ole freight trains with multiple locomotives, except these would be stacked at the back of the "train", not at the front.

My first thought was to get the currently-unused EDS to perform a partial TLI before detaching and allowing the original EDS to complete the job. However, I can see that this might introduce some uncertainty as to where the first EDS burn would leave you, and the second burn needs to take place quickly (gravity losses).

There was a discussion earlier in the thread that TLI performance could be substantially improved (do I remember 60-70mT instead of 50mT?) if starting from an elliptical orbit, but that this made for difficult rendezvous conditions (ie the second launch has only a single launch window).

I don't know how much propellent is left in the tank of the second EDS, but would there be enough to push EDS#1+CEV+LSAM into that elliptical orbit, or something like it? There should then be plenty of time for EDS#2 to undock and to understand the exact new trajectory before TLI burn by EDS#1 at Perigee (ie this latter is the EDS burn from the current plan). If there's some problem with the burn of EDS#2 (not enough propellent left, etc, etc), then an abort before TLI should be easily possible.

Actually, now I come to think of it, isn't one of the CxP config's to have the LSAM & CEV docked nose-to-nose [eyeballs in, I think] during TLI?. If both EDS's are left attached, EDS#2 could burn, drop away, EDS#1+CEV+LSAM rotate 180 degrees, then EDS#1 fires up, so no more docking is required than under the current scheme. However, crew & internal structures (tanks, etc) within CEV & EDS#1 would have to cope with one of the burns being "upside down" in this scheme and stresses on the CEV/LSAM connector would be even worse than currently, so I think the "twin locomotive" idea sounds easier from the POV of designing the various craft.

I know that Propellent Transfer would mean you'd only need to accelerate the mass of a single EDS, but this has rightly been vetoed as too complex. I completely agree with earlier comments that PT's and PD's should barely/not even be mentioned when trying to change hearts & minds at this delicate time. 2x232's will do the job, anything else will just sound grandiose to POTUS & Congress at present - not a good thing when they're reeling from the failure of Ares which was supposed to be low risk.

This way, you get some delta-V from the fuel in the second EDS that you would otherwise discard unused - it's something for (almost) nothing.

Reiterating what I said above, POTUS/Congress will be acutely aware that Ares is failing because it doesn't have the margins to cope when the design doesn't come out quite as you'd hoped. 5-seg SRB's are a good counter-argument to that, and maybe this could give you yet more margin.

According to the latest numbers, DIRECT has 9 mt of L2 and L3 margins in addition to the 1 mt closure of the CxP targets. That means that if the LSAM and Orion weigh and perform exactly what they are expected to, there would be 10 extra mt before you hit the "bleeding edge" of the performance envelope. Of course, that will never happen, but DIRECT has plenty of margins (above and beyond the Ares numbers) to account for that sort of thing.

On using the other EDS, it may work in theory but it induces two more docking and staging maneuvers than the current 2x J-232 baseline. The EDS would have to undock from the LSAM/Orion stack and redock behind the primary EDS (such as in an EELV architecture with multiple upper stages pushing the stack through TLI) if I follow you correctly. I'm sure that Ross can give you more details, but the current architecture just doesn't need it. The 5 segs would probably be an easier upgrade if performance was needed, but the Propellant Depot eliminates all possible performance shortcomings anyway. :)

David
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 07:10 am
I've been working hard on the rebuttal recently, and also on imagery for a new document too.

To take a bit of a break (!) this evening I wanted to get back to my 3D artwork.   Yes, I'm a sad git -- this *is* how I am having fun on a Saturday night!!! :)

I have put together a rudimentary Shuttle MLP and converted it for Jupiter to get a notional idea of the arrangement.

Continuing with our previous proposal for a Minimal LUT (MLUT) mounted on the Launcher Base, here is a very early 3D rendering of the basic layout (low-fidelity).

The two purposes behind this design are 1) to reduce the rollout mass of even the largest rocket to the point where the existing Crawlers do not need to be replaced, and 2) To try to reduce total maintenance costs by reducing the number of Service towers down from Ares' five, down to just two.

Obviously, this approach requires a permanently sited Fixed Service Structure at the Pad with 5 Service Arms (one being a dual-purpose Crew Access Arm as well) able to maintain the umbilicals at the Pad after roll-out.

Now, the current FSS at the Pads is looking more and more likely to need replacing (they're actually forty years old, give 'em a break), so new FSS towers are likely to be needed no matter what.   Sad, but inevitable, I guess :(

The Jupiter-120/Orion program could get started most quickly using a converted Shuttle FSS, but replacements will eventually be need to be phased in at some point.   It would be nice to throw those cost a bit further down the road though seeing as we have major cost issues like workforce retention to deal with in the short term.

Anyway, enjoy the images.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 07:43 am
Fequalsma & jarmumd,
I've asked one of our guys at ATK to clear this up once and for all.   He's been following the thread here and thought Fequalsma's explanation was pretty close and generally agreed with the way you got the estimate of ~140,000psi hoop stress too.

His explanation was that the case joints are in tension, but that the force from the nozzle is directed back up into the case and helps to reduce the total tension stress at the joints, allowing them to be designed smaller and lighter.

So I stand corrected.   Thanks for raising the subject, getting into some of the nitty-gritty, helping to teach me something new and correcting my understanding.

He's trying to get some specific documentation on this if he can, so if he rustles anything up which can be released I'll put it on the thread here.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 08:24 am
1mT doesn't sound like a lot of margin. I'm thinking of the Wernher von Braun story re Apollo, where he planned for the lander masses to balloon fairly seriously (10% or more?), and even that wasn't enough.

It's not 1mT of total margin :)

It's 1mT *over and above* the margins which NASA requires.

The margins are actually quite numerous.   Here's a brief list of most of the major ones (there are some others too):-

- Minimum Factor of Safety of 1.4 (40%) for all hardware structures, some hardware has an FS of 2.0.
- 10-15% mass Growth Margin in the design of most elements.
- 10% launch performance margin on all LV's.
- Another 2% Core Stage and EDS reserve propellant margins.
- 1% margin on the 3175m/s TLI burn (=3,206.75m/s).
- 5mT margin on the Lunar Lander mass from Level 2 Management (that's Associate Administrator level)
- CxP has dropped the additional 4mT of Level 3 management (Head of LSAM Program level) margin, but DIRECT still includes it -- making LSAM margin a neat 20% instead of just 11%.
- DIRECT also arbitrarily applies an additional 2% margin on all other in-space burns done by the LSAM & CEV throughout the flight, another margin which NASA is not currently applying.


With all those margins fully accounted for, we exceed the requirements by an additional 1mT with our baseline design.

We estimate NASA is still somewhere around 14mT short of the same target with Ares-I & the new larger-than-ever Ares-V.


And we still have a large array of upgrade options to increase performance further using:-

- 5-seg SRB
- Core Tank Stretch
- RS-68 Ablative Nozzle Vacuum Optimization to an Area Ratio of 33 instead of the current 21.5
- RS-68 Regenerative Nozzle
- Inclusion of composite structures
- Use of 3-stage configuration on the EDS launch
- Propellant Depot.


Quote
If you get to the point where even your margin has been used up, is there potential to make use of the second EDS to give you further margin? I'm thinking something like those big-ole freight trains with multiple locomotives, except these would be stacked at the back of the "train", not at the front.

Ow.   Yikes.   My initial reaction to that is a shiver down the spine  :o

I don't like the idea of docking two huge propellant-filled modules together and trying to perform a sequential burn with them both, along with a crew in the same location.   I don't think it would be too bad as long as the crew weren't there, but that idea makes me real nervous.   I've a feeling the LOC numbers would be pretty poor.


Quote
I don't know how much propellent is left in the tank of the second EDS, but would there be enough to push EDS#1+CEV+LSAM into that elliptical orbit, or something like it?

We have a surplus of about 26mT of 'ballast' being launched on the CEV/LSAM flight.   In our 2006 AIAA paper we had that used for delivering a tank of additional LOX to the EDS to improve its performance.   Because we knew there would be criticism over Propellant Transfer technologies not being mature enough yet, we removed that option as fast as we could -- it actually got deleted just one week after presenting the AIAA paper just not quite in time to make the publishing deadline :(

But there are other uses for that extra payload mass.   Perhaps the LSAM could be fitted with some sort of drop-tank, and could use that fuel to improve performance further, maybe using that fuel to produce a more powerful TLI burn, or perhaps purely for the LOI burn.

There are options available, but we are trying not to over-complicate the mission any more than we have to.   NASA's current management have been uber-nervous about any options straying too far away from the Apollo template.

Right now we have successfully defined a round 'peg' fitting inside the round 'hole' which NASA has defined.

Changing the definition itself is a much harder thing to do.   But if it does become possible, then we really want the full Propellant Depot to be the chosen option - because the Lunar performance limits are then defined only by how much propellant you can afford to launch on cheap unmanned rockets!   You essentially remove all the practical limits, theoretically allowing an LSAM somewhere over 300mT to be sent to the moon!

Our preference is 1) K.I.S.S (Keep It Simple, Stupid) by making an inexpensive launcher system able to do the basic requirements (J-120 & J-233 cover all those bases), then put the savings into b) closing the 'Gap' and c) Creating the real infrastructure which will allow greater expansion of both human and robotic missions into the Solar System -- and that means developing i) Propellant Depot, ii) Nuclear Propulsion technologies, iii) ISRU development, and iv) New Large-Scale EDL system for Mars.

We pay for all those development simply by not breaking the bank on point #1 in the above paragraph -- which is Ares' key mistake.   If you blow the bank there, everything else falls off the table unless Congress ponies up a lot of extra money every year -- and who here seriously thinks that is going to happen?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 11/23/2008 09:14 am
What are the big problems with assembling a sequential-burn, two-EDS vehicle in LEO? I know it's a lot of added complexity, but I can imagine missions where you'd end up with a 3-launch scenario, where you send up an EDS (the passive target, sent to orbit with the interstage/docking adapter on its back end), then send up another one to rendezvous and dock with the back end of the first one. Then send up the crew in Orion, complete with LSAM to rendenzvous and dock with the front end of the assembly. I remember the proposal for the 1984 Mars mission (from Agnew's group) essentially proposed assembling a nuclear "Titan-IV" (ie, two-stage core with two strap-ons) in LEO. The strap-ons would provide TMI, the aft stage of the core MOI, and the forward stage of the core TEI.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 10:08 am
Joining two large stages on the ground is difficult enough without the fuel being involved.   It takes hours to get the alignment right and to make all the necessary attachments, plus everything has to be examined thoroughly afterward to ensure everything worked.   You'd have to do the same on-orbit.   I would imagine something like the OBSS would be needed to perform the inspection after docking, and the TLI couldn't start until the *results* of the inspection were confirmed to be positive -- and that might not be a quick process if there are anomalies.   If it ever took, say, two days to work a particularly difficult result, the boiloff over those two days alone could well compromise the whole mission and cause an LOM.

My key concern is trying to dock two very large, but only partially filled ~70-100mT stages together with pin-point accurate alignment between the two structures.   The alignment needs to be dead-on because the load paths of a sequential burn powered by two 300,000lb thrust engines produces very significant bending moments otherwise.   You can't afford to make any mistakes given that the propellant inside (50mT+) is highly explosive if things go wrong.

The concern is that during docking, all that fluid will be sloshing around and causing quite a bit of attitude movement on both stages (more-so on the 'active' stage doing the approach, but the passive stage won't be completely inert either -- especially so after first-contact.

Imagine what happens if you get a movement of  50mT of 'slosh' just on final approach.   If the alignment is even slightly screwed up you're going to have real potential for disaster as the two stages strike each other in an off-nominal way.   With explosive propellant inside pressurized tanks made from thin Al-Li, that'll be a bad day for all involved.

I'm sure it *could* be perfected with sufficient time and money.   But because of the risks and the difficulties involved, it would require a lot of work and testing to get right -- and that's going to get pretty expensive.   IMHO, this is one of those high-risk things you won't attempt unless all the easier ways have already been discounted for whatever reason.

BTW, rendezvous between two large stages for Propellant Transfer doesn't require the same degree of accuracy though.   For Depot 'docking', you only need to rendezvous in relatively close proximity to the Depot (<50ft).   At that point you spend some time and stabilize your attitude as you station-keep.   Then a Remote Manipulator System mounted on the Depot would grab hold of the visiting vehicle, and provide a flexible link between the two structures.   Once the different vibrations between the two vehicles damps down to a reasonable level, then the RMS will carefully make the necessary connections between the elements to begin the transfer.   There never needs to be a hard-dock between the elements, only an RMS-style connection between them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/23/2008 11:51 am
1mT doesn't sound like a lot of margin. I'm thinking of the Wernher von Braun story re Apollo, where he planned for the lander masses to balloon fairly seriously (10% or more?), and even that wasn't enough.

It's not 1mT of total margin :)

It's 1mT *over and above* the margins which NASA requires.

The margins are actually quite numerous.   Here's a brief list of most of the major ones (there are some others too):-

- Minimum Factor of Safety of 1.4 (40%) for all hardware structures, some hardware has an FS of 2.0.
- 10-15% mass Growth Margin in the design of most elements.
- 10% launch performance margin on all LV's.
- Another 2% Core Stage and EDS reserve propellant margins.
- 1% margin on the 3175m/s TLI burn (=3,206.75m/s).
- 5mT margin on the Lunar Lander mass from Level 2 Management (that's Associate Administrator level)
- CxP has dropped the additional 4mT of Level 3 management (Head of LSAM Program level) margin, but DIRECT still includes it -- making LSAM margin a neat 20% instead of just 11%.
- DIRECT also arbitrarily applies an additional 2% margin on all other in-space burns done by the LSAM & CEV throughout the flight, another margin which NASA is not currently applying.


With all those margins fully accounted for, we exceed the requirements by an additional 1mT with our baseline design.

I did say "I know you guys have quite rightly built that 10% margin (+ 1mT) into your scheme" (point 3), but I thought that was the *cumulative* effect of all the other margins, not just one of many! Impressive.

I'm guessing you'll need to use quite a few of those allowances (just a fact of life) and having them available keeps the risks under your programme way down. I remember how hard it was to program computers 25 years ago when the margins were so tight.

Those tiny NASA propellent reserves would also scare me.


Quote
I don't know how much propellent is left in the tank of the second EDS, but would there be enough to push EDS#1+CEV+LSAM into that elliptical orbit, or something like it?

We have a surplus of about 26mT of 'ballast' being launched on the CEV/LSAM flight.   In our 2006 AIAA paper we had that used for delivering a tank of additional LOX to the EDS to improve its performance.   Because we knew there would be criticism over Propellant Transfer technologies not being mature enough yet, we removed that option as fast as we could -- it actually got deleted just one week after presenting the AIAA paper just not quite in time to make the publishing deadline :(

But there are other uses for that extra payload mass.   Perhaps the LSAM could be fitted with some sort of drop-tank, and could use that fuel to improve performance further, maybe using that fuel to produce a more powerful TLI burn, or perhaps purely for the LOI burn.

There are options available, but we are trying not to over-complicate the mission any more than we have to.   NASA's current management have been uber-nervous about any options straying too far away from the Apollo template.

I'm glad you mentioned drop tanks. The first time you look at the overall lunar mission plan, it just seems to contain a profusion of unnecessary stages and discarded rocket motors. I understand now, so no need to explain it again.

Drop tanks just seem like they should be the answer - drop the mass of the tank to "semi-stage" without requiring yet another set of engines. Then you come to think how you'd actually build these into the design, and it's really not obvious. Even from an outsider's perspective it seems to complicate things a lot.



My key concern is trying to dock two very large, but only partially filled ~70-100mT stages together with pin-point accurate alignment between the two structures.   The alignment needs to be dead-on because the load paths of a sequential burn powered by two 300,000lb thrust engines produces very significant bending moments otherwise.   You can't afford to make any mistakes given that the propellant inside (50mT+) is highly explosive if things go wrong.

The concern is that during docking, all that fluid will be sloshing around and causing quite a bit of attitude movement on both stages (more-so on the 'active' stage doing the approach, but the passive stage won't be completely inert either -- especially so after first-contact.

Imagine what happens if you get a movement of  50mT of 'slosh' just on final approach.   If the alignment is even slightly screwed up you're going to have real potential for disaster as the two stages strike each other in an off-nominal way.   With explosive propellant inside pressurized tanks made from thin Al-Li, that'll be a bad day for all involved.

I'm sure it *could* be perfected with sufficient time and money.   But because of the risks and the difficulties involved, it would require a lot of work and testing to get right -- and that's going to get pretty expensive.   IMHO, this is one of those high-risk things you won't attempt unless all the easier ways have already been discounted for whatever reason.

Again, thanks for taking the time to explain this. What seems like a simple thing:-

* EDS#2 is already there;
* it's got 26mT+ of fuel ready and waiting to be used "for free";
* you don't have to design Propellent Transfer schemes;
* you don't have to design drop tanks;
* how hard can it be to perform one more dock?

And then that "rocket science" thing bites another noob in the ass. These things really aren't obvious, and it's the first time I've seen anyone actually explain these problems in this sort of detail. (I read a lot of stuff before I started posting, including all of this thread, your AIAA report and all of your updates).

BTW, if you did the nose-to-nose config of CEV / LSAM (isn't that how Apollo did it?) you'd only need to perform one dock, and that critical LSAM / EDS#2 mating would have been done on the ground.

I realise that the CEV / LSAM joint then becomes far more critical (stresses are much higher, it's not like it can cope at the moment) and the alignment would need to be even more exact. If something goes wrong you're also crashing CEV & LSAM together rather than just denting EDS's. Another non-starter.

And it's eyeballs in.



BTW, rendezvous between two large stages for Propellant Transfer doesn't require the same degree of accuracy though.   For Depot 'docking', you only need to rendezvous in relatively close proximity to the Depot (<50ft).   At that point you spend some time and stabilize your attitude as you station-keep.   Then a Remote Manipulator System mounted on the Depot would grab hold of the visiting vehicle, and provide a flexible link between the two structures.   Once the different vibrations between the two vehicles damps down to a reasonable level, then the RMS will carefully make the necessary connections between the elements to begin the transfer.   There never needs to be a hard-dock between the elements, only an RMS-style connection between them.

So it comes back that PT between the two EDS's is the Simpler, Sooner solution in the end (once you've run out of simpler ways to add margin).

Many thanks again for your patience. I guess I'll stick to designing computer systems.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mjcrsmith on 11/23/2008 02:22 pm
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but there is a graphic in the Thursday, November 20 Christian Science Monitor on page 16 in the Innovation section showing Ares 1 & V compared to Jupiter 120 & 232.  The graphic takes up about 1/3 of the page.

No article with it, but here is some interesting text in the graphic:

For Ares - "23% of its parts are current equipment."
For DIRECT's Jupiter - "95%+ of ites parts are current equipment."

"DIRECT's Jupiter  Less expensive: developed by scientists and formare and current NASA engineers."

This was from the print version.  I have not looked to see if there is a web version.

Wanted to pass this allong.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 11/23/2008 03:02 pm
Joining two large stages on the ground is difficult enough without the fuel being involved.   It takes hours to get the alignment right and to make all the necessary attachments, plus everything has to be examined thoroughly afterward to ensure everything worked.   You'd have to do the same on-orbit.   I would imagine something like the OBSS would be needed to perform the inspection after docking, and the TLI couldn't start until the *results* of the inspection were confirmed to be positive -- and that might not be a quick process if there are anomalies.   If it ever took, say, two days to work a particularly difficult result, the boiloff over those two days alone could well compromise the whole mission and cause an LOM.

My key concern is trying to dock two very large, but only partially filled ~70-100mT stages together with pin-point accurate alignment between the two structures.   The alignment needs to be dead-on because the load paths of a sequential burn powered by two 300,000lb thrust engines produces very significant bending moments otherwise.   You can't afford to make any mistakes given that the propellant inside (50mT+) is highly explosive if things go wrong.

The concern is that during docking, all that fluid will be sloshing around and causing quite a bit of attitude movement on both stages (more-so on the 'active' stage doing the approach, but the passive stage won't be completely inert either -- especially so after first-contact.

Imagine what happens if you get a movement of  50mT of 'slosh' just on final approach.   If the alignment is even slightly screwed up you're going to have real potential for disaster as the two stages strike each other in an off-nominal way.   With explosive propellant inside pressurized tanks made from thin Al-Li, that'll be a bad day for all involved.

I'm sure it *could* be perfected with sufficient time and money.   But because of the risks and the difficulties involved, it would require a lot of work and testing to get right -- and that's going to get pretty expensive.   IMHO, this is one of those high-risk things you won't attempt unless all the easier ways have already been discounted for whatever reason.

BTW, rendezvous between two large stages for Propellant Transfer doesn't require the same degree of accuracy though.   For Depot 'docking', you only need to rendezvous in relatively close proximity to the Depot (<50ft).   At that point you spend some time and stabilize your attitude as you station-keep.   Then a Remote Manipulator System mounted on the Depot would grab hold of the visiting vehicle, and provide a flexible link between the two structures.   Once the different vibrations between the two vehicles damps down to a reasonable level, then the RMS will carefully make the necessary connections between the elements to begin the transfer.   There never needs to be a hard-dock between the elements, only an RMS-style connection between them.

Ross.

I'm going to have to ask an out-of-ignorance, "Why is that?" about interstage alignment on the ground. My guess would be because the interstage has weight contraints as being part of an LV. The EDS+thrust-structure/docking-adapter would be the payload for launch #1 (forward stage) of the 3-launch architecture, as would the front end structure on the aft stage of launch #2. It seems like the whole structure would be heavier (come out of payload mass) and the alignment would be built into the design (which would have to be from scratch anyway, I wasn't picturing anything repurposed from a ground-installed interstage). I know it would be difficult to engineer, but so would a fuel transfer of that magnitude, whether from a tanker or fuel depot. Which would be the more difficult engineering problem, I wonder? Ultimately, for a real space faring civilzation to evolve, these are infrastructure issues that would just need to be solved.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 11/23/2008 03:06 pm
Btw, I know how aggravating alignment problems can be. Putting the hood back on a car after an engine rebuild was sometimes the hardest part of the job. Especially if it was a shade-tree job and instead of a chain fall I had four guys holding up the hood while I aligned boltholes (and they cursed my name!).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 11/23/2008 03:19 pm
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but there is a graphic in the Thursday, November 20 Christian Science Monitor on page 16 in the Innovation section showing Ares 1 & V compared to Jupiter 120 & 232.  The graphic takes up about 1/3 of the page.

This was from the print version.  I have not looked to see if there is a web version.

Here's a link to a jpg of the graphic:  http://picasaweb.google.com/ian.w.smith/ScreenCaptures#5271887632646697602

-Ian
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mjcrsmith on 11/23/2008 03:43 pm
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but there is a graphic in the Thursday, November 20 Christian Science Monitor on page 16 in the Innovation section showing Ares 1 & V compared to Jupiter 120 & 232.  The graphic takes up about 1/3 of the page.

This was from the print version.  I have not looked to see if there is a web version.



Here's a link to a jpg of the graphic:  http://picasaweb.google.com/ian.w.smith/ScreenCaptures#5271887632646697602

-Ian


Thanks Ian, I was coming up empty on my search.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 11/23/2008 03:51 pm
Thanks Ian, I was coming up empty on my search.

It's not online as far as I can tell, only downloadable for a brief time.  You have to sign up for the 5 free "online issues", but you can only download the previous day, so I figured it was worth screencapping before it goes away. 

The caption says: "Sources: NASA, DIRECT, US Govenrment Accountability Office"

I wonder who/what the sources were.

-Ian
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/23/2008 03:59 pm
Joining two large stages on the ground is difficult enough without the fuel being involved.   It takes hours to get the alignment right...

...The alignment needs to be dead-on because the load paths of a sequential burn powered by two 300,000lb thrust engines produces very significant bending moments otherwise.

I'm going to have to ask an out-of-ignorance, "Why is that?" about interstage alignment on the ground.


If a very small percentage of that thrust is off-axis, then that could be thousands of pounds of torque at the connection point.

The more accurately the stages are aligned, the less those torques/stresses will be.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/23/2008 04:16 pm
Thanks Ian, I was coming up empty on my search.

It's not online as far as I can tell, only downloadable for a brief time.  You have to sign up for the 5 free "online issues", but you can only download the previous day, so I figured it was worth screencapping before it goes away. 

The caption says: "Sources: NASA, DIRECT, US Govenrment Accountability Office"

I wonder who/what the sources were.

-Ian

Thanks for grabbing that screenshot and posting it. Otherwise those types of things get lost in time and cyberspace. I was actually intrigued & thrilled it was posted on the Christian Science Monitor.

Being somewhat religious, though nowehere near where I used to be, and can only imagine what kind of weight this holds in the USA, this could be a good boost for the overall discussions going forward. It's one thing to have the technical gurus and scientists pushing their views, but you throw religion into it, it becomes a (how to put it) tempered discussion. Some might consider it to be of more value with the religious 'backing', whether it might be right or wrong.
 
It also gets a larger audience, which I think is key.
1) It shows a greater audience cares or follows the next generation of space travel
2) It shows some in one of the biggest religious camps feels there needs to be more discussion of the 'right approach'.

See how far Direct's message is travelling? Hopefully to outer space soon  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 11/23/2008 05:11 pm
Joining two large stages on the ground is difficult enough without the fuel being involved.   It takes hours to get the alignment right...

...The alignment needs to be dead-on because the load paths of a sequential burn powered by two 300,000lb thrust engines produces very significant bending moments otherwise.

I'm going to have to ask an out-of-ignorance, "Why is that?" about interstage alignment on the ground.


If a very small percentage of that thrust is off-axis, then that could be thousands of pounds of torque at the connection point.

The more accurately the stages are aligned, the less those torques/stresses will be.

cheers, Martin

I understand *why* it has to be aligned, the question was supposed to be, "why is it difficult to align the stages on the ground." (I'm not as terse as Jim, but I'm working on it...) I actually have quite a bit of experience working with torque/stress/alignments, from my shipyard days. It seems like aligning two halves of an empty stage in horizontal assembly wouldn't be all that difficult (maybe something you could do with a gunner's transit, assuming a skilled rigger and top-notch crane operator). Fully fuelled on the ground would be a mass handling issue (and in space too, for that matter). I know some rockets are assembled on the pad (i.e., vertically).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 11/23/2008 05:27 pm
Joining two large stages on the ground is difficult enough without the fuel being involved.   It takes hours to get the alignment right...

Is it relevant? On the ground, the shape is affected by gravity, in space it is not. Also, in space you can dock them as slowly as you want. Should be easier. And anyway, we need to learn how to do it sooner or later.

Quote
Quote
Quote
...The alignment needs to be dead-on because the load paths of a sequential burn powered by two 300,000lb thrust engines produces very significant bending moments otherwise.

I'm going to have to ask an out-of-ignorance, "Why is that?" about interstage alignment on the ground.

If a very small percentage of that thrust is off-axis, then that could be thousands of pounds of torque at the connection point.

cheers, Martin

I imagine the stages may be designed to just have no way to lock in each other except the correctly centered way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/23/2008 06:31 pm
Yeah, I'd wondered that as well.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/23/2008 07:20 pm
Change of subject.

This is a pretty minor point, but I wanted to point out an apparent error in page 105 of the AIAA 2007 document - figure 119 "the process flow for generating the crew ascent vehicle propellent from the Martian atmosphere".

This seems to be describing a process where CO2 is taken in from the Martian atmosphere, it is reacted with hydrogen in a two-stage process which releases water and returns waste CO2 back to begin the cycle again.

The water is dissociated to recover the H2 & generate O2 (ie the propellents), but O2 also has to be fed back into complete the cycle.

Unfortunately, there is no point within the cycle where carbon atoms escape the loop, so all of the oxygen which is generated has to be fed back into making CO2 again.


As I see it, the process would either have to release some carbon atoms (I'd presume in the form of CO instead of CO2), or the engine would have to operate on CH4 instead of H2.

Pretty minor stuff, and of no relevance to the moonshot.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 07:22 pm
I did say "I know you guys have quite rightly built that 10% margin (+ 1mT) into your scheme" (point 3), but I thought that was the *cumulative* effect of all the other margins, not just one of many! Impressive.

The guys & gals in the trenches at NASA (including the contractors!) are trying their very best to do this right.

Ares-I & Ares-V and the whole "1.5 launch solution" were something foisted upon them from above, which has only complicated their task beyond the point of reason.   But they do have a grasp of what is actually required to accomplish the mission and are planning their margins accordingly.

We're largely matching them step for step, and just adding a little extra margin here and there -- just to make us feel happier.

Quote
Those tiny NASA propellent reserves would also scare me.

Actually those are pretty normal margins for such things.   Shuttle actually flies with less than 1% reserve propellant these days.   They've got so little reserve that the LOX tank should be 'dry' at MECO and all the remaining fuel should be purely in that long feedline running down the side of the ET!   About 900lb if I recall Wayne Hale's figure correctly.


Quote
Drop tanks just seem like they should be the answer - drop the mass of the tank to "semi-stage" without requiring yet another set of engines. Then you come to think how you'd actually build these into the design, and it's really not obvious. Even from an outsider's perspective it seems to complicate things a lot.

I'm still a fan of staging during descent to make the LSAM as small as possible.

There are a lot of advantages to be had if your EDS could perform the TLI Burn, the TMC, the LOI (inc. Plane Change) and about 66-75% of the descent.   You would end up with the LSAM having an very low Center of Gravity and that would mean it would be extremely stable during landing.   Right now they've got major concerns over stability of the huge LSAM currently being envisioned.

The Propellant Depot solves all those concerns.   You top-off the EDS and LSAM tanks in LEO and the EDS takes the LSAM all the way to within 5 minutes of landing.   The LSAM's performance grows considerably too.


Quote
Again, thanks for taking the time to explain this.

Glad to be of some assistance.   And don't worry about being a noob.   So was I three years ago.


Quote
BTW, if you did the nose-to-nose config of CEV / LSAM (isn't that how Apollo did it?) you'd only need to perform one dock, and that critical LSAM / EDS#2 mating would have been done on the ground.

Not sure exactly which context this is in.

The LSAM > EDS mating on the ground is the Ares method.   It is also the method we would like to use in Phase II of the DIRECT plan too.

We would launch a Jupiter-232 carrying an EDS, the LSAM, the payload fairing and a CEV on top.   That entire stack would remain in launch configuration (sans LAS) thru Propellant Transfer in LEO and all the way through TLI as well.

This means the LSAM does not have to cope with the weight of the CEV on its docking hatch thru TLI.

After TLI, the CEV would transition, the PLF leaves would be disposed of and the LSAM would be extracted exactly like on Apollo, during the three-day voyage towards the moon.

That's how we would like to perform DIRECT Lunar missions long-term.   The basic EOR-LOR non-Depot approach is simply an interim plan to allow us to 'get by' (while still achieving all goals) until the Depot comes online.


Quote
So it comes back that PT between the two EDS's is the Simpler, Sooner solution in the end (once you've run out of simpler ways to add margin).

We think so, yes.   Prop Transfer offers so many advantages its crazy not to plan for it right from the start, even if you have to fly without it in the initial phases.


Quote
Many thanks again for your patience. I guess I'll stick to designing computer systems.

No, you don't get away that easily! :)

Never stop asking your questions, or coming up with new ideas.   It is only by understanding and learning that any of us figures anything out.   Thomas Edison's "ten thousand ways not to make a light bulb" is the perfect example of trial and error working out in the end.

New ideas are always worth investigating, even if many don't work -- its the one which does work, identified through persistence, which can change the world.   Fresh approaches to problems can really make the difference between winning and losing.   Ask John Houbolt about that one.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 07:33 pm
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but there is a graphic in the Thursday, November 20 Christian Science Monitor on page 16 in the Innovation section showing Ares 1 & V compared to Jupiter 120 & 232.

...

Wanted to pass this allong.

Thank-you for mentioning that!

And spacedem, thank you for scanning and uploading the image for us too!

I don't recall speaking with CSM myself (maybe one of my colleagues did though).   But they've got their facts spot-on, and their imagery is pretty good too.

Hmmm.   Makes me wonder if CSM would like an actual article about this...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 11/23/2008 07:45 pm
I don't recall speaking with CSM myself (maybe one of my colleagues did though).   But they've got their facts spot-on, and their imagery is excellent too.

Some things in that diagram are a little odd.

The Ares V EDS is called a "Transport rocket to take four astronauts from space station to moon."

The Ares SRBs are referred to just like Jupiter's as "like current shuttle's", which is a bit of a stretch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: fotoguzzi on 11/23/2008 08:06 pm
In the CSM illustration, the scales are markedly different between the large comparison drawing and the inset. Perhaps the two images came together at the last moment, or the discrepancy would have been noticed immediately.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 08:08 pm

Why is that?

An Interstage is actually a surprisingly delicate piece of hardware.   It is basically a hollow cylinder typically made from a fairly thin skin, reinforced by both ring-frames and vertical stiffeners.   It is an unpressurized structure, so has to produce its strength through pure structural mechanical means.

This means it has a very narrow region of tolerance regarding its load paths.   If you start using one or two J-2X class engines, producing ~300,000lb of force each, you're going to be producing accelerations up to 3g, maybe even 4g.   The load paths are therefore put under enormous stresses and you need to be 100% confident in the join/interfaces handling those loads correctly.

If you have the slightest mis-alignment, coupled together with ~70mT loads on both sides of the Interstage, each with sloshing propellant onboard, those are going to be causing some pretty interesting bending moments at both ends of the interstage.

The huge forces involved would only exacerbate any misalignment.   They will naturally create massive lateral loads on the interface.   If the alignment is out even just a small amount, the interface might fail.    You then have a lower stage under full power trying to fly up into the upper stage -- and not the way it is supposed to.   That's not a pleasant thought.   Given that the forces also build as you approach 1st stage MECO, such failures are more likely to happen at the worst possible time too.

There *are* potential ways to mitigate such a misalignment (guide-rails might help), but the sad fact is that none are fool-proof.   And none will ever offer the degree of inspection on-orbit as we can get on the ground.   Without that confidence-creating measure, this would always be a nail-biting thing to do with crews involved.

Another concern would be the mechanical latches to connect and disconnect the stages.   There wouldn't be any way to use frangible bolts for this and mechanical components are just not as reliable as explosives have proven to be.   So what happens if any of your latches fail to connect correctly?   You could end up with the lower stage/interstage 'wagging' around, connected only on a single latch while completely enclosing your upper EDS' engines.

Or, what happens if the latches fail to release correctly after only half the TLI has been accomplished?   You could end up with a hung-up stage wagging around under the stack while your crew is half-way to the moon.

While the idea looks nice, the fact is that any mistakes in such a procedure will almost certainly result a really bad situation.   A mistake in this procedure almost-guarantees an LOM and introduces considerable risk of LOC as well (two propellant filled stage crashing together is not something I want to be anywhere near).

And I don't see any reason for ever hard-docking vast propellant filled tanks like this together.   Propellant Transfer technology makes such things completely unnecessary for any Lunar mission, Mars mission or even missions into the larger solar system.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 08:22 pm
Change of subject.
...
As I see it, the process would either have to release some carbon atoms (I'd presume in the form of CO instead of CO2), or the engine would have to operate on CH4 instead of H2.

Correct.   We think CH4 makes a lot of sense in that architecture.

The option to use HydroLox is still obviously open, but our current preference is Methane/LOX for Mars Ascent.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/23/2008 08:26 pm
Enjoyed the new CSM article/images as well as your latest renders Ross. Keep up the good work, hopefully it will get even more interesting around here in the next few months.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 08:37 pm
My friend, what happened to your sig?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 11/23/2008 09:09 pm

<snip>
The guys & gals in the trenches at NASA (including the contractors!) are trying their very best to do this right.

<snip>

Ross.

I know you don't mean it this statement the way I am going to interpret it here, but as a defense contractor I have to admit some days I get perterbed about being singled out as a peculiar member of a team.  As if we are only in the enterprise for the money, or only government folks have knowledge, a vision or are dedicated.

I bet those civil servents cash their paychecks the same as we do, nicht wahr?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/23/2008 09:24 pm

There are a lot of advantages to be had if your EDS could perform the TLI Burn, the TMC, the LOI (inc. Plane Change) and about 66-75% of the descent.   You would end up with the LSAM having an very low Center of Gravity and that would mean it would be extremely stable during landing.   Right now they've got major concerns over stability of the huge LSAM currently being envisioned.

The Propellant Depot solves all those concerns.   You top-off the EDS and LSAM tanks in LEO and the EDS takes the LSAM all the way to within 5 minutes of landing.   The LSAM's performance grows considerably too.

Does that mean that the LSAM has to fly through the debis cloud caused by the EDS impact?  I seem to recall that the later Apollo missions crashed their EDS equivalents into the moon to generate artificial moonquakes for the seismic network.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 09:29 pm
Yeah, its one of those grammatical anomolies Mike :)

When someone says "NASA", do they mean NASA Management, NASA engineers, the entire civil servant body, the program as a whole and do they include contractors or not?

The word has regularly been used to mean all of those, and others.   It can cause a lot of confusion.

My personal preference is currently to use the word "NASA" to represent everyone involved, both federal and commercial employees.

I think many people won't agree with my personal definition, and I agree that it isn't a strictly accurate word to use.   After all, NASA is a different organization to the contractors even though both work closely together.

So, to try to avoid misunderstanding, I often explicitly mention both "NASA" and the "contractors".   It just removes any ambiguity.

As you suggest, I don't mean to single-out anyone in any way.   I'm just trying to be as clear-spoken and accurate as I can.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 10:34 pm
Does that mean that the LSAM has to fly through the debis cloud caused by the EDS impact?

No, that is not a danger.   The "crasher stage" will fall to the surface a long, long way further down-range.

Remember that to land, the lander has to descent and also slow down from Lunar orbit speeds to a stationary speed relative to the surface.

If you disposed of a crasher stage half way down, it will still have half of the relative ground speed and will travel a lot further downrange than the lander ever will.

The impact point for the EDS will always be hundreds, maybe thousands of miles further away, but like you say, those impacts are useful for testing lunar seismic instruments.

At some point in the distant future, this also produces an area on the moon where many high-quality Al-Li, Steel and Titanium sources will be waiting for re-cycling.   I don't see it happening for another 50-100 years, but a boneyard of raw materials from crashed stages a few hundred miles away from a polar colony could prove to be quite useful.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/23/2008 10:38 pm
Quote
BTW, if you did the nose-to-nose config of CEV / LSAM (isn't that how Apollo did it?) you'd only need to perform one dock, and that critical LSAM / EDS#2 mating would have been done on the ground.

Not sure exactly which context this is in.


Refer to figure 20 of the "DIRECT STS Derivative V2.0.2" document. There is a stage in the lifecycle (third item from left in the "130nm LEO" level) where it says
Quote
"CEV docks to LSAM/EDS"

I had interpreted this to mean that CEV & LSAM went up on different launchers (each attached to their own EDS's) and that "LOR" was rendezvous of CEV & LSAM (ie Ares method). The comment that you were querying would only make sense in that context, and was supposed to mean "if the CEV goes up attached to one EDS, and LSAM goes up attached to another one, could you somehow dock CEV & LSAM whilst leaving the two EDS's attached, burn one until empty & drop it, then burn the other one."

Having looked at the diagram in more detail, I can see that this is completely wrong (not supported by either the accompanying picture, nor the predecessor stages of the diagram). The CEV & LSAM go on one launch & EDS #1 on the other. Got it now.

I think that caption in figure 20 should read "CEV & LSAM docks to EDS#1"?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/23/2008 10:50 pm
My friend, what happened to your sig?

Ross.

That is a good question, just noticed...guess they got rid of them
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/23/2008 10:53 pm
Change of subject.
...
As I see it, the process would either have to release some carbon atoms (I'd presume in the form of CO instead of CO2), or the engine would have to operate on CH4 instead of H2.

Correct.   We think CH4 makes a lot of sense in that architecture.

The option to use HydroLox is still obviously open, but our current preference is Methane/LOX for Mars Ascent.

Ross.


Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. (KISS).

However the diagram clearly shows feed of H2 & O2 to the rocket engine. You'd need to add a CH4 tank & remove the "CH4+O2->H2O+CO2" box and CO2 return pathway.

Water under the bridge with this now being an out-of-date document.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/23/2008 11:24 pm
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. (KISS).

However the diagram clearly shows feed of H2 & O2 to the rocket engine. You'd need to add a CH4 tank & remove the "CH4+O2->H2O+CO2" box and CO2 return pathway.

Water under the bridge with this now being an out-of-date document.

Just between you, me and a couple thousand other readers of NSF (!), we didn't get as much time on that document as we wanted.   It was slightly rushed towards the end of writing.   AIAA were even good enough to allow us to submit our final copy about five days after the deadline had already closed!   They gave us right up to the hour before they started pressing the CD's for the show!   We owe them a massive thank-you for that!

Because the paper was so big and was partly rushed, we know a few errors did creep in   :(   I hadn't noticed this one before you mentioned it, but I think that is possibly another we can add to the list :) LOL

As you say, it's water under the bridge now.   That paper is, today, more of a "here's the general flow of the big DIRECT tapestry from a 40,000ft altitude position, the details continue to evolve".  Its a good document to get a 'feel' for how DIRECT works, but the newer documentation updates large parts of it now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/23/2008 11:54 pm
An Interstage is actually a surprisingly delicate piece of hardware.   It is basically a hollow cylinder typically made from a fairly thin skin, reinforced by both ring-frames and vertical stiffeners.   It is an unpressurized structure, so has to produce its strength through pure structural mechanical means.

That's obviously necessary for something that is exposed to aerodynamic forces during ascent.

Any reason you couldn't use something more like a Payload Interface once you're in vacuum? Would that be more robust?

Looking at figure 17 in "Direct STS Derivative v2.0.2" document, I'm presuming that payload interface is on the left, and interstage is on the right.


Quote
Or, what happens if the latches fail to release correctly after only half the TLI has been accomplished?   You could end up with a hung-up stage wagging around under the stack while your crew is half-way to the moon.

Which is why I suggested that EDS#2 just kick the EDS#1/LSAM/CEV stack into an elliptical orbit. CEV can still dump both the EDS's and abort out of orbit if necessary.

EDS#2 is long gone and stack safety confirmed well before you have to commit to TLI.


Quote
While the idea looks nice, the fact is that any mistakes in such a procedure will almost certainly result a really bad situation.   A mistake in this procedure almost-guarantees an LOM and introduces considerable risk of LOC as well (two propellant filled stage crashing together is not something I want to be anywhere near).

Yeah, that's still the thing that makes this impractical.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 11/24/2008 12:51 am
robertross,

Actually, the Christian Science Monitor is a pretty secular newspaper, and a good read for world affairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor

F=ma


Thanks Ian, I was coming up empty on my search.

It's not online as far as I can tell, only downloadable for a brief time.  You have to sign up for the 5 free "online issues", but you can only download the previous day, so I figured it was worth screencapping before it goes away. 

The caption says: "Sources: NASA, DIRECT, US Govenrment Accountability Office"

I wonder who/what the sources were.

-Ian

Thanks for grabbing that screenshot and posting it. Otherwise those types of things get lost in time and cyberspace. I was actually intrigued & thrilled it was posted on the Christian Science Monitor.

Being somewhat religious, though nowehere near where I used to be, and can only imagine what kind of weight this holds in the USA, this could be a good boost for the overall discussions going forward. It's one thing to have the technical gurus and scientists pushing their views, but you throw religion into it, it becomes a (how to put it) tempered discussion. Some might consider it to be of more value with the religious 'backing', whether it might be right or wrong.
 
It also gets a larger audience, which I think is key.
1) It shows a greater audience cares or follows the next generation of space travel
2) It shows some in one of the biggest religious camps feels there needs to be more discussion of the 'right approach'.

See how far Direct's message is travelling? Hopefully to outer space soon  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/24/2008 01:41 am
I agree.  I dislike and distrust religion as much as anyone but I find the CSM pretty secular, a good read and pretty good journalists.

robertross,

Actually, the Christian Science Monitor is a pretty secular newspaper, and a good read for world affairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor

F=ma


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/24/2008 04:32 am
Assuming 500m/s ground speed and 300 sec of travel, you should get 150 km down range.

But doesn't a staged descent decrease safety?  If you descent with the LSAM, then a staging problem or an LSAM engine problem is no big deal, since you're in a (relatively) stable orbit that gives you time to fix it, and or abort back to Earth.  If something goes wrong after you've deorbited, then you have a minute or two.


Does that mean that the LSAM has to fly through the debis cloud caused by the EDS impact?

No, that is not a danger.   The "crasher stage" will fall to the surface a long, long way further down-range.

Remember that to land, the lander has to descent and also slow down from Lunar orbit speeds to a stationary speed relative to the surface.

If you disposed of a crasher stage half way down, it will still have half of the relative ground speed and will travel a lot further downrange than the lander ever will.

The impact point for the EDS will always be hundreds, maybe thousands of miles further away, but like you say, those impacts are useful for testing lunar seismic instruments.

At some point in the distant future, this also produces an area on the moon where many high-quality Al-Li, Steel and Titanium sources will be waiting for re-cycling.   I don't see it happening for another 50-100 years, but a boneyard of raw materials from crashed stages a few hundred miles away from a polar colony could prove to be quite useful.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 11/24/2008 07:36 am
While the idea looks nice, the fact is that any mistakes in such a procedure will almost certainly result a really bad situation.   A mistake in this procedure almost-guarantees an LOM and introduces considerable risk of LOC as well (two propellant filled stage crashing together is not something I want to be anywhere near).

Yeah, that's still the thing that makes this impractical.

cheers, Martin

I doubt such a crash would lead to as destructive explosion as in atmosphere. It's not like you ram a stage into another one at several meters per second, right? If anything, the collision would just rupture the tank(s), and in vacuum fuel from leaks would mostly evaporate and dissipate, not ignite.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/24/2008 09:34 am
New York Times Op-Ed by Alan Stern, addressing cost overruns at NASA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/opinion/24stern.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/24/2008 05:29 pm

 1.  * Really tall.
 2.  * Top heavy.
 3. * Liquid fuel engines start in mid air.
 4.  * No buffer between second stage and Orion capsule.
 5.  * Single engine on first stage.

6.  So generally, if that thing bows even slightly, or the engine thrust isn't translated perfectly straight through the central axis of the rocket, it'll shoot off to the side.

1.  No big deal, see N-1, Saturn V
2.  No, it is bottom heavy.  The SRB weighs many times more
3.  Happens on all launch vehicles.  no big deal
4.  Not required
5.  No big deal and SOP, see Atlas, Delta, Zenit, etc
6.  No big deal.  All launch vehicles bow and that's why there is often a second set of rate gyro's placed in a different location on LV's

1. I meant in proportion to its width. The Saturn V has a wider base but is only slightly taller than the Ares I. The Japanese N-I used SRBs on the sides and was not man-rated, so far as I can tell. The Russian N-1 never had a successful launch.

Note that the height of the rocket probably plays a part in the drift problem reported in the Orlando Sentinel:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-ares2608oct26,0,561055.story

"The issue is known as 'liftoff drift.' Ignition of the rocket's solid-fuel motor makes it 'jump' sideways on the pad, and a southeast breeze stronger than 12.7 mph would be enough to push the 309-foot-tall ship into its launch tower.

"Worst case, the impact would destroy the rocket. But even if that doesn't happen, flames from the rocket would scorch the tower, leading to huge repair costs."

2. I stand corrected. The numbers I could find suggest that the SRB would be about an order of magnitude heavier than the second stage on the ground.

   I suspect, however, that the weight distribution over time would be different for solid and liquid fueled stages. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the solid fuel would burn from bottom to top, whereas the weight of liquid fuel would always be against the bottom of the tanks. Thus, as the fuel burns and the rocket gets lighter, the center of gravity would rise faster for a rocket with a solid first stage.

3. The difference is that when you start the engines on the ground, like the shuttle and Jupiter, you can start the liquid fuel engines with just enough fuel to ensure proper ignition before igniting the the SRBs. That way, if a problem is detected, you can shut off the engines and the rocket is still on the ground and in one piece. If there are problems off the ground, you just wasted a rocket.

4. "Not required" isn't an argument. It's an opinion without a supporting argument.

5. Multiple motors on a stage mean that a mission can potentially continue, even if one fails. While there may be examples of successful rockets with a single motor on the first stage, I don't believe any of your examples are man-rated. And even if they were man-rate with excellent safety records, they all have liquid first stages, which can therefore throttle back or shut down, unlike an SRB first stage.

Note also that the upper stage has only one motor as well.

6. Gyros are only sufficient if the bowing of the rocket isn't too significant to be handled by the thrust vectoring of the solid rocket motor.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/24/2008 05:50 pm
2. I stand corrected. The numbers I could find suggest that the SRB would be about an order of magnitude heavier than the second stage on the ground.

   I suspect, however, that the weight distribution over time would be different for solid and liquid fueled stages. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the solid fuel would burn from bottom to top, whereas the weight of liquid fuel would always be against the bottom of the tanks. Thus, as the fuel burns and the rocket gets lighter, the center of gravity would rise faster for a rocket with a solid first stage.

6. Gyros are only sufficient if the bowing of the rocket isn't too significant to be handled by the thrust vectoring of the solid rocket motor.


2. the SRB's burn generally from the top to the bottom, due to the ignitor position at the top, and the large surface area star grain at the top.  That said, my documents show the CG at liftoff to be around 3080 in, and move to 3150 in at burnout - net change of around 100 inches downwards towards the nozzle.  (Note that here, the origin is actually 150 inches or so above the LAS)

6. Ares does have two or three rate gyros, I believe at the Orion/FS interface, the IS, and the FS skirt (one of those may be the IMU).  And it is specifically there to accommodate the bowing of the vehicle.  The FS has more than enough "control authority" to gimbal the nozzle over so that the thrust points through the CG.  That's why there is a controller for the nozzle - it doesn't work off of where the nozzle is, it works off of "hey I'm turning and I don't want to - let me correct that", without care of the nozzle position.  As such, the vehicle can be bowed and the nozzle can still alter the thrust through the CG

Edit: the CG number are for the SRB
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/24/2008 06:40 pm
Quote from: Matthew Raymond

 2.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the solid fuel would burn from bottom to top, whereas the weight of liquid fuel would always be against the bottom of the tanks. Thus, as the fuel burns and the rocket gets lighter, the center of gravity would rise faster for a rocket with a solid first stage

3. The difference is that when you start the engines on the ground, like the shuttle and Jupiter, you can start the liquid fuel engines with just enough fuel to ensure proper ignition before igniting the the SRBs. That way, if a problem is detected, you can shut off the engines and the rocket is still on the ground and in one piece. If there are problems off the ground, you just wasted a rocket.

4. "Not required" isn't an argument. It's an opinion without a supporting argument.

5. Multiple motors on a stage mean that a mission can potentially continue, even if one fails. While there may be examples of successful rockets with a single motor on the first stage, I don't believe any of your examples are man-rated. And even if they were man-rate with excellent safety records, they all have liquid first stages, which can therefore throttle back or shut down, unlike an SRB first stage.

6. Gyros are only sufficient if the bowing of the rocket isn't too significant to be handled by the thrust vectoring of the solid rocket motor.


2.  Solids burn inside out.  CG of the stage barely changes. It has no effect on the CG of the upper stage.  As for the whole vehicle, the casing of the SRM is still heavier than a liquid stage.

3. Still not a big deal.   Jupiter will require an upperstage (EDS) for lunar missions.  Also the EELV's have upperstages

4.  Not required is not an opinion.  It is a fact.  There is no requirement for it

5.  Manrating is a misused term. The Zenit was manrated for Energia.
Shuttle, Direct nor Saturn V couldn't continue to orbit if it lost an engine right after liftoff. 

Atlas and Delta were to be used for OSP. 
Direct use those nasty solid that can't be shutdown
BTW, not all engines can throttle.

6.  They aren't control moment gyros (which LV's never use).  "rate" gyros sense attitude and rate changes.  This is basic rocket science.
LV have two sets  of gyros (one in the guidance system and another lower on the vehicle, first stage usually) to compare the difference caused by the bowing of the vehicle and take it into account in the guidance logic for steering.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/24/2008 08:26 pm
Quote from: Matthew Raymond
3. The difference is that when you start the engines on the ground, like the shuttle and Jupiter, you can start the liquid fuel engines with just enough fuel to ensure proper ignition before igniting the the SRBs. That way, if a problem is detected, you can shut off the engines and the rocket is still on the ground and in one piece. If there are problems off the ground, you just wasted a rocket.

4. "Not required" isn't an argument. It's an opinion without a supporting argument.

5. Multiple motors on a stage mean that a mission can potentially continue, even if one fails. While there may be examples of successful rockets with a single motor on the first stage, I don't believe any of your examples are man-rated. And even if they were man-rate with excellent safety records, they all have liquid first stages, which can therefore throttle back or shut down, unlike an SRB first stage.

6. Gyros are only sufficient if the bowing of the rocket isn't too significant to be handled by the thrust vectoring of the solid rocket motor.

3. Still not a big deal.   Jupiter will require an upperstage (EDS) for lunar missions.  Also the EELV's have upperstages

4.  Not required is not an opinion.  It is a fact.  There is no requirement for it

5.  Manrating is a misused term. The Zenit was manrated for Energia.
Shuttle, Direct nor Saturn V couldn't continue to orbit if it lost an engine right after liftoff. 

Atlas and Delta were to be used for OSP. 
Direct use those nasty solid that can't be shutdown
BTW, not all engines can throttle.

6.  They aren't control moment gyros (which LV's never use).  "rate" gyros sense attitude and rate changes.  This is basic rocket science.
LV have two sets  of gyros (one in the guidance system and another lower on the vehicle, first stage usually) to compare the difference caused by the bowing of the vehicle and take it into account in the guidance logic for steering.

3. Jupiter-232 has the upper stage, and if there are problems, it can be used for cargo-only until the bugs are worked out, because we'd still have the Jupiter-120 for crew missions. However, because the Jupiter-232 is based on the Jupiter-120 and is scheduled to be completed after the Jupiter-120, many of the issues will have already been resolved by the time of its first launch. Also, keep in mind that for both Jupiter rockets, the SRB configuration is identical to the shuttle, so there is already a body of data and engineering experience to rely on.

BTW, can someone provide me with an example of an existing multi-stage rocket with a solid fuel first stage?

4. Semantics! Seat belts were once not legally required for cars. That has nothing to do with the safety of the passengers. I've already seen an article stating that NASA relaxed safety requirements for the Ares I.

5. Direct uses the tested shuttle 4 segment SRBs, mounted on the sides. If necessary, the SRBs can be detached, and if the rocket already has sufficient altitude and velocity, it may actually continue without aborting. You do have a point about reaching orbit, but not about throttling down and shutting off engines for safety reasons.

As for throttle-capable engines, we know what engines are planed for used by both the Ares, Jupiter and EELV series rockets, so it's hardly a guessing game: the RL-10, J-2 and RS-68 series. Of those, only the RS-68 is currently proposed as a first stage engine for crew missions. See this article:

http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d315/050609rs68.html

"It will be running at a throttle setting of 101 percent until the final seconds when a throttle-down to 58 percent is started in preparation for shutdown."

I guess that answers the question.

6. I wasn't suggesting that the guidance and control systems would be the point of failure. I was talking about the possibility of the thrust vectoring mechanism being insufficient in some situations. If the mechanism is mechanically incapable of producing the needed thrust in the right direction, instrumentation and control won't matter.

For the record, I don't think the engineering challenges of the Ares I design are insurmountable. I just don't think it's worth it. I also don't thing the design will ever be as safe as the Jupiter series would be, regardless of how well they address issues with the design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/24/2008 08:38 pm

BTW, can someone provide me with an example of an existing multi-stage rocket with a solid fuel first stage?


The Minuteman ICBM.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/24/2008 08:45 pm

BTW, can someone provide me with an example of an existing multi-stage rocket with a solid fuel first stage?


The Minuteman ICBM.

Taurus, Athena, Scout, Peacekeeper
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/24/2008 08:59 pm
5. Direct uses the tested shuttle 4 segment SRBs, mounted on the sides. If necessary, the SRBs can be detached, and if the rocket already has sufficient altitude and velocity, it may actually continue without aborting. You do have a point about reaching orbit, but not about throttling down and shutting off engines for safety reasons.

Nit picking.... 
maybe someone else knows, but I don't think you can drop the SRB's.  They fit into a ball and socket joint at the intertank, and to drop them, you would have to force it off of the joint.  If you have a large thrusting force, you will not be able to remove them from the tank.  The booster sep motors (BSM's) work since the SRB's have a small enough thrust at burnout that they can push it off the joint.  The only way to cut off the SRB's is to unzip them along their sides with the pyro charges.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/24/2008 09:06 pm
I doubt such a crash would lead to as destructive explosion as in atmosphere. It's not like you ram a stage into another one at several meters per second, right? If anything, the collision would just rupture the tank(s), and in vacuum fuel from leaks would mostly evaporate and dissipate, not ignite.

If you rupture these tanks you will have an explosive decompression event.   The unmanned Apollo 5 S-IVB stage is the baseline for such an event at this sort of scale.

An explosive decompression event will mean you get high concentrations of pure LOX and LH2 interacting together throughout the area of the stage.   The act of aborting a crew away during such an accident will guarantee a substantial ignition-source for the LOX/LH2 mix.   If there wasn't a boom to that point, there sure will be then.

It would be a major event any way you wish to measure it.   I wouldn't want any astronauts anywhere near that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 11/24/2008 09:08 pm
5. Direct uses the tested shuttle 4 segment SRBs, mounted on the sides. If necessary, the SRBs can be detached, and if the rocket already has sufficient altitude and velocity, it may actually continue without aborting. You do have a point about reaching orbit, but not about throttling down and shutting off engines for safety reasons.

Nit picking.... 
maybe someone else knows, but I don't think you can drop the SRB's.  They fit into a ball and socket joint at the intertank, and to drop them, you would have to force it off of the joint.  If you have a large thrusting force, you will not be able to remove them from the tank.  The booster sep motors (BSM's) work since the SRB's have a small enough thrust at burnout that they can push it off the joint.  The only way to cut off the SRB's is to unzip them along their sides with the pyro charges.

I think that's the reason the Shuttle can't abort while the solids are firing. My understanding is, if the Orbiter tries to get off the ET during that phase of flight, it will hang up on the aft connection and encounter unsurvivable aerodynamic forces.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/24/2008 09:26 pm

2. the SRB's burn generally from the top to the bottom, due to the ignitor position at the top, and the large surface area star grain at the top. 

The SRB is a core burner, not an end burner. While the ignition takes place at the top, the entire core, top to bottom, ignites in a milisecond. The solid fuel burns from the center outward toward the casing, along the entire length of the core. The CG of the core does not significantly change as a result of propellant consumption.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/24/2008 10:11 pm
If anyone wants to play the comment recommendations game at the New York Times again, try number 25 at http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/11/24/opinion/24stern.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 11/24/2008 10:23 pm
5. Direct uses the tested shuttle 4 segment SRBs, mounted on the sides. If necessary, the SRBs can be detached, and if the rocket already has sufficient altitude and velocity, it may actually continue without aborting. You do have a point about reaching orbit, but not about throttling down and shutting off engines for safety reasons.

Nit picking.... 
maybe someone else knows, but I don't think you can drop the SRB's.  They fit into a ball and socket joint at the intertank, and to drop them, you would have to force it off of the joint.  If you have a large thrusting force, you will not be able to remove them from the tank.  The booster sep motors (BSM's) work since the SRB's have a small enough thrust at burnout that they can push it off the joint.  The only way to cut off the SRB's is to unzip them along their sides with the pyro charges.

That's correct. And even if you did manage to separate the SRBs, they would be completely uncontrolled and there would be no way to prevent catastrophic recontact (the BSMs are not nearly powerful enough to push the SRBs away if they're still under thrust). And even if by some miracle the SRB's didn't recontact, they would immediately sandblast the core with their highly abrasive exhaust.

Trying to separate the SRBs while thrusting is something you want to do only if you're really in a hurry to commit suicide *now*.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 11/24/2008 10:24 pm
5. Direct uses the tested shuttle 4 segment SRBs, mounted on the sides. If necessary, the SRBs can be detached, and if the rocket already has sufficient altitude and velocity, it may actually continue without aborting. You do have a point about reaching orbit, but not about throttling down and shutting off engines for safety reasons.

Nit picking.... 
maybe someone else knows, but I don't think you can drop the SRB's.  They fit into a ball and socket joint at the intertank, and to drop them, you would have to force it off of the joint.  If you have a large thrusting force, you will not be able to remove them from the tank.  The booster sep motors (BSM's) work since the SRB's have a small enough thrust at burnout that they can push it off the joint.  The only way to cut off the SRB's is to unzip them along their sides with the pyro charges.

I think that's the reason the Shuttle can't abort while the solids are firing. My understanding is, if the Orbiter tries to get off the ET during that phase of flight, it will hang up on the aft connection and encounter unsurvivable aerodynamic forces.

That's for a separation of the orbiter from the ET/SRB stack. The original discussion was about separation of the SRBs from the ET/whatever stack.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 11/24/2008 10:49 pm
If anyone wants to play the comment recommendations game at the New York Times again, try number 25 at http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/11/24/opinion/24stern.html

#4 c'mon all this is going to be a tough one to make the top but I think we can do it. Go Direct!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/24/2008 11:29 pm
If anyone wants to play the comment recommendations game at the New York Times again, try number 25 at http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/11/24/opinion/24stern.html

#4 c'mon all this is going to be a tough one to make the top but I think we can do it. Go Direct!

#8 right here, keep it up
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TranquillityBase on 11/24/2008 11:45 pm
Number #9 - Now on fist page of user recommendations!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 11/25/2008 02:48 am
F=ma

So you're saying that all 3M+ lb of SRB thrust is generated by the top dome pulling the rocket along, and that thrust force is not transferred up the stack from the bottom of the rocket? So the steel casing between the dome and the upper attach point is carrying all of the net forces to the ET, the rest of the SRB is in tension from being pulled along.

Somehow, that doesn't seem right to me...

Mark S.


More like a balloon I think... The interior of the SRB is under ~900 PSI of pressure on all interior surfaces, including the interior circumferential area of the casing walls and both ends, which puts the entire casing under tension pressure as that pressure is trying to escape...  just like a blown up balloon...  And like a balloon released to fly free, the pressure escapes out a single orifice and produces thrust by action/reaction...  but the balloon 'casing' itself is still under tension, albeit dropping tension as the gas escapes and the volume decreases, which lowers the pressure and thrust force and the volume expelled in a given time increment. 

So this pressure working on all interior surfaces tends to 'blow' the segments apart, but they are held by the assembly pins around the circumference of the field joints...  and the pressure is contained by the O-rings.  IF the pressure is NOT contained and escapes past the 0-rings, it can cause a catastrophic failure (Challenger).  Sorta like a popping balloon...

OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 11/25/2008 03:28 am

Why is that?


Another concern would be the mechanical latches to connect and disconnect the stages.   There wouldn't be any way to use frangible bolts for this and mechanical components are just not as reliable as explosives have proven to be.   So what happens if any of your latches fail to connect correctly?   You could end up with the lower stage/interstage 'wagging' around, connected only on a single latch while completely enclosing your upper EDS' engines.

Or, what happens if the latches fail to release correctly after only half the TLI has been accomplished?   You could end up with a hung-up stage wagging around under the stack while your crew is half-way to the moon.

Ross.

Well, I can certainly think of a way to use explosive bolts for seperation... have the 'docking clamps' (ring perhaps??) attached to the interstage with explosive bolts... when it's time for stage sep, blow the explosive bolts and the clamps/ring goes with the upper stage... or better yet, have the explosive bolts on the 'target' docking ring on the upper stage, so that the entire thing gets dropped with the lower stage...

Docking is still a risky proposition, but with proper alignment devices on the mating surfaces I'd think you could get the alignment almost dead on... we have similar 'docking' mechanisms on all new agricultural grain combines for mating the heavy 30 foot plus header to the combine feederhouse... You drive the machine up and 'bump' the header, and raise the hydraulic cylinders, which pushes tapered pins up into matching tapered holes on the mounting faces, and aligns latching pins on the lower face with matching lock holes on the header-- the pins snap in automatically locking the two together... manually connect an electronic bulkhead plug and a driveshaft and off you go... Such arrangements are also very typical on skidsteer equipment and front end loader buckets. 

The main problem is devising a simple, robust, and virtually foolproof docking latch... you don't want any repeats of Apollo 15's 'ram it home' docking method because your latches mysteriously won't lock!   OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/25/2008 03:53 am
If anyone wants to play the comment recommendations game at the New York Times again, try number 25 at http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/11/24/opinion/24stern.html

Now Recommended by 14 Readers :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/25/2008 04:29 am


2.  Solids burn inside out.  CG of the stage barely changes. It has no effect on the CG of the upper stage.  As for the whole vehicle, the casing of the SRM is still heavier than a liquid stage.

If you have a very tall rocket with a low center of mass, will the gimballing of the thrust for steering/ stability give your crew whiplash due to the long lever above the CoM?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 11/25/2008 08:23 am
If you have a very tall rocket with a low center of mass, will the gimballing of the thrust for steering/ stability give your crew whiplash due to the long lever above the CoM?

Most probably. Some argue this is why Saturn V supposedly had much more sideways vibration and "kick" than the Shuttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: randomly on 11/25/2008 02:47 pm
Another Nasa/Obama article with reader comments.
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/21695/?a=f
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/25/2008 04:23 pm
Okay, once again, attached is a comparison image hacked together from many other images posted in this forum and on there sites. I added the skirted 6-engine details to the Ares V and changed a few other details. Please note anything that needs correction.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/25/2008 04:46 pm
Okay, once again, attached is a comparison image hacked together from many other images posted in this forum and on there sites. I added the skirted 6-engine details to the Ares V and changed a few other details. Please note anything that needs correction.

Very nice pic, Matthew.

Of course, the Ares-V continues to defy comprehension. What are they thinking? At this rate, they will soon be moving to the ORION propulsion method just to get off the ground. No, not the CEV Orion, the nuclear-bomb propulsion ORION!  :D

On the bright side, SpaceX just had a successful full-blown test-stand run of the Falcon-9 first stage. Nine Merlin engines running all-out for over three minutes. Up next, the first Falcon-9 launch from the Cape sometime in Q1.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 11/25/2008 04:48 pm
In the Direct team's nomenclature, the J-232 with 5-seg boosters has often been referred to as the J-232 H (for Heavy), not J-232 A. (Although the Heavy designation has more frequently been used when referring to the stretched core with 5-seg SRBs, not the standard-length core with the 5-seg SRBs.)

Also, the J-232 with the 5-seg SRB's might be better described as a "future growth variant" than an "alternative proposal".

Just my 2 cents, FWIW.

(Your work looks pretty good to me.)


Please note anything that needs correction.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/25/2008 05:09 pm
Okay, once again, attached is a comparison image hacked together from many other images posted in this forum and on there sites. I added the skirted 6-engine details to the Ares V and changed a few other details. Please note anything that needs correction.

On a serious note, wouldn't the skirts on the Ares-V need to be a bit bigger than you have depicted in the side view? From the base view, you can see that the engines will be placed quite far from the centerline. Otherwise, the angle of the skirts would be too steep and cause excessive drag.

Also, wouldn't the thrust structure at the base need to be lengthened in order to get a reasonable truss design between the outboard engines (all 4 of them!) and the tank base? The base profile is no longer a circle with pods attached, it is two circles joined in the middle with very little overlap.

Finally, wouldn't such a large area be susceptible to extensive heating due to combustion backwash? Seems like that would be a serious problem. But what the hey, with NASA's unlimited budget and ever-receding target dates, anything is possible!  >:(
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 11/25/2008 05:18 pm
Okay, once again, attached is a comparison image hacked together from many other images posted in this forum and on there sites. I added the skirted 6-engine details to the Ares V and changed a few other details. Please note anything that needs correction.
I would lay your lovely picture out like this:
Shuttle, Ares I, Ares V, (gap), Shuttle, Jupiter 120, 232, (232H)
and it took me a second reading to understand how to read the blue text, because the second phrase is higher on the page than the first phrase.

ETA: one more thing, the 3rd engine on the 232s is not an addition; rather it is not fitted to the 120. Calling it a "planned addition" sounds like it might be a bolt-on that's being used to fix a problem; but the reverse is true. It's an intrinsic part of the design that is not needed on the 120 variant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/25/2008 05:33 pm
In the Direct team's nomenclature, the J-232 with 5-seg boosters has often been referred to as the J-232 H (for Heavy), not J-232 A. (Although the Heavy designation has more frequently been used when referring to the stretched core with 5-seg SRBs, not the standard-length core with the 5-seg SRBs.)

Also, the J-232 with the 5-seg SRB's might be better described as a "future growth variant" than an "alternative proposal".

Just my 2 cents, FWIW.

(Your work looks pretty good to me.)

   I wasn't sure about the designation, so I just chose something I thought was safe. The "H" suffix works just as well for me.

   I deliberately used only the five segment boosters because Ares I and V are already using five segments or more, so there's minimal duplication of the engineering work. The tank extension seems less desirable, as it requires more engineering work that hasn't already gone into the Ares rockets. It also strikes me as being more costly, although that's mainly a gut reaction based on what I've already read.

   "Future Growth Variant" seems okay. "Possible Heavy Variant" might be better. To each her/his own, though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/25/2008 05:47 pm
On a serious note, wouldn't the skirts on the Ares-V need to be a bit bigger than you have depicted in the side view? From the base view, you can see that the engines will be placed quite far from the centerline. Otherwise, the angle of the skirts would be too steep and cause excessive drag.

Also, wouldn't the thrust structure at the base need to be lengthened in order to get a reasonable truss design between the outboard engines (all 4 of them!) and the tank base? The base profile is no longer a circle with pods attached, it is two circles joined in the middle with very little overlap.

Actually, I think the skirt height matches what I say in an article pretty closely. But you're right about the engines. It appears that they're now hung lower to keep them away from the bottom of the rocket.

Finally, wouldn't such a large area be susceptible to extensive heating due to combustion backwash? Seems like that would be a serious problem. But what the hey, with NASA's unlimited budget and ever-receding target dates, anything is possible!  >:(

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me that they're INCREASING the surface area on the bottom of the rocket at a time when the Direct team has reduced their surface area.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/25/2008 06:04 pm
I would lay your lovely picture out like this:
Shuttle, Ares I, Ares V, (gap), Shuttle, Jupiter 120, 232, (232H)
and it took me a second reading to understand how to read the blue text, because the second phrase is higher on the page than the first phrase.

ETA: one more thing, the 3rd engine on the 232s is not an addition; rather it is not fitted to the 120. Calling it a "planned addition" sounds like it might be a bolt-on that's being used to fix a problem; but the reverse is true. It's an intrinsic part of the design that is not needed on the 120 variant.

Many elements of the layout and labeling aren't mine. I've been incrementally altering a base image that contained many of those elements.

I actually like the shuttle in the middle, although it makes the labeling a bit cluttered. I'll probably replace the blue text with something shorter and more informative. I can take the "planned additional" text out.

Is the text about the type of engines clear enough?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/25/2008 06:37 pm
Nice work Matthew!

I think it is better when it says about Ares I and Ares V upper stages:
"New Upper Stage"
"Another New Upper Stage".

This way people see that it is two new upper stages and there is lots of new components.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 11/25/2008 06:42 pm
If anyone wants to play the comment recommendations game at the New York Times again, try number 25 at http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/11/24/opinion/24stern.html

Now Recommended by 14 Readers :)


Now "Recommended by 24 Readers"!

It is now number 9 in the list of Readers' Recommendations but it is a long way to bit the first place that has 62 Readers' Recommendations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/25/2008 10:30 pm
If anyone wants to play the comment recommendations game at the New York Times again, try number 25 at http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/11/24/opinion/24stern.html

Now Recommended by 14 Readers :)


Now "Recommended by 24 Readers"!

It is now number 9 in the list of Readers' Recommendations but it is a long way to bit the first place that has 62 Readers' Recommendations.


In reading some of the other comments I have to say I am almost offended by some of their ideas...  I am not a believer in Direct, but I do have to say that I welcome Direct with open arms over being re-purposed to a "green revolution." 

To some extent the idea behind Direct applies equally well to people.  We have the technology today for cars to get 100+ mpg and "clean" power...  But I think people are unwilling to pay for the clean power or to drive something that looks more like an egg than a corvette.  Somehow people believe that if engineers work on it long enough, somehow we will defy the laws of physics, and come up with a "miracle."  With Direct, we have the technology to go directly to the moon, but somehow the goal became going to the moon in this "safer" way (in theory) with Ares. 

I'm still not sure about Direct, and in all honesty, I think we need new engines and new construction methods than ones devised in the 70's and 80's.  But I will concede that with NASA's budget new and fancy just doesn't make sense...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/25/2008 11:27 pm
jarmund,
You just became my "Target"!

My "Target Audience", that is :)  LOL

You instantly represent the 'undecided voice' that I really want to convince.   You aren't a supporter, but you don't seem to be in opposition either.   That makes your voice, perhaps, one of the most important of all.   Convincing "undecideds" like you, exactly as with a tight election campaign, may be the difference between winning or losing this for us.

So, would you be willing to take part in an open discussion, right here on this thread, where you present one concern at a time which you have with DIRECT, and where we can try to address it?

I don't want a stack of separate concerns all at once, because that will only make things "muddy".   But if you're willing, in whatever order you like, would you mention one concern and give me (us) a chance to address it and try to convince you.   Then we can move on and address your next concern, and the next, and the next.

And I'd like to do this in full view of everyone watching so we cover all the ground fully.

You game?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/26/2008 01:03 am

4. Semantics! Seat belts were once not legally required for cars. That has nothing to do with the safety of the passengers.

5. Direct uses the tested shuttle 4 segment SRBs, mounted on the sides. If necessary, the SRBs can be detached, and if the rocket already has sufficient altitude and velocity, it may actually continue without aborting. You do have a point about reaching orbit, but not about throttling down and shutting off engines for safety reasons.

As for throttle-capable engines, we know what engines are planed for used by both the Ares, Jupiter and EELV series rockets, so it's hardly a guessing game: the RL-10, J-2 and RS-68 series. Of those, only the RS-68 is currently proposed as a first stage engine for crew missions. See this article:

"It will be running at a throttle setting of 101 percent until the final seconds when a throttle-down to 58 percent is started in preparation for shutdown."

I guess that answers the question.

6. I wasn't suggesting that the guidance and control systems would be the point of failure. I was talking about the possibility of the thrust vectoring mechanism being insufficient in some situations. If the mechanism is mechanically incapable of producing the needed thrust in the right direction, instrumentation and control won't matter.

You don't need to educate me on launch vehicle nor the positives of Direct.  I was just pointing out where your points were wrong

4.  A blast shield has never nor never be a requirement

5.  Impossible.  the vehicle would never survive
again, no need to point out what engines can throttle.  Throttling back is not a method for dealing with a bad engine.  Shutting down is the only fix

6.  The thrust vectoring system of the SRB is capable of imposing 300K lb side load. There will always be sufficient control capability. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 11/26/2008 02:28 am
jarmund,
You just became my "Target"!

My "Target Audience", that is :)  LOL

You instantly represent the 'undecided voice' that I really want to convince.   You aren't a supporter, but you don't seem to be in opposition either.   That makes your voice, perhaps, one of the most important of all.   Convincing "undecideds" like you, exactly as with a tight election campaign, may be the difference between winning or losing this for us.

So, would you be willing to take part in an open discussion, right here on this thread, where you present one concern at a time which you have with DIRECT, and where we can try to address it?

I don't want a stack of separate concerns all at once, because that will only make things "muddy".   But if you're willing, in whatever order you like, would you mention one concern and give me (us) a chance to address it and try to convince you.   Then we can move on and address your next concern, and the next, and the next.

And I'd like to do this in full view of everyone watching so we cover all the ground fully.

You game?

Ross.

I'm game, but I would mention that as much as I do know, there is so much that I don't and some of it, you can't show (cost and such).  But sure, lemme think of a good (intelligent) question.

marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/26/2008 08:58 am

6.  The thrust vectoring system of the SRB is capable of imposing 300K lb side load. There will always be sufficient control capability. 

What if the rest of the rocket can only withstand 200k lb...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/26/2008 01:33 pm

4. Semantics! Seat belts were once not legally required for cars. That has nothing to do with the safety of the passengers.

5. Direct uses the tested shuttle 4 segment SRBs, mounted on the sides. If necessary, the SRBs can be detached, and if the rocket already has sufficient altitude and velocity, it may actually continue without aborting. You do have a point about reaching orbit, but not about throttling down and shutting off engines for safety reasons.

As for throttle-capable engines, we know what engines are planed for used by both the Ares, Jupiter and EELV series rockets, so it's hardly a guessing game: the RL-10, J-2 and RS-68 series. Of those, only the RS-68 is currently proposed as a first stage engine for crew missions. See this article:

"It will be running at a throttle setting of 101 percent until the final seconds when a throttle-down to 58 percent is started in preparation for shutdown."

I guess that answers the question.

6. I wasn't suggesting that the guidance and control systems would be the point of failure. I was talking about the possibility of the thrust vectoring mechanism being insufficient in some situations. If the mechanism is mechanically incapable of producing the needed thrust in the right direction, instrumentation and control won't matter.

You don't need to educate me on launch vehicle nor the positives of Direct.  I was just pointing out where your points were wrong

4.  A blast shield has never nor never be a requirement

I don't think you understand at all. I'm not the least bit interested in whether or not some official required a buffer region under the capsule. I'm interested in why such a buffer is a good or bad idea and whether there is sufficient need for it to ensure the safety of the Orion crew. Whether the buffer is a "requirement" is irrelevant to me.

5.  Impossible.  the vehicle would never survive
again, no need to point out what engines can throttle.  Throttling back is not a method for dealing with a bad engine.  Shutting down is the only fix

I'm now aware that it's impractical to detach the SRBs in an emergency, but my line of thinking was actually to be able to throttle up the main engines after the SRBs detach. Also, in the unlikely event that the SRBs run out prematurely, you can potentially throttle up the main engines to compensate (which I'll admit is also unlikely).

As for throttling down, my understanding was that it's often part of the shutdown process.

This brings us to shutting down SRBs, which is far more difficult that shutting down liquid rockets with turbo pumps. Also, you didn't address the fact that main engine start on the ground prior to ignition of the SRBs (like we do with the shuttle currently) allows us to detect and fix engine start issues without loosing the rocket. A single solid rocket first stage would always result in a loss of mission if the second stage failed to start. (Remember that the Jupiter 232, with its second stage, is not the comparable craft to the Ares I. The Jupiter 120 is.)

6.  The thrust vectoring system of the SRB is capable of imposing 300K lb side load. There will always be sufficient control capability. 

What if the rest of the rocket can only withstand 200k lb...

Agreed. A tall, skinny rocket needs more thrust to correct for bowing, which means more strain on a longer support structure with a smaller cross sectional area. A sufficiently poor structural design could make the rocket snap like a twig.

However, he did address my original concern: Can the SRB produce enough vectored thrust to correct for the bowing of the rocket?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/26/2008 01:43 pm
1.  I don't think you understand at all. I'm not the least bit interested in whether or not some official required a buffer region under the capsule. I'm interested in why such a buffer is a good or bad idea and whether there is sufficient need for it to ensure the safety of the Orion crew. Whether the buffer is a "requirement" is irrelevant to me.

2.   but my line of thinking was actually to be able to throttle up the main engines after the SRBs detach. Also, in the unlikely event that the SRBs run out prematurely, you can potentially throttle up the main engines to compensate (which I'll admit is also unlikely).

3.  As for throttling down, my understanding was that it's often part of the shutdown process.

4.  This brings us to shutting down SRBs, which is far more difficult that shutting down liquid rockets with turbo pumps.

5. Also, you didn't address the fact that main engine start on the ground prior to ignition of the SRBs (like we do with the shuttle currently) allows us to detect and fix engine start issues without loosing the rocket. A single solid rocket first stage would always result in a loss of mission if the second stage failed to start. (Remember that the Jupiter 232, with its second stage, is not the comparable craft to the Ares I. The Jupiter 120 is.)

6.  A tall, skinny rocket needs more thrust to correct for bowing, which means more strain on a longer support structure with a smaller cross sectional area. A sufficiently poor structural design could make the rocket snap like a twig.
However, he did address my original concern: Can the SRB produce enough vectored thrust to correct for the bowing of the rocket?

1.  A requirement is a "need".   Engineeringwise there is no need  for it. 

2.  Engines are already at 100% thrust

3.  Not for aborts or emergency shutdowns

4.  Just split the casings

5.  Still effects the EDS or EELV based crew launchers.

6.  The rate gyros prevent the bowing
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/26/2008 02:49 pm
1.  I don't think you understand at all. I'm not the least bit interested in whether or not some official required a buffer region under the capsule. I'm interested in why such a buffer is a good or bad idea and whether there is sufficient need for it to ensure the safety of the Orion crew. Whether the buffer is a "requirement" is irrelevant to me.

From which direction will shrapnel from a failing vehicle enter the capsule? Ed has pointed out several times that the payloads where alive, intact, and transmitting right up to impact with terra firma during both of the Titan solid failures and the Delta II solid failure.

The only shuttle solid failure did not produce shrapnel and the crew compartment remained intact right up until impact with the hydrosphere. It was a lack of an escape system that doomed the crew.

Somewhere in the video section is a great video of a minute man solid failure where the upperstages remained intact and undamaged. Grab some popcorn and watch it.

4.  Just split the casings

Or use the minute man thrust termination method and blow the nozzles off. (I am not saying that is a good idea)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/26/2008 03:36 pm
5. Direct uses the tested shuttle 4 segment SRBs, mounted on the sides. If necessary, the SRBs can be detached, and if the rocket already has sufficient altitude and velocity, it may actually continue without aborting. You do have a point about reaching orbit, but not about throttling down and shutting off engines for safety reasons.

Nit picking.... 
maybe someone else knows, but I don't think you can drop the SRB's.  They fit into a ball and socket joint at the intertank, and to drop them, you would have to force it off of the joint.  If you have a large thrusting force, you will not be able to remove them from the tank.  The booster sep motors (BSM's) work since the SRB's have a small enough thrust at burnout that they can push it off the joint.  The only way to cut off the SRB's is to unzip them along their sides with the pyro charges.

That's correct. And even if you did manage to separate the SRBs, they would be completely uncontrolled and there would be no way to prevent catastrophic recontact (the BSMs are not nearly powerful enough to push the SRBs away if they're still under thrust). And even if by some miracle the SRB's didn't recontact, they would immediately sandblast the core with their highly abrasive exhaust.

Trying to separate the SRBs while thrusting is something you want to do only if you're really in a hurry to commit suicide *now*.

I wonder if it's possible to modify an SRB so that it could be dropped mid-burn?

OK, so the problem is that the SRB has a higher thrust : weight ratio than the vehicle as a whole. The additional thrust is fed through the ball-and-socket joint (ie to accelerate the rest of the vehicle via the intertank), which prevents it from unlatching.


If that's the problem, does the question then become "how can you reduce the thrust : weight ratio of the SRB so that it is as low or lower than that of the vehicle as a whole". This will remove the thrusting force on the ball-and-socket joint (possibly replacing it with a dragging force instead, depending on remaining mass of SRB & core propellant).

Accepting that you can't just shut the thing down...

I presume that the thrust from the SRB is critically dependent on the exhaust nozzle. Could all or part of the nozzle be blown off (perhaps excluding the part which is nearest to the ET), or even perhaps the whole base of the SRB, nozzle & all? I can imagine this would sandblast & dramatically increase heating of the RS-68's and the bottom of the ET from SRB exhaust (!!), but if the SRB were then instantly detached, it would fall away below the rest of the vehicle.

Sounds like very much a desperation measure, but if you're already in a situation where you need to ditch the SRB to save the core & CEV, maybe it's a risk worth taking?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/26/2008 03:38 pm
Or use the minute man thrust termination method and blow the nozzles off. (I am not saying that is a good idea)


Oops, cross-posted (took me a while to compose my reply, and then found this).

I guess there aren't any really new ideas.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/26/2008 04:22 pm

4.  Just split the casings

Or use the minute man thrust termination method and blow the nozzles off. (I am not saying that is a good idea)

Bad idea because with or without the nozzle the SRB would continue to thrust. It would behave poorly and erratically, but as long as there is positive pressure inside the casing, the propellant will continue to burn and the SRB will continue to thrust.

The SRB depends on positive pressure inside the casing to continue operation - without it the propellant cannot burn. Split the casing open and the SRB will experiences a total loss of pressure, and the propellant will cease to burn. That stops all SRB operation - zero thrust.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/26/2008 04:35 pm
Matthew,
Jim has earned himself a reputation for brief answers here on the site, so I hope he doesn't mind me having a go at expanding on his comments a bit.

1.  I don't think you understand at all. I'm not the least bit interested in whether or not some official required a buffer region under the capsule. I'm interested in why such a buffer is a good or bad idea and whether there is sufficient need for it to ensure the safety of the Orion crew. Whether the buffer is a "requirement" is irrelevant to me.

Its an interesting question exactly what role distance and barriers make WRT spacecraft on top of launchers.

If you have the choice to mount a vehicle a few inches away from a stage, or a couple of dozen feet away, I think most people would say the further away the better.

And studies also confirm that the greater the distance between the dangerous parts of a vehicle (propellant and engines) and the spacecraft, the more time a LAS would have to activate before any potential blast-wave would reach the spacecraft.

Having said that, there are three cases where payloads have survived the initial explosion even when mounted directly on top of the booster.   In the case of the two major Titan explosions and the Delta-II, all roughly a decade ago, all three payloads were still fundamentally intact after the loss of the vehicle and all would have theoretically been survivable for a crew payload which simply had working parachutes.

Now, [i[Challenger[/i] is a different story.   Firstly, that crew vehicle broke up not because of an explosion, but because the Orbiter suddenly found itself no longer flying quite forwards into the airflow and the pressure tore it apart (all because the ET structure lost its pressurized strength after being punctured by the SRB 'wagging' around after burning through it's aft strut).

It doesn't help that Challenger was also engulfed in a fireball caused by the interaction of the LOX and LH2 during the ET's breakup, but that's largely because of the stupid location of the crew flying on the side of the ET at the time, right in the region of where such a flameball would form.

Now, a capsule mounted on top would never have been engulfed by that same flameball.   The flames themselves don't propagate forwards as efficiently as solid matter does.   The momentum of the spacecraft would have carried it clear of the flames, although probably not ahead of the resulting shockwave.

To get clear of that, you need a highly sensitive way to detect problems and trigger a fast getaway.   If an Apollo-style capsule had been located on top of the ET instead of an Orbiter on the side, it is believed that i) The aft SRB strut failure would have been a detection trigger.   ii) The sudden pressure loss within the LH2 Tank after it ruptured would have been a detection trigger.   iii) The shutdown of the SSME's would have been a detection trigger and iv) the later LOX tank rupture would also have been a detection trigger.   Any one of those triggers would have activated an Abort System if one had been available.   In the case of Challenger the shockwave from the LOX/LH2 burning was actually not very large at all and a LAS activated by any of those triggers should have been more than capable of getting a crew away from that accident safely.   Sadly though, the Shuttle never had such an Abort System in its design and that flaw became a very tragic mistake that day.

For Ares-I, mounting the Orion so close to the Upper Stage increases risk to crew simply by being in such proximity to all that highly explosive propellant.   But it still has a reasonably good chance of getting crew away before problems develop.

For Jupiter-120/232 there is no doubt at all that the extra ~10m (33ft) of distance provided by riding atop the long payload fairing creates and additional safety buffer.   It will offer slightly better odds for getting a crew away safely in the event of a problem.

There is also no question that with Jupiter's greater payload capacity a lot of the safety subsystems which have had to be removed because of Ares-I's lift performance limitations, could all be returned back into Orion's design -- dramatically increasing its safety figures for all missions.   That alone is one of the best arguments for switching from Ares to Jupiter.

There is also no doubt that in those occasions when a crew is not flying along with a secondary payload inside the Jupiter PLF, some 'ballast' mass must then be carried.   Such ballast could very well include a blast shield of some sorts, designed specifically to provide additional protection to crews above.

A number of designs have been proposed and each would seem fairly effective in this role.   There is no doubt that they would all provide some degree of protection from flames propagating forwards from an explosion below and would also offer protection against deadly shards of shrapnel aiming for the Orion, and they would also provide some protection against harmful shockwaves too.   All of those certainly help, although their exact usefulness still needs to be precisely determined.   Provisional estimates suggest that utilizing NASA's measurement, the Jupiter vehicles would get approximately ~500-700 point improvement in all their LOC figures when utilizing a Ballast Ballistic Shield.


Quote
2.   but my line of thinking was actually to be able to throttle up the main engines after the SRBs detach. Also, in the unlikely event that the SRBs run out prematurely, you can potentially throttle up the main engines to compensate (which I'll admit is also unlikely).

There's an extremely finite amount of fuel aboard, and while there will be some spare margin, it is small and won't offer much in the way of additional performance should any stage be notably below performance.

Throttling the main engines a few percent would makes virtually no difference compared to the massive thrust of the SRB's, so if they are working below prediction, the flight is just going to have issues and that's all there is to it.

If the under-performance is marginally small, then the reserve propellant would be used to burn the Core for a few seconds longer at the end of the flight.   2% of spare fuel used at that time can make a fairly big difference overall, so relatively small 'dispersions' are better handled that way.

Shuttle has a mode where the SSME's can be "pushed" above nominal power, from 104.5% regular to 109%, in order to provide a little extra ooomph to hopefully get the vehicle far enough that it can hopefully make a safe landing somewhere in Europe.   "Overclocking" a rocket engine isn't ever a good idea, but in a serious emergency situation it becomes one of those things that suddenly is "worth a try".   But because Orion is not aiming for a specific runway to land upon that capability simply isn't required for Orion missions, so there are no modes where you wish to push the engines in the same way.

Quote
3.  As for throttling down, my understanding was that it's often part of the shutdown process.

The only real way to shut a liquid rocket engine down is to close its fuel & oxidizer valves all the way.   That's essentially what throttling does anyway, so yes, that's right -- you close the valves, throttling the engine down and just keep doing that until both valves are closed and thrust drops to zero = Engine Shutdown.

Of course, it *is* more complex than that in practice (LOX must always be shut down first for example), but that's the basic principle.

Quote
4.  This brings us to shutting down SRBs, which is far more difficult that shutting down liquid rockets with turbo pumps.

You have to ride the SRB's until almost the regular separation point no matter what.   There are options to jettison side-mounted regular SRB's something like 10 seconds before the normal point if you *have* to.

Through that portion of the flight, your LAS simply better be good enough to get you away from the stack if things ever go wrong.   That's your best chance.

Now, if we recall Challenger the SRB's continued onwards in fairly random flight after the loss of the vehicle.   It would obviously be a really bad thing if the SRB's come chasing after the Orion once it has aborted off the top.   So the SRB's need to be stopped.

I haven't seen anything about what Ares-I plans to do in such a situation, but for DIRECT we are suggesting that the physical act of Abort should trigger the Range Safety charges on the SRB's.   Perhaps we could afford to wait maybe half a second after abort, or even a whole second (that needs to be analysed to see what is best) but we want those SRB's stopped in mid-air before they get a chance to come after our crew.

The Range Safety system on the SRB's consists of a Linear Charge mounted in the Transmission Tunnel running the entire length of the booster.   If that triggers, the case splits and all the force of the burning propellant is no longer producing forward thrust.   We just need to time that event so that the crew are already at a safe distance when they are commanded to let go.

We'd far rather lose a set of SRB cases than risk losing a crew in such a situation.


Quote
5. Also, you didn't address the fact that main engine start on the ground prior to ignition of the SRBs (like we do with the shuttle currently) allows us to detect and fix engine start issues without loosing the rocket. A single solid rocket first stage would always result in a loss of mission if the second stage failed to start. (Remember that the Jupiter 232, with its second stage, is not the comparable craft to the Ares I. The Jupiter 120 is.)

Correct.   We have a lot of built-in safety from this perspective.   Although Jim is also correct -- the J-232 also has air-start engines, so we aren't immune from this issue.

What we do have though, is engine redundancy and engine-out capability.   There are a number of situations where Jupiter flights are able to shutdown an RS-68 or a J-2X early and still safely proceed with the mission.   Some of our configurations could afford to do this as early as 45 seconds after liftoff and still make our intended orbit.   That's a really nice capability to have in your pocket.


Quote
6.  A tall, skinny rocket needs more thrust to correct for bowing, which means more strain on a longer support structure with a smaller cross sectional area. A sufficiently poor structural design could make the rocket snap like a twig.

Yes, that is one of the key control problems with Ares-I.

In particular the Upper Stage structure is a very strong pressurized vessel, and so too is the SRB structure.   But right smack in between is the thin, long and non-cylinrical unpressurized Interstage -- right at the point of maximum bending loads!

This arrangement has been of concern to a lot of NASA engineers since day 1.   For it to work, it's going to have to be immensely strong.


Quote
However, he did address my original concern: Can the SRB produce enough vectored thrust to correct for the bowing of the rocket?

Yes.   The Shuttle TVC has more than sufficient control authority for that sort of configuration (Core Stage + 2 SRB's).   They are having to design a new TVC specifically to handle the 5-segment thrust levels and the more finite control required by Ares-I's configuration.   We don't need that for Jupiter, unless we ever upgraded to 5-seg SRB's at some point in the future.   For now, the Shuttle SRB's TVC systems have been analyzed and they would be quite sufficient for both Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 configurations.

Hope that helps.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/26/2008 04:41 pm
I wonder if it's possible to modify an SRB so that it could be dropped mid-burn?

The idea has been studied many times over many years.

The general consensus of opinion seems to be that you need to ride them pretty-much all the way through until their performance tails off, which usually only occurs around ~90% of the way through their planned duration.

Until that point you're better off designing your abort system to get you away from them, rather than trying to get them away from you.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 11/26/2008 04:48 pm
Now, a capsule mounted on top would never have been engulfed by that same flameball.   The flames themselves don't propagate forwards as efficiently as solid matter does.   The momentum of the spacecraft would have carried it clear of the flames, although probably not ahead of the resulting shockwave.

<cut>

In the case of Challenger the shockwave from the LOX/LH2 burning was actually not very large at all and a LAS activated by any of those triggers should have been more than capable of getting a crew away from that accident safely. 

Just to add my 2c, I don't think there was any significant shockwave produced after the ET fell apart and propellants ignited (apart from the shockwave of the vehicle travelling supersonic, that is). It produced a fireball that rapidly mixed H2/O2 and expanded, but it was not a shockwave as much as rapid burning.

What did the orbiter in as you say is aerodynamic drag. The fireball just made it look much messier and explosive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/26/2008 05:29 pm
What we do have though, is engine redundancy and engine-out capability.   There are a number of situations where Jupiter flights are able to shutdown an RS-68 or a J-2X early and still safely proceed with the mission.   Some of our configurations could afford to do this as early as 45 seconds after liftoff and still make our intended orbit.   That's a really nice capability to have in your pocket.


I understand one proposal is for the blast shield to be a tank of water?

I guess in theory you could dump that water in an engine-out situation?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/26/2008 05:35 pm
There was a partial 'blast' which occurred when the LOX tank ruptured and spilled its contents into the conflagration.   The resulting 'energetic burn event' was sufficiently powerful to create a supersonic wave-front of its own, although still not a particularly massive one, and one which didn't propagate forwards very effectively.

But the Orbiter was already well into the process of being torn asunder by then, so it was really a secondary factor, though clearly not a pleasant one.

The question is still open for analysis whether the flameball/wave front would ever even have reached a capsule starting ~10m higher above the ET nose in the airflow which would also have retained its momentum.   If a capsule had been located up there, it is theoretically possible that it would have been far enough away from the ET that it might well have survived even without a LAS.

According to this section of the Rogers commission report (http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch3.htm#3.4), it looks to me like the rupturing of the LOX Tank would NOT have been sufficient to hit a capsule 10m ahead of it.

The Jupiter's design is intended to make even this sort of undesirable event survivable for any crew.   Distance between stage and spacecraft is one benefit, but the LAS is always going to be the main one.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/26/2008 05:43 pm
What did the orbiter in as you say is aerodynamic drag. The fireball just made it look much messier and explosive.

I think drag is the wrong word, it should be forces. Don't forget when the SRB tore free it also tore off part of a wing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 11/26/2008 05:47 pm
Now, a capsule mounted on top would never have been engulfed by that same flameball.   The flames themselves don't propagate forwards as efficiently as solid matter does.   The momentum of the spacecraft would have carried it clear of the flames, although probably not ahead of the resulting shockwave.

<cut>

In the case of Challenger the shockwave from the LOX/LH2 burning was actually not very large at all and a LAS activated by any of those triggers should have been more than capable of getting a crew away from that accident safely. 

Just to add my 2c, I don't think there was any significant shockwave produced after the ET fell apart and propellants ignited (apart from the shockwave of the vehicle travelling supersonic, that is). It produced a fireball that rapidly mixed H2/O2 and expanded, but it was not a shockwave as much as rapid burning.

What did the orbiter in as you say is aerodynamic drag. The fireball just made it look much messier and explosive.


Tossing in another couple cents . . . wasn't part of what made the whole thing look so dramatic the hypergols in forward RCS going up?  I've read that the red/orange secondary fireball after the initial flash and breakup was due to that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/26/2008 05:50 pm
I guess in theory you could dump that water in an engine-out situation?

Why ? You go from a simple water tank to a complicated tank that now has to be part of health monitoring system so it can be dumped in the off chance that the engine out occurs such that the weight shed in an off nominal situation that will snatch the mission from the jaws of a LOM? LOM != LOC. Besides if an engine is lost you have started down a fault tree path where it is more likely you need that blast shield than during a nominal mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/26/2008 05:58 pm
I guess in theory you could dump that water in an engine-out situation?

Its an option we have looked into.

In some engine-out situations you can make it to your intended orbit fine.

In others, you can still make orbit, but you need to reduce weight to do so successfully.   In those scenario's being able to dump 10-20mT of ballast water overboard can increase your "window" of opportunity to perform an ATO by quite a lot.

It needs a more detailed Trade Study than we have so far done, but we think the Trade Study is *definitely* worthwhile doing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/26/2008 06:23 pm
LOM != LOC.

Yeah, but LOM is still a lot of money spent for no result.


Quote
Besides if an engine is lost you have started down a fault tree path where it is more likely you need that blast shield than during a nominal mission.

Yeah, that had occured to me.



BTW, could the water be used to extinguish the SRB's in case of a fault? Would be an interesting plumbing job, though.

I wondered whether the pressure of the steam produced would cause more problems, but the casings take a lot of pressure when operating anyway.

I'd have thought the biggest concern would be that the operating SRB gets shut down, but that the fault with the other SRB somehow stops the water from getting through, so it keeps going. That's probably made the situation even worse.

Also, by making systems more complex, maybe you're just increasing the chance of a problem due to failure of an unnecessary system. You wouldn't want the plumbing to cause a failure of SRB separation!


I've seen other comments that in general there are techniques to shut down a solid booster, but that's it's rather a violent event. What would those techniques be?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/26/2008 06:33 pm
I forget which vehicle was fitted with them, but there was one designed with a series of 'vents' in the top of the SRB.   To 'stop' it, the covers over those vents were blown off.   At that point the SRB is producing force both upwards and downwards at the same time -- essentially canceling each other out.

But if you did that while still in close proximity to an External Tank, it would not be a good thing.   Just as bad on a Ares-I-like configuration with a stage & engine mounted directly above.

You could possibly force all the segments to separate too, though they would then all be very unpredictable after that and there's a slim chance one might somehow manage to go where you don't want it to...

Blowing the nozzle off makes a difference, but not a really big one, so again, you could still theoretically have the SRB chasing after the Orion, albeit a slightly slower one.


Your best bet is get the crew out of dodge and just terminate the entire vehicle behind them to guarantee nothing has sufficient momentum to catch 'em.   It's costly, but you seriously improve the odds of getting your crew back alive -- and that's always worth it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/27/2008 03:03 am
BTW, could the water be used to extinguish the SRB's in case of a fault? Would be an interesting plumbing job, though.

I don't think there's any way to predict where an SRB might need such water deployed around its structure, and as you say, plumbing suitable for all potential eventualities (assuming they are even possible at all) would add a huge amount of complexity and extra equipment -- which hurts performance, hurts costs and increases the number of systems which can go wrong, so don't necessarily offer any reliability advantages anyway.

My gut reaction is that if the boosters are having sufficiently serious problems to even consider using water to try to put it out, you have already crossed the line in the sand and your priority really needs to be getting the crew the hell out of there before the situation has the chance to develop into a far more serious failure.   That sounds like a much safer option to me.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/27/2008 03:54 am
How exactly is the water supposed to extinguish the SRB? 

BTW, could the water be used to extinguish the SRB's in case of a fault? Would be an interesting plumbing job, though.

I don't think there's any way to predict where an SRB might need such water deployed around its structure, and as you say, plumbing suitable for all potential eventualities (assuming they are even possible at all) would add a huge amount of complexity and extra equipment -- which hurts performance, hurts costs and increases the number of systems which can go wrong, so don't necessarily offer any reliability advantages anyway.

My gut reaction is that if the boosters are having sufficiently serious problems to even consider using water to try to put it out, you have already crossed the line in the sand and your priority really needs to be getting the crew the hell out of there before the situation has the chance to develop into a far more serious failure.   That sounds like a much safer option to me.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/27/2008 04:54 am
How exactly is the water supposed to extinguish the SRB?

Yeah, I can't even imagine how the plumbing would need to be arranged to offer any real benefits.

The best I can come up with is an array of nozzles all around each of the SRB joins, designed to spray large quantities of water onto a potential hole.   But the detection hardware for that, combined with the vast number of nozzles and valves is just mind-bogglingly complex to me.   And frankly, I'm not at all convinced that water would be of use at all, even if you could spray it directly onto the location of a failing SRB joint.

I think that by the time the water would start having any effect at all, the joint will already have failed sufficiently that you need to really be talking about aborts anyway.

I personally don't see any way for this to be a plausible option.   But still, that's one non-NASA persons view.   You never can be sure that some bright spark couldn't come up with something clever still.   So I can't 100% dismiss it.   I'm just 99.99% sure it can't be done :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/27/2008 03:05 pm
They could just have a competition where the winner gets strapped to the rocket and if something goes wrong they will blow very very hard.  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/27/2008 03:21 pm
Don't forget this was started from a discussion of methods for emergency detachment of the boosters, which was always going to be in relation to an abort of some sort.

Simplest just to leave them "held back" by the mass of the core (with RS68's throttled back or shut down?) and just fire up the LAS.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/27/2008 08:40 pm
Here's an off-the-wall idea for separating the SRBs in a hurry. Since we're talking about abort mode, there's still atmosphere to play with...

Option 1:
a) Frangible attachment point between the ET & SRB.
b) Explosive-deployed aero spolier to have the SRBs translate outwards, hopefully at the same time. These spoilers would disrupt the airflow over the SRB, causing them to 'pull' away from the vehicle. Yes they would be a bit big.
c) Blow them when they are far enough back.

Option 2: Similar to 1. As the lower attach points transmit most of the force, at detach command:
a) Frangible forward attachment point between the ET & SRB blows.
b) Solids ignite to push SRB away from ET at top.
c) The TVS directs exhaust top point SRB away from vehicle while lower frangible connection blows. All this in a few msec. Not that great or reliable, I know.

Option 3: Have the SRBs disposable, and make use of the nose cone to 'possibly' use a fire suppressant (like Halon), not water, to douse the reaction.

Option 4: Same as 2 but the nose cone falls away, exposing both ends of the SRB, so that (doubtful) the forces cancel and the SRB stops mid air. This idea is stupid, but put it on anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/27/2008 09:42 pm
Halon supresses fire by displacing air.  SRB's don't burn air; the oxidizer is a perchlorate salt built into the solid fuel.

Here's an off-the-wall idea for separating the SRBs in a hurry. Since we're talking about abort mode, there's still atmosphere to play with...

Option 1:
a) Frangible attachment point between the ET & SRB.
b) Explosive-deployed aero spolier to have the SRBs translate outwards, hopefully at the same time. These spoilers would disrupt the airflow over the SRB, causing them to 'pull' away from the vehicle. Yes they would be a bit big.
c) Blow them when they are far enough back.

Option 2: Similar to 1. As the lower attach points transmit most of the force, at detach command:
a) Frangible forward attachment point between the ET & SRB blows.
b) Solids ignite to push SRB away from ET at top.
c) The TVS directs exhaust top point SRB away from vehicle while lower frangible connection blows. All this in a few msec. Not that great or reliable, I know.

Option 3: Have the SRBs disposable, and make use of the nose cone to 'possibly' use a fire suppressant (like Halon), not water, to douse the reaction.

Option 4: Same as 2 but the nose cone falls away, exposing both ends of the SRB, so that (doubtful) the forces cancel and the SRB stops mid air. This idea is stupid, but put it on anyway.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/27/2008 10:57 pm
Well, that's why i said "(like Halon)"...to give an idea of what I was describing. Not sure if a gas exists that could put out something like that except a Class D fire extinguisher.

Water would just vaporize from the heat, unless you had something like 1000s of gallons...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 11/28/2008 12:11 am
robertross,

The SRB forward attach point to the ET carries all of the thrust (fore and aft) loads through a momentless joint, while the aft attach links prevent the SRB from rotating and translating w.r.t. the ET.  I'd posted the Shuttle SLWT System Definition Handbook in the Historical Spaceflight section on 17 Sept 08.  It has lots of details on these interfaces.

F=ma



...

Option 2: Similar to 1. As the lower attach points transmit most of the force, at detach command:

...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/28/2008 12:39 am
Sorry (and thanks), I guess I got them mixed up...and my brain coming back online (laughs) I now remember the cross-member through the ET...duh!

I suppose it isn't so important anyway...it's way OT for the Direct thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 11/28/2008 12:58 am
When will the rebuttal be ready?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: randomly on 11/28/2008 01:12 pm
Halon supresses fire by displacing air.  SRB's don't burn air; the oxidizer is a perchlorate salt built into the solid fuel.


This is not true. Halons don't work by displacing air.

Halons decompose at high temperatures to release halogen atoms that combine with active hydrogen atoms. This quenches the flame reaction even under conditions where oxygen, fuel, and heat are still present.

I don't think it would have much effect on SRB fuel though since it's fueled largely by an aluminum-oxygen reaction and there would be poor accessibility of the Halon to the propellant in any case.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/28/2008 02:00 pm
tnphysics,
It has been put on the back burner for a bit.   We have a couple of other docs in the pipeline which are much higher priority and which have a close deadline.   As soon as those are finished, we'll get back into the rebuttal.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 11/28/2008 02:04 pm
tnphysics,
It has been put on the back burner for a bit.   We have a couple of other docs in the pipeline which are much higher priority and which have a close deadline.   As soon as those are finished, we'll get back into the rebuttal.

Ross.

Hmmm.  Higher priority than rebutting NASA, close deadline.

Well, I'm glad you're talking to the transition team.

-Ian
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/28/2008 02:55 pm
Update to the comparison image. Minor changes to labeling and Ares V. Added J-232SH. Comments?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/28/2008 02:57 pm
It amazes me that we are talking about trying to put out what is really a metal fire that has a built in oxidizer. The only way that fire will exstinguish is if the pressure drops low enough (unzip the case) for the fire to go out on its own.

You know my mother always told me to never dump water on a metal fire. The only thing injecting water into a burning SRB is going to do is create steam raising the pressure inside the SRB. It will stop the SRB dead only because the SRB will unzip at its weakest point in an uncontrolled manner.

Short f unzipping the SRB the only way I can think of is to blow the nozzle and dome off the thing in a controlled manner.

Everyone is acting like you have a challenger type failure that you have time to put out the SRB and detach it. How many solids have actually failed that way? The best approach is fire the LAS and then unzip the SRB's.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/28/2008 03:07 pm
The only thing that will stop the thrusting is to unzip the casing. The SRBs REQUIRE positive pressure to maintain thrust. Unzip the casing - pressure drops to ambient - thrusting stops dead. Even then, the propellant will continue to burn, because the oxidizer is mixed in with the fuel; it will continue to burn slowly, like a smoldering fire. It wont go out until it is completely burned up. But once the thrusting is stopped, the SRBs no longer pose any danger to the spacecraft that has gotten away on the LAS. Dropping water on the smoldering SRB could break the water down to its molecular components (depending on the temperature) and only add Hydrogen and Oxygen to the fire - bad idea.

Job number 1 is to detect the approaching anomaly, jettison the entire launch vehicle, ignite the LAS and get away. By the time the launch vehicle anomaly actually occurs, the spacecraft will already be a safe distance away and accelerating. So long as the SRB casings have been unzipped, they become a non-issue, whether or not they are still attached to the Jupiter core vehicle. In fact, it is better if they remain attached, because then there is only a single object that needs to be kept track of, assuming the ET doesn't explode, not three. Even if it does explode, it will pose no danger to a spacecraft that is already rapidly accelerating away. And if the problem was actually internal to the Jupiter core, then shutting down the RS-68s suddenly cause the partially full ET to become a huge mass drag on the SRBs, effectively slowing the core's ascent until the RSO blows the whole thing up.

Finding ways to put out the fire of the SRBs is not the way to ensure the safety of the spacecraft in an abort situation. An effective LAS and abort procedure is the way to go. Let the RSO deal with the rapidly decelerating Jupiter core until he or she executes the destruct command.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/28/2008 03:16 pm
Update to the comparison image. Minor changes to labeling and Ares V. Added J-232SH. Comments?

Myself, I wouldn't mention the SH variant.   While its one of the possible paths, it is not a likely one.   By including that, it seems to be trying to 'push' that config when we really don't want to do that -- we would much rather spend the development money, not on the LV's, but on a Depot and on better in-space propulsion tech.   Using the same money that way buys you far more bangs for the bucks.

The key behind DIRECT has always been about keeping LV development costs down to a minimum.   The SH breaks that mold.

IMHO, I would show the regular J-120 for supporting ISS, the regular J-232 for supporting both Lunar and Mars, and then a single 'upgrade option' showing a 5-seg/stretched tank config. to demonstrate one possible upgrade route.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/28/2008 03:22 pm
Regarding SRB's during an abort, if you wanted to save the SRB's for investigation later, but guarantee they don't chase after the Orion, would it be possible to jam their TVC's over to full extent and make them just "spiral" around in roughly the same area until they burn out?

I wonder if that would be enough to guarantee keeping them clear of the Orion.

If not, the current plan to split the cases immediately after any aborts occur is the only sensible way to go whenever you begin having any serious problems.   IMHO, it is *always* going to be better to err on the side of crew safety when you begin to detect any problems with a human launch vehicle.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/28/2008 03:23 pm

IMHO, I would show the regular J-120 for supporting ISS, the regular J-232 for supporting both Lunar and Mars, and then a single 'upgrade option' showing a 5-seg/stretched tank config. to demonstrate one possible upgrade route.

Ross.

... a single 'upgrade option' showing a 5-seg/stretched tank config. to demonstrate one possible upgrade route.

[aded by me] ... based on existing components (existing ET and already under development 5-seg SRB). The point is don't develop anything "new" for the LV. Put the additional funding into enhansing the architecture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/28/2008 03:28 pm
I wouldn't even include the upgrade versions now. I would mention that it could be upgraded, but I think any mention of a 5 seg or 5.5 seg could be used against you.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 11/28/2008 03:38 pm
Nice images.  What I feel is lacking is there should be a Delta IV or IVH to show the engine migration, and in a moment of whimsy, the SIVB for the J=2 Migration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/28/2008 04:24 pm
I wouldn't even include the upgrade versions now. I would mention that it could be upgraded, but I think any mention of a 5 seg or 5.5 seg could be used against you.

Good point.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 11/28/2008 06:57 pm
I wouldn't even include the upgrade versions now. I would mention that it could be upgraded, but I think any mention of a 5 seg or 5.5 seg could be used against you.

Good point.

(* Sigh! *)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 11/28/2008 07:14 pm
I am under the impression that on J-232 the center motor is closer to SRB's than any of Ares V motors. Is this deemed to be a problem?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/28/2008 07:41 pm
sandrot,
The plume for the 4-seg SRB is a bit smaller than the 5-seg on Ares-V, so there is less impingement.   And the distance between the closest points is sufficiently far enough away not to cause any serious problems.

On Jupiter-232 there is approximately 3.32m (130.7") of clearance between the nozzle exits at the closest point (205.7" from SRB C/L to RS-68 nozzle wall).

Amazingly enough, this 4-seg config seems to have about 6" more clearance between the engines than the current Ares-V design has with the new baseline "5.5-seg two clusters of three main engines w/ huge fairings" arrangement.   The close-point on the Ares-V is not the engines in the middle though -- it's the ones on the edges which are actually closer to those SRB's -- and there's 124" of clearance there.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/28/2008 07:48 pm
I am under the impression that on J-232 the center motor is closer to SRB's than any of Ares V motors. Is this deemed to be a problem?

No it isn't. The main problem is the shock wave caused by the ignition of the SRBs after the RS68s are at full power. It potentially could cause damage to the RS68 exhaust nozzle. DIRECT solves this problem by a modification to the existing MLP by having three exhaust chambers; one for each SRB and one for the three RS68s. When the SRBs ignite, the shock wave is confined and the RS68s are insulated from it. Once liftoff has occurred, this shock wave is already dissipated and is no longer a problem.

The Ares-V still has this problem to deal with and so far we've seen no mitigation efforts. Presumably, because they would need to build an entirely new MLP, NASA would take a similar approach to isolating the SRB ignition shock wave to what DIRECT has done.

Answering the unspoken question, once aloft there is a minute loss of thrust from Jupiter's center engine, less than 1%, while the SRB's are thrusting because of plume impingement. Ares-V will have this same problem, but with the outer engines, which are closer to the SRBs in its current configuration than the two center engines. There is no loss of thrust from the Jupiter's outer RS68s. During this time, Jupiter's RS68s are providing a small percent of the lifting power of the overall stack, while by far the vast amount of thrust is from the SRBs, which are essentially unaffected by the RS68s. Once the SRBs are jettisoned, the RS68s come into their own and the plume impingement on both Jupiter's center engine and Ares-V's outer engines from the SRBs is gone. All the RS68s will run at full power.

So the difference in plume impingement between Ares-V and Jupiter-232 is that it affects four of the Ares-V's six engines, and only one of the Jupiter-232's three engines; 2/3 of Ares's engines vs. 1/3 of Jupiter's engines.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/29/2008 12:05 am
{snips}
The only thing that will stop the thrusting is to unzip the casing. The SRBs REQUIRE positive pressure to maintain thrust.

Finding ways to put out the fire of the SRBs is not the way to ensure the safety of the spacecraft in an abort situation. An effective LAS and abort procedure is the way to go. Let the RSO deal with the rapidly decelerating Jupiter core until he or she executes the destruct command.

Okay, maybe one more comment and I will let this one go. When you mentioned "The SRBs REQUIRE positive pressure to maintain thrust"...it seemed clear enough: Drop the throat.

If you drop the throat, it can't build pressure in the center chamber, so 'no' thrust (well there will be of course, but much less). The throat is one of the stronger elements because it has to hold back the full thrust of the SRB, and if you cut it loose, it wants to fall away. The vehicle slows, giving the crew a safe distance to escape.

Possible?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 11/29/2008 12:58 am
I wouldn't even include the upgrade versions now. I would mention that it could be upgraded, but I think any mention of a 5 seg or 5.5 seg could be used against you.

Good point.

(* Sigh! *)

I think the advantage to DIRECT is to look for other ways to go to Mars without building a monster 6 engine, 5.5 seg rocket. Instead of building the big boy...fuel depots and other advanced concepts could be used instead.
In the 60s we built the Saturn V because it could get the job done in the allotted time frame. I am sure if given a longer time, Von Braun could have thought of more progressive ways to get to the Moon and Mars (space stations, fuel depots, etc).
It is time to think outside the box, build a heavy lifter, but not a monster lifter (there is a difference).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 11/29/2008 03:06 am
I found this article:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zzs.html

They talk about using the same shuttle parts like the Direct team, inline configuration using RS68 engines.  They only thing they thought of doing differantly is having the cargo side mounted like Shuttle-C.  I think Direct picks the best of Shuttle and EELV's and creates something better than the sum of the parts.

The shuttle is good, but has been too expenisive to fly.  How much downmass do we really need?  It is 2008, and we should have learnt from Apollo and Shuttle.  We were promised 50 flights/year, we were luckly if we 6-10.  Apollo was cancelled after how many flights?   One of the reason--cost.  Now you want to create 2 vicheals to replicate Apollo?  We could not afford Apollo with 1 launch vicheal, and now someone wants to try and create Apollo II with 2 vicheals but a smaller budget.  What do you think will happen--either the schedule will keep on getting shifted to the right or it will be cancelled.  Congress wants to see something flying soon, people hesitate to vote for a program that is still 4 congressional elections away.  Now if Direct is flying in 2012/2013...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/29/2008 03:06 am
In the late 60's and early 70's von Braun and others like George Mueller were working on the next generation of Lunar architecture already -- what would later be a part of the Apollo Applications program.   Can you guess what they wanted to do to upgrade Apollo?

That's right -- they wanted a two launch architecture consisting of a pair of ~110mT Saturn-V launches where one flight lifted a fully fueled S-IVB to LEO and then the other lifted an advanced LM and a modified CSM with a four-person crew ready to perform an EOR-LOR profile mission.   I know I've seen something like that somewhere...   :)


They also defined an S-IVB based Propellant Depot which would be usable for both increasing the performance of Lunar missions and also for use in the future Mars missions too.

While we wanted a Depot as an upgrade option to that point, it was von Braun and Mueller's papers which really opened our eyes to the potential of the Depot option.   They made it amazingly clear that a Depot was not just important, but is actually more likely to be a critical element if we ever wanted the future to take the human race beyond the Earth-Moon system.

While we came up with similar ideas on our own without ever reading their works in these fields, when we were eventually introduced to the relevant documentation from that era it was truly wonderful -- and *very* humbling -- to realize we were covering much of the same paths which had been trodden by such profound sources three decades earlier.   It also doesn't hurt at all to know that your own ideas are essentially the same as ones which were also being proposed by someone that well respected.   It doesn't hurt at all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 11/29/2008 03:40 am
Read this article:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/262/1.

http://altairvi.blogspot.com/2008/02/evolution-of-earth-moon-transportation.html

At least the great von Braun   knew his limitations in terms of price and schedule.  Don't you think that he wanted NOVA?  You bet.  But the hit to schedule, risks, etc. was too high so he went another way.  Cannot NASA see risk to schedule and cost, etc?  The great Dr. might have wanted Ares V, but not at the cost that is not sustainable.

As you can see cost was an important thing then, that Dr. Griffen has ignored....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/29/2008 10:33 am
While we wanted a Depot as an upgrade option to that point, it was von Braun and Mueller's papers which really opened our eyes to the potential of the Depot option.   They made it amazingly clear that a Depot was not just important, but is actually more likely to be a critical element if we ever wanted the future to take the human race beyond the Earth-Moon system.


Ross,

is this stuff available online. Can you provide a link?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 11/29/2008 01:36 pm
The cat's out of the bag...

http://www.space.com/spacenews/spacenews_summary.html#BM_3
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/29/2008 02:18 pm
The cat's out of the bag...

http://www.space.com/spacenews/spacenews_summary.html#BM_3

I wonder if Chris, or anyone else here at NASAspaceflight has a copy of that document they refer to so we can dissect it like we love to do here (on another thread, of course)  ;) I can post a link to the page with many of the questions (including costs, employees, ECT) but though we didn't need to link outside sources when we could do it ourselves.

What caught my attention in the article was:

"Additionally, the questionnaire requests that NASA "[e]stimate the feasibility of designing a resized Orion capsule that could be launched by international launch vehicles such as the [European] Ariane 5 or the [Japanese] H2A."

I'm sure they're just proding as feasability, not actual intention. I haven't had my coffee yet, but would they really need to resize Orion? I mean, if they could make it BIGGER, that has benefits, but not at this stage in the game.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 11/29/2008 02:18 pm
The cat's out of the bag...

http://www.space.com/spacenews/spacenews_summary.html#BM_3

The article says

Quote

Precourt [an ATK vice president] said he was confident the transition team ultimately would reach the same conclusion as NASA, namely that Ares offers the best combination of cost, safety, reliability and performance, and that staying the course is the best way to minimize the gap between the shuttle and its replacement.

Dropping Ares 1 in favor of Atlas 5, Delta 4 or some other rocket would only lengthen that gap, he said. "Ares passed [preliminary design review] several months ago," Precourt said. "Alternatives that could be brought to the table today don't get a pass on that because NASA requirements are going to need to be met ..." Preliminary design review, he said, "is not a couple-of-months effort. It puts Ares a few years ahead of any alternatives at this point."

That conclusion is illogical.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/29/2008 02:23 pm
Also the fact that PDR was a joke...did they get that message??

Direct can make it happen. Did they get that message? I'm sure they did ;)

Politics again. I still hope 'change' means acting on the proper information, not bowing down to pressure.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 11/29/2008 02:47 pm
I think a couple of things may happen in the next 6 months:

1.  Ares I is cancelled.
2.  Orion is told to fly on EELV.
3.  COTS gets $500 million for COTS-D for 2 companies.
4.  Ares V changes into Direct with an IOC of 2015/2016.
5.  Shuttle gets extended to 2012--2 flights/year.
6.  NASA gets a budget boost--but to do new things.
7.  NASA requests 20 million a year for new prizes.

This would do a number of things:

1.  Free up money for earth science.
2.  O's Admin. has a fair chance of a moon before he leaves office in 2016.
3.  Space station is not held hostage to russian launchers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 11/29/2008 02:59 pm
The last paragraph is very tantalizing:

"Obama's NASA transition team also appears to be interested in a number of specific projects that have more or less languished in recent years. Among those projects are: the Deep Space Climate Observatory;, a mothballed Earth-observing satellite formerly known as Triana; agency efforts to catalog asteroids and comets that could threaten Earth; and the harnessing of space-based solar power for use on Earth."

If they really go there, SSP would be the best news for the space industry in a long time.  Does anyone have access to the original document, or have any idea about the real potential for SSP to go ahead in the current administration?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 11/29/2008 03:04 pm
I think a couple of things may happen in the next 6 months:

1.  Ares I is cancelled.
2.  Orion is told to fly on EELV.
3.  COTS gets $500 million for COTS-D for 2 companies.
4.  Ares V changes into Direct with an IOC of 2015/2016.
5.  Shuttle gets extended to 2012--2 flights/year.
6.  NASA gets a budget boost--but to do new things.
7.  NASA requests 20 million a year for new prizes.

This would do a number of things:

1.  Free up money for earth science.
2.  O's Admin. has a fair chance of a moon before he leaves office in 2016.
3.  Space station is not held hostage to russian launchers.


Well I can't believe your first list would ever happen...it could make too much sense. ;)
Although the timeframe to get Direct to loft Orion could happen.

I can't agree with your last 3 posts though...
1. The amount of money saved won't be that much overall based on the above.
2. Unlikely 2016 will be realized for landing on the moon unless you give it a real shot in the arm.
3. We would still need the Russians after 2012.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 11/29/2008 03:21 pm
[...]

If they really go there, SSP would be the best news for the space industry in a long time.  Does anyone have access to the original document, or have any idea about the real potential for SSP to go ahead in the current administration?

SBSP has been widely discussed in this forum and we know it's not going anywhere, for a lot of technical and economical reasons.

It has been pushed a little by the military though.

Please see:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9660.0
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10233.0
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13499.0

Don't be baited by gov's greenwashing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 11/29/2008 09:35 pm
The cat's out of the bag...

http://www.space.com/spacenews/spacenews_summary.html#BM_3

The article says

Quote

Precourt [an ATK vice president] said he was confident the transition team ultimately would reach the same conclusion as NASA, namely that Ares offers the best combination of cost, safety, reliability and performance, and that staying the course is the best way to minimize the gap between the shuttle and its replacement.

Dropping Ares 1 in favor of Atlas 5, Delta 4 or some other rocket would only lengthen that gap, he said. "Ares passed [preliminary design review] several months ago," Precourt said. "Alternatives that could be brought to the table today don't get a pass on that because NASA requirements are going to need to be met ..." Preliminary design review, he said, "is not a couple-of-months effort. It puts Ares a few years ahead of any alternatives at this point."

That conclusion is illogical.

Ares I didn't pass PDR, it passed a gerrymandered sham of one where it failed more than it passed. TO was omitted on purpose and Orion, its payload, has not been finalised because of the LV. It's one big joke and one I hope Obama will end. There are better more productive ways to spend MSFC's and ATK's time and money and DIRECT HLV, along with an EELV CLV, is it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 11/29/2008 10:40 pm
How can Ares be ahead when the OSP team reckoned that manrating an EELV would only take a couple of years? That leaves us at about 2012 latest, still well ahead of Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/29/2008 10:50 pm
is this stuff available online. Can you provide a link?

Some are, some aren't.

I would suggest NASA Technical Reports Server (ntrs.nasa.gov) as your first port of call.  Search for words like cryogenic, propellant, refueling, Saturn-V, Apollo, mission profile and you'll find a whole stack of relevant papers including many by von Braun etc.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/29/2008 10:51 pm
How can Ares be ahead when the OSP team reckoned that manrating an EELV would only take a couple of years? That leaves us at about 2012 latest, still well ahead of Ares.

They feel they can say it because they know ULA/LM/Boeing will be too scared to come out and call them on the claim.

Don't forget that the contract for the CEV made all those companies shut up after ESAS.   Now, the extremely lucrative contracts for the Ares-V Core, the Ares-V EDS and especially the LSAM are all still to be awarded.

They're concerned that if Griffin somehow managed to survive the transition, they don't want to totally screw their chances to compete for those contracts by p*$$ing off NASA's Administrator now.

When Griffin is gone I think you'll see a lot of these people talking about these options.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/29/2008 11:24 pm
I think a couple of things may happen in the next 6 months:

1.  Ares I is cancelled.
2.  Orion is told to fly on EELV.
3.  COTS gets $500 million for COTS-D for 2 companies.
4.  Ares V changes into Direct with an IOC of 2015/2016.
5.  Shuttle gets extended to 2012--2 flights/year.
6.  NASA gets a budget boost--but to do new things.
7.  NASA requests 20 million a year for new prizes.

This would do a number of things:

1.  Free up money for earth science.
2.  O's Admin. has a fair chance of a moon before he leaves office in 2016.
3.  Space station is not held hostage to russian launchers.

My concern there is there would still be a 5-6 year long gap for anyone involved in the Shuttle workforce, and that means lots of layoffs.

We're proposing Jupiter-120 is prioritized as the Orion launcher to get that 'gap' down to just 2 years.   Halving that gap will result in a lot more jobs being retained.


Also, are you suggesting Lunar IOC by 2015/16?   I don't think that's achievable because the LSAM is going to take longer than that to develop.   An Apollo-10 style mission should be possible in 2016.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MichaelF on 11/30/2008 03:35 am
What makes anyone think that, if Ares gets cancelled, DIRECT will be on the table?

Much more likely is NASA (Congress, rather) going with a "cheap" and limited capabilty program to service ISS.

They aren't going to Budget all that money a second time. If Ares goes down, DIRECT isn't going to get its day in the Sun.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 11/30/2008 03:56 am
What makes anyone think that, if Ares gets cancelled, DIRECT will be on the table?

Much more likely is NASA (Congress, rather) going with a "cheap" and limited capabilty program to service ISS.

This still won't be so bad - NASA will finally do at least something reasonably cheap. $100000 tool bag. Is it golden or what? I bet when SpaceX will have astronauts, their tool bags will be far cheaper.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 11/30/2008 08:13 am
$100000 tool bag. Is it gonden or what? I bet when SpaceX will have astronauts, their tool bags will be far cheaper.
This cost doesn't surprise me, this is not a few tools you buy at the corner shop, you have to design it, to build it, you have to pay all the engineers (and all the employees), the buildings, the electricity bill, trainings of the astronaut, and iterate quite a few times if it doesn't work, etc ...
Well, that's the way engineering works.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/30/2008 11:57 am
There's a few points I'd like to make here.

WRT DIRECT not being on the table when (not if) Ares is canceled:

1. The VSE is still the law. Unlike previous efforts to send Americans back to the moon, Congress has actually obligated itself, by law, to send NASA back to the moon. Yes it is true that Congress could change the law and remove that requirement, but anyone who knows anything about Congress knows that it is at least twice as hard to change a law as it is to make one. And getting consensus to actually make a law is hard, really hard. So that is unlikely at best.

2. In terms of closing the gap, DIRECT, which is the ONLY potential launch architecture that is VSE/Lunar capable (see #1), is still the best way to return American crews to orbit on an American launcher. Both the Atlas-V and the Delta-IV are capable of lifting Orion to LEO, but neither can take us beyond that.

3. In the case of all three potential launch vehicles, Atlas, Delta and Jupiter, the long pole is the man rated engines. In all three cases the launch vehicle, minus the engines (RD-180, RL-10 or RS-68), will be ready before the engines are. Remember that both the Atlas and Delta have to man rate two engines, the RD-180/RL-10 (Atlas) and the RS-68/RL-10 (Delta), while the Jupiter only needs to man rate a single engine (RS-68).

4. For the entire effort, Orion remains the last element that will be available. All three launch vehicles, Atlas-V, Delta-IV and the Jupiter-120, will be fully man rated and operational long before Orion is ready to fly on any launch vehicle.

5. President-Elect Obama has stated that he supports the manned lunar goal. He may reschedule it based on fiscal constraints, but he has no intention to cancel it. He has clearly stated his intention to keep American space capability far ahead of the Russians and the Chinese by implementing the basic tenants of the VSE. He'll put his own stamp on it, to be sure, but we are going back to the moon - and neither Atlas nor Delta can get us there for less money than DIRECT.

6. The 2 main problems with the Ares architecture are (1) the hugely unanticipated technical challenges of using a SRB for a manned first stage and (2) building two completely different rockets to get us to the moon, the Ares-I and the Ares-V. Both EELVs repeat mistake number (2). If we were to go with either one, we would be in that same situation of needing to develop another brand new and completely different heavy lifter to compliment the LEO version, because neither existing EELV can get us to the moon. That would be exceptionally expensive, because that cost would also need to include designing and building another completely different launch infrastructure for it. With DIRECT, on the other hand, no new rocket is needed, just an upper stage, and (1) its engine, the J-2X, is already under development and (2) its design is based solidly on the Centaur upper stage that has been flying for more than 40 years. Both versions of the Jupiter, the Jupiter-120 and the Jupiter-232, share all the same manufacturing and launch infrastructure, saving the DIRECT architecture, and the nation, huge sums of money.

7. Seeing as we are going back to the moon (#1 above, schedule TBD), the DIRECT architecture, using the Jupiter launch vehicle, can get us there for far less cost than either the Atlas or the Delta, so if Congress is going to be as cost conscious as you indicate, then DIRECT is the way to go.

WRT the $100,000 tool bag, it needs to be remembered that these are not ordinary tools that are massed produced by the million. These tools are custom designed to work in zero-g, which is extremely difficult to do. There may be only a handful of each tool made, not 2 or 3 million. At $100,000, the tool bag and its contents are a bargain. Going to and working in space is, by definition, exceptionally expensive. Take everything you know about the cost of things and multiply it times at least a thousand, and you might get to a place where space-based "cheap" tools are made.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 11/30/2008 01:38 pm
$100000 tool bag. Is it gonden or what? I bet when SpaceX will have astronauts, their tool bags will be far cheaper.
This cost doesn't surprise me, this is not a few tools you buy at the corner shop, you have to design it, to build it, you have to pay all the engineers (and all the employees), the buildings, the electricity bill, trainings of the astronaut,

I believe $100000 was attached purely to the bag, astronaut training not included.

I somehow doubt that nuts and bolts on ISS are using non-standard dimensions. Sure, I would buy some more expensive, but more carefully manufactured and more durable tools, but I would do buy them from conventional tool suppliers. I would also test whether they work ok in a vacuum chamber.

Quote
and iterate quite a few times if it doesn't work, etc ...

And in the end, after all this work, they didn't work. Grease tool ruptured and poured grease all over the bag. Good job, yeah...

Sorry, I just don't believe you. I think it's just an example of NASA being incapable to control costs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/30/2008 01:47 pm

This still won't be so bad - NASA will finally do at least something reasonably cheap. $100000 tool bag. Is it golden or what? I bet when SpaceX will have astronauts, their tool bags will be far cheaper.

Quit with the koolade.  Spacex is not the end all.   
Spacex hasn't put a tool bag in orbit or anything useful yet
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rob23 on 11/30/2008 01:51 pm
>Clongton: Remember that both the Atlas and Delta have to man rate two engines, the RD-180/RL-10 (Atlas) and the RS-68/RL-10 (Delta), while the Jupiter only needs to man rate a single engine (RS-68).

Typical NASA nonsense.  Our national security already depends on these engines.  They work, reliably enough, what do you want to 'man-rate' there?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/30/2008 02:20 pm
Purely as a side-effect of some recent work we've been doing we have a new set of comparison manifests which have been put together.   I thought I'd post them here for everyone to view.

Note that the DIRECT manifest assumes an upper-bound of the same budget as CxP expects to use supporting Ares.   In practice, the near-years (thru ~2013) are the only places where we come close to Ares' budget levels.   After that we are noticeably lower, even with the much higher flight rate.   Peak Ares costs climb above $12bn per year, with normal ops eventually dropping back to around $10bn per year after 2021.   This DIRECT manifest gets to almost $11bn per year, and drops to below $9bn in 2018.

It's amazing what a difference it makes to the costs when you can delete a whole layer of development program and a second-tier of operational costs as well.

Anyway, Enjoy!

[EDIT:   I have added the comparable cost profiles too!]

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/30/2008 02:23 pm

$100,000 for the tool bag? It all how you do the cost accounting... The $100K reflects the engineering / testing / certification time that went into it, not the actual parts in the bag. I would be willing to bet now that the engineering is done that it can be reproduced for much less, but the mission is over and the next mission will need a different tool bag meaning new engineering / testing / certification costs.

Besides, how much did it weight and how much did that cost to launch it to orbit. I suspect much more than $100K.

It is all smoke and mirrors, cut the engineering / testing / certification / training and you end up with something like Goldins "better faster cheaper".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/30/2008 02:30 pm
Typical NASA nonsense.  Our national security already depends on these engines.  They work, reliably enough, what do you want to 'man-rate' there?

You're out of your mind if you think engines like RS-68 and RL-10 don't need work before they will fly with NASA crews on top.

There are a handful of very critical issues with all the EELV engines and dozens of less critical things which also need addressing before any will ever be used with a NASA crew.   In addition to fixing all such issues, every engine involved in a crew flight also requires a health monitoring system which is designed to detect problems inside the engine early in order to be able to trigger the Abort System when things go screwy -- and that is something you just don't need for a regular payload so has never been developed so far for any of these engines.   One part of the man-rating process is developing this important detection hardware, and that's a multi-year effort all on its own (the software is a real P.I.T.A. from a cost/schedule perspective).

Further, you will also need to test the engines even more thoroughly than for non-human use.   You need to know how they behave in unusual circumstances, especially how benign they remain when things are going wrong.   You need to learn precisely how they react in emergency shutdown situations, in fuel-rich and oxy-rich conditions, with low pressure feeds and with high pressure feeds.   There are a lot of engine situations where a human flight can encounter conditions which a regular flight won't (ATO due to engine-out conditions for example). All those situations will be new to these engines.   They won't currently have been qualified for any of those situations.   And there is no knowledgebase as to how they would react.   So, they will need to be tested thoroughly to cover all the potential situations.   And testing programs as intensive as that are not cheap and can't simply be thrown together in a few months.   We have been told that human-rating of the stock RS-68 is going to be a 3 year effort.   We are adding 9 extra months as extra margin before our IOC flight.

Any engine which doesn't go through this sort of work isn't going to be acceptable to NASA.   Period.   They've lost crews because they skimped in the past and they just won't risk it -- especially not with something as complicated and potentially dangerous as the engines.

Less testing and no health monitoring might be acceptable for others, but that's their business.

For NASA, they set their own standards and only hand money out to those who meet them.   If you can't, or won't, meet their standards NASA won't even talk to you, let alone let you have any of their money.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 11/30/2008 03:18 pm

Quit with the koolade.  Spacex is not the end all.   
Spacex hasn't put a tool bag in orbit or anything useful yet

SpaceX per se - no, is not the end all. Commercial spaceflight is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: NUAETIUS on 11/30/2008 03:38 pm
100k for a one of a kind, obsessively documented, tool bag made for people racing the clock with hands the size of ogres fixing one of a kind hardware with tiny screws , while flying at 35 times the speed of sound in zero g upside down, while experiencing a temperature shifts from the boiling point of water to the freezing point of carbon dioxide sounds about right. 

When you look at the price of these tools, you have to take into account what they are engineered to endure.  There can be up to a 300 degree swing in temperature (imagine alternating a crescent wrench, from your freezer, to an oven repeatedly for 5 hours).  The devices have to be able to be able to function at 0 pressures all the way up to sea level pressure (Ball point pens become mini muskets at low pressure).  They also have to be used by someone who is wearing a glove that doubles the thickness of their fingers, and removes their ability to feel (Imagine trying to put together your kids Christmas presents wearing double thick welding gloves).

Add to this that these tools are very low run, some are even mission specific.  You can by a welding machine at Harbor Freight for $50 dollars (supper high volume manufacturing).  You can buy a industrial grade welder for $5k that doesn’t do much more than the 50 dollar one.  You can buy a military grade welder for $20k.  My father in-law’s company just bought a deep sea welder for oil rig work.  It cost them $130k.

Third these tools have to meet military reporting standards.  That means that NASA has a record of on what day, from what mine the ore for the tools came from.  Where that ore went for processing, when it was smelted, when cast, where it was finished, and every place it was ever stored.  Also a list of every person that ever had anything to do with it and their contact information. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/30/2008 03:38 pm

Quit with the koolade.  Spacex is not the end all.   
Spacex hasn't put a tool bag in orbit or anything useful yet

SpaceX per se - no, is not the end all. Commercial spaceflight is.

Still won't make a difference in the cost of the bag and its contents
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rob23 on 11/30/2008 03:42 pm
Commercial human spaceflight does not exist yet (the Space Adventures are great but they do rely on decades of government sponsored engineering, including ours - the ISS), so any bets are off.  Let them prove their worth first. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/30/2008 03:54 pm
Additional info...

We are looking into the possibility of including some NEO missions as well.   There are a number of excellent opportunities to perform such missions and we are currently considering missions in 2017, 2020 and 2025.

One of the most logical approaches is to perform one precursor mission to prove the basic systems and follow-up with crewed missions after that.

Therefore we are considering slotting two additional Jupiter-232 launches into the 2017 schedule (probably ~July) to support a precursor mission to asteroid 2002 AT4 or perhaps (10302) 1989 ML.

Then we are also considering converting the Seventh Lunar Landing mission (the middle crewed mission of three planned that year) into the first Crewed NEO Exploration Mission.   Specific destination for this is TBD though.

Just wanted to let you all know what sort of options are also being considered.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/30/2008 04:04 pm
Commercial human spaceflight does not exist yet (the Space Adventures are great but they do rely on decades of government sponsored engineering, including ours - the ISS), so any bets are off.  Let them prove their worth first. 

The big test for commercial human spaceflight is going to come when the first accident occurs and a crew is lost.   It's not a question of if it will happen, only a question of when.   Anyone who doesn't think it will happen simply has not been paying sufficient attention to the last 40 years of space flight.

If the industry is mature enough to survive the inevitable lawsuits (anyone paying $20m+ for a jolly into space is going to have a family who will be able to fund one helluva lawsuit), then they've got a chance.   But if they lose a handful of millionaires on one of the early flights, the entire business is going to be hurt a great deal.

Only time will tell.

But this is totally off-topic for this thread.   Lets take this somewhere else guys...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 11/30/2008 04:26 pm
If the industry is mature enough to survive the inevitable lawsuits

Why should it be different from any other extreme sport? I thought that if you go base-jumping, you just accept the odds, no matter how rich you are.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 11/30/2008 05:23 pm
Why should it be different from any other extreme sport? I thought that if you go base-jumping, you just accept the odds, no matter how rich you are.


Not if the parachute fails because of a manufacturing fault.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: beb on 11/30/2008 05:50 pm
1. The VSE is still the law.
[snip]
If there's anything the past eight years has taught us is that "the law" means nothing. If NASA wants to go another way, they will go another way and people will conveniently forget what the law actually says.  You shouldn't base your future on everyone strictly obeying "the law."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: beb on 11/30/2008 05:56 pm

$100,000 for the tool bag?
[snip]

When I first heard about the tool bag drifting away I was surprised that the baag wasn't tethered to the astronaut -- even when in use. Surely NASA had considered that everything gets dropped at some time or another. How could they *not* keep a string on the bag?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/30/2008 06:09 pm
If the industry is mature enough to survive the inevitable lawsuits

Why should it be different from any other extreme sport? I thought that if you go base-jumping, you just accept the odds, no matter how rich you are.

When the parachute has failed to open due to a fault in the design or manufacture, the families of base jumping victims have successfully sued 'chute companies into oblivion.   But parachute manufacturing is a fairly cheap business compared to rocket making, so there are plenty of other companies which just replace the bankrupt ones.

If base jumping involved big-business and film-star millionaires strapping themselves to ~300 tons of highly explosive materials and then trying to ignite it in a controlled manner, I guarantee you'd hear about a lot more lawsuits in the news!

And don't forget, it won't be the guy who took the flight, it will be their spouse, or their children who will be bringing the lawsuit.   And it will be for sums based on how much their multi-millionaire loved-one would have made in the rest of their life, if the defendant hadn't screwed up.

This space tourism business is a recipe for a mega-buck lawsuit at some point in the future.   The only question is when.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 11/30/2008 09:19 pm
1. The VSE is still the law.
[snip]
If there's anything the past eight years has taught us is that "the law" means nothing. If NASA wants to go another way, they will go another way and people will conveniently forget what the law actually says.  You shouldn't base your future on everyone strictly obeying "the law."

You speak as if NASA were capable of making its own decisions. That simply is not the case. NASA is a federal agency charged with carrying out presidential policy as funded by the Congress.

To put it bluntly - NASA is only capable of doing what it's told.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: yinzer on 11/30/2008 10:22 pm
1. The VSE is still the law.
[snip]
If there's anything the past eight years has taught us is that "the law" means nothing. If NASA wants to go another way, they will go another way and people will conveniently forget what the law actually says.  You shouldn't base your future on everyone strictly obeying "the law."

You speak as if NASA were capable of making its own decisions. That simply is not the case. NASA is a federal agency charged with carrying out presidential policy as funded by the Congress.

To put it bluntly - NASA is only capable of doing what it's told.

NASA has a significant ability to influence what it's told to do, and pretending otherwise is verging on misleading.  The ESAS wasn't done by congressional staffers.  Shelby didn't get bent out of shape over the LPRP on his own.

Yes, there are limits to what NASA can do.  Yes, if they come to Congress and say they want to use EELVs for ISS support, the Senators from Utah will bitch.  But if they make a good case, the Senator from Utah may be outvoted.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 11/30/2008 10:26 pm
Purely as a side-effect of some recent work we've been doing we have a new set of comparison manifests which have been put together.   I thought I'd post them here for everyone to view.


I see that you have added some planetary science missions in to these manifests.  Traditionally, science missions have to buy a launcher, which in some cases is a substantial part of the mission cost.  Are you costing those launches to CxP, or to the individual missions?  And how much will a J120 berth go for once you make it available for science missions?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 11/30/2008 11:09 pm
I'd like to see vehicles like Jupiter applied to science missions as it'll eliminate those lame planetary flybys for deep space missions and maybe speed up the mission time lines as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 11/30/2008 11:11 pm
If the industry is mature enough to survive the inevitable lawsuits

Why should it be different from any other extreme sport? I thought that if you go base-jumping, you just accept the odds, no matter how rich you are.

When the parachute has failed to open due to a fault in the design or manufacture, the families of base jumping victims have successfully sued 'chute companies into oblivion.   But parachute manufacturing is a fairly cheap business compared to rocket making, so there are plenty of other companies which just replace the bankrupt ones.

If base jumping involved big-business and film-star millionaires strapping themselves to ~300 tons of highly explosive materials and then trying to ignite it in a controlled manner, I guarantee you'd hear about a lot more lawsuits in the news!

And don't forget, it won't be the guy who took the flight, it will be their spouse, or their children who will be bringing the lawsuit.   And it will be for sums based on how much their multi-millionaire loved-one would have made in the rest of their life, if the defendant hadn't screwed up.

This space tourism business is a recipe for a mega-buck lawsuit at some point in the future.   The only question is when.

Ross.

Proof we need less tort lawyers or tort reform or countries like China will leave the US in their dust in the very near future.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 11/30/2008 11:24 pm
Purely as a side-effect of some recent work we've been doing we have a new set of comparison manifests which have been put together.   I thought I'd post them here for everyone to view.


I see that you have added some planetary science missions in to these manifests.  Traditionally, science missions have to buy a launcher, which in some cases is a substantial part of the mission cost.  Are you costing those launches to CxP, or to the individual missions?  And how much will a J120 berth go for once you make it available for science missions?

The Jupiter's are only utilized for missions which the EELV's can not handle in a single launch.   Mars Sample Return and JIMO are the only ones here.   If we can get a (better still a few!) large diameter telescope(s) into the budget as well, it(they) would go on Jupiter too.

But this isn't at the cost to EELV.   We have a whole range of new probes planned to go on EELV's too.   We are re-charging the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) with approximately $1bn extra per year compared to current funding levels -- which should allow for new Mars Rovers, new Lunar Rovers, Earth Climate Monitoring, both Lunar and Mars ISRU precursor missions, NEO Precursors and others.   You'll have to wait for our RoadMap to come out for all the details, soon ;)

The cost for the launch is charged to the SMD.   But only the 'Variable Cost' element for the specific launcher itself and associated payload & launch processing.   The Fixed Cost portion is paid for by the human program whether these fly or not.   We don't think it's a good idea to burden SMD with that additional cost as it would only reduce the amount of science we can afford to do and we want as much as we can get.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 11/30/2008 11:37 pm
What about using Jupiter to eliminate time consuming planetary sling shots such as those Cassini had to do?
The cost of a J120 or J232 vs an EELV may not be very much compared savings in other areas by cutting mission time.
Plus it would give probe designers some breathing room making R&D a faster and cheaper process.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/01/2008 12:15 am
Purely as a side-effect of some recent work we've been doing we have a new set of comparison manifests which have been put together.   I thought I'd post them here for everyone to view.


Why are the Ares ISS missions after 2016 greyed out, while the direct ones are not?  Don't both depend on an ISS mission extension?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/01/2008 12:15 am
What about using Jupiter to eliminate time consuming planetary sling shots such as those Cassini had to do?
The cost of a J120 or J232 vs an EELV may not be very much compared savings in other areas by cutting mission time.

Mission time is not that expensive
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 12/01/2008 12:26 am

NASA has a significant ability to influence what it's told to do, and pretending otherwise is verging on misleading.  The ESAS wasn't done by congressional staffers.  Shelby didn't get bent out of shape over the LPRP on his own.

Yes, there are limits to what NASA can do.  Yes, if they come to Congress and say they want to use EELVs for ISS support, the Senators from Utah will bitch.  But if they make a good case, the Senator from Utah may be outvoted.

Dude, the SRBs don't cost any more than  EELVs, and they actually have a better overall success rate.  NASA can buy two  SRBs for about $80-90 million at typical flight rates.  How much does it cost to buy two Atlas V or Delta IV cores (which provide less total impulse)?  Utah complains more than a couple of other states about losing large contracts because it doesn't have a very big economy to start with.  California can afford to lose an engine contract (especially when a replacement is in the pipeline), but notice Florida's senators fight hard to make sure space business stays at the cape, and Mississippi senators (Stennis and Lott) have in the past used a lot of political muscle to bring to and keep business at the NASA facility there.  NASA is a government agency, and is at the whim of politicians from many states, and it is for that reason that DIRECT is the most feasible (notice I didn't say cheapest or most techologically superior) option of anything else out there for fulfilling requirements of the VSE.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 12/01/2008 12:28 am
I think the price difference between a J120 and an EELV heavy is only 10 to 30 million maybe at the most 50M.
On a mission that might cost 1B that's not very much extra.
For a mission like Cassini the reduced likelihood of failure alone might justify the extra cost.
One area of saving might be less plutonium needed for a given mission since every mission must be designed to take in account loss of power generation capacity over time.
They were barely able to scrape together enough plutonium for New horizons.
Plus lets not forget many scientists and the general public would be very happy getting their results sooner.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/01/2008 12:47 am

Dude, the SRBs don't cost any more than  EELVs, and they actually have a better overall success rate.  NASA can buy two  SRBs for about $80-90 million at typical flight rates.  How much does it cost to buy two Atlas V or Delta IV cores (which provide less total impulse)? 

Incorrect, $80-90 million gets you two SRM's, the costs to build them up and add the SRB items is more

Also, two SRB's don't get you anywhere, they still need a guidance system and upperstage. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/01/2008 12:48 am
I think the price difference between a J120 and an EELV heavy is only 10 to 30 million maybe at the most 50M.


More than that
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/01/2008 01:00 am
The point of the J-120 is not that it is cheaper than an EELV.  It in fact is not.  The point is that a J-120 to J-232 development and program is cheaper and sustainable to go to the moon and eventually Mars.  even with economies of scale, I doubt that 4 to six flights of a rocket is cheaper in the long run than two per lunar mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 12/01/2008 01:22 am

Dude, the SRBs don't cost any more than  EELVs, and they actually have a better overall success rate.  NASA can buy two  SRBs for about $80-90 million at typical flight rates.  How much does it cost to buy two Atlas V or Delta IV cores (which provide less total impulse)? 

Incorrect, $80-90 million gets you two SRM's, the costs to build them up and add the SRB items is more

Also, two SRB's don't get you anywhere, they still need a guidance system and upperstage. 

An Atlas V or Delta IV core also needs an upper stage.  The money for buildup mostly ends up in Florida, not Utah.  But, defending the cost and technical details was not really my motivation in replying to Yinzer's original statement, since he never mentioned those aspects.  My issue was with Yinzer's finding fault only with one state's politicians, while seemingly giving every other state's politicians a free pass.  But, that being said, I'll let this go and not comment anymore on it so as not to get off topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/01/2008 01:31 am
1. The VSE is still the law.
[snip]
If there's anything the past eight years has taught us is that "the law" means nothing. If NASA wants to go another way, they will go another way and people will conveniently forget what the law actually says.  You shouldn't base your future on everyone strictly obeying "the law."

You speak as if NASA were capable of making its own decisions. That simply is not the case. NASA is a federal agency charged with carrying out presidential policy as funded by the Congress.

To put it bluntly - NASA is only capable of doing what it's told.

NASA has a significant ability to influence what it's told to do, and pretending otherwise is verging on misleading.  The ESAS wasn't done by congressional staffers.  Shelby didn't get bent out of shape over the LPRP on his own.
Yes, there are limits to what NASA can do.  Yes, if they come to Congress and say they want to use EELVs for ISS support, the Senators from Utah will bitch.  But if they make a good case, the Senator from Utah may be outvoted.

NASA is free to handle the details of the policy it has been directed by the President and authorized by the Congress to execute. But it is not free to create its own policy or programs. Everything it does needs Presidential and Congressional approval. If NASA wants to do something other than what the Congress has directed, it must first seek and obtain permission, and then separately, congressional funding. In addition, it must not be contrary to what the President directs, because NASA is part of the Executive branch, under the oversight of the Congress. NASA is not a free agent, and cannot direct it own affairs nor seek funding outside the Congress. The Administrator works at the pleasure of the President, but also needs Congressional authorization and funding for everything he or she does.

Getting back on topic, NASA could, for example, switch from Ares to Jupiter without seeking Congressional approval, because the Congressional Authorization and Appropriations bills specifically specified "shuttle derived"; both a crew and heavy lift launcher which is derived from the Shuttle flight hardware, manufacturing and launch infrastructure and workforce. DIRECT clearly qualifies. On the other hand, if NASA wanted to switch to an EELV solution, an Atlas-V or a Delta-IV, they would need to go back to Congress and seek permission and new funding, because the EELVs are not shuttle derived. Of course, after spend all that money on the failed Ares, the Administrator would likely be called before Congress to testify and explain the reasons for the change. I would not want to be Mike Griffin on that day.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/01/2008 05:00 am
Also, gravity assists mean additional targets for imaging and other science payloads.  And they allow larger payloads for a given launch vehicle cost.  So given the option, it makes sense to add more targets and get more payload mass, if a grav assist is possible.

They also can be used to "catch-up" when launch is delayed.  I think the Dawn Mars fly-by falls into this category.

What about using Jupiter to eliminate time consuming planetary sling shots such as those Cassini had to do?
The cost of a J120 or J232 vs an EELV may not be very much compared savings in other areas by cutting mission time.

Mission time is not that expensive
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: beb on 12/01/2008 12:21 pm
1. Also, gravity assists mean additional targets for imaging and other science payloads.  And they allow larger payloads for a given launch vehicle cost.  So given the option, it makes sense to add more targets and get more payload mass, if a grav assist is possible.

They also can be used to "catch-up" when launch is delayed.  I think the Dawn Mars fly-by falls into this category.

What about using Jupiter to eliminate time consuming planetary sling shots such as those Cassini had to do?
The cost of a J120 or J232 vs an EELV may not be very much compared savings in other areas by cutting mission time.

2. Mission time is not that expensive

1. I think this falls in the category of making lemonade when life hands you lemons. I doubt that imaging equipment make for Jupiter is going to provide much good science on a fly-by of Venus. If you want good imaging of Venus you should send a craft specifically designed for Venus.

2. Mission time may not be important for a vehicle hibernating on its long journey to the outer planets but for the people who designed, built and are planning to operate it when it arrives an additional 3-5 years can be a long time to find out if their plans and construction will work. These people are kind of hanging on tenderhooks until the vehicle arrives. For them the sooner, the better.

And while there have been some remarkable space craft continuing to function years after their mission was completed, Voyager and such, it's still true that the longer a craft is exposed to the cold and vacuum of space the greater the chance that something will go wrong.

There may not be enough science mission to justify building a J120 but if the launch vehicle already exists I think it makes great sense to use it to shorten flight times on longer mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/01/2008 02:30 pm
If the industry is mature enough to survive the inevitable lawsuits

Why should it be different from any other extreme sport? I thought that if you go base-jumping, you just accept the odds, no matter how rich you are.

When the parachute has failed to open due to a fault in the design or manufacture, the families of base jumping victims have successfully sued 'chute companies into oblivion.   But parachute manufacturing is a fairly cheap business compared to rocket making, so there are plenty of other companies which just replace the bankrupt ones.

If base jumping involved big-business and film-star millionaires strapping themselves to ~300 tons of highly explosive materials and then trying to ignite it in a controlled manner, I guarantee you'd hear about a lot more lawsuits in the news!

And don't forget, it won't be the guy who took the flight, it will be their spouse, or their children who will be bringing the lawsuit.   And it will be for sums based on how much their multi-millionaire loved-one would have made in the rest of their life, if the defendant hadn't screwed up.

This space tourism business is a recipe for a mega-buck lawsuit at some point in the future.   The only question is when.

Ross.

Proof we need less tort lawyers or tort reform or countries like China will leave the US in their dust in the very near future.

Wow, holding out a country with no respect for human rights, next to no individual freedoms, no environmental or labor regulations, and is the worlds biggest polluter as an example to be emulated?  That's a stretch.

Actually, put all the lawsuit fear-mongering away and read the federal laws and regs about commercial crewed spaceflight.  Any potential liability against the government (for use of government licensed facilities or licensed carriers) has already been legislated away, and FAA regulations already allow for full waiver of liability against the launch operator before flight in the face of informed consent.

As both an engineer and a licensed attorney I can state this categorically: too many engineers have NO IDEA what the law actually states, let alone what it means or how it developed over the last 600 or so years.  Repeating propaganda and outright falsehoods is absurd.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/human_space_flight_reqs/

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/

EDITED TO ADD:

To clarify, waiving claims by commercial spaceflight participants against the FAA and U.S. government is MANDATORY; there is language in the rule-making commentary that suggests waivers against the launch carriers is allowable but it's not in the regs.  What IS in the regs is a minimum insurance limits in the amount of $500 Million and a heck of a lot of informed consent/safety disclosure requirements.

All of which is off-topic and I won't discuss it further.  Sorry for the aside, Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/01/2008 08:21 pm
Purely as a side-effect of some recent work we've been doing we have a new set of comparison manifests which have been put together.   I thought I'd post them here for everyone to view.
Ross.

Ross,

   Regarding the Ares-I manifest, aren't there any test flights earlier than mid- to late-2014?  If nothing else, NASA should launch some test flights with an upper stage mass simulator just to gather performance and TO data.

   The current first test flight of the 5-segment booster seems to be so late in the project that it would be almost impossible to change strategies if the TO mitigation fails to work as planned. What is the current "Plan B" if the TO problem proves to be insurmountable?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 12/01/2008 08:32 pm
One area of saving might be less plutonium needed for a given mission since every mission must be designed to take in account loss of power generation capacity over time.

That's not how scientists typically design interplanetary spacecraft if they have their say. If you give them a launch vehicle capable of directly inserting a lighter craft on a direct trajectory (say to the outer solar system), but the same vehicle can launch a much heavier craft on a much more roundabout trajectory, they will happily choose the latter option. Cram as much science and mass as possible and hurry up and wait while the thing needs 7 years instead of 4 years to get there. It's not much compared to overall design process of a mission where practically entire professional careers can be dedicated to a single mission.

EDIT: Ah, I see Lab Lemming already addressed this point.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/01/2008 09:42 pm
1. Imaging equipment designed for Jupiter may not be great for Venus, if you you have a brand-new 50 million dollar camera that is being used for the first time, calibration might be a good idea.  Earth flybys offer a chance to image the moon, which is very well characterized in all sorts of wavelengths, so getting some good moon shots allows the team to spend the next few years assessing their instrumentation's space-bound performance, so that they can correct images better once they reach the primary target.  Ditto with the Earth's magnetic field and EM instrumentation.

2b. What you call 'hanging on tenderhooks' the people doing the work call gainful employment.  Designing and building a spacecraft is a lot of work, and the people who do it like to get the most out of it as possible.

2a. As for the dangers of the vacuum of space, leaving a spacecraft in space (where it is designed to operate) is much safer than leaving it in a clean room here on Earth.  I don't know of any spacecraft that have been damaged as a result of grav assists, except for Galileo.  And Galileo is an exception, as it was designed for direct flight, and only used the inner solar system because its EDS got canned after the challenger disaster.  Also, launch and storage costs inflate with time, so it is generally economical to launch as soon as possible.

3. When science returns require a fast trip, mission planners will plan one.  New Horizons is a good example.  Scientists want to get there before the atmosphere freezes, so they're going as fast as they can.

Where a large launcher could really come into its own is for orbital missions around outer moons, or sample return missions.  These missions require much greater delta-V than fly-bys or orbiting small planets, which means sending a large mass of fuel into deep space.  A bigger rocket would make that easier.

1. Also, gravity assists mean additional targets for imaging and other science payloads.  And they allow larger payloads for a given launch vehicle cost.  So given the option, it makes sense to add more targets and get more payload mass, if a grav assist is possible.

They also can be used to "catch-up" when launch is delayed.  I think the Dawn Mars fly-by falls into this category.

What about using Jupiter to eliminate time consuming planetary sling shots such as those Cassini had to do?
The cost of a J120 or J232 vs an EELV may not be very much compared savings in other areas by cutting mission time.

2. Mission time is not that expensive

1. I think this falls in the category of making lemonade when life hands you lemons. I doubt that imaging equipment make for Jupiter is going to provide much good science on a fly-by of Venus. If you want good imaging of Venus you should send a craft specifically designed for Venus.

2. Mission time may not be important for a vehicle hibernating on its long journey to the outer planets but for the people who designed, built and are planning to operate it when it arrives an additional 3-5 years can be a long time to find out if their plans and construction will work. These people are kind of hanging on tenderhooks until the vehicle arrives. For them the sooner, the better.

And while there have been some remarkable space craft continuing to function years after their mission was completed, Voyager and such, it's still true that the longer a craft is exposed to the cold and vacuum of space the greater the chance that something will go wrong.

There may not be enough science mission to justify building a J120 but if the launch vehicle already exists I think it makes great sense to use it to shorten flight times on longer mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/02/2008 06:01 am
What about using Jupiter to eliminate time consuming planetary sling shots such as those Cassini had to do?
The cost of a J120 or J232 vs an EELV may not be very much compared savings in other areas by cutting mission time.
Plus it would give probe designers some breathing room making R&D a faster and cheaper process.

Yes, the performance of the J-120+DIVHUS or J-120+Centaur or Jupiter-232 offers a much larger performance envelope for long duration missions to use.   The extra performance can be used as a substitute for the trajectory swingby missions allowing direct-to-destination and faster-to-destination trajectories to be performed instead.

But we shouldn't get lazy.   We should continue to utilize swingby techniques to enhance the performance.   EELV-based missions will still make extremely advantageous use of this technique.   And if swingby trajectories are combined with the larger Jupiter's performance, even bigger missions become possible too.

IMHO, one of the major benefits of the Jupiter's in this area is going to be the ability to send both a regular-sized satellite and also an extra propulsion module capable of braking that satellite into orbit at the destination.

New Horizons is a case in point.   It is going to travel for more than 10 years for a brief flyby mission past Pluto that will be over in a few hours, perhaps days.   If we had the lift capability of just the J-120/DIVHUS configuration we would have the ability to lift the extra hardware needed to brake that spacecraft into orbit around Pluto and then spend *years* examining it.

As Ron says above, the other major benefit is if you actually want to go down to a planet/moon and do something significant there.   A larger rocket offers a lot more opportunities and capabilities at the same price point.

And I haven't even touched on the capabilities which a Depot would enable.   A Depot increases the capabilities of most mission-types by a compete order of magnitude.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/02/2008 06:06 am
Why are the Ares ISS missions after 2016 greyed out, while the direct ones are not?  Don't both depend on an ISS mission extension?

ISS' annual budget is approximately $2bn at present.

CxP plans to get that $2bn/yr allocated to it starting in 2017.   But ISS also expects that money to stay in its budget at present too.   Both Programs have their eyes currently set on the same money after 2016.   But without extra cash from Congress, only one program is going to receive it in the end.   The other is going to be very disappointed.

What that chart is showing in gray is which flights are affected if the money goes to CxP to keep it on schedule.   Those gray flights will be the ones which get deleted from the manifest if we stop supporting ISS in 2017.


DIRECT does not plan to terminate ISS funding then.   We are planning for the ISS' $2bn annual budget to continue through to 2026 at present and that the lifespan of the station is extended by an extra decade with a new 45mT module, lifted on a Jupiter-120 in 2016, will be developed to replace/update a lot of the old systems which are expected to go U/S around then.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/02/2008 06:16 am
Dude, the SRBs don't cost any more than  EELVs

Actually the SRB's and the ET *together* cost about as much as each EELV program does today.   I'm talking full-wrap costs here, not individual elements nor am I talking about only parts of the overall processing, I'm talking about *everything* included except costs specific to individual payloads.

Of course that isn't the whole story -- of course :)

A human-rated EELV would obviously cost more than the unmanned versions flying right now.   Estimates vary, but $500m/year seems to be the most common figure thrown about to cover the additional checkout work and the costs of the additional range systems.   That's a cost which NASA would have to bear on its own, but on the flip-side DoD would be paying towards the 'regular' fixed costs too, so NASA doesn't have to cover all of those.

The first NASA launch per year (Total Fixed Costs - DoD Share of Fixed Costs + 1 Variable, and assuming 6 non-NASA flights already manifested as well) for a human-rated Delta-IV Heavy would be in the region of $1.05bn with human-rated EELV Heavy flights costing approximately $210m each after that (Orion-related costs not included).

Additionally Jupiter-120 isn't just a set of SRB's and a regular ET.   There are additional costs needed to cover the RS-68's and Payload Fairings on top too.   But in the end, the cost for the Jupiter-120 Program is surprisingly similar to that of either human-rated EELV program.   Yet the Jupiter can lift roughly twice as much and can physically lift physically much bigger payloads too.   First launch per year cost for Jupiter-120 is estimated to be around $1.24bn, but additional flights costing only around $130m (plus Orion).

When you factor in the Jupiter-232 as well, it shares the Fixed Costs with the J-120.   At that point it could be argued that the J-120 costs drops to less than the EELV.

Getting rid of the expensive Orbiter makes all the difference in the world to the Shuttle.   The rest of the system is surprisingly good value.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/02/2008 07:07 am
Ross,

Regarding the Ares-I manifest, aren't there any test flights earlier than mid- to late-2014?  If nothing else, NASA should launch some test flights with an upper stage mass simulator just to gather performance and TO data.

No.   This is all CxP can afford.

There are three Orion Launch Abort Test Flights not shown on either chart -- but they are flying on Peacekeeper missiles and have nothing per se to do with the Ares or Jupiter vehicles.

All the rest of their money is going into developing three totally new cryogenic stages, three brand-new production lines for those, two new SRB configurations, 2 separate instrument units, two new crawler transporters, five new launch platforms, five new launch towers, a new crawlerway, two heavily strengthened pads and extensive changes to at least three of the VAB high bays.

That's plus Orion and Altair, which I consider to be common costs any such program will also incur.

They can't afford anything else.

Already they've had to shelve all the Project Prometheus nuclear propulsion research, shelve the research into Methane engines and give up on almost all of the probes and satellites which were supposed to be precursor missions.   And to fund CxP while Shuttle is also still flying, they've already cut back both Science and Aeronautics Directorates to roughly half the budget levels those departments had in 2000.

What scares me most is that together, Shuttle, ISS and CxP account for about $8bn of this years budget -- leaving about half the budget for everything else NASA does.   But CxP's forcast is that Exploration on its own will end up costing roughly $12bn per year to operate (in today's money).   I want to know where that is going to come from.   It will either have to come from Congress providing a 25% increase to NASA's total annual budget, or it will have to come from scaling back Science and Aeronautics even further.


Quote
The current first test flight of the 5-segment booster seems to be so late in the project that it would be almost impossible to change strategies if the TO mitigation fails to work as planned. What is the current "Plan B" if the TO problem proves to be insurmountable?

Yes.   You are correct.   This is currently an all-or-nothing effort.

They don't have any money to cover any "Plan B" options.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/02/2008 12:39 pm
Ross,
please don't take this the wrong way but I cannot help but wonder if the DIRECT team spending time planning hypothetical Jupiter-launched science missions when there's an important rebuttal document waiting to be finished, is not getting your priorities in order?
One of the criticisms of the DIRECT team is that it's public faces are model rocket builders and armchair enthusasts. You don't want to appear as though you're living in a fantasy world where you are the NASA administrator.
Sorry if this seems a little troll-ish, but honestly I think doing too much tangetial work could backfire on you. The more you say, the more likely you are to make a mistake.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/02/2008 01:03 pm
The best use I might find for an operating Jupiter 232 production line late in the next decade would be to found a new outfit called the Outer Planets Exploration Laboratory and give it four flagship missions: JIMO, SIMO, UIMO, and NIMO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 12/02/2008 02:06 pm
Already they've had to shelve all the Project Prometheus nuclear propulsion research, shelve the research into Methane engines and give up on almost all of the probes and satellites which were supposed to be precursor missions.

   Actually, they're paying Armadillo Aerospace to work on methane engines.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 12/02/2008 02:29 pm
Already they've had to shelve all the Project Prometheus nuclear propulsion research, shelve the research into Methane engines and give up on almost all of the probes and satellites which were supposed to be precursor missions.

   Actually, they're paying Armadillo Aerospace to work on methane engines.

I saw just a few days ago on NASA.gov pictures of the LM ascent motor running on methane.

EDIT: trying to locate the page @NASA.gov, for now I got this from FlightGlobal:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/25/226066/nasas-apollo-lunar-module-ascent-engine-roars-again.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 12/02/2008 02:40 pm
I cannot help but wonder if the DIRECT team spending time planning hypothetical Jupiter-launched science missions when there's an important rebuttal document waiting to be finished, is not getting your priorities in order?

Kaputnik,

There are two ways to look at this in my opinion.

One, you are correct and the work that Ross has shown us a bit of is in fact tangential, daydreaming stuff that has no bearing on the decisions that are being made in the office of the President-Elect right now WRT the future of the space program.  If this is true, then we can all look elsewhere for the future of the space program, and a huge number of hours have been tragically wasted by the DIRECT team, because you'd have to be fairly daft not to realize that this is the time to prioritize if any hope remains of success.

Two, you can give Ross, chuck, and the secret cabal of engineers credit for not being dumb as a bag of rocks.  Ross said that the rebuttal had been put on hold for (paraphrasing) "more important work that has a short deadline".  That means that the DIRECT team has a reason to believe that decades-long forecasts of budgetary numbers and mission manifests (amongst things that we have no doubt not seen) are information that will be needed by someone central to the decision-making process of how NASA will proceed (which makes me hope for things that I really should not let myself hope for at this point) and they are working on the documents that they believe will give the proposal the best chance of being adopted.  That's how I'm betting.  How could they not know that this is the moment to strike?

Speaking of the moment to strike, when will the secret cabal become public?  ;)

EDIT: typo
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 12/02/2008 02:52 pm

Speaking of the moment to strike, when will the secret cabal become public?  ;)


My guess would be when a NASA administrator that won't have them fired is appointed.  (That may or may not be in January.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/02/2008 03:25 pm

Speaking of the moment to strike, when will the secret cabal become public?  ;)


My guess would be when a NASA administrator that won't have them fired is appointed.  (That may or may not be in January.)

If all goes well, they may not show themselves at all. It can sometimes hurt your position (as is currently the case) as being a disgruntaled employeee not following with the program. We shouldn't concern ourselves with that anyway, all we (as a community) should care about is:

A) Does NASA & the new administration/Congress have all the FACTS
B) Will the politicians act properly on those FACTS

We can discuss, cheer, and complain about their decisions til the cows come home later.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 12/02/2008 04:18 pm
Intuition tells me the Obama transition team has already received a cogent and succinct "rebuttal" as part of a Direct 2.0 briefing packet.

Given Barack Obama's desire to avoid drama (No Drama Obama) to not immediately post Team DIRECT's rebuttal at a public website such as NSF could very well be a prudent route to follow.

Also, my understanding is that Ross Tierney is primarily the public face of DIRECT with the technical "heavy lifting" being done by aerospace engineers, in a more anonymous fashion. Therefore, what Ross posts here may not be all that relevant to the Obama Administration's actual decision-making process.



I cannot help but wonder if the DIRECT team spending time planning hypothetical Jupiter-launched science missions when there's an important rebuttal document waiting to be finished, is not getting your priorities in order?

Kaputnik,

There are two ways to look at this in my opinion.

One, you are correct and the work that Ross has shown us a bit of is in fact tangential, daydreaming stuff that has no bearing on the decisions that are being made in the office of the President-Elect right now WRT the future of the space program.  If this is true, then we can all look elsewhere for the future of the space program, and a huge number of hours have been tragically wasted by the DIRECT team, because you'd have to be fairly daft not to realize that this is the time to prioritize if any hope remains of success.

Two, you can give Ross, chuck, and the secret cabal of engineers credit for not being dumb as a bag of rocks.  Ross said that the rebuttal had been put on hold for (paraphrasing) "more important work that has a short deadline".  That means that the DIRECT team has a reason to believe that decades-long forecasts of budgetary numbers and mission manifests (amongst things that we have no doubt not seen) are information that will be needed by someone central to the decision-making process of how NASA will proceed (which makes me hope for things that I really should not let myself hope for at this point) and they are working on the documents that they believe will give the proposal the best chance of being adopted.  That's how I'm betting.  How could they not know that this is the moment to strike?

Speaking of the moment to strike, when will the secret cabal become public?  ;)

EDIT: typo

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/02/2008 04:39 pm
Ross,
please don't take this the wrong way but I cannot help but wonder if the DIRECT team spending time planning hypothetical Jupiter-launched science missions when there's an important rebuttal document waiting to be finished, is not getting your priorities in order?

We don't have everyone working on just a single thing at a time.   We've got a fairly decent number of people currently and some are doing one thing, others are doing something else.   Right now we're working on about half a dozen different documents and a whole pile of analysis work.  We just got a late-night update on the aerodynamics of the payload fairing and we are getting ready to change our baseline in response (yes, that does mean new 'pretty pictures' coming as soon as we can get them done!).

The rebuttal is a priority item right now.   I want to get it out the door this week if we can.   Hopefully nothing else will crop up and need a higher priority, but things crop up quite a lot lately, so we will just have to wait and see.


Quote
One of the criticisms of the DIRECT team is that it's public faces are model rocket builders and armchair enthusasts. You don't want to appear as though you're living in a fantasy world where you are the NASA administrator.
Sorry if this seems a little troll-ish, but honestly I think doing too much tangetial work could backfire on you. The more you say, the more likely you are to make a mistake.

That's a two-edged sword for sure.   One the one hand you can be too open, on the other you can be too restrictive.   Given the actions of 'certain' persons over the last couple of years, we believe a more open attitude works best.   "Peer review" doesn't hurt.   We aren't afraid of people finding problems -- it simply helps us fix them sooner.   We actually want to be able to do that and want as many eyes on it as possible.   I guess you could almost call us an "Open Source" effort -- after a fashion! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/02/2008 04:50 pm
Speaking of the moment to strike, when will the secret cabal become public?  ;)

I won't ever reveal anyone's identity, but assuming we "get this", I have made it known that the only 'price' we are asking for are some VIP tickets to watch the first Jupiter-120 launch for members of the team.

If that happens, then sometime in 2011/2012 I would hope a number of my colleagues would be willing to "break cover" and make use of those tickets.   I doubt there would even be any press interested in us beyond a few aerospace industry magazines (I'd hope Chris would do a piece for NSF at least!), but that's probably the first time anyone will ever see any of these guys -- and even then the choice will still be entirely up to them.   I still won't name anyone, even if they're right there on the bus with me! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/02/2008 05:02 pm
Just because it's crossing my screen right now, I thought you might like to see the latest cost comparisons...

This includes all launch vehicles, the Orion CEV and Altair LSAM performing nothing but the baseline 6 missions per year.

In the case of Ares, the ISS missions start in 2016 and end in 2020.   Lunar Crew missions start in 2019 and Cargo missions start the following year with 2 of each every year.   Mars missions start in 2031 with one 600mT mission being lifted every year.   No spacecraft costs are included for that mission though, not even Orion.

DIRECT starts ISS missions in 2013 and ends in 2026.   Lunar Crew starts in 2017 with Cargo beginning in 2018.   Mars missions also start in 2031, with a similar 600mT mission lifted every year.   Again, no spacecraft costs are included on the Mars mission.


This also does not include any science equipment, ISS or Lunar Outpost hardware or their associated processing costs -- those are all extra.

So here is the baseline cost for both programs.   Enjoy.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 12/02/2008 05:09 pm

If that happens, then sometime in 2011/2012

What would be the point of staying closeted if the proposal becomes adopted?

Also, does anyone really believe that the current NASA administrator would/could have people fired for working on an off-hours project?  Would that even be legal?  I ask purely for purposes of information, not taking a position one way or the other.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 12/02/2008 10:40 pm
What about using Jupiter to eliminate time consuming planetary sling shots such as those Cassini had to do?
The cost of a J120 or J232 vs an EELV may not be very much compared savings in other areas by cutting mission time.
Plus it would give probe designers some breathing room making R&D a faster and cheaper process.

Yes, the performance of the J-120+DIVHUS or J-120+Centaur or Jupiter-232 offers a much larger performance envelope for long duration missions to use.   The extra performance can be used as a substitute for the trajectory swingby missions allowing direct-to-destination and faster-to-destination trajectories to be performed instead.

But we shouldn't get lazy.   We should continue to utilize swingby techniques to enhance the performance.   EELV-based missions will still make extremely advantageous use of this technique.   And if swingby trajectories are combined with the larger Jupiter's performance, even bigger missions become possible too.

IMHO, one of the major benefits of the Jupiter's in this area is going to be the ability to send both a regular-sized satellite and also an extra propulsion module capable of braking that satellite into orbit at the destination.

New Horizons is a case in point.   It is going to travel for more than 10 years for a brief flyby mission past Pluto that will be over in a few hours, perhaps days.   If we had the lift capability of just the J-120/DIVHUS configuration we would have the ability to lift the extra hardware needed to brake that spacecraft into orbit around Pluto and then spend *years* examining it.

As Ron says above, the other major benefit is if you actually want to go down to a planet/moon and do something significant there.   A larger rocket offers a lot more opportunities and capabilities at the same price point.

And I haven't even touched on the capabilities which a Depot would enable.   A Depot increases the capabilities of most mission-types by a compete order of magnitude.

Ross.

Ross, as the Direct team is looking at adding more and more J-120 + DIVHUS missions, it might be time to give this rocket a more standard name. I think that J-221 could be a proper name.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 12/02/2008 11:00 pm
In the below sentance, please define "properly"

B) Will the politicians act properly on those FACTS

Is "proper" in this case the course of action you prefer and anyother outcome is "improper"

What is your desired outcome?  What makes that outcome "proper".  What are the facts?  What are the assumptions?  Have any of those assumptions been proven/disproven?

I recently had a debate over a requirement with one of my government contacts.  The requirement said such and such will "correctly" model a task.  I asked  him what does correctly model mean?  He really couldn't explain it.  Then I said you need to change "correctly" to "doctrinally" in which case the task, conditions, and standards become clear and there is an object measure as to whether or not the requirement has been met.


Speaking of the moment to strike, when will the secret cabal become public?  ;)


My guess would be when a NASA administrator that won't have them fired is appointed.  (That may or may not be in January.)

If all goes well, they may not show themselves at all. It can sometimes hurt your position (as is currently the case) as being a disgruntaled employeee not following with the program. We shouldn't concern ourselves with that anyway, all we (as a community) should care about is:

A) Does NASA & the new administration/Congress have all the FACTS
B) Will the politicians act properly on those FACTS

We can discuss, cheer, and complain about their decisions til the cows come home later.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/02/2008 11:51 pm

Ross, as the Direct team is looking at adding more and more J-120 + DIVHUS missions, it might be time to give this rocket a more standard name. I think that J-221 could be a proper name.

Paul

J-221:

2:2:1
2 cryo stages
2 RS-68 engines in the core stage
1 cryo engine in the upper stage
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/03/2008 12:07 am
Ross, as the Direct team is looking at adding more and more J-120 + DIVHUS missions, it might be time to give this rocket a more standard name. I think that J-221 could be a proper name.

I've been thinking along similar lines.   The only thing that has held me back is the lack of an easy way to differentiate that configuration from another 'J-221' which we have played with behind the scenes, but that version has a J-2X powered 8.4m dia WBC-derived Upper Stage.

"J-221 Lite" seems to fit fairly well to me, indicating that it's a smaller config than the 'typical' 221 would be.   But I'm not sure if others would appreciate that particular moniker though! :)

"J-221D" is another option, notifying the use of a Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage.   It also neatly sets up the naming convention for "J-221C" using a Centaur Upper Stage too.

What do you guys think?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/03/2008 12:30 am
Ross, as the Direct team is looking at adding more and more J-120 + DIVHUS missions, it might be time to give this rocket a more standard name. I think that J-221 could be a proper name.

I've been thinking along similar lines.   The only thing that has held me back is the lack of an easy way to differentiate that configuration from another 'J-221' which we have played with behind the scenes, but that version has a J-2X powered 8.4m dia WBC-derived Upper Stage.

"J-221 Lite" seems to fit fairly well to me, indicating that it's a smaller config than the 'typical' 221 would be.   But I'm not sure if others would appreciate that particular moniker though! :)

"J-221D" is another option, notifying the use of a Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage.   It also neatly sets up the naming convention for "J-221C" using a Centaur Upper Stage too.

What do you guys think?

Ross.

I would stick with 'L' for "Light" and 'H' for "Heavy".
There's only so much that is practical to do with a naming convention before it becomes unwieldy. There's no need to formalize what are actually hybrid configurations that go beyond the scope of the naming convention we devised in the beginning. I would suggest a baseball card to describe any particular hybrid mission, and leave the details of what particular upper stage hybrid combination is being used to the baseball card. For example, there are 6 different RL-10 combinations. How would you tell in a complicated naming convention which one was being used? Stick to 'L' (Light) for configurations that are less than the basic J-221 designation (2xRS-68 + 1xJ-2x) and 'H' for one that is more than the basic designation. Let the baseball card sort out the details.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/03/2008 12:34 am
Good thought Chuck.   A baseball card is always the best approach to solidify a configuration in people's minds.   I'll whip one up soon, but it isn't a big priority just yet.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/03/2008 12:38 am

If that happens, then sometime in 2011/2012

What would be the point of staying closeted if the proposal becomes adopted?

Also, does anyone really believe that the current NASA administrator would/could have people fired for working on an off-hours project?  Would that even be legal?  I ask purely for purposes of information, not taking a position one way or the other.

The designers of DIRECT may wish to stay closeted after the proposal becomes adopted because there will still be ex-Ares people around who may want to take revenge.

As for the legality of firing people for working on an off-hours project - Unimportant.

A crafty revenge seeker simply finds a different excuse.  Al Capone was not convicted of murder, selling illegal alcohol or pimping but fiddling his income tax.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/03/2008 02:05 am
In the below sentance, please define "properly"

B) Will the politicians act properly on those FACTS

Is "proper" in this case the course of action you prefer and anyother outcome is "improper"

What is your desired outcome?  What makes that outcome "proper".  What are the facts?  What are the assumptions?  Have any of those assumptions been proven/disproven?

I recently had a debate over a requirement with one of my government contacts.  The requirement said such and such will "correctly" model a task.  I asked  him what does correctly model mean?  He really couldn't explain it.  Then I said you need to change "correctly" to "doctrinally" in which case the task, conditions, and standards become clear and there is an object measure as to whether or not the requirement has been met.


Speaking of the moment to strike, when will the secret cabal become public?  ;)


My guess would be when a NASA administrator that won't have them fired is appointed.  (That may or may not be in January.)

If all goes well, they may not show themselves at all. It can sometimes hurt your position (as is currently the case) as being a disgruntaled employeee not following with the program. We shouldn't concern ourselves with that anyway, all we (as a community) should care about is:

A) Does NASA & the new administration/Congress have all the FACTS
B) Will the politicians act properly on those FACTS

We can discuss, cheer, and complain about their decisions til the cows come home later.  :)

Oh no, a political discussion...

"B) Will the politicians act properly on those FACTS"

I don't know, when a politician takes an oath to uphold all the laws, to represent the people that elected him or her..., and so on?

Which is why I made the following statement:

"We can discuss, cheer, and complain about their decisions til the cows come home later.  :)"

We can only hope that the decisions they make are in the best interests of everyone involved, not any one person involved. All too often it's the back-room deals and 'big business' making their case, when the FACTS prove that there might be a better way. But those are sometimes ignored for alterior motives.

So 'proper' can take on many guises, but in the end we depend on our elected officials to make decisions based on facts. To do otherwise would be considered an injustice by some.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/03/2008 08:58 am
Does the RL-10 and the centaur need costly man-rating that will negatively impact on the jupiter development costs?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/03/2008 09:16 am
Lab,
Yes, no and no. :)

Yes, the RL-10 will need to be human-rated, in fact the entire Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage (DIVHUS) will need to be fully human-rated.

If we were to use the Centaur in addition to the DIVHUS, its RL-10 engine and its structure would also have to get human-rated as well -- and that would be at additional cost.

And no, our current plan doesn't negatively impact the Jupiter because we are already budgeting for human-rating one of the EELV's as a backup domestic crew launcher anyway.


In this particular case it makes sense for us to choose the Delta-IV Heavy.   The RS-68 will need to be human-rated for the Jupiter anyway.   The entire DIVHUS is also intended to be human-rated for use on Jupiter-221D.   That will mean a fairly significant portion of the Delta-IV Heavy will end up human-rated.   At that point, with most of the hard work already behind you, completing human-rating of the Delta-IV Heavy becomes the most cost-effective option in parallel with Jupiter.

But we still never lose the option to human-rate the Atlas-V as well, if required.


An aside is that the RL-10 human-rating will also have a bearing upon the LSAM Descent Engine too.   By human-rating an RL-10 now, that program will get a serious head-start.   There will be valuable real-world flight experience under our belts with those systems long before the LSAM starts flying.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/03/2008 10:00 am
A question - I apologise if this has been addressed before; please tell me if it has been.

I recently saw an artist's impression of a shuttle taking off with two 3xSSME reusable liquid fuel boosters in place of the SRBs.  Have Team Vision looked at whether these will offer performance and/or budget advantages over the SRBs, especially for later versions of the Jupiter stack where on-pad weights might increasingly become an issue?

I know that ATK are too powerful to challenge in such a way right now but, later on in any hypothetical program, that might not be the case.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/03/2008 11:26 am
Ben,
There was a proposal from the USAF to build a set of what are called "Liquid Flyback Boosters" or LFB's.   They would have each been powered by a cluster of (IIRC) 6 SSME's and would have flown back to a landing at the Shuttle Landing Facility to be prepared for re-use.

The development costs were too high for Congress, who never authorized the money.   But the idea keeps cropping up every decade or so.   I think the last major effort to use them was on the (remarkably similar to Jupiter-120) "Magnum" launcher proposed by NASA to support the Mars Design Reference Mission 3.0 architecture in 1998 (see page 18 of http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/SP-6107-ADD.pdf).

The problem with this approach is the cost of the SSME's.   They cost a lot to manufacture and quite a lot to maintain between each flight too.   If you use them the prerequisite 25 times they end up being reasonable value, but the up-front costs are, lets say "uncomfortable".

When ESAS suggested using SSME's for the Ares-I/Ares-V initially, it was the cost to use SSME's in the numbers required which turned NASA off that idea and caused the switch to J-2X and RS-68 respectively.   The same would be true for this use too -- especially as there would be a dozen of these suckers on each flight! :)

If you wished to replace the SRB's with a liquid booster (assuming the politics of the situation went that way, which it won't, but for sakes of argument...) you would be far better off going with a KeroLox engine arrangement instead of using the SSME's.

RP-1 (highly refined Kerosene)/LOX is an ideal propellant for booster stages and first stage due to the density of the liquids (it isn't so useful for upper stages though because LOX/LH2 has much higher vacuum Isp).   Unfortunately though, there are no domestic RP-1/LOX engines in production in the performance range we would need for this application.   The F-1 and F-1A have been out of production for more than 30 years, the RS-84 and TR-107 developments were never completed.

Atlas-V uses the Russian RD-180 -- essentially half of an RD-170 from the Energiya/Zenit boosters.   A couple of those on each booster would make for an interesting system and would probably increase performance overall.

But the political situation between the US and Prime Minister Putin means relying upon them for supplies of those is politically unpopular at the moment and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne haven't yet replicated the necessary technology needed to apply the techniques to apply the special coatings used inside the RD-180 to allow it to operate LOX-rich (normally a very dangerous thing).   So, while PWR could produce domestic versions of the RD-180 here, they would still have a few years of hard work ahead of them in order to learn how to do it correctly.

So there are no simple options in this area.   Especially, as you say, given the political muscle which ATK has been utilizing in recent years.

IMHO, the best option is a configuration which doesn't change the existing SRB's.   Sounds simple, but so few people 'get it', that that's the only way to avoid spending lots of money is to re-use fully-qualified equipment.

The next Shuttle flight will mark the 250th successful launch in a row of the Redesigned SRB since Challenger.   Why NASA is choosing to alter this proven safe design is simply beyond me.   Don't fix what ain't broke.   Keep It Simple, Stupid.   Every rule in the book goes against NASA's current choice.   More importantly though:   There simply is no actual need to do it.   The Shuttle's 4-seg SRB's have an excellent safety record since they were fixed, and we should continue to use them for now.

Eventually, the EPA will get their teeth stuck into the Perchlorate toxin issues though.   When EPA start breathing down their neck, that will mark the correct time for NASA to then go to Congress and ask for the money to replace the SRB's.   But that's still at least one, maybe two decades away, IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/03/2008 11:35 am
I cannot help but wonder if the DIRECT team spending time planning hypothetical Jupiter-launched science missions when there's an important rebuttal document waiting to be finished, is not getting your priorities in order?

Kaputnik,

There are two ways to look at this in my opinion.

One, you are correct and the work that Ross has shown us a bit of is in fact tangential, daydreaming stuff that has no bearing on the decisions that are being made in the office of the President-Elect right now WRT the future of the space program.  If this is true, then we can all look elsewhere for the future of the space program, and a huge number of hours have been tragically wasted by the DIRECT team, because you'd have to be fairly daft not to realize that this is the time to prioritize if any hope remains of success.

Two, you can give Ross, chuck, and the secret cabal of engineers credit for not being dumb as a bag of rocks.  Ross said that the rebuttal had been put on hold for (paraphrasing) "more important work that has a short deadline".  That means that the DIRECT team has a reason to believe that decades-long forecasts of budgetary numbers and mission manifests (amongst things that we have no doubt not seen) are information that will be needed by someone central to the decision-making process of how NASA will proceed (which makes me hope for things that I really should not let myself hope for at this point) and they are working on the documents that they believe will give the proposal the best chance of being adopted.  That's how I'm betting.  How could they not know that this is the moment to strike?

I'm not suggesting that the DIRECT team are dumb; don't put words in my mouth. But I don't see the point in planning these hypothetical extensions to the plan when the basic battle has yet to be won. This is a public forum, and the discussions here are being read by those hostile to Direct. Some of these people think that the Direct team are nothing but a bunch of amateurs who don't know what they're doing, and want to play at being Mike Griffin; these people are suspicious that the 'cabal' even exists.
These same opponents of Direct are convinced by NASA's 2007 analysis which pretty much trashed DIRECT. They are waiting for the rebuttal, and without it we supporters of DIRECT cannot really argue much of a case to them, which is frustrating, hence my post.

If you want to enter the lion's den to argue with anti-DIRECT people, then PM me and I'll send you in that direction; last time I mentioned the 'other' forum by name it led to a lot of deleted posts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 12/03/2008 12:05 pm
If there's no 'cabal' these 'amateurs' need to consider going pro. They're doing amazing work. :)

I'm always alert to 'ad hominem' attacks, the side that resorts to them first is generally losing the argument, and wants desperately to change the subject.

Other good indicators are; argument by authority, misrepresenting your opponents case, and ignoring corrections they've made where you found a real flaw.  Does any of this sound familiar?

Arguing this way is politics, not engineering. Far too much of it around, in my opinion.  This world need a whole lot more constructive debate. Where it's more important to find the right answers, than to always be right.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/03/2008 12:12 pm
I'm not suggesting that the DIRECT team are dumb; don't put words in my mouth. But I don't see the point in planning these hypothetical extensions to the plan when the basic battle has yet to be won.

Perhaps I can help.

The underlying purpose of our long-term plans are to try to bring together the different "warring factions" in this community for a change.

Firstly, you've got three main factions fighting for control of the launch systems, and a fourth which can offer advantages from beyond US shores:

- Shuttle-Derived (ATK, USA, Boeing, Lockheed)
- EELV (ULA, Boeing, Lockheed)
- New Space/COTS (Space-X, Orbital, Northrop, Virgin Galactic etc)
- Foreign Partnerships

Every single plan which has been proposed so far by members of each of these groups has been exclusionary by its very nature -- DIRECT included.   Each has promoted only one of these groups, perhaps holding out a small olive branch to one other just to shut them up.

However, the typical result of choosing just one of those options is that it p*$$es every one else right off.   So straight out of the gate every one of those proposals just ends up fighting battles with everyone else.   The recent Planetary Society paper is a perfect example of this.   I'm sure their proposal was put together with the best of intentions, but it infuriated vast sections of the community because it narrowed its focus and promoted single-source solutions that only benefited a relatively small part of that community.   It got torn to shreds because of that.



But what if there were a bigger plan that intended to utilize the strengths and capabilities of all these groups?

Sure the 5-15% of hardliners won't ever be satisfied unless their option is the only option being funded, but if everyone gets a share of the pie you're going to appeal to 85% of the people across all the various factions.   But 85% of the entire aerospace community still makes for a *really* big majority.


Similarly, you also have a major turf-war going on regarding the destination which we are heading for:

- Earth-First (ISS Utilization, Climate)
- Lunar First (finish Apollo investigations, set up near-Earth ISRU)
- NEO First (precursor for Mars and virtual zero-g ISRU)
- Mars First (the next big step)

Again, picking just one of these options, only disenfranchises every other group.

But there is a lot of potential commonality if you deliberately choose to structure the new program in such a way to ensure that developments in one phase also apply to other phases.

Yes, one will be first, one will be second and one will be last, but if we had an integrated plan -- as VSE originally proposed -- we would be making progress towards all these goals at the same time.

ESAS totally derailed the original VSE plan.   It focused us on an SDLV-only architecture with no funding to allow anything other than Lunar-First goals -- and maybe not even that!   ESAS, and its resultant Ares architecture has simply boxed us into a very tight little financially-strapped corner.   And everyone who isn't in that particular little pidgin-hole has been screaming blue murder ever since.


Both of these long-running arguments can be made 100% null-and-void with the Right Plan.

With an affordable and sustainable architecture, one which is also able to *do* a lot of work every year, we can lever the strengths of SDLV, EELV, New-Space and even Foreign Partnerships, to get us on a solid path which supports >90% of our LEO objectives, >90% of our Lunar objectives, >90% of our NEO objectives and >90% of our Mars objectives.   Wouldn't that draw quite a lot of support?

This program is not supposed to be about making just one small group 100% happy and ignoring everyone else.   That's what Ares tried to do and look how screwed up that has become!

It's about making at least 80% of the entire industry at least 80% happy.   If you do that, you'll put a pretty good smile on virtually everyone's face, everyone will be earning money and pulling in the same direction and the extremist minority will just get sidelined as the program moves forwards.


But the only way to do that, returning to Kaputnik's important point which started this post, is to be able to demonstrate an architecture which integrates all the different facets and plots out the path which reaches all the different goals -- and that means we need a well-thought-out long-term plan.

Only by carefully working out the budgets and the schedules can you ever hope to work out what you can achieve by what date.

To satisfy the groups, we're talking about needing to show at least 10, and in some cases, 20 year plans.

That's what we're working on right now:   An integrated plan that levers *all* our strengths and achieves *all* our goals in a way that the majority of the industry can get behind.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 12/03/2008 12:16 pm

I'm not suggesting that the DIRECT team are dumb; don't put words in my mouth. But I don't see the point in planning these hypothetical extensions to the plan when the basic battle has yet to be won. This is a public forum, and the discussions here are being read by those hostile to Direct. Some of these people think that the Direct team are nothing but a bunch of amateurs who don't know what they're doing, and want to play at being Mike Griffin; these people are suspicious that the 'cabal' even exists.

Kaputnik, I think we are coming from the same place, and I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth.  If you feel I did, I apologize.

Regarding the secret cabal and the question of its credentials and/or existence, to be perfectly honest I understand the criticism and I think it hurts the DIRECT case, but I see it as a PR issue.

-Ian
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 12/03/2008 12:40 pm
I'm not suggesting that the DIRECT team are dumb; don't put words in my mouth. But I don't see the point in planning these hypothetical extensions to the plan when the basic battle has yet to be won.

Perhaps I can help.

The underlying purpose of our long-term plans are to try to bring together the different "warring factions" in this community for a change.

Firstly, you've got three main factions fighting for control of the launch systems, and a fourth which can offer advantages from beyond US shores:

- Shuttle-Derived (ATK, USA, Boeing, Lockheed)
- EELV (ULA, Boeing, Lockheed)
- New Space/COTS (Space-X, Orbital, Northrop, Virgin Galactic etc)
- Foreign Partnerships

Every single plan which has been proposed so far by members of each of these groups has been exclusionary by its very nature -- DIRECT included.   Each has promoted only one of these groups, perhaps holding out a small olive branch to one other just to shut them up.

However, the typical result of choosing just one of those options is that it p*$$es every one else right off.   So straight out of the gate every one of those proposals just ends up fighting battles with everyone else.   The recent Planetary Society paper is a perfect example of this.   I'm sure their proposal was put together with the best of intentions, but it infuriated vast sections of the community because it narrowed its focus and promoted single-source solutions that only benefited a relatively small part of that community.   It got torn to shreds because of that.



But what if there were a bigger plan that intended to utilize the strengths and capabilities of all these groups?

Sure the 5-15% of hardliners won't ever be satisfied unless their option is the only option being funded, but if everyone gets a share of the pie you're going to appeal to 85% of the people across all the various factions.   But 85% of the entire aerospace community still makes for a *really* big majority.


Similarly, you also have a major turf-war going on regarding the destination which we are heading for:

- Earth-First (ISS Utilization, Climate)
- Lunar First (finish Apollo investigations, set up near-Earth ISRU)
- NEO First (precursor for Mars and virtual zero-g ISRU)
- Mars First (the next big step)

Again, picking just one of these options, only disenfranchises every other group.

But there is a lot of potential commonality if you deliberately choose to structure the new program in such a way to ensure that developments in one phase also apply to other phases.

Yes, one will be first, one will be second and one will be last, but if we had an integrated plan -- as VSE originally proposed -- we would be making progress towards all these goals at the same time.

ESAS totally derailed the original VSE plan.   It focused us on an SDLV-only architecture with no funding to allow anything other than Lunar-First goals -- and maybe not even that!   ESAS, and its resultant Ares architecture has simply boxed us into a very tight little financially-strapped corner.   And everyone who isn't in that particular little pidgin-hole has been screaming blue murder ever since.


Both of these long-running arguments can be made 100% null-and-void with the Right Plan.

With an affordable and sustainable architecture, one which is also able to *do* a lot of work every year, we can lever the strengths of SDLV, EELV, New-Space and even Foreign Partnerships, to get us on a solid path which supports >90% of our LEO objectives, >90% of our Lunar objectives, >90% of our NEO objectives and >90% of our Mars objectives.   Wouldn't that draw quite a lot of support?

This program is not supposed to be about making just one small group 100% happy and ignoring everyone else.   That's what Ares tried to do and look how screwed up that has become!

It's about making at least 80% of the entire industry at least 80% happy.   If you do that, you'll put a pretty good smile on virtually everyone's face, everyone will be earning money and pulling in the same direction and the extremist minority will just get sidelined as the program moves forwards.


But the only way to do that, returning to Kaputnik's important point which started this post, is to be able to demonstrate an architecture which integrates all the different facets and plots out the path which reaches all the different goals -- and that means we need a well-thought-out long-term plan.

Only by carefully working out the budgets and the schedules can you ever hope to work out what you can achieve by what date.

To satisfy the groups, we're talking about needing to show at least 10, and in some cases, 20 year plans.

That's what we're working on right now:   An integrated plan that levers *all* our strengths and achieves *all* our goals in a way that the majority of the industry can get behind.

Ross.

That's the most sensible explanation I've ever heard for arguing in favor of the DIRECT architecture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 12/03/2008 12:50 pm
Ross, as the Direct team is looking at adding more and more J-120 + DIVHUS missions, it might be time to give this rocket a more standard name. I think that J-221 could be a proper name.

I've been thinking along similar lines.   The only thing that has held me back is the lack of an easy way to differentiate that configuration from another 'J-221' which we have played with behind the scenes, but that version has a J-2X powered 8.4m dia WBC-derived Upper Stage.

"J-221 Lite" seems to fit fairly well to me, indicating that it's a smaller config than the 'typical' 221 would be.   But I'm not sure if others would appreciate that particular moniker though! :)

"J-221D" is another option, notifying the use of a Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage.   It also neatly sets up the naming convention for "J-221C" using a Centaur Upper Stage too.

What do you guys think?

Ross.


I think that "lite" is too vague, especially when there are multiple configs that it might ultimately apply to.

I'd certainly say the C or D suffix gets the point across much more succinctly & with less ambiguity. I even rather like spelling the name out in full, eg:-

J221Delta
J221Centaur


Perhaps my most preferred suggestion is to retain the rule that a third digit specifies the number of engines in a standard DIRECT upper stage. Replace  that digit with a letter for non-DIRECT u/s, ie:-

J221 - DIRECT u/s with 1 engines
J232 - DIRECT u/s with 2 engines
J22D - Delta u/s
J22C - Centaur u/s

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/03/2008 12:53 pm
Martin,
I really like that "J-22D" idea.   Unless there are further comments, I'm probably going to start using that myself!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 12/03/2008 03:31 pm
Just to get the nomenclature straight:

Jupiter - [ #Stages ][ #Stage 1 Engines ][ #Stage 2 ID ][ - ][ S ][ H ]

[ #Stages ] - Number of stages.

[ #Stage 1 Engines ] - Number of RS-68 engines on the first stage.

[ #Stage 2 ID ] - The number of J-2X engines on the upper Jupiter stage OR a letter designating the upper stage from another launch vehicle.

[ S ] - Denotes a stretched tank if present.

[ H ] - Denotes a five stage SRB if present.


Examples:

J-120
J-120-H
J-22D
J-221-H
J-232
J-23D-SH

Other possibility is to us a zero and put the rocket type for the upper stage at the end:

J-220 Delta
J-230 Atlas
J-230-SH Delta

Thus the last number becomes the number of J-2X engines on the upper stage. Any thoughts on this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 12/03/2008 03:47 pm
Sounds just about perfect - the only thing you missed is that the first digit is the number of "LIQUID" stages, not the total number of stages. (ie - the presence of the SRBs is always assumed).

Other minor thoughts about the upper stage nomenclature:

If we just want to tell what type of upper stage is installed:
Jupiter - [ #Liquid Stages ][ #Stage 1 Engines ][ #Stage 2 ID ][ - ][ S ][ H ]
J-23E (EDS)
J-23C (Centuar)
J-23D (Delta)

If we want to differentiate both the upper stage type and number of upper stage engines, how about:
Jupiter - [ #Liquid Stages ][ #Stage 1 Engines ][ #Stage 2 Engines ][ #Stage 2 ID ][ - ][ S ][ H ]
J-232E (2 engine EDS upper stage)
J-231C (1 engine Centuar upper stage)
J-231D (1 engne Delta upper stage)

Of course, if you really want to get silly, that leads to the Super Jupiter:
[ #Liquid Stages ][ #Stage 1 Engines ][ #Stage 2 Engines ][ #Stage 3 Engines ][ #Stage 2 ID ][ #Stage 3 ID ][ - ][ S ][ H ]
J-3341 EE-SH (2 upper stages based on the EDS design - one with 4 J-2X and one with 1 J2-X, on a stretched core with 5 seg SRBs).




Just to get the nomenclature straight:

Jupiter - [ #Stages ][ #Stage 1 Engines ][ #Stage 2 ID ][ - ][ S ][ H ]

[ #Stages ] - Number of stages.

[ #Stage 1 Engines ] - Number of RS-68 engines on the first stage.

[ #Stage 2 ID ] - The number of J-2X engines on the upper Jupiter stage OR a letter designating the upper stage from another launch vehicle.

[ S ] - Denotes a stretched tank if present.

[ H ] - Denotes a five stage SRB if present.


Examples:

J-120
J-120-H
J-22D
J-221-H
J-232
J-23D-SH

Other possibility is to us a zero and put the rocket type for the upper stage at the end:

J-220 Delta
J-230 Atlas
J-230-SH Delta

Thus the last number becomes the number of J-2X engines on the upper stage. Any thoughts on this?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/03/2008 03:55 pm
As I understand it, the Jupiter variant nomenclature has the final figure representing the number of engines on the upper stage required to reach orbit.  If the Centaur or whatever upper stage is required to get the payload that far (and I'm not talking about OMS-style correction burns, I'm talking about burns that would be necessary because the core could not have pushed the payload into an orbit that would be stable if you didn't mind leaving it there for a few years), then its number of engines would appear in the variant designation. 

So, if you had a Jupiter-2 with a Centaur upper stage that was needed to get the satellite/probe into LEO parking orbit, the designation would be:

J-221C (C for 'Centaur')

If the Centaur is only to be used for either TOI or to move the payload to its final orbit (HEO or GEO), then the designation would be:

J-120C
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/03/2008 04:22 pm
Centaur is an upper stage on the Atlas launch vehicle and fits the "C" designation.
Delta is not an upper stage - it is an entire launch vehicle which uses an upper stage. You need to identify the name of the Delta upper stage and use the first letter of its name instead of "D" for "Delta". "D" doesn't fit.

Otherwise you're mixing apples and oranges.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/03/2008 07:37 pm
Ross,

   As far as all the different upper stages and naming conventions go, I tend to agree with the sentiment that it is starting to get a little too complicated.

    The best thing about DIRECT is that it is such an obvious direction to take, and that the concepts are easy enough for the layman to understand. Once you start adding in all of the Atlas, Delta, Heavy, Lite, etc, you lose the easily digestible simplicity that you need in order to convince lay people and policy makers.

    Sure, it's fun to talk shop with the industry constituencies that you would dearly like to get on board. And I think it would be safe to say that almost any currently flying upper stage could be made to work with the Jupiter core stage, given the need and the means to do so. But what does that really buy you (us, Direct, whatever) right now? Getting too detailed and too specific at this point is a distraction from the main goal, and it could seem like desperate pandering to someone from the outside.

    So my suggestion (all $0.02 worth of it!) is to stay on target and on message with the Jupiter-120 and J-232.  The rest can wait until the ship has been righted and put back on course.

After all, that's what convinced me!

Cheers,
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/03/2008 07:47 pm
D-IV uses two upperstages
DCUS
HDCUS
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/03/2008 08:04 pm
I like Mark's idea--forget about naming convertion--KISS--keep it Simple Stupid!  Worry about upstages, 5 Seg, etc.  and names after they are built.  Why try and have a name for something that may NEVER even get to the design stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 12/03/2008 08:23 pm
What about something like this?:

[Jupiter-###] + [Next Higher Stage] + [Even Higher Stage] + ...

Example:
J-120 + Centaur ("Jupiter 120 with Centaur Upper Stage")

Avoid the cryptic letter designation entirely and tell it like it is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/03/2008 08:44 pm
I see that if you're going to human-rate the Delta upper stage + the engine, you might as well do the rest of the rocket.  But with that much commonality between the delta and the Jupiter, it makes using the Delta as a backup launcher a bit more risky, in case it is a common component that fails.  For example, if you lose a Jupiter because an RS-68 blows up, is anyone really going to be that keen to hop onto a Delta? 

In one sense, that is probably a good reason to stay on good terms with the Russians: It guarantees completely independent launch vehicles in case one has a problem.

Lab,
Yes, no and no. :)

Yes, the RL-10 will need to be human-rated, in fact the entire Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage (DIVHUS) will need to be fully human-rated.

If we were to use the Centaur in addition to the DIVHUS, its RL-10 engine and its structure would also have to get human-rated as well -- and that would be at additional cost.

And no, our current plan doesn't negatively impact the Jupiter because we are already budgeting for human-rating one of the EELV's as a backup domestic crew launcher anyway.


In this particular case it makes sense for us to choose the Delta-IV Heavy.   The RS-68 will need to be human-rated for the Jupiter anyway.   The entire DIVHUS is also intended to be human-rated for use on Jupiter-221D.   That will mean a fairly significant portion of the Delta-IV Heavy will end up human-rated.   At that point, with most of the hard work already behind you, completing human-rating of the Delta-IV Heavy becomes the most cost-effective option in parallel with Jupiter.

But we still never lose the option to human-rate the Atlas-V as well, if required.


An aside is that the RL-10 human-rating will also have a bearing upon the LSAM Descent Engine too.   By human-rating an RL-10 now, that program will get a serious head-start.   There will be valuable real-world flight experience under our belts with those systems long before the LSAM starts flying.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/03/2008 08:46 pm
What about something like this?:

[Jupiter-###] + [Next Higher Stage] + [Even Higher Stage] + ...

Example:
J-120 + Centaur ("Jupiter 120 with Centaur Upper Stage")

Avoid the cryptic letter designation entirely and tell it like it is.

That's the way rockets were named in the Good Old Days [tm]. Thor-Able-Star, Thor-Agena, Atlas-Agena, Atlas-Centaur, etc. My favorite was Thorad (stood for Thor-Augmented Delta [the solids]), later shortened to Delta. Thorad sounded very otherworldy to teenaged me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/03/2008 08:59 pm
I thought so too.

As I understand it, the Jupiter variant nomenclature has the final figure representing the number of engines on the upper stage required to reach orbit.  If the Centaur or whatever upper stage is required to get the payload that far (and I'm not talking about OMS-style correction burns, I'm talking about burns that would be necessary because the core could not have pushed the payload into an orbit that would be stable if you didn't mind leaving it there for a few years), then its number of engines would appear in the variant designation. 

So, if you had a Jupiter-2 with a Centaur upper stage that was needed to get the satellite/probe into LEO parking orbit, the designation would be:

J-221C (C for 'Centaur')

If the Centaur is only to be used for either TOI or to move the payload to its final orbit (HEO or GEO), then the designation would be:

J-120C
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/03/2008 08:59 pm
What about something like this?:

[Jupiter-###] + [Next Higher Stage] + [Even Higher Stage] + ...

Example:
J-120 + Centaur ("Jupiter 120 with Centaur Upper Stage")

Avoid the cryptic letter designation entirely and tell it like it is.

That's the way rockets were named in the Good Old Days [tm]. Thor-Able-Star, Thor-Agena, Atlas-Agena, Atlas-Centaur, etc. My favorite was Thorad (stood for Thor-Augmented Delta [the solids]), later shortened to Delta. Thorad sounded very otherworldy to teenaged me.

Yea, I remember. I always thought it was pretty clear what was flying. If we are going to do this at all, let's stick with what already worked:

Jupiter-221 CENTAUR
Jupiter-221 DCUS
Jupiter-221 HDCUS

Most people know what a Centaur is because they've been flying for more than 40 years. If folks are interested, let them ask what DCUS and HDCUS are. They'll soon enough get used to the name, just like they did for Centaur. Let the last digit of the Jupiter designation continue its original function: the number of engines on the upper stage.

Simple
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/03/2008 09:58 pm
I think Mark has a point here.  Having 3 or 4 different named rockets undermines the simplicity of the DIRECT idea, which is its main selling point.

As long as the orbital transfer stage (whether centaur, or delta derived) is part of the J120 payload, then the rocket is a J120.

To a guy watching the launch, the rocket will look the same as a ISS crew swap, as the orbital transfer stage will be hidden by the payload fairing.

From an engineering point of view, the rocketry skillz required to fire up an orbital transfer stage from LEO to change orbit are different than those required to stage during ascent. 

In one sense, the Delta/ Centaur stage is more a part of the CEV than it is part of the launch vehicle.  It doesn't get them off the ground, it just lets them cruise around in space once they get up there.

Ross,

   As far as all the different upper stages and naming conventions go, I tend to agree with the sentiment that it is starting to get a little too complicated.

    The best thing about DIRECT is that it is such an obvious direction to take, and that the concepts are easy enough for the layman to understand. Once you start adding in all of the Atlas, Delta, Heavy, Lite, etc, you lose the easily digestible simplicity that you need in order to convince lay people and policy makers.

    Sure, it's fun to talk shop with the industry constituencies that you would dearly like to get on board. And I think it would be safe to say that almost any currently flying upper stage could be made to work with the Jupiter core stage, given the need and the means to do so. But what does that really buy you (us, Direct, whatever) right now? Getting too detailed and too specific at this point is a distraction from the main goal, and it could seem like desperate pandering to someone from the outside.

    So my suggestion (all $0.02 worth of it!) is to stay on target and on message with the Jupiter-120 and J-232.  The rest can wait until the ship has been righted and put back on course.

After all, that's what convinced me!

Cheers,
    Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/04/2008 12:33 am
I see that if you're going to human-rate the Delta upper stage + the engine, you might as well do the rest of the rocket.  But with that much commonality between the delta and the Jupiter, it makes using the Delta as a backup launcher a bit more risky, in case it is a common component that fails.  For example, if you lose a Jupiter because an RS-68 blows up, is anyone really going to be that keen to hop onto a Delta? 

In one sense, that is probably a good reason to stay on good terms with the Russians: It guarantees completely independent launch vehicles in case one has a problem.

We totally agree.   That's why I mentioned still having the option to also human-rate the Atlas as well.

The budget is ultimately going to define what we can and can't afford to do.   If there's sufficient money, we could have Jupiter-120, Jupiter-232, Delta-IV Heavy and Atlas-V Heavy all qualified to fly humans upon.

And if we don't have sufficient money to afford all of those, there is still a reasonable hope that at least one of the New-Space companies will ultimately be able to offer backup crew lift services too.

There are a number of alternatives which we can use.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/04/2008 12:39 am
I'm also on Mark's side, especially his 2nd last sentence. People's (the public's) eyes will glaze over if they have so many variations, as in the various proposals presented so far.

Simple and easy (KISS). If Direct gets the nod, NASA can assign their own numbering sequence as they see fit.

If the rebutal is only going to NASA (not the transition team) then they might like the techno-language spelled out in terms they are familiar with.

Two works for now for me just fine. :)

Doesn't hurt to know the options (and there are many, wow!) but we'll go stir-crazy with what could be more than twenty configurations. Think of how many studies that entails to review every single one. Let's fly first, then we'll grow.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 12/04/2008 02:08 am
I'm also on Mark's side, especially his 2nd last sentence. People's (the public's) eyes will glaze over if they have so many variations, as in the various proposals presented so far.

Simple and easy (KISS). If Direct gets the nod, NASA can assign their own numbering sequence as they see fit.

If the rebutal is only going to NASA (not the transition team) then they might like the techno-language spelled out in terms they are familiar with.

Two works for now for me just fine. :)

Doesn't hurt to know the options (and there are many, wow!) but we'll go stir-crazy with what could be more than twenty configurations. Think of how many studies that entails to review every single one. Let's fly first, then we'll grow.

My understanding is that there is only 3 Jupiter rocket versions considered by the Direct team in their multi-years plan: J-120, J-232 and the rocket now called J-22D.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/04/2008 03:18 am
My understanding is that there is only 3 Jupiter rocket versions considered by the Direct team in their multi-years plan: J-120, J-232 and the rocket now called J-22D.

PaulL

Thanks everyone for all the replies, both pro and con, to my previous post. I like the fact that everyone can have their say without the usual Internet flame-fest ensuing.

And as far as I have seen, from all of the documents on the Direct site, as well as all the posts in these DIRECT threads on NSF for the past two years, and all of the articles that have been written about Direct, there have only been two launchers 'officially' proposed by the Direct team. Until the past few days here.

Now we are talking about Atlas upper stage this, Delta Heavy that, and to anyone without encyclopaedic knowledge of past, present, and future launchers, i.e. me, it all starts to sound like gobbledygook. (That's a technical term from the IT field.)  And I am here to tell you that if this modification/addition is carried through now, it will dilute the message, the simplicity, and the clarity of the DIRECT proposal. And I don't think that is the direction that we need to move in.

I know everyone is well-meaning and it is easy to get caught up in the excitement of creation, but it needs to wait. Like my Mom always says, don't put the cart before the horse.

Remember: Safer, Simpler, Sooner.

Cheers,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/04/2008 12:21 pm
I don’t like J-22D, I really don't. It completely dilutes, changes and destroys the naming convention we arrived at. The current naming scheme is simple and direct: 3 digits:

#1: Number of stages to reach orbit
#2: Number of engines on the core stage
#3: Number of engines on the upper stage.

Two things are always assumed:

1: A pair of strap on boosters, currently the STS SRBs
2: Excepting the Jupiter-120, that the configuration is 2-stages to orbit.

That’s it: Simple

If you want to add to that and be able to use Atlas or Delta or Indian or Euoropean or Brazilian or Japanese or Russian or whatever existing stages for an upper stage, then simply append the name of that stage to the basic Jupiter naming convention. Let the 3rd digit continue to do what it was designed to do; itemize the number of engines in that upper stage. If there is no stage name appended, then it is assumed that the upper stage is a standard Jupiter upper stage powered by the J-2X engine.

Here’s examples:

Jupiter-120.........................One stage,   2-engine core
Jupiter-231.........................Two stages, 3-engine core, 1-engine Jupiter upper stage
Jupiter-232.........................Two stages, 3-engine core, 2-engine Jupiter upper stage
Jupiter-231 Centaur..........Two stages, 3-engine core, 1-engine Atlas Centaur upper stage
Jupiter-232 Centaur..........Two stages, 3-engine core, 2-engine Atlas Centaur upper stage
Jupiter-234 Centaur..........Two stages, 3-engine core, 4-engine Atlas Centaur upper stage
Jupiter-231 DCUS............Two stages, 3-engine core, 1-engine Delta DCUS upper stage
Jupiter-231 HDCUS.........Two stages, 3-engine core, 1-engine Delta HDCUS upper stage
Jupiter-231 ESC...............Two stages, 3-engine core, 1-engine Ariane ECS upper stage
Jupiter-231 LE5EC...........Two stages, 3-engine core, 1 engine H-IIA LE-5EC upper stage

Etc, etc, etc

That’s how we did it back in the day (append the upper stage name) and it was always very clear what was on the pad and what was flying. –Simple-

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 12/04/2008 12:49 pm
So how would we deal with the name of a three-stage Jupiter rocket?

Is a three-stage rocket to impractical to begin with? If so, I could settle for clongton's naming convention.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/04/2008 01:09 pm
So how would we deal with the name of a three-stage Jupiter rocket?

Is a three-stage rocket to impractical to begin with? If so, I could settle for clongton's naming convention.

The Jupiter-232 can place well in excess of 110mT into LEO. It is highly unlikely that we will ever, as a practical matter, ever actually need to orbit more than that at one time; especially once the propellant depot is operational. Any “3rd stage” would in reality be a mission stage, not part of the launch vehicle itself. Its engine(s) and propellant would come into play for orbital insertion/circularization, and not for reaching orbit, so that the upper stage could self-dispose in the atmosphere, and would be used for the mission, not for the ascent to orbit. The vehicle would reach orbit on the power of two stages only.

We have deliberately avoided fielding any 3-stage to orbit scenarios because they simply are not financially viable. They would cost an enormous amount of money to flight-qualify for very, very few missions. And once the propellant depot architecture is functional, they will be utterly unnecessary.

110mT+ payload to orbit is an enormous amount of mass. There is simply no need to lift more than that in a single launch. The Jupiter-232 will take care of all our heavy lift needs for decades.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/04/2008 02:49 pm


The Jupiter-232 can place well in excess of 110mT into LEO. It is highly unlikely that we will ever, as a practical matter, ever actually need to orbit more than that at one time; especially once the propellant depot is operational. Any “3rd stage” would in reality be a mission stage, not part of the launch vehicle itself. Its engine(s) and propellant would come into play for orbital insertion/circularization, and not for reaching orbit, so that the upper stage could self-dispose in the atmosphere, and would be used for the mission, not for the ascent to orbit. The vehicle would reach orbit on the power of two stages only.

But aren't the J120 "second stages" derived from the Atlas or DIVHUS also mission stages, as you define them above?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/04/2008 03:21 pm


The Jupiter-232 can place well in excess of 110mT into LEO. It is highly unlikely that we will ever, as a practical matter, ever actually need to orbit more than that at one time; especially once the propellant depot is operational. Any “3rd stage” would in reality be a mission stage, not part of the launch vehicle itself. Its engine(s) and propellant would come into play for orbital insertion/circularization, and not for reaching orbit, so that the upper stage could self-dispose in the atmosphere, and would be used for the mission, not for the ascent to orbit. The vehicle would reach orbit on the power of two stages only.

But aren't the J120 "second stages" derived from the Atlas or DIVHUS also mission stages, as you define them above?

Just like the Jupiter EDS upper stage, they serve dual purposes; Launch Vehicle Upper stage *and* mission stage, subsequently functioning as an Earth Departure (EDS) stage, *after* achieving orbit.

A pure mission stage does not have to contribute delta-V to achieve LEO. In these configurations, these upper stages actually ignite suborbitally and contribute to the delta-V needed to achieve orbit, just like the Jupiter upper stage used for the EDS. They ignite suborbitally and complete the climb to orbit. The fact that it they are subsequently used to depart orbit for a lunar destination does not negate the fact that it was necessary to burn suborbitally in order to achieve LEO.

That's the difference. If it must burn suborbitally in order to achieve LEO, then it is a launch vehicle stage, even if it also serves as an EDS after the fact. A pure mission stage does not have to do that. These stages do, so they are all, just like Jupiter's (and Ares's) EDS, they are all a launch vehicle upper stage. If it has to burn to achieve LEO, it is a launch vehicle upper stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/04/2008 08:52 pm
Sorry, I thought the J120 could orbit a ~16 tonne centaur and a ~25 tonne CEV all on its own. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/05/2008 01:38 am
Here's a little piece of news from GRC looking into a more environmentally friendly solid fuel booster:

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=133107

Quick excerpt: "NASA/GRC has a requirement to produce a more environmentally friendly oxidizer for solid rocket boosters. The oxidizer is called ammonium dinitramide (A.D.N.)."

Obviously more in line with EELV's, but I thought it was interesting from the stand-point of the SRB's in the Direct architecture.

Ross, it looks like EPA is looking into SRB toxicity a little sooner than once thought ;)  (from another post you had here...)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg305431#msg305431
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 12/05/2008 06:15 am
I would stick with the current naming. Let NASA figure how they are going to denote the different versions. Right now, it is best to keep things as simple as possible. Jupiter is supposed to be the true safe, simple, soon solution.

And the one thing you guys have going is that the common person can understand Jupiter. Start throwing in complex letters and whatnot and you'll lose people.
Look at NASA with the change in Shuttle names using letters. It still doesn't make much sense to me. Keep it simple, don't get too far ahead of yourselves.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lars_J on 12/05/2008 07:37 am
KISS - Learn it, Live by it...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/05/2008 10:30 am
Any “3rd stage” would in reality be a mission stage, not part of the launch vehicle itself.

Actually, this is a coincidence as I wanted to ask a question but I didn't want to take the thread off-topic.  Would it be possible for a Jupiter to launch a complete and fully fuelled lunar explorer (Orion, LSAM and EDS) into LEO with enough fuel for the TLI burn?

I ask because I am (and I admit this in all embarrassment) writing a semi-fictionalised story of a Jupiter-based VSE, mostly because I am a sci-fi freak and count space exploration and creative writing amongst my hobbies.  I was thinking of something along the lines of a Jupiter-244-Heavy with a two-engine EDS 'third stage' on top, as described by clongton in the quoted post.  However, I would defer to anyone who knows better.

My interests aside, an 'all in one' mission, although much more expensive, would be visually impressive and would generate positive publicity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 12/05/2008 10:44 am


The Jupiter-232 can place well in excess of 110mT into LEO. It is highly unlikely that we will ever, as a practical matter, ever actually need to orbit more than that at one time; especially once the propellant depot is operational. Any “3rd stage” would in reality be a mission stage, not part of the launch vehicle itself. Its engine(s) and propellant would come into play for orbital insertion/circularization, and not for reaching orbit, so that the upper stage could self-dispose in the atmosphere, and would be used for the mission, not for the ascent to orbit. The vehicle would reach orbit on the power of two stages only.

But aren't the J120 "second stages" derived from the Atlas or DIVHUS also mission stages, as you define them above?

Just like the Jupiter EDS upper stage, they serve dual purposes; Launch Vehicle Upper stage *and* mission stage, subsequently functioning as an Earth Departure (EDS) stage, *after* achieving orbit.

A pure mission stage does not have to contribute delta-V to achieve LEO. In these configurations, these upper stages actually ignite suborbitally and contribute to the delta-V needed to achieve orbit, just like the Jupiter upper stage used for the EDS. They ignite suborbitally and complete the climb to orbit. The fact that it they are subsequently used to depart orbit for a lunar destination does not negate the fact that it was necessary to burn suborbitally in order to achieve LEO.

That's the difference. If it must burn suborbitally in order to achieve LEO, then it is a launch vehicle stage, even if it also serves as an EDS after the fact. A pure mission stage does not have to do that. These stages do, so they are all, just like Jupiter's (and Ares's) EDS, they are all a launch vehicle upper stage. If it has to burn to achieve LEO, it is a launch vehicle upper stage.

What is the plan with the J-221 DIVHUS with regard to the avionic control system? Will it be transferred from the J-120 core to the DIVH upper stage?  If the "brain" of the rocket is transferred on the upper stage, this makes it much more than just a pure mission stage.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/05/2008 10:53 am
Sorry, I thought the J120 could orbit a ~16 tonne centaur and a ~25 tonne CEV all on its own. 

It can. In this case the Centaur would be a mission stage because it does not *have* to burn in order to achieve LEO. Orion+Centaur would be the payload. The Jupiter-120 can put 50mT into LEO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/05/2008 11:05 am
What is the plan with the J-221 DIVHUS with regard to the avionic control system? Will it be transferred from the J-120 core to the DIVH upper stage?  If the "brain" of the rocket is transferred on the upper stage, this makes it much more than just a pure mission stage.

PaulL

You mean a Jupiter-221 HDCUS.

If the operational launch avionics is on the HDCUS, then it is a launch vehicle upper stage, not a pure mission stage, because that indicates that the engine will burn in order to achieve orbit. That does not preclude the HDCUS from *also* functioning as a mission stage after orbital insertion if there is sufficient propellant remaining for it to do any serious work.

Definition-wise, this would be just like the current Jupiter upper stage, the EDS on the Jupiter-232. That upper stage performs the final ascent to orbit, which makes it a launch vehicle upper stage, but there is sufficient propellant remaining to perform the TLI burn after docking with Orion.

Again, the key is whether or not the stage *MUST* perform a burn in order to achieve orbit. If it must, then it is a launch vehicle upper stage, which may or may not subsequently perform double duty as a mission stage. If it does not have to burn to achieve orbit, then it is a pure mission stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/05/2008 11:34 am
KISS - Learn it, Live by it...

Well guys, no comment from the Direct team, so I guess this is all falling on deaf ears...

HP2BSQRE, Lab Lemming, robertross, gladiator1332, and Lars_J: thanks for your support.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they come up with. A combinatorial expansion of launchers and names just does not seem simple to me...

Safer, Simpler, Sooner

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/05/2008 11:40 am


What is the plan with the J-221 DIVHUS with regard to the avionic control system? Will it be transferred from the J-120 core to the DIVH upper stage?  If the "brain" of the rocket is transferred on the upper stage, this makes it much more than just a pure mission stage.

PaulL

Both launch vehicle and upperstage can have separate guidance systems.  It was the standard in the early 60's and for the T-IV IUS and T-IV Centaur
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/05/2008 11:47 am
KISS - Learn it, Live by it...

Well guys, no comment from the Direct team, so I guess this is all falling on deaf ears...

HP2BSQRE, Lab Lemming, robertross, gladiator1332, and Lars_J: thanks for your support.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they come up with. A combinatorial expansion of launchers and names just does not seem simple to me...

Safer, Simpler, Sooner

Mark S.

Mark;
I thought I WAS keeping it simple. Notice that my original comment on this hybrid staging stated that if we *must* go down this road that we should not mess with the original naming convention we devised back when we were developing this, and to just append the stage name like we used to back in the day. At least we would know what kind of a Jupiter we’re flying and what kind of normal or commercial stage we’re flying on it.

I said “If we must”, because I would rather not. Jupiter-120 or Jupiter-232 is all I would prefer to talk about for now. But there are missions later that will need an upper stage before the Jupiter EDS is ready and the question of how to identify them is what sparked this conversation in the first place. At least the method I suggested, which was used effectively before, sticks to the KISS principle.

So you are incorrect to say that there has been no comment from the DIRECT team.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/05/2008 12:01 pm
Okay, I'm going to call this one.   We're going to go with a variant on Chuck's naming convention:-

Jupiter-120
Jupiter-120-Centaur
Jupiter-120-HDCUS
Jupiter-232
Jupiter-232-Centaur
Jupiter-232-HDCUS

The "H" moniker can still be used to indicate the "Heavy" Jupiter variant using 5-segment SRB's, as:

Jupiter-232H-Centaur

There are no current plans for stretching the Core Stage because it "breaks" the performance of the low cost J-120 configuration.

This keeps the basic Jupiter configurations unchanged and relatively uncomplicated, in order to make it very clear to everyone that those vehicles remain the same.   Yet this approach clearly indicates which extra stage is placed on top of the standard configuration.

It is theoretically possible for that additional stage to perform the final part of the ascent and won't be a purely dedicated in-space stage, but this will have to be handled in the mission profile description on a case-by case basis.

Also, we fully expect NASA to use its own naming convention if adopted.   This is just ours.

I'd like to thank everyone for bringing the subject up and giving us the impetus to push this subject to a conclusion.   Thanks for all your comments.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/05/2008 12:12 pm
What is the plan with the J-221 DIVHUS with regard to the avionic control system? Will it be transferred from the J-120 core to the DIVH upper stage?  If the "brain" of the rocket is transferred on the upper stage, this makes it much more than just a pure mission stage.

Separate avionics systems.

The Jupiter systems aren't designed to control a Centaur or HDCUS, nor visa-versa.   The Jupiter will hand-off control to the extra stage as though it were a payload.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/05/2008 12:15 pm
Ross, it looks like EPA is looking into SRB toxicity a little sooner than once thought ;)  (from another post you had here...)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg305431#msg305431

Robert,
They still haven't grown real teeth on this issue yet.   Concerns have been bubbling away now for about 20 years, but nobody is really pushing a change yet.

To have any hope of changing is going to require a really major push by EPA because both NASA/ATK and DoD/many contractors are going to push back pretty hard.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/05/2008 02:54 pm

Mark;
I thought I WAS keeping it simple.
.......
So you are incorrect to say that there has been no comment from the DIRECT team.


Thanks Chuck. I stand corrected.

It's just that there were multiple people calling for Direct to keep things simple and we didn't seem to be getting responses...

I still don't see the need for changing the names of the launchers. If the J-120 can put 50 mT in orbit by itself, then launching anything <= 50mT is using the baseline capabilities of the vehicle so there is no need to change (or add on to) the name. Same for the J-232 for anything <= 100 mT. The launchers are the same, its the payloads that are changing. The Centaur+satellite is the payload, or the HDCUS+satellite is the payload. But the purpose of the Jupiter launchers is to get the payload to LEO, so whatever is needed to get the payload to LEO is what needs to be part of the launcher name.

Now if you want to put 75 mT in LEO before the J-232 is ready, I could see a case for a J-221 or whatever.

But I guess that's the end of that, the end of this subject has been called.

Cheers,
   Mark S.
 
EDIT: Didn't mean to imply that I'm part of the Direct team...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/05/2008 03:44 pm
I wouldn't worry about the EPA too much.  The SRB are not environmentally friendly but only a few go per year.  There are many more sources, that aren't national federal projects with national visibility.

What you could do is say that the existing 4 segment boosters provide 20% less pollution than the proposed 5 segment boosters. 

That is an advantage for the proposed Direct vehicles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: CJM on 12/05/2008 05:31 pm
Except for a typical 2 launch or 1.5 launch scenario the usage would be:

Direct 4 x 4 segment boosters = 16 segments
Ares 3 x 5 segment boosters = 15 segments

Direct is a 6% increase in booster segments, and therefore percholorate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lars_J on 12/05/2008 06:36 pm
Isn't Ares V now actually supposed to use 5.5 segment SRBs? I thought I read that, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/05/2008 06:43 pm
Yep - 2x5.5 + 1x5 = 16 segments.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/05/2008 06:44 pm
Isn't Ares V now actually supposed to use 5.5 segment SRBs? I thought I read that, but I could be wrong.

Yes, and they are contemplating 6.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/05/2008 06:45 pm
The rebuttal is a priority item right now.   I want to get it out the door this week if we can.

Ross.

Any news on this?


By the way, I think I have a better understanding now of the 'tangents' that are being discussed. We need more people to get behind DIRECT so if you can sell the idea to different areas of the space community, like planetary science, then all the better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 12/05/2008 06:58 pm
Isn't Ares V now actually supposed to use 5.5 segment SRBs? I thought I read that, but I could be wrong.

Yes, and they are contemplating 6.
6-segment SRBs??? J. Haploid Christ... that is beyond a joke. At that rate they would be better off making liquid strap-on boosters, I'd think. Or going for three 4-segs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/05/2008 07:14 pm
Joffan, I agree, 6 segment SRBs would be comical looking. 

At some point you would have to just break the seemingly sacred rule of changing the diameter.  If they can't be shipped by rail then make them some place that allows shipping by water. 

5.5 or 6 segments are equally ridiculous.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/05/2008 07:17 pm
And they have an additional problem - diminishing returns.  It is possible that 6-segs may have worse performance than 5.5-segs due to the fact that the energy released by the SRMs does not increase for the extra half seg enough to counter the weight of the extra propellant and casing.

In any case, the weight of the SRBs are now also an issue, further increasing costs and shifting schedules to the 'right' as they need new crawlers and have to rebuild the crawlway and pad.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/05/2008 07:58 pm
And they have an additional problem - diminishing returns.  It is possible that 6-segs may have worse performance than 5.5-segs due to the fact that the energy released by the SRMs does not increase for the extra half seg enough to counter the weight of the extra propellant and casing.

Don`t think so, otherwise why would they consider them?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/05/2008 08:06 pm
Don`t think so, otherwise why would they consider them?

So they could have the biggest, baddest, ugliest, monster space launcher ever conceived since the dawn of time?  :)

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/05/2008 08:27 pm
So they could have the biggest, baddest, ugliest, monster space launcher ever conceived since the dawn of time?  :)

Mark S.

The Primitive caveman male in me sees the thrill in that. 

However, the engineer in me says give me the smallest, simplest, cheapest vehicle with the lowest reoccurring costs to get the required mass to orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/05/2008 08:33 pm
So they could have the biggest, baddest, ugliest, monster space launcher ever conceived since the dawn of time?  :)

They`ll need more than a mere 6 segments booster to beat STS to that title.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/05/2008 08:51 pm
So they could have the biggest, baddest, ugliest, monster space launcher ever conceived since the dawn of time?  :)

They`ll need more than a mere 6 segments booster to beat STS to that title.

Well, how 'bout if we just drop the 'ugliest' part then...

But since I've been watching Shuttle launches since 4/12/1981, I guess the ungainliness of the STS stack has kind of grown on me...

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/05/2008 08:58 pm
The rebuttal is a priority item right now.   I want to get it out the door this week if we can.

Ross.

Any news on this?

It got bumped again! :) LOL   We've got a presentation on Monday, so that is taking priority for the next few days.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/05/2008 09:01 pm
The rebuttal is a priority item right now.   I want to get it out the door this week if we can.

Ross.

Any news on this?

It got bumped again! :) LOL   We've got a presentation on Monday, so that is taking priority for the next few days.

Ross.

Thanks for the update. Presentations are good. I'm sure you wouldn't be doing it if it weren't important. Keep up the fight!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/05/2008 09:05 pm
The rebuttal is a priority item right now.   I want to get it out the door this week if we can.

Ross.

Any news on this?

It got bumped again! :) LOL   We've got a presentation on Monday, so that is taking priority for the next few days.

Ross.

And here I was looking forward to feverishly reading every jot of the rebuttal over the weekend, growling and gnashing my teeth at the mulishness of Mike Griffin the whole time.

I guess now I'll have to spend some quality time with my family....  :D

Good luck on Monday!

Cheers,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 12/05/2008 09:09 pm
Behold and despair!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/05/2008 09:14 pm
Behold and despair!

Awesome pic, Matthew! You rock.

I stand aghast at the behemoth, but haven't yet descended to the point of despair.

 ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/05/2008 09:19 pm
Behold and despair!

Matthew,

    Could you use your obvious artistic skills to rotate the Ares-5 90 degrees about its axis? I still have a hard time envisioning the angle and size of the fairings over the outboard engines.

Thanks,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/05/2008 09:35 pm
Behold and despair!

Matthew,

    Could you use your obvious artistic skills to rotate the Ares-5 90 degrees about its axis? I still have a hard time envisioning the angle and size of the fairings over the outboard engines.

Those of you with L2 access can see the latest baseline Ares-V, along with the gargantuan fairings, for yourselves: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13917.0

It should be noted that the outboard engines have been moved slightly closer in though -- so their centerlines are now inline with the 'edge' of the 10m tanking.   It's an arrangement referred to as "Two Mounts Overboard".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/05/2008 09:41 pm
Behold and despair!

Good picture Matthew.

Thanks for taking the time putting it together.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/05/2008 09:55 pm
....   It's an arrangement referred to as "Two Mounts Overboard".

Ross.

But aren't there actually four engines outboard? That sounds like another misleading euphemism, like the infamous "1.5 launch" architecture.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lars_J on 12/06/2008 12:27 am
Behold and despair!
As much as I loathe the Ares V, Matthew, your PIC exaggerates its size... Compare the SRB segment size of the Ares I and V - The Ares V SRB is too big, so the entire vehicle may be too big.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/06/2008 01:25 am
Behold and despair!
As much as I loathe the Ares V, Matthew, your PIC exaggerates its size... Compare the SRB segment size of the Ares I and V - The Ares V SRB is too big, so the entire vehicle may be too big.

That's a good catch, but in the wrong way...
Do the paper test (for image scaling purposes).
Put a piece of paper on the screen and scribe the segments of:
1) Shuttle
2) Ares-I
3) Ares-V (VI?)

I think you'll find the problem is Ares-I. Shuttle SRB segments are correctly proportioned in relation to the Ares-V. I'm not sure what happened to the ARES-I segemnts, but they are indeed longer.

Still a great comparison photo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 12/06/2008 04:57 am
Ross, I expect you've already thought of this but thought I'd check.

For presentations, do you take a physical model of the Space Shuttle stack that can be pulled apart then re-assembled into Direct? Plus the equivalent for Ares I & V? Somethink you can hand to your audience so they can get a hands-on feel for how minor the Direct changes are compared to Ares.

Nice if each new part had a price tag with its development cost too. :)

(Not sure how you would convey the SRB propellant and grain change, maybe an insert or just swap the 4-seg SRB's for new 5, 5.5's with new nozzles and bose-caps).


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/06/2008 08:25 am
I don't know if you can whip one up in time, but this is an AWESOME idea. 

For the SRB's, you just bring all new 5 or 5.5 seg SRBs in, showing that they are in fact a new rocket.

It is a great way to show the difference between "the same" and "similar idea, but actually a whole knew vehicle."

Ross, I expect you've already thought of this but thought I'd check.

For presentations, do you take a physical model of the Space Shuttle stack that can be pulled apart then re-assembled into Direct? Plus the equivalent for Ares I & V? Somethink you can hand to your audience so they can get a hands-on feel for how minor the Direct changes are compared to Ares.

Nice if each new part had a price tag with its development cost too. :)

(Not sure how you would convey the SRB propellant and grain change, maybe an insert or just swap the 4-seg SRB's for new 5, 5.5's with new nozzles and bose-caps).



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/06/2008 10:54 am
Behold and despair!

Oh for goodness sake!

That thing will make Pad 39 sink into the ground under its unfuelled weight! Just how big, ungainly and, frankly, unimaginably expensive does that monster have to be before someone in authority tells NASA to pull the plug?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 12/06/2008 11:54 am
What is the plan with the J-221 DIVHUS with regard to the avionic control system? Will it be transferred from the J-120 core to the DIVH upper stage?  If the "brain" of the rocket is transferred on the upper stage, this makes it much more than just a pure mission stage.

Separate avionics systems.

The Jupiter systems aren't designed to control a Centaur or HDCUS, nor visa-versa.   The Jupiter will hand-off control to the extra stage as though it were a payload.

Ross.

Ross, what about the J-232. Will the core stage and the upper stage have separate avionics systems with control transfer after staging or will the upper stage control the core stage?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/06/2008 01:22 pm
....   It's an arrangement referred to as "Two Mounts Overboard".

Ross.

But aren't there actually four engines outboard? That sounds like another misleading euphemism, like the infamous "1.5 launch" architecture.

Sorry, I wasn't clear -- it's not counting the number of engines overboard, it's counting the number of mounting points for each outboard engine.

See the four blue bolt locations at the top of this picture:

(http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~propulsi/propulsion/images/rockets/liquids/rs68.jpg)

You will note there are four mounting points at the top of the RS-68's support structure.   How these are fitted to the Ares-V is what I'm talking about.

"No Mounts Overboard" has all four of those mounts located within the perimeter of the 10m tankage.

"One Mount Overboard" has the engine clocked around  so that two diagonal mounts are located along the 'perimeter' of the 10m tankage, the third is inboard and the fourth is outboard.

"Two Mounts Overboard" has a pair of mounts 'hanging out there' with the centerline of the engine nozzle located on the 10m perimeter of the tank.   It is the widest possible configuration.   This is the arrangement that has just recently been baselined according to my information.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/06/2008 01:47 pm
Ross, I expect you've already thought of this but thought I'd check.

For presentations, do you take a physical model of the Space Shuttle stack that can be pulled apart then re-assembled into Direct? Plus the equivalent for Ares I & V? Somethink you can hand to your audience so they can get a hands-on feel for how minor the Direct changes are compared to Ares.

Not really.   We have Our HD video sequence (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-232.mov) on our website which Philip "Pixar" Metschan did for us which gets the point across really clearly.

I did make a 1:72 scale Jupiter-232 for ISDC a while back (see attached pic).   But it was an extremely rush job (built in just four days IIRC!) and that sadly led to a number of flaws.   It was also a pain to transport because it was *big* yet relatively delicate.   I still have it in a box here though...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/06/2008 01:57 pm
Ross, what about the J-232. Will the core stage and the upper stage have separate avionics systems with control transfer after staging or will the upper stage control the core stage?

There are a number of different approaches under consideration.

Right now, our baseline assumes each vehicle flies with just a single Instrument Unit (IU) mounted on the top-most cryo stage.   It would be mounted directly on top of the Core Stage in Jupiter-120 config and on top of the Upper Stage for the Jupiter-232.   In my 3D imagery you can see it as a black ring just under the Fairing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/06/2008 05:33 pm
But since I've been watching Shuttle launches since 4/12/1981, I guess the ungainliness of the STS stack has kind of grown on me...

Mark S.

I have a few relatives like that.

The proposed Ares 5/6 is so ridiculous that only a madman could think that it should be built.  Size, weight, design, development, testing, transportation, assembly are all so much more than use 2 Direct vehicles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/06/2008 06:01 pm
Ross, I expect you've already thought of this but thought I'd check.

For presentations, do you take a physical model of the Space Shuttle stack that can be pulled apart then re-assembled into Direct? Plus the equivalent for Ares I & V? Somethink you can hand to your audience so they can get a hands-on feel for how minor the Direct changes are compared to Ares.

Nice if each new part had a price tag with its development cost too. :)

(Not sure how you would convey the SRB propellant and grain change, maybe an insert or just swap the 4-seg SRB's for new 5, 5.5's with new nozzles and bose-caps).




Sounds like an idea for Christmas play toys for the kids of the transition team members  ;)

Or one for Griffin as a parting gift... lol (sorry, couldn't resist)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/06/2008 07:16 pm
At this scale, would an Ares-IV fit through a door?

Ross, I expect you've already thought of this but thought I'd check.

For presentations, do you take a physical model of the Space Shuttle stack that can be pulled apart then re-assembled into Direct? Plus the equivalent for Ares I & V? Somethink you can hand to your audience so they can get a hands-on feel for how minor the Direct changes are compared to Ares.

Not really.   We have Our HD video sequence (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-232.mov) on our website which Philip "Pixar" Metschan did for us which gets the point across really clearly.

I did make a 1:72 scale Jupiter-232 for ISDC a while back (see attached pic).   But it was an extremely rush job (built in just four days IIRC!) and that sadly led to a number of flaws.   It was also a pain to transport because it was *big* yet relatively delicate.   I still have it in a box here though...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/06/2008 07:17 pm
How many overboard on the Jupiter?

....   It's an arrangement referred to as "Two Mounts Overboard".

Ross.

But aren't there actually four engines outboard? That sounds like another misleading euphemism, like the infamous "1.5 launch" architecture.

Sorry, I wasn't clear -- it's not counting the number of engines overboard, it's counting the number of mounting points for each outboard engine.

See the four blue bolt locations at the top of this picture:

(http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~propulsi/propulsion/images/rockets/liquids/rs68.jpg)

You will note there are four mounting points at the top of the RS-68's support structure.   How these are fitted to the Ares-V is what I'm talking about.

"No Mounts Overboard" has all four of those mounts located within the perimeter of the 10m tankage.

"One Mount Overboard" has the engine clocked around  so that two diagonal mounts are located along the 'perimeter' of the 10m tankage, the third is inboard and the fourth is outboard.

"Two Mounts Overboard" has a pair of mounts 'hanging out there' with the centerline of the engine nozzle located on the 10m perimeter of the tank.   It is the widest possible configuration.   This is the arrangement that has just recently been baselined according to my information.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/06/2008 07:20 pm
How many overboard on the Jupiter?

One Mount Overboard on the Jupiter design.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: fotoguzzi on 12/06/2008 10:37 pm
Pg 64 second paragraph:
"For example, the vehicle vibrates so radically in what would be the first few moments of launch that a buckling in the structural features of the rocket occurred and when tested it ended up crashing into the ocean."

WTF??

This may be obvious to others, but I just realized what probably happened here.  The author is conflating the worst-case-scenario fears of Ares I with the desired behavior of the future boilerplate test launch of Ares I-X, where, indeed, the payload will crash into the ocean.

Sloppy journalism to be sure!  Is there a Pulitzer Prize for the largest number of errors in a single sentence?  (Addition):  The type of errors seen here might indicate referral to hastily scratched notes in a reporter's notebook rather than reviewing a tape recording.

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 12/07/2008 02:14 am
At this scale, would an Ares-IV fit through a door?

Ross, I expect you've already thought of this but thought I'd check.

For presentations, do you take a physical model of the Space Shuttle stack that can be pulled apart then re-assembled into Direct? Plus the equivalent for Ares I & V? Somethink you can hand to your audience so they can get a hands-on feel for how minor the Direct changes are compared to Ares.

Not really.   We have Our HD video sequence (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-232.mov) on our website which Philip "Pixar" Metschan did for us which gets the point across really clearly.

I did make a 1:72 scale Jupiter-232 for ISDC a while back (see attached pic).   But it was an extremely rush job (built in just four days IIRC!) and that sadly led to a number of flaws.   It was also a pain to transport because it was *big* yet relatively delicate.   I still have it in a box here though...

Ross.

I was thinking about 1:144 or even 1:200 scale.  Something fairly non-delicate so it can take a lot of handling, maybe wood. The detail needn't be great, just get the concept across.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 12/07/2008 02:26 am
I want to know has anyone came up with any numbers on the cost per Kg with Direct launcher?
I've read some numbers on some older documents on SDVs and they often showed a price of $2000 to $2500 per Kg of payload.
If this is true then it should enable some interesting missions since it's a reduction in cost by a factor of 2 to 3.
Title: Second stage?
Post by: robert_d on 12/07/2008 03:44 am
if the current shuttle ET tank manufacturing techniques were used, I was wondering what the weight of the Jupiter second stage would be? Would the size be near a single barrel or 2 barrels (understanding that ther is a common bulkhead) between the LO2 and LH2 tanks)? How would it compare to the Centaur derived baseline design?
Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: clongton on 12/07/2008 10:32 am
if the current shuttle ET tank manufacturing techniques were used, I was wondering what the weight of the Jupiter second stage would be? Would the size be near a single barrel or 2 barrels (understanding that there is a common bulkhead) between the LO2 and LH2 tanks)? How would it compare to the Centaur derived baseline design?

To answer your specific question, the Jupiter EDS has a dry mass of 21,485kg, with a burnout mass of 23,245kg. I have attached the current baseline baseball card for the Jupiter-232. Notice however that the image has not yet been updated at the base of the core stage to show the slimming toward the engine nozzles to lessen the effects of base heating.

For all intents and purposes, the Jupiter upper stage is a big Centaur. We had a lot of communications with and assistance from the Atlas Advanced Systems people as we were developing the design. The barrel itself is a scaled up Centaur; same design, same materials, same proprietary Cold Technology. They did not, of course, actually  discuss the proprietary data with us. What they were able to do was to  provide us with the tools to determine the dry mass, minus engines and thrust structure, of the Jupiter version of the Centaur. Then we tackled the thrust structure that would hold and manage the (2) J-2X engines. After everything was assembled, it was given a final look-over and we were told that the design was very doable, that based on the standard Centaur design and the changes we wanted to make in size and power plant, that the stage was easily manufacturable. Finally we calculated the pmf for the stage using NASA standard techniques, and submitted our performance numbers to them for peer review. They came back and told us that our numbers were quite conservative, especially the pmf, and that the stage would perform better than we had calculated. But we have stuck with the numbers we determined, preferring to remain on the conservative side. It's important to repeat at this point that this effort on our behalf was not an official Lockheed-Martin effort, and the work performed by these professionals was not done on company time. Like all the professional advice and assistance we've received, it was done voluntarily on their own time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/07/2008 11:04 am
At this scale, would an Ares-IV fit through a door?

Ross, I expect you've already thought of this but thought I'd check.

For presentations, do you take a physical model of the Space Shuttle stack that can be pulled apart then re-assembled into Direct? Plus the equivalent for Ares I & V? Somethink you can hand to your audience so they can get a hands-on feel for how minor the Direct changes are compared to Ares.

Not really.   We have Our HD video sequence (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/video/STS_to_Jupiter-232.mov) on our website which Philip "Pixar" Metschan did for us which gets the point across really clearly.

I did make a 1:72 scale Jupiter-232 for ISDC a while back (see attached pic).   But it was an extremely rush job (built in just four days IIRC!) and that sadly led to a number of flaws.   It was also a pain to transport because it was *big* yet relatively delicate.   I still have it in a box here though...

Ross.

I was thinking about 1:144 or even 1:200 scale.  Something fairly non-delicate so it can take a lot of handling, maybe wood. The detail needn't be great, just get the concept across.

When I was coming up with my own concept back in late 2003, for a hybrid SDV/Ariane HLLV, I thought of creating an "adaptable demo" model from conventional platic model kits at whatever same scale was available, using Shuttle, Ariane V, and Saturn V (for the CSM/SLA) kits. The idea was to replace some of the permanent (glued) attachments with velco patches, so I could show up with the assembled conventional models, then quickly reassemble them into my 1-launch LEO ISS manned/Cargo and 2-launch Lunar scenarios vehicles. In the end, all I did was a writeup for *Spaceflight,* but the configurable model demo would be a good idea for DIRECT if you ever wound up doing Congressional testamony. A quick rebuild demo would be a striking way to get the idea across.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/07/2008 12:10 pm
According to NASA, the EDS mass is one of the main stumbling blocks in DIRECT. I'm looking forward tothe rebutal of this.
Given that NASA appears to have chosen a different option for their Ares EDS, this is something which needs to be explained clearly and concisely in the DIRECT proposal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/07/2008 12:17 pm
According to NASA, the EDS mass is one of the main stumbling blocks in DIRECT. I'm looking forward to the rebuttal of this.
Given that NASA appears to have chosen a different option for their Ares EDS, this is something which needs to be explained clearly and concisely in the DIRECT proposal.

In their analysis, NASA did a number of unsavory things, including deliberately employing an EDS design that we never advanced. Our design was clearly shown, in every document we ever published, to be based on the Centaur, with a common bulkhead and using the Centaur Cold Technology. NASA ignored this and inserted their own, far heavier and much less efficient design that used separate tanks and a completely different design philosophy. We NEVER showed anything in any of our documentation right from the very beginning of DIRECT v2, that even remotely resembled what they inserted into the design. This was a deliberate effort at deception on their part and a huge "thumb on the scale" and the rebuttal document takes them to task for it.

Just to round things out:
Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: robert_d on 12/07/2008 04:22 pm

To answer your specific question, the Jupiter EDS has a dry mass of 21,485kg, with a burnout mass of 23,245kg. I have attached the current baseline baseball card for the Jupiter-232. Notice however that the image has not yet been updated at the base of the core stage to show the slimming toward the engine nozzles to lessen the effects of base heating.

For all intents and purposes, the Jupiter upper stage is a big Centaur. We had a lot of communications with and assistance from the Atlas Advanced Systems people as we were developing the design. The barrel itself is a scaled up Centaur; same design, same materials, same proprietary Cold Technology. They did not, of course, actually  discuss the proprietary data with us. What they were able to do was to  provide us with the tools to determine the dry mass, minus engines and thrust structure, of the Jupiter version of the Centaur. Then we tackled the thrust structure that would hold and manage the (2) J-2X engines. After everything was assembled, it was given a final look-over and we were told that the design was very doable, that based on the standard Centaur design and the changes we wanted to make in size and power plant, that the stage was easily manufacturable. Finally we calculated the pmf for the stage using NASA standard techniques, and submitted our performance numbers to them for peer review. They came back and told us that our numbers were quite conservative, especially the pmf, and that the stage would perform better than we had calculated. But we have stuck with the numbers we determined, preferring to remain on the conservative side. It's important to repeat at this point that this effort on our behalf was not an official Lockheed-Martin effort, and the work performed by these professionals was not done on company time. Like all the professional advice and assistance we've received, it was done voluntarily on their own time.
Why I asked was because the current Centaur upper stage does not support very large payloads such as LSAM/Orion.  I assume you have worked this into the calculation but was trying to get a feel for the wieght differences.  Similarly, how much weight is added to the core stage tanks and intertank structure to support the full EDS/LSAM/Orion?

Thanks.


Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: clongton on 12/07/2008 04:34 pm
Quote
author=robert_d link=topic=12379.msg341971#msg341971 Why I asked was because the current Centaur upper stage does not support very large payloads such as LSAM/Orion.  I assume you have worked this into the calculation but was trying to get a feel for the wieght differences.  Similarly, how much weight is added to the core stage tanks and intertank structure to support the full EDS/LSAM/Orion?

Thanks.

The current Centaur does not support such large payloads because it uses the RL-10 engines, which are very efficient engines but are not designed for massive payloads. What the Jupiter EDS does is scale up the Centaur to the 8.4m diameter to match the ET, and employ a new thrust structure and a pair of J-2X engines in place of the RL-10s.

The Jupiter ET is heavier than the Shuttle ET by virtue of milling a smaller amount of material than currently done for the STS SLLT. It's closer to the tank mass originally used for the earlier STS flights. I'll have to get back to you on the specific delta.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/07/2008 05:12 pm
I want to know has anyone came up with any numbers on the cost per Kg with Direct launcher?

Actually we just updated all our numbers recently so it's good you ask.

At our expected FY2020 Fully Operational Capability for the Program, we assume a total of 12 launches per year supporting 2 J-120 to ISS, 3 Lunar Crew, 4 Single-Launch Lunar Cargo, the Jupiter-120 would cost  approx. $3,298 per kg to LEO and Jupiter-232 approx $2,694 per kg to LEO.

LEO defined as 130x130nmi, circular 29.0deg.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/07/2008 05:28 pm
At our expected FY2020 Fully Operational Capability for the Program, we assume a total of 12 launches per year supporting 2 J-120 to ISS, 3 Lunar Crew, 4 Single-Launch Lunar Cargo, the Jupiter-120 would cost  approx. $3,298 per kg to LEO and Jupiter-232 approx $2,694 per kg to LEO.

If these numbers are correct, then why would a propellant depot fed by Falcons, Deltas, Atlas' etc. make any sense at all, if their cost to the same orbit is 5-10 times higher?
Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: zeke01 on 12/07/2008 05:28 pm


To answer your specific question, the Jupiter EDS has a dry mass of 21,485kg, with a burnout mass of 23,245kg. I have attached the current baseline baseball card for the Jupiter-232. Notice however that the image has not yet been updated at the base of the core stage to show the slimming toward the engine nozzles to lessen the effects of base heating.

Thanks for baseball cards.  I noticed that for the core stage data, on both cards (EDS and Lunar Crew configurations), the DIRECT Team has labeled Engine Isp performance as Engine Thrust (listed twice). The team should get that corrected.  A minor nit, I know.

zeke
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/07/2008 05:59 pm
At our expected FY2020 Fully Operational Capability for the Program, we assume a total of 12 launches per year supporting 2 J-120 to ISS, 3 Lunar Crew, 4 Single-Launch Lunar Cargo, the Jupiter-120 would cost  approx. $3,298 per kg to LEO and Jupiter-232 approx $2,694 per kg to LEO.

If these numbers are correct, then why would a propellant depot fed by Falcons, Deltas, Atlas' etc. make any sense at all, if their cost to the same orbit is 5-10 times higher?

It will take a lot of launches of the smaller commercial launch vehicles to keep the depot filled as the VSE begins to take hold in space. This larger volume of launches will keep the cost per kg down. Remember, propellant itself is dirt cheap. It's the lack of sufficient quantities of it in space that drive the price up. Simple supply and demand. In addition, as the possibility to make money supplying the depot takes hold, I would not be surprised to see new, dirt cheap and really simple "tanker" rockets show up. The cost of the payload itself is so cheap that they could actually afford to loose a few of them on the way up.

The presence of an on-orbit propellant facility brings more players into the exploration scene as originally envisioned by the VSE.

From a document I recently completed:

The majority of    the mass lifted into orbit for missions beyond LEO consist of    propellant. To date, all missions have had to carry all their own    propellant aloft at the time of initial launch, at the expense of better spacecraft, probes and satellites. If instead mission spacecraft could be orbited and then proceed to the depot for the propellant, larger, better and more efficient spacecraft of all    types can be used in pursuit of the goals of the VSE, at a much    reduced cost.

Many nations    would like to participate in space exploration, but have neither    the money nor an eastern shoreline to allow launches into space.    This will no longer be a barrier to them because now they will be    able to contract with nations that are launch capable, such as Russia, India, Japan, China, the United States, or with any of the launch-capable commercial entities, to deliver propellant to the depot. With this leverage, they will be able to take part in the missions, have seats on the spacecraft, or otherwise become full partners in the VSE, much as several nations today participate in    the ISS by providing something, a module or resupply service, for example, in exchange for participation in the ISS.

An orbiting depot    will enable more nations that are launch capable but do not have    heavy lift capacity to launch spacecraft that then will obtain    their mission fuel from the depot before proceeding on their    missions. This brings more players to the exploration scene. Heavy    lift is not a requirement for all things exploration, but abundant    propellant is. Like the neighborhood gasoline station, an orbiting    propellant depot enables smaller spacecraft to devote more of its    own mass to the instruments and/or crew that the mission requires,    if they do not have to lift their own propellant to orbit at launch.

A propellant depot is not aimed specifically at the Jupiter lunar mission, however if one were available, the full ESAS lunar mission could be accomplished with a single Jupiter-232 launch. Other nations would be able to have seats on the lunar spacecraft or on the ground on the moon by supplying propellant for the transit spacecraft. It is envisioned as an enabler for many nations or NGO's to have the ability to participate by contributing the necessary propellant for the trip, instead of NASA needing to dedicate an entire launch to lifting a second EDS with sufficient propellant remaining to get to the moon.

The moon is not the only target. Once the depot is underway, Mars and NEO's become more accessable. The depot is not there specifically for NASA. It is there for anyone who needs propellant on orbit to conduct exploration. The depot, an American asset, is an enabler for the entire space-fairing community, and a solid money-maker for the commercial entities that will own and operate them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/07/2008 09:38 pm
It will take a lot of launches of the smaller commercial launch vehicles to keep the depot filled as the VSE begins to take hold in space. This larger volume of launches will keep the cost per kg down. Remember, propellant itself is dirt cheap. It's the lack of sufficient quantities of it in space that drive the price up. Simple supply and demand. In addition, as the possibility to make money supplying the depot takes hold, I would not be surprised to see new, dirt cheap and really simple "tanker" rockets show up. The cost of the payload itself is so cheap that they could actually afford to loose a few of them on the way up.

I'm very skeptical of this.  Lots of smaller launches + simple rockets does not seem to add up to a launch price lower than that of a launcher 5-10 times larger.  For low-cost transport of large volumes, it seems larger systems (i.e. supertankers) always wins, especially when the cargo is relatively cheap.  IOW, why launch 20 (or, whatever the number ends up being) Falcon 9s when 1 J-232 will do the same job?  I just can't envision the former being cheaper than the later, when the later is in full production and operation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/07/2008 09:54 pm
If these numbers are correct, then why would a propellant depot fed by Falcons, Deltas, Atlas' etc. make any sense at all, if their cost to the same orbit is 5-10 times higher?

Three reasons:-

1) The Jupiter infrastructure can handle a maximum of 12-16 launches per year.   You can either use half of those to lift propellant and half to lift spacecraft which results in an absolute maximum of 8 exploration class missions each year or you can offload the propellant deliveries to another launch system and fly up to 16 missions every year.

2) Increasing the number of missions is the goal.   There are two benefits from doing this:-
a) Production rate of Orion's and Altairs increases which buys you a lot of benefits in terms of Economies of Scale on the extremely expensive *spacecraft* portion of the equation -- which is usually ignored, but which actually represents the lions-share of the total costs!   Lower your spacecraft unit cost drastically and that also drastically lowers the cost of each individual mission.
b) If you fly more often, you will accomplish your targets sooner.   Say it takes 8 cargo flights and 4 crew flights before the Lunar base becomes operational and can be fully-crewed.   At the CxP baseline flight rate this will take a minimum of 4 years before the base can be permanently crewed (Ares target: 2024).   If you are able to afford to fly 3 crew flights and 4 cargo flights per year you can get the Lunar base operational in half the time (DIRECT target: 2019).   Only once you meet your Lunar targets will any program be able to afford to focus money and development on the next target: Mars.   Mars in 2031 is going to be a far more achievable goal for a program which has 12 years of permanent habitation experience on the Lunar surface than for a program with no more than 6 years under its belt.

3) Foreign Partnerships are hoped to pay for many of the propellant deliveries.   This takes a whole layer of costs off the US tax payer's shoulders and allows partner nations to seriously contribute.   For those partners with their own space programs it improves their own flight rates, so that's a serious perk to encourage them too.   For partners without space programs, the high-flight-rate and low-cost EELV class competitors can really start competing for the contracts instead of relying upon government subsidies for all their contracts.   The ultimate goal is that the commercial EELV class propellant delivery missions won't have to be paid by the US taxpayer at all, that those bills will be paid 100% by a mix of the 130+ countries in the world all clamoring for seats on the prestigious Lunar missions.   If any nation (or company!) wants to be a part of the program, they only need to supply 50-60 tons of propellant to the Depot.   In return for that investment they get one of their citizens flying on a 6 month trip to the Moon.   US domestic commercial launchers (Atlas, Delta, Falcon, Taurus, whoever) then ***COMPETE*** -- commercially -- for that business.   That's precisely what the commercial guys are supposed to be doing, is it not?   The benefit is that this additional business increases their flight rates too -- a LOT ---.   We are talking about requiring more than 60 Atlas-V 551-sized 20 ton launches every year.   That enormous amount of extra business produces economies of scale which drops the costs of those systems as well.   DoD is made very happy, NASA is happy and all their other customers are happy too.   It's a win-win situation for everyone, SDLV, EELV, New Space and Foreign programs alike.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/07/2008 10:16 pm
Okay, I guess none of those ever came to mind since lots of Orion/Altair missions and a permanently inhabited lunar base make so little sense to me.  My question was based on economics (the cost of filling the depot) alone.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 12/07/2008 10:28 pm
I have a couple of Major question about a Propellant Depot..

What orbital inclination do you choose? Do you hamstring everyone else that may use it by putting it in a Russian Accessible Orbit? 

Who insures the Depot in case a spacecraft coming in destroys it?  Does each tanker mission have to be insured for the cost of the entire depot if it destroys or damages it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/08/2008 12:21 am
... why launch 20 (or, whatever the number ends up being) Falcon 9s when 1 J-232 will do the same job? 

It may be cheaper to fly propellant on the bigger Jupiters, but the goal is to not use up the limited number of Jupiters we can build every year on propellant deliveries when we can use them instead for lunar missions. Let somebody else launch the propellant on their own dime. We don't care if they use big rockets, little rockets, cannons or bow and arrow. In the end, we simply don't care how the propellant gets to the depot; only that it's there when we need it and at a price that we can afford to pay.

The fact that the depot owner makes a handsome profit on every delivery is exactly the reason we want him there. If he's making money, he will make sure that we keep coming back to him. How he gets the propellant in the tank is his business. When I go to the gas station I don't ask the station owner what size tanker delivered the gasoline. maybe it was a tanker. Maybe it was 250 pickup trucks. I don't care. I'm only interested in if he has the fuel I want and how much he wants to charge me for it. Everything else is his business, not mine. It's the same with the depot. It is not our concern if they use big or little rockets, only that what we need is there and that the price is fair.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/08/2008 01:55 am
The fact that the depot owner makes a handsome profit on every delivery is exactly the reason we want him there.

Let's say I'm NASA and I can launch J-232s at the costs projected.  That's about the amount I'd be willing to pay for propellant at the depot.  If it costs 5 times more to get it there via SpaceX vehicles (for example), then they won't launch that propellant because they'd lose money.  The only way to make this profitable for them is to somehow convince NASA to pay far more for that propellant than their own cost.  I still don't really see why they'd ever do that.  I don't buy the "were going to be out of launch capacity" argument, because I don't see the money for that level of activity materializing in the NASA budget.  We're at around four flights a year now.  I think the next decade or two holds 3-5 per year maximum.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 12/08/2008 02:21 am
According to NASA, the EDS mass is one of the main stumbling blocks in DIRECT. I'm looking forward tothe rebutal of this.
Given that NASA appears to have chosen a different option for their Ares EDS, this is something which needs to be explained clearly and concisely in the DIRECT proposal.

Another important difference between the Ares EDS and the Direct EDS is the number of J-2X engines. Is it better to have two engines like Direct to reduce gravity losses or only one like Ares V to minimize the EDS dry mass? 

What is a bit odd here is that NASA started initially with two engines on its EDS (LV 27.3) and Direct with only one (Direct 1.0).

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/08/2008 03:02 am
Is there an archive of documents from the original Direct (1.0) proposal?

I would like to compare and contrast the original and the current versions, because I think it would help me understand where the Direct team is coming from in a lot of issues discussed in these threads.

Thanks,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jimvela on 12/08/2008 03:26 am
When I go to the gas station I don't ask the station owner what size tanker delivered the gasoline. maybe it was a tanker. Maybe it was 250 pickup trucks. I don't care. I'm only interested in if he has the fuel I want and how much he wants to charge me for it.

That's a phenomenally bad example.  Comparing a single trip from a 9000 gallon tanker to 250 pickup truck loads, it's flat absurd.  (yes, I know you used a large number for effect, but you have to get called out on it).

At that rate, the fuel consumption of the carrier vehicle (15-20 mpg for pickup vs 4-6 for semi), and the burdened labor rate of the delivery service add up to overwhelm the cost of the raw commodity. 

You would care because it wouldn't be a 5cent/gallon increase, it'd be more in the range of doubling the cost of the product.  At that point, you'd do the same as me and every other driver and cross the street to the operator that uses sane transport methods.

This discussion is also flawed because of the assumption that NASA can fly anything less expensively than a commercial entity.

Though SpaceX hasn't even flown an F9 yet, and has no propellant depot or carrier, if the market were there they might be interested. 

Assuming that they can get an F9 heavy to fly (not a given), and that they offered a depot service, they'd find the most cost effective ways to do so.  To presuppose that a commercial carrier wouldn't find economic means to deliver commodity product is ridiculous.

Either they could do it at a profit and would, or they wouldn't be offering the product.  If they were in the business, then they'd go to every possible measure to reduce cost of carriage.  So would every other vendor in the market.

Anyone supposing that NASA can fly its own launchers for less money than a commercial entity is naive.  Just not possible. 

Same thing with commercially procured NASA launches.  What drives NASA's costs there is the contracted requirements as much as the actual launch.  When a vendor doesn't have to meet all NASA requirements, the same size payload costs considerably less to fly.

If there were a valid requirement to procure propellant from a depot, and if the procurement were at a price that would allow a profit, it wouldn't just be SpaceX offering product, but the big boys as well. 

The difference there is that they'd want a firm commitment before they are willing to use their own funds to develop the facilities and vehicles.
Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/08/2008 10:18 am
Why does the EDS-only baseball card have the same time-to-orbit and acceleration as the crew&LSAM rocket?  Isn't the whole point of the second EDS launch that it can get to orbit before burning the last 1/3 of its fuel, because it isn't carrying as much weight?

if the current shuttle ET tank manufacturing techniques were used, I was wondering what the weight of the Jupiter second stage would be? Would the size be near a single barrel or 2 barrels (understanding that there is a common bulkhead) between the LO2 and LH2 tanks)? How would it compare to the Centaur derived baseline design?

To answer your specific question, the Jupiter EDS has a dry mass of 21,485kg, with a burnout mass of 23,245kg. I have attached the current baseline baseball card for the Jupiter-232. Notice however that the image has not yet been updated at the base of the core stage to show the slimming toward the engine nozzles to lessen the effects of base heating.

For all intents and purposes, the Jupiter upper stage is a big Centaur. We had a lot of communications with and assistance from the Atlas Advanced Systems people as we were developing the design. The barrel itself is a scaled up Centaur; same design, same materials, same proprietary Cold Technology. They did not, of course, actually  discuss the proprietary data with us. What they were able to do was to  provide us with the tools to determine the dry mass, minus engines and thrust structure, of the Jupiter version of the Centaur. Then we tackled the thrust structure that would hold and manage the (2) J-2X engines. After everything was assembled, it was given a final look-over and we were told that the design was very doable, that based on the standard Centaur design and the changes we wanted to make in size and power plant, that the stage was easily manufacturable. Finally we calculated the pmf for the stage using NASA standard techniques, and submitted our performance numbers to them for peer review. They came back and told us that our numbers were quite conservative, especially the pmf, and that the stage would perform better than we had calculated. But we have stuck with the numbers we determined, preferring to remain on the conservative side. It's important to repeat at this point that this effort on our behalf was not an official Lockheed-Martin effort, and the work performed by these professionals was not done on company time. Like all the professional advice and assistance we've received, it was done voluntarily on their own time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/08/2008 11:06 am
When I go to the gas station I don't ask the station owner what size tanker delivered the gasoline. maybe it was a tanker. Maybe it was 250 pickup trucks. I don't care. I'm only interested in if he has the fuel I want and how much he wants to charge me for it.

That's a phenomenally bad example.  Comparing a single trip from a 9000 gallon tanker to 250 pickup truck loads, it's flat absurd.  (yes, I know you used a large number for effect, but you have to get called out on it).

At that rate, the fuel consumption of the carrier vehicle (15-20 mpg for pickup vs 4-6 for semi), and the burdened labor rate of the delivery service add up to overwhelm the cost of the raw commodity. 

You would care because it wouldn't be a 5cent/gallon increase, it'd be more in the range of doubling the cost of the product.  At that point, you'd do the same as me and every other driver and cross the street to the operator that uses sane transport methods.

This discussion is also flawed because of the assumption that NASA can fly anything less expensively than a commercial entity.

Though SpaceX hasn't even flown an F9 yet, and has no propellant depot or carrier, if the market were there they might be interested. 

Assuming that they can get an F9 heavy to fly (not a given), and that they offered a depot service, they'd find the most cost effective ways to do so.  To presuppose that a commercial carrier wouldn't find economic means to deliver commodity product is ridiculous.

Either they could do it at a profit and would, or they wouldn't be offering the product.  If they were in the business, then they'd go to every possible measure to reduce cost of carriage.  So would every other vendor in the market.

Anyone supposing that NASA can fly its own launchers for less money than a commercial entity is naive.  Just not possible. 

Same thing with commercially procured NASA launches.  What drives NASA's costs there is the contracted requirements as much as the actual launch.  When a vendor doesn't have to meet all NASA requirements, the same size payload costs considerably less to fly.

If there were a valid requirement to procure propellant from a depot, and if the procurement were at a price that would allow a profit, it wouldn't just be SpaceX offering product, but the big boys as well. 

The difference there is that they'd want a firm commitment before they are willing to use their own funds to develop the facilities and vehicles.

Actually, governments can do things more cheaply than private enterprise. An excellent example would be the Soviet Union, which failed due to mismanagement, rather than succumbing to market forces. The reason is because while private enterprise is a thief (who steals everything not nailed down), government is a bandit (who makes you pull the nails from everything before stealing it). The problem with NASA (and western style capitalist democracies in general) is the complete entanglement betweem government and private enterprise. Cost plus is a merchant cutting a deal with a bandit to get the nails pulled from the goodies so they're easier to steal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/08/2008 11:35 am
Okay, this is off-topic but it strikes me as the right place to put this.

I've long been a fan of those 'looking ahead' videos with CGI simulations of future space missions that NASA does.  Unfortunately, they all use the Ares rockets (Boo!).  So, I sat down and thought about what I would like to see in a NASA video introducing the DIRECT family of rockets and the various ideas being floated around for their use in a future beyond Earth-Moon system exploration program.

The way I see it, if you really want VSE to happen, you have to create a buzz.  You need to persuade the voting and tax-paying public that it should happen, that this is something worth doing.  This is just my humble attempt to contribute towards that goal.

I should note that I am nothing to do with Team Vision, so Ross and the others can't be held responsible for any vehicle ideas that I use (and their plausibility... or lack thereof).

[EDIT - Errors and corrections; I have uploaded a new version of the file to remedy some minor errors.  The only significant one in terms of understanding the proposals is that there should have been five modules on on the moonbase, not four]
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: beb on 12/08/2008 12:54 pm
It seems it was only a few pages back that DIRECT was being criticized for coming up with new missions for a Jupiter-120 + DIVUS because it was a distraction from their core mission, persuading Congress and the WH that Ares was a dead end. Now here we are blithely talking about propellent depots and blue sky lunar missions based on PD. This is a bigger distraction than Jupiter-120 based near Earth object missions or lunar fly-bys.

When you talk about PDs all the Congree critters are going to hear is how we can run a lunar mission without ever building either Ares *OR* Jupiter! At last when you talk about J-120+DIVUS missions you're talking about reasons to build Jupiter.

Talk about depots after you convince Congress to go with Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/08/2008 01:19 pm
beb
The Jupiter launch vehicle exists as a tool to enable the VSE. DIRECT (name of this thread) is an architecture which describes what we will do in space and how we will do it. A Propellant Depot in LEO is central to that architecture and is another tool, clearly described in all our official publications, such as last year's AIAA paper. It's not just about the rocket. General discussion about a Propellant Depot, as it involves the Jupiter launch vehicle, is relevant. Specific discussion about Propellant Depots in general should go to the Propellant Depot thread. But the PD discussion thus far (last few posts) was in regard to the Jupiter and that makes them appropriate;

Having said that:

When I go to the gas station I don't ask the station owner what size tanker delivered the gasoline. maybe it was a tanker. Maybe it was 250 pickup trucks. I don't care. I'm only interested in if he has the fuel I want and how much he wants to charge me for it.

That's a phenomenally bad example.  Comparing a single trip from a 9000 gallon tanker to 250 pickup truck loads, it's flat absurd.  (yes, I know you used a large number for effect, but you have to get called out on it).

At that rate, the fuel consumption of the carrier vehicle (15-20 mpg for pickup vs 4-6 for semi), and the burdened labor rate of the delivery service add up to overwhelm the cost of the raw commodity. 

You would care because it wouldn't be a 5cent/gallon increase, it'd be more in the range of doubling the cost of the product.  At that point, you'd do the same as me and every other driver and cross the street to the operator that uses sane transport methods.

This discussion is also flawed because of the assumption that NASA can fly anything less expensively than a commercial entity.

Though SpaceX hasn't even flown an F9 yet, and has no propellant depot or carrier, if the market were there they might be interested. 

Assuming that they can get an F9 heavy to fly (not a given), and that they offered a depot service, they'd find the most cost effective ways to do so.  To presuppose that a commercial carrier wouldn't find economic means to deliver commodity product is ridiculous.

Either they could do it at a profit and would, or they wouldn't be offering the product.  If they were in the business, then they'd go to every possible measure to reduce cost of carriage.  So would every other vendor in the market.

Anyone supposing that NASA can fly its own launchers for less money than a commercial entity is naive.  Just not possible. 

Same thing with commercially procured NASA launches.  What drives NASA's costs there is the contracted requirements as much as the actual launch.  When a vendor doesn't have to meet all NASA requirements, the same size payload costs considerably less to fly.

If there were a valid requirement to procure propellant from a depot, and if the procurement were at a price that would allow a profit, it wouldn't just be SpaceX offering product, but the big boys as well. 

The difference there is that they'd want a firm commitment before they are willing to use their own funds to develop the facilities and vehicles.

I’m sorry, but it’s a good example. I really, really don’t care how the gas station owner got his fuel to the station. I really, REALLY don’t care. For all I know he had 10,000 slaves carry it in water jugs on their heads – I really, really don’t care. There are only two things I do care about – and two things only: (1) does he have the fuel I want, and (2) can I afford the price he is asking. That’s it – nothing else. And that translates directly to an orbital propellant depot.

And far as what the price is at the depot, the market will set that. Yes, it’s going to cost me more per kilogram of (just) propellant than what I would pay for pure propellant on the ground (just propellant not propellant and launcher), but it is NOT going to cost me the price per kilogram it costs me to actually launch it myself and pay for the Jupiter launch vehicle I use to launch it as well. The cost per gallon of fuel that I pay if I have to launch it myself has to include the cost of the Jupiter launch vehicle I also paid for to carry it up plus the cost of the infrastructure and personnel to actually pull off the launch plus the actual cost of the propellant. But if I *buy* it on-orbit from a depot, I don’t care how the depot owner got it there. He is commercial and will get it there cheaper than I ever could. Sure, HIS launch vehicle costs will be rolled into the price per kilogram I pay him for it, but I guarantee it won’t be as much as if I had to buy my own Jupiter launch vehicle to lift it. It is always going to cost me less to buy it on orbit from a commercial depot than if I have to purchase my own tanker rocket, and then purchase the propellant to put in the tank, and then launch that tanker at a government owned facility. Remember, I’m not going to be the depot’s only customer, and there will probably end up being several depots that compete with each other, the beginning of a network that sizes itself based on the slowly growing space-based civilization it will enable.

Years ago, back in the beginning of the automobile years, when a family set out on a Motor Car trip, they typically carried a very large barrel of gasoline along to make sure they had enough fuel to reach their destination, because there were no gasoline stations out there on the prairie back then. I know this for a fact because my grandfather used to tell me stories about the trips, and showed me old photographs. Those who actually could afford to own a motor car used to compete to see who could carry the biggest barrel and still get the motor car to run stable on the old dirt tracks they called roads, and have contests to see how far they could actually go. Today there are lots of filling stations, and automobiles now carry only a small amount of fuel and fill the car’s space up instead with things that the passengers need or want, plus all kinds of “features” to make the trip more comfortable and enjoyable. Look at today’s huge Motor Homes. Back before there was a network of filling stations such vehicles were totally inconceivable. Today they have bathrooms, bedrooms, kitchens, living rooms and televisions. All because they don’t have to carry all their own fuel; just enough to get to the next gas station. Eventually it will become something similar with a space-based human civilization; which is what the VSE is really all about.

A network of propellant depots in space (LEO, EML1, EML2, ESL1, ESL2, MS1, MS2, etc) will forever change the way we transit space. It starts with just one, in LEO, as part of the DIRECT architecture roadmap to get the VSE underway. We’ll pay more per kilogram of propellant at the depot than if we had an 18-wheel tanker deliver it to KSC. But we will NOT pay more for it in total dollars than if we had to include in that price what it actually costs us to launch it ourselves. Jupiter launch vehicles are less expensive than Ares-V’s, but they are not cheap. They cost thousands of times more than the propellant you want to lift. A commercial depot launch facility will always pay less to launch propellant than the US government will, especially if there are multiple customers and several depots competing. And you know what? We’ll pay less total cost and the depot owner will still make a profit.

All this is just if I actually pay cash for the propellant to the depot owner. There is another, more important aspect to this that we are counting on and that is to enable many other nations to have a seat on the spacecraft and in the lunar base facilities. That is that they provide the propellant for the transit either by launching it themselves if they have the capability or by contracting with someone else who is capable of doing it. In that case we don’t even care how much the propellant costs. It could be triple what we would otherwise pay – we don’t care because we will not be paying one thin dime for it. How much is it worth to that other country to fly on a lunar mission? They will always be willing to pay at least up to that amount in order to have a seat at the table and be able to participate, because the alternative is that they just don’t get to go. A propellant depot in orbit gives them the ability to actually take part in the VSE. And that is the way we see the depot fitting into the DIRECT architecture. The profit making commercialization of the depot system will come later, when there are other nations flying their own missions in their own spacecraft that stop at the station to gas up before heading out. DIRECT sees it as leverage for other nations to participate who otherwise would be left out. That cuts the cost * TO US * of a lunar mission almost in half because we only pay for roughly half of it. Somebody else pays for the other half, someone other than the US taxpayer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/08/2008 02:17 pm
Comparing a single trip from a 9000 gallon tanker to 250 pickup truck loads, it's flat absurd.  (yes, I know you used a large number for effect, but you have to get called out on it).

At that rate, the fuel consumption of the carrier vehicle (15-20 mpg for pickup vs 4-6 for semi), and the burdened labor rate of the delivery service add up to overwhelm the cost of the raw commodity. 

...

This discussion is also flawed because of the assumption that NASA can fly anything less expensively than a commercial entity.

...

Assuming that they can get an F9 heavy to fly (not a given), and that they offered a depot service, they'd find the most cost effective ways to do so.  To presuppose that a commercial carrier wouldn't find economic means to deliver commodity product is ridiculous.

...

Anyone supposing that NASA can fly its own launchers for less money than a commercial entity is naive.  Just not possible.

These statements are in conflict with each other.  First you argue that a large tanker beats a lot of smaller vehicles (I agree), then you argue that the NASA launchers - which are the large tankers - cannot possibly be cheaper than all the small "trucks" like the F9.

The development cost of the Jupiters will have to be paid for anyway to enable all of this (that's a premise - doing all of this without heavy lift is possible but a different subject).  Therefore, the cost of delivering propellant to a depot is the marginal cost of additional missions not including amortization of development costs.  So, you have that advantage and at least a factor of four (100mT versus 25mT) larger delivery vehicle as well.  Given those advantages, it seems reasonable to me, even likely, that the NASA vehicles would have a lower cost per kg to LEO than the much smaller commercial launchers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/08/2008 03:37 pm
Lee Jay,
Hang on, you need to step back a bit and see the bigger picture.   We ultimately want international partners to pay for all the fuel.   The US doing it initially is just a sto-gap measure to get the program up and running.   Propellant deliveries under the DIRECT architecture are designed to be picked up by others.

Now, some will launch it themselves:   Russia, Europe, Japan, China & India are obvious examples.

But most of the other 130+ nations in the world who do not have space programs of their own will then need to contract with another nation for launch services if they wish to take part in this extremely prestigious program.

The US domestic commercial launch services will then go and compete -- as they are supposed to -- for all that business.

Current estimates suggest that total demand for propellant launch services will hit between 1,200 mT and 1,800mT every year.   Say half of that is launched by the space-faring countries listed above.   The other half is then competed for.   That results in 600-900mT of launch capacity up for bid on the world market.

Now, don't forget that NASA's launchers are simply not allowed to compete in the open commercial launch market.   So they are not even an option in this market, irrelevant of their cost.

It is Atlas, Delta, Falcon and others whom will be representing US interests in this burgeoning new industry.   They should all be strongly encouraged to compete, hard, for a healthy share of that lucrative market because every contract they can win will equate to hundreds of millions of dollars in trade coming into the US economy from foreign shores.   I think that's a rather good thing, don't you?

Say that just 25% of that market share could be picked up by, say, ULA's Atlas program just for an example.   That would be the equivalent of 8 additional Atlas-V 551 launches on their manifest every year -- that's a contract worth somewhere in excess of $800m and still only represents one quarter of the total market.   Our estimates suggest that increasing the flight-rate by that amount will reduce the amortized cost of each Atlas-V 551 by somewhere in the region of $70m, so every DoD, NASA or NOAA launch also benefits by a similar amount, which is a nice side-effect.   But the key is that by dropping the costs this way, it makes those systems even more competitive.   And if the costs go down this way, it makes these systems more likely to win even more contracts next year, no?

The effect snowballs pretty quickly until the launch systems hit their peak efficiency around 40 units per year.   If ULA or Space-X can ever hit their production buffers, I think their management would not be thinking of it as much of a 'problem'.   Do you?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 12/08/2008 04:30 pm
A propellant depot's orbital inclination shall be a highly nuanced geo-political decision and therefore I would be cautious about giving such depots too prominent a role in the initial adoption of the DIRECT approach.

51 degrees? (most everyone can participate)
 
28 degrees? (most everyone, except Russia)

20 degrees? (Wenchang City - China & ESA only)

5 degrees?  (Kouru, French Guyana - ESA only)



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/08/2008 04:40 pm
A propellant depot's orbital inclination shall be a highly nuanced geo-political decision and therefore I would be cautious about giving such depots too prominent a role in the initial adoption of the DIRECT approach.

51 degrees? (most everyone can participate)
 
28 degrees? (most everyone, except Russia)

20 degrees? (Wenchang City - China & ESA only)

5 degrees?  (Kouru, French Guyana - ESA only)

The beginning lunar mission in the DIRECT architecture will not make use of a depot – that technology still needs to be perfected and tested before it can become operational - which it will. We will launch from KSC at 28 degree inclination, dock with the EDS and depart for the moon. There is no danger of diluting the initial first few missions with the PD. The depot will come online later, as the efforts in support of the VSE begin to internationalize. My preference would be for the 51 degree inclination for 2 reasons (1) more nations can participate and (2) notwithstanding the fact that the KSC launch looses a little efficiency going to that orbit, it is a better inclination to begin a lunar mission from.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/08/2008 04:51 pm
Since the "bigger picture" is currently all just speculation and conjecture, I was ignoring it.  Who is paying for all that, Ross, and why are they paying for it?

My point was that there is no need for NASA to pay for propellant deliveries to fuel its own missions if the cost of those deliveries exceeds its own cost for launching the same propellant.  I also feel that, if a large (thousands of tons per year) market develops someday, commercial providers are going to have to produce far larger rockets in order to compete in such a market.  It just doesn't make sense to launch 100 Falcon 9s, or 40 Delta IV heavies when 8 or 9 larger launches (J-232 size) would do the same job.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/08/2008 05:18 pm
Since the "bigger picture" is currently all just speculation and conjecture, I was ignoring it.  Who is paying for all that, Ross, and why are they paying for it?

My point was that there is no need for NASA to pay for propellant deliveries to fuel its own missions if the cost of those deliveries exceeds its own cost for launching the same propellant.  I also feel that, if a large (thousands of tons per year) market develops someday, commercial providers are going to have to produce far larger rockets in order to compete in such a market.  It just doesn't make sense to launch 100 Falcon 9s, or 40 Delta IV heavies when 8 or 9 larger launches (J-232 size) would do the same job.

I see where you're coming from, and from that specific perspective we are actually in agreement.   In the early days, we are planning to just launch two Jupiter-232's to accomplish each Lunar mission.   We're going to have at least half a dozen missions doing exactly that.

But we don't want the program to grind to a halt at that point and get stuck in that architecture for the next 30-40 years.

We could keep on doing that, but that's pretty expensive for the US tax-payer and limits us to no more than about 4-6 Lunar missions per year.

While that isn't exactly 'bad', it isn't as good as we can do.   And it doesn't scale, in a cost-effective way, to Mars later.   The Propellant Depot opens up a lot more capability, without driving up the US Taxpayer's contribution.   It also offers a real way to get valuable contributions from partners in exchange.   It takes us beyond the basic "Flags & Footprints" missions and allows for a *much* larger program with *realistic* growth easily double, maybe even triple what CxP expects as a maximum capability right now.

We don't have to do it.   But if we're going to invest this considerable amount of money in an exploration program at all, why should we cripple ourselves straight out of the box and limit our future options?   Keep our options open and show people what we can actually accomplish and lets set the bar a lot higher.

The key is that the cost for the baseline mission plan of 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo is ~$7.6bn per year under DIRECT -- inc. Jupiter, Orion and Altair together but not including any crew or science costs at all.   To double the Lunar effort to 4 Crew and 4 Cargo each year costs a grand difference of $1.5bn extra = $9.1bn per year.

Now compare that baseline $7.6bn figure with Ares, which costs $10.4bn to achieve the baseline and the EELV equivalent is $10.1bn.   Both programs cost more than two billion extra.   With that saving, Jupiter can do more than *double* and leave enough left over to pay for more science and other things too.   That's a worthwhile target to aim for IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/08/2008 05:22 pm
Since the "bigger picture" is currently all just speculation and conjecture, I was ignoring it.  Who is paying for all that, Ross, and why are they paying for it?

My point was that there is no need for NASA to pay for propellant deliveries to fuel its own missions if the cost of those deliveries exceeds its own cost for launching the same propellant.  I also feel that, if a large (thousands of tons per year) market develops someday, commercial providers are going to have to produce far larger rockets in order to compete in such a market.  It just doesn't make sense to launch 100 Falcon 9s, or 40 Delta IV heavies when 8 or 9 larger launches (J-232 size) would do the same job.

If/When we get to the point that there is a market that big then NASA and the Feds could just privatize Jupiter or Ares and get out of the way.

I know the Feds have been doing the reverse of that lately but that wont last long.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/08/2008 05:33 pm
I'm actually in favor of a propellant-depot of sorts (very different from what you all are proposing) and I'm in favor of a robust human exploration program beyond Earth and LEO (again, very different).  I just don't see a cost-effective way to fill it without big rockets.  As far as I know, there are no big rockets out in the commercial market (well, real ones, that is - I'll ignore Elon's current dreams until they happen).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/08/2008 06:33 pm
Lee Jay,
You're thinking the right way.   The current EELV class vehicles offer a best-case cost profile around $6,500-7,000 per kg to LEO (assuming 40 launches per year).   But if there is a market and clear demand then it is worthwhile them developing upgraded versions in order to get that figure down.   But that should really be driven by commercial market forces for all these commercial suppliers, no?

Once there is an established market for hundreds of tons of lift requirements (after 2020) that will produce a pretty strong argument for ULA to develop the Atlas-V Phase-2 or Phase-3 options or for Delta to build their five-core Heavy variants.   Or for Space-X to build an even larger Falcon model.   The market will dictate the best supply systems and the vehicle sizes are probably going to grow to make them more cost effective.   I fully expect it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/08/2008 08:11 pm
The market will dictate the best supply systems and the vehicle sizes are probably going to grow to make them more cost effective.
Ross.

Ross,

    So would the fuel depot be a large, dedicated tank assembly that would be filled and refilled by the commercial launchers, and then drained by NASA exploration vehicles? Or would each commercial launcher lift a single-use tank that would be drained and discarded?

    The former seems more logical, but also more challenging. The latter seems simpler, but I think a single commercial launcher would have to be huge be useful at all in that context.

Thanks,
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/08/2008 08:42 pm
Ross,

    So would the fuel depot be a large, dedicated tank assembly that would be filled and refilled by the commercial launchers, and then drained by NASA exploration vehicles?

Yes.   That's essentially the plan.   Although NASA doesn't necessarily have to be the only 'customer'.   A whole range of other mission types could also be enhanced by utilizing a generic Depot in LEO.


Quote
Or would each commercial launcher lift a single-use tank that would be drained and discarded?

The choice of how to deliver the propellant to the Depot is entirely up to the various organizations who win the various contracts.

I would think that the most effective option for Delta and Atlas would be to stretch their Cryogenic Upper Stages of the vehicle itself and use those to contain the propellant.   While there's a hit regarding development/re-qualification of the vehicle there would also be a saving in terms of launch infrastructure and manufacturing.

That works for both EELV's, but the Falcon doesn't currently use LH2 on its US, only LOX (w/ RP-1) so it would need a new dedicated tank for transferring that propellant -- at least until they develop their own LH2-powered US, which they're apparently working on already.

Foreign partners are mostly not using LH2 either, so they too would need a dedicated tank to be launched as a payload.

It all depends on the economies for the specific launcher in question.   It is even theoretically possible that joint partnerships might be possible with one partner agreeing to supply LH2 and a different one supplying LOX on separate flights.   There are all sorts of possibilities and its going to be up to the various suppliers to choose which is the most cost-effective option for their particular solution.   And there's no 'one way' that's right for everyone.

But essentially, we would like a single Depot to stay in LEO for something like 5-8 years at a time and then be replaced with a fresh one.   Then multiple deliveries will be made to fill its tanks.   Over it's life, we envision that a single Depot should be visited by upwards of 500 vehicles.

Another point, our current preference is for the Depot to have its own Remote Manipulator System able to grapple delivery vehicles and spacecraft.   That means all such vehicles only have to rendezvous with the Depot, not actually perform the docking themselves.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/08/2008 08:58 pm
We envision the *first* depot to be something like a modified Jupiter EDS, or something about that size. Both Boeing and Lockheed-Martin have conceptual designs of such a depot. That’s what we’ll cut our teeth on and hone the skills needed to perform the propellant transfers routinely.

Going forward we see a large depot (or two) servicing several visiting spacecraft, initially just NASA spacecraft, being continually filled by tanker deliveries of various sizes from various nations and/or suppliers, being partially emptied by outbound spacecraft only to be refilled again by deliveries. Eventually it will be spacecraft, not just from the United States, but from other nations as well. And it could also encompass our robotic friends that want to spend some time around one of the outer planets or moons. The beginnings of the Mars effort would benefit greatly by being required to only lift the spacecraft and empty tanks up the gravity well, then filling up at the depot before the TMI burn. Remember, up until the time of the depot, the mass of all these sorts of spacecraft consisted of 80% (more or less) propellant. The depot means they can either make the spacecraft much smaller without loosing functionality, or make the spacecraft far more useful without making them bigger. Most likely it will be somewhere in between. Not having to lift all the mission propellant in the same spacecraft that is doing the science mission unties a lot of hands and opens the door to a lot of possibilities.

Taking Ross's comment one step further, we speculate it would be very cost efficient if all the avionics needed for the rendezvous and docking or birthing were on the depot. The tankers avionics could be limited to slave circuits. The tanker would only need to get within detection range of the depot and the depot would take over. It would find the tanker and tell it what to do to get it close enough so that the grappling arms could capture and maneuver the tanker. That would drive down the cost of the disposable tanker and move the expensive electronics onto the one item that wasn’t disposable – the depot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/08/2008 09:06 pm
Ross,

    So would the fuel depot be a large, dedicated tank assembly that would be filled and refilled by the commercial launchers, and then drained by NASA exploration vehicles?

Yes.   That's essentially the plan.   Although NASA doesn't necessarily have to be the only 'customer'.   A whole range of other mission types could also be enhanced by utilizing a generic Depot in LEO.


Quote
Or would each commercial launcher lift a single-use tank that would be drained and discarded?

The choice of how to deliver the propellant to the Depot is entirely up to the various organizations who win the various contracts.

........

Another point, our current preference is for the Depot to have its own Remote Manipulator System able to grapple delivery vehicles and spacecraft.   That means all such vehicles only have to rendezvous with the Depot, not actually perform the docking themselves.

Ross.

Cool. That's about what I thought.

So the Depot itself (the first one anyways) would be more of a high-dollar item with an extended on-orbit lifetime. And the tankers carrying the LOX/LH2 could be more affordable because they only have be smart enough to rendezvous, not dock.

Have you thought about having separate depots for LOX and LH2? First, to prevent the possibility of an on-orbit explosion should one or the other develop a leak. Second, because the LH2 requires much better cryo tech to maintain LH2 on orbit.

Finally, I would assume that the Depot would be a NASA developed item, and that it would be launched on a Jupiter vehicle. Although I guess it could be outsourced, but that doesn't seem likely to me.

Thanks,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: Mark S on 12/08/2008 09:20 pm


To answer your specific question, the Jupiter EDS has a dry mass of 21,485kg, with a burnout mass of 23,245kg. I have attached the current baseline baseball card for the Jupiter-232. Notice however that the image has not yet been updated at the base of the core stage to show the slimming toward the engine nozzles to lessen the effects of base heating.

Thanks for baseball cards.  I noticed that for the core stage data, on both cards (EDS and Lunar Crew configurations), the DIRECT Team has labeled Engine Isp performance as Engine Thrust (listed twice). The team should get that corrected.  A minor nit, I know.

zeke

I was checking out the baseball cards to confirm Zeke's observation, which is true, when I noticed that the engine thrust numbers are given in three different units of measurement: lbf, kgf, and N. Kgf? Really? As in kilogram-feet? That is one fubarred up unit of measurement. Does anyone actually use that? Yuck.

Mark S.


Title: New Ares SRB
Post by: northstar on 12/08/2008 09:21 pm
As a LONG time lurker, I haven't seen anyone else comment on this item.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/11/ares-v-srbs-could-change-radic.html

This says that NASA is looking at completely changing out the SRB's to a new design.

The interesting thing for me is that they are looking at a 187 700 kg to orbit for ARES V, significantly up from the previous 130 000 kg or so.

Could this be as much driven by getting ARES I performance up to snuff as ARES V?

Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: William Barton on 12/08/2008 09:29 pm


To answer your specific question, the Jupiter EDS has a dry mass of 21,485kg, with a burnout mass of 23,245kg. I have attached the current baseline baseball card for the Jupiter-232. Notice however that the image has not yet been updated at the base of the core stage to show the slimming toward the engine nozzles to lessen the effects of base heating.

Thanks for baseball cards.  I noticed that for the core stage data, on both cards (EDS and Lunar Crew configurations), the DIRECT Team has labeled Engine Isp performance as Engine Thrust (listed twice). The team should get that corrected.  A minor nit, I know.

zeke

I was checking out the baseball cards to confirm Zeke's observation, which is true, when I noticed that the engine thrust numbers are given in three different units of measurement: lbf, kgf, and N. Kgf? Really? As in kilogram-feet? That is one fubarred up unit of measurement. Does anyone actually use that? Yuck.

Mark S.




the little f for "force" lbf and kgf.
Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: Mark S on 12/08/2008 11:40 pm
the little f for "force" lbf and kgf.

D'oh! (Smacks forehead with a couple of kgf)

Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: guru on 12/08/2008 11:56 pm
the little f for "force" lbf and kgf.

D'oh! (Smacks forehead with a couple of kgf)



Japan uses that to describe the thrust of its engines.  It is messed up, though - the metric unit of force is Newtons - kg m/s^2- while a kg refers to mass.  But kgf is really kg ft/s^2.
Title: Re: New Ares SRB
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/09/2008 12:23 am
As a LONG time lurker, I haven't seen anyone else comment on this item.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/11/ares-v-srbs-could-change-radic.html

This says that NASA is looking at completely changing out the SRB's to a new design.

The interesting thing for me is that they are looking at a 187 700 kg to orbit for ARES V, significantly up from the previous 130 000 kg or so.

Could this be as much driven by getting ARES I performance up to snuff as ARES V?



Hmm, wouldn't put too much weight on it, but they have been in a bad place for a long time WRT performance. 187mt throw weight is staggering. I'd hate to the see the crawler they envision to take that lot to the pad. I bet they'd see new Kerolox boosters proposed instead of SRBs. The SRB ignition as-is will already play merry hell with plume impingement, ignition shockwaves etc. A 5m SRB would be horrific.

I personally wonder if it's an option for a 1-launch approach since Obama's team is basically going to say scrap Ares-I. A jump from 125mT to 187mT would easily include an Orion.
Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: Mark S on 12/09/2008 01:52 am
the little f for "force" lbf and kgf.

D'oh! (Smacks forehead with a couple of kgf)



Japan uses that to describe the thrust of its engines.  It is messed up, though - the metric unit of force is Newtons - kg m/s^2- while a kg refers to mass.  But kgf is really kg ft/s^2.

Ha ha! So I was right even though I was wrong. :)   Any mixture of Imperial and Metric units is fundamentally broken.   Why in the world would they come up with kgf when N is already defined?

I still feel silly for mixing torque units with thrust, though ...

Mark S.
Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: Jorge on 12/09/2008 02:06 am
the little f for "force" lbf and kgf.

D'oh! (Smacks forehead with a couple of kgf)



Japan uses that to describe the thrust of its engines.  It is messed up, though - the metric unit of force is Newtons - kg m/s^2- while a kg refers to mass.  But kgf is really kg ft/s^2.

Ha ha! So I was right even though I was wrong. :)   Any mixture of Imperial and Metric units is fundamentally broken.   Why in the world would they come up with kgf when N is already defined?

I still feel silly for mixing torque units with thrust, though ...

Mark S.


The Russians use kgf for thrust as well. N may be the official SI unit of force, but in common practice, it's a bit of a bastard unit.
Title: Re: New Ares SRB
Post by: kraisee on 12/09/2008 08:55 am
As a LONG time lurker, I haven't seen anyone else comment on this item.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/11/ares-v-srbs-could-change-radic.html

This says that NASA is looking at completely changing out the SRB's to a new design.

The whole range of PBAN/HTPB/Composite/Alumin(i)um/5-seg/5.5-seg/6-seg/with-or-without-spacer SRB options have been mentioned on some of the L2 threads over the last ~6 months or so.

This is the first time I've seen it on another website though.


Quote
The interesting thing for me is that they are looking at a 187 700 kg to orbit for ARES V, significantly up from the previous 130 000 kg or so.

*Finally* NASA are admitting it!

I was desperately trying to point out that Ares-V was going to have to grow a lot bigger to accomplish these missions way back in April 2006 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1402.msg29578#msg29578)!   But nobody was listening then.   Nobody ever listens (its a Babylon-5/Hitchhikers inside joke!)

When you run the numbers, to get a 45mT LSAM, with 9mT of margins, plus a 20.2mT CEV to the moon, using 448s Isp engine(s) on the EDS, the total IMLEO was always going to be at least ~200mT.

Always.

ESAS *vastly* underestimated the requirement with the original '1.5 launch solution' when they indicated the IMLEO needed to be more like 170mT.   The 125mT LV-27.3 ESAS CaLV was always a complete joke in this architecture.

They have known about a serious Lunar mission performance 'shortfall' for over 18 months now, but nobody has publicly acknowledged it before.   Finally they're beginning to get serious about the problem though.   This is the first time I've seen anyone in the press really point this problem out.


Quote
Could this be as much driven by getting ARES I performance up to snuff as ARES V?

Not really.

The Ares-I was always only intended to lift the Orion CEV.   The Ares-V was always going to have to lift everything else in this architecture.

The low performance of the Ares-I is forcing a lot of things to be transferred over to the LSAM/EDS which had previously bee planned to be lifted on Orion (spacesuits, food, water, life support supplies etc) and those supplies add mass to the Ares-V payload requirement and thus do require a slightly larger booster to handle the extra, but it's not *that* big of an impact in the grand scheme of things.

This is just another one of the many reasons why we have been pushing the 2-launch solution from the get-go.   The ESAS '1.5 launch solution' was always going to run into this problem because Ares-V was always going to have to do all the donkey-work.   Ares-V has always been underestimated.   It's just good to see reality finally being noticed and physics no longer being ignored.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/09/2008 09:17 am
So the Depot itself (the first one anyways) would be more of a high-dollar item with an extended on-orbit lifetime. And the tankers carrying the LOX/LH2 could be more affordable because they only have be smart enough to rendezvous, not dock.

Bingo.   The aim is to reduce the complexity of the delivery flights as much as possible to get the best possible value out of them.


Quote
Have you thought about having separate depots for LOX and LH2? First, to prevent the possibility of an on-orbit explosion should one or the other develop a leak. Second, because the LH2 requires much better cryo tech to maintain LH2 on orbit.

We've thought of it, but dismissed it.

The only way this really works is if the mission flight brings up its own LH2 with it and simply tops-off it's LOX tanks in orbit.   That approach works fairly well.

But you wouldn't want two separate rendezvous events, two dockings and two completely separate transfer events in the procedure for going to the moon each time.   That adds a lot more complexity and increases the chance of things going wrong.   It's better to minimize it.

Also to keep LOX cold, there are some extremely good methods to sacrifice the much lighter (and thus cheaper to lift) LH2 if it's already on-site in the same tanking.   You transfer the heat from the LOX to the LH2 and just vent a little of that overboard.   Doing that allows you to preserve almost all of the far more expensive LOX with near-zero boil-off.   You don't have that option if there is no LH2 in the same location.

I would suggest you take a few minutes to read Atlas Centaur Extensibility to Long-Duration In-Space
Applications (http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Atlas/Atlas_Centaur_Extensibility_to_Long-Duration_In-Space_Applications_2005-6738.pdf)
to get an idea of the direction we would like to pursue in this area.

Of course, a permanent depot should ideally have a highly efficient active cooling system to reduce boil-off to near-zero anyway.   But that's a technology development which may not be included in the very first versions of a Depot.


Quote
Finally, I would assume that the Depot would be a NASA developed item, and that it would be launched on a Jupiter vehicle. Although I guess it could be outsourced, but that doesn't seem likely to me.

We think it should be a NASA item built by whichever contractor is building the Jupiter Upper Stages.

Right now, our plan calls for Boeing to do that assuming we can get a smooth transition from the Ares-I US contract to the JUS.

It could eventually be replaced by a purely commercial unit, or even a foreign one.   But that last option would create a concern regarding political leverage in non-space national strategic interests, so we aren't a fan of it.   We recommend that the US take the lead on such a critical piece of hardware.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/09/2008 09:21 am
Umm, is the 188t payload big news? I thought this was baselined a long time ago. The pdf on NASA's website with Ares-V specs has this number on it and has had for months IIRC.

What else needs to be done to Ares-V to get it up to this level of performance?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/09/2008 09:31 am
Kaputnik,
Don't believe everything you see on a website :)

Right now Ares-V's real performance (LV-51.00.48) is only around 161mT raw performance.   That's 145mT in real terms once you knock off the regular 10% of payload margins which you're supposed to.

To get 188mT raw, they're going to have to find another 27mT of performance from somewhere.   If they're aiming for 188mT after the margins, jeez...   That would mean they are still 48mT short on raw performance!

So much for their claim that DIRECT "breaks the laws of physics" eh?   The words "Pot" and "Kettle" come to mind.   Did their Fathers forget to tell them that if they are standing in a glass house it is a really stupid idea to go throwing stones at other people?

The last major upgrade, to a sixth RS-68, 5.5-seg SRB's and the associated ~190" Core Stretch to accommodate them, bought them roughly 14mT of increased performance.   Therefore, they're going to need to do that sort of upgrade two more times to get this Ares architecture to "close" the performance targets correctly.

Hence the studies this year into "Ares-V V-Max", "Ares-V H-Max" and "Ares-V Max".   Respectively the tallest, the widest and the tallest+widest possible configurations possible for the Ares-V and still fit it through the VAB doors.   How does a 12.6m diameter Core, 100+ft taller than at present, with 7 RS-68 engines and 6.5seg boosters grab you?   That is just about the largest configuration they have studied so far.   Personally, it has me laughing my ass off.

A recent report dismissed all the "Max" variants though because they would guarantee requiring New Pads, New Crawlers, New Crawlerways and the foundations of the VAB HighBays were expected to be insufficient too, which would result in a New VAB!   Also, MAF would have to have its entire facility replaced to go anywhere above about 11m diameter construction.   At least *somebody* in the agency knows when to say "enough, this is just getting too silly".

Ross.
Title: Re: New Ares SRB
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/09/2008 09:33 am
As a LONG time lurker, I haven't seen anyone else comment on this item.

This says that NASA is looking at completely changing out the SRB's to a new design.

I think that the real signifiance of this is that we can now officially lay to rest the lie that the Ares LVs are 'shuttle derived' in any way.  Admittedly, it has steadily lost any link to shuttle legacy technology over the past few years but with the loss of the SRB-lookalike boosters it doesn't even look the part anymore.

Of course, this isn't really an issue except on terms of maintaining jobs with various companies associated with space shuttle infrastructure.  I'm sure that a lot However, I bet that ULA will be pretty upset at NASA having incrementally dropped the primary reason why the EELVs were not considered as an Orion launcher.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/09/2008 09:37 am
I think that the real signifiance of this is that we can now officially lay to rest the lie that the Ares LVs are 'shuttle derived' in any way.  Admittedly, it has steadily lost any link to shuttle legacy technology over the past few years but with the loss of the SRB-lookalike boosters it doesn't even look the part anymore.

Absolutely.

The *only* remaining bit of commonality back to Shuttle now, will be the SOFI foam sprayed on the outside of the tanking.

If someone just plans a different mixture for the SOFI, Griffin will actually achieve his pet wish of destroying absolutely everything to do with Shuttle -- including the workforce, I might add.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/09/2008 01:09 pm
Well, one way to improve performance and get back to shuttle-derived parts is to use SSMEs. I mean, it doesn't seem that any of the higher-ups care about cost anymore ;).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/09/2008 01:13 pm
The rebuttal is a priority item right now.   I want to get it out the door this week if we can.

Ross.

Any news on this?

It got bumped again! :) LOL   We've got a presentation on Monday, so that is taking priority for the next few days.

Ross.

Okay Ross, I guess it's my turn this week. Any update on the rebuttal document? Cuz if not, we are all going to massively picket DIRECT world headquarters. I'll be the one with the bullhorn: "What do we want?"  "REBUTTAL!"  "When do we want it?"  "NOW!"

:)

There's nothing like direct action from millions thousands hundreds half a dozen space geeks to get things moving!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/09/2008 01:25 pm
The rebuttal is a priority item right now.   I want to get it out the door this week if we can.

Ross.

Any news on this?

It got bumped again! :) LOL   We've got a presentation on Monday, so that is taking priority for the next few days.

Ross.

Okay Ross, I guess it's my turn this week. Any update on the rebuttal document? Cuz if not, we are all going to massively picket DIRECT world headquarters. I'll be the one with the bullhorn: "What do we want?"  "REBUTTAL!"  "When do we want it?"  "NOW!"

:)

There's nothing like direct action from millions thousands hundreds half a dozen space geeks to get things moving!

Mark S.

Hey Mark,
Never fear. Recent events have placed the Rebuttle back on the front burner. It is being worked as we speak.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/09/2008 02:14 pm
Hey Mark,
Never fear. Recent events have placed the Rebuttal back on the front burner. It is being worked as we speak.

Thanks Chuck! I was pretty sure that was the case.

I just couldn't resist the urge to have a little fun.  Didn't you like the mental image of a massive space geek march on Direct world headquarters?  :D  Hopefully it was worth at least a chuckle, if not a LOL.

How did the big presentation go?  I assume you don't want to discuss the particulars, but could you give us an idea of how the concept was received, and if the audience was technical, political, or ??? .  I'm wondering because I still don't see a lot of buzz about Direct and Jupiter anywhere but these NSF threads.  Not even on other space-related sites and blogs, where you would expect more discussion even by those not in favor.

I would expect more support from non-NASA sources that what I have been seeing. Really, from anyone who has a space background and wants a successful space infrastructure. It should be apparent that Ares-V/6 is a non-starter in the current political and economic climate. Or even in a really good economic climate.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/09/2008 02:25 pm
Hey Mark,
Never fear. Recent events have placed the Rebuttal back on the front burner. It is being worked as we speak.

Thanks Chuck! I was pretty sure that was the case.

I just couldn't resist the urge to have a little fun.  Didn't you like the mental image of a massive space geek march on Direct world headquarters?  :D  Hopefully it was worth at least a chuckle, if not a LOL.

How did the big presentation go?  I assume you don't want to discuss the particulars, but could you give us an idea of how the concept was received, and if the audience was technical, political, or ??? .  I'm wondering because I still don't see a lot of buzz about Direct and Jupiter anywhere but these NSF threads.  Not even on other space-related sites and blogs, where you would expect more discussion even by those not in favor.

I would expect more support from non-NASA sources that what I have been seeing. Really, from anyone who has a space background and wants a successful space infrastructure. It should be apparent that Ares-V/6 is a non-starter in the current political and economic climate. Or even in a really good economic climate.

Mark S.


It was well received by some highly placed political, technical, commercial and diplomatic persons. Follow-ups are likely. That’s all I can say for now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/09/2008 08:28 pm

Okay Ross, I guess it's my turn this week. Any update on the rebuttal document? Cuz if not, we are all going to massively picket DIRECT world headquarters. I'll be the one with the bullhorn: "What do we want?"  "REBUTTAL!"  "When do we want it?"  "NOW!"

:)

There's nothing like direct action from millions thousands hundreds half a dozen space geeks to get things moving!

Mark S.


Thanks, I needed that....
I almost fell off my chair laughing as I was chanting the words as I read them  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/09/2008 08:52 pm
The *only* remaining bit of commonality back to Shuttle now, will be the SOFI foam sprayed on the outside of the tanking.
Ross.

hmm, doesn't Delta-IV use shuttle tank foam?  Then one would suppose that Delta IV is shuttle derived, or that Ares is more Delta Derived than shuttle...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 12/09/2008 11:52 pm
Japan uses that to describe the thrust of its engines.  It is messed up, though - the metric unit of force is Newtons - kg m/s^2- while a kg refers to mass.  But kgf is really kg ft/s^2.

No no no.  A kilogram-force is the force exerted on a kilogram by a 9.80665 N/kg gravity field (one standard gee).  In other words, 9.80665 N.  It has nothing to do with feet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/10/2008 01:24 am
The *only* remaining bit of commonality back to Shuttle now, will be the SOFI foam sprayed on the outside of the tanking.
Ross.

hmm, doesn't Delta-IV use shuttle tank foam?  Then one would suppose that Delta IV is shuttle derived, or that Ares is more Delta Derived than shuttle...

Centaur uses the foam too
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/10/2008 01:31 am
Centaur uses the foam too

Yes, but Ares V uses the RS-68 which is why I termed it more Delta IV-derived.  however using NASA's logic one could say Centaur is shuttle derived (especially since the Centaur-G is the ancestor of the modern version)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/10/2008 01:33 am
however using NASA's logic one could say Centaur is shuttle derived (especially since the Centaur-G is the ancestor of the modern version)

No, the Centaur-G was a dead branch of the family tree. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/10/2008 01:44 am
Yes, but Ares V uses the RS-68 which is why I termed it more Delta IV-derived.

Are we forgetting that the RS-68 was SSME derived?
Title: Re: Second stage?
Post by: PaulL on 12/10/2008 01:46 am
Why does the EDS-only baseball card have the same time-to-orbit and acceleration as the crew&LSAM rocket?  Isn't the whole point of the second EDS launch that it can get to orbit before burning the last 1/3 of its fuel, because it isn't carrying as much weight?

The crew&LSAM J-232 rockect has an upper stage propellant offload of 27.75% in order to have the same quantity of propellant (252,396 kg)used to reach LEO than the EDS-only J-232.

Without that propellant offload, the J-232 could theorically put much more payload in LEO. But I suspect that this would require re-enforcement of the J-232 rocket structure to be able to carry the extra mass.  However, this could be an interesting upgrade for eventual Mars missions.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/10/2008 05:00 am
During the last few weeks I have been analysing the Direct 2.0 Earth Departure Stage mass model. I have come up with many formulas to calculate stage mass (and learned a lot about stage design), but it is only in the last week that I believe I have found a descrepancy in the Direct 2.0 mass model.

Ross posted a pmf chart which used the formula for the stage mass less engines as ms = 5000+mp/25 (lb) where mp is the propellant mass in lb. In metric this is ms = 2268+0.04*mp (kg). The given dry mass is md = 21,485 kg, less me = 4,944 kg for two J-2X engines, gives ms = 16,541 kg. Using the formula for the given propellant mass of 359,065 kg we get ms = 16,631 kg, in close agreement with the actual value (actually 0.5% greater).

In their 2007 AIAA paper [1], a detailed mass breakdown of the EDS stage is given. This mass breakdown is done in exactly the same way as in NASA's anaylsis [2], although the values used are different. In [2], there are three anaylses performed, Team A and Team B in May 2007 and Team B in October 2008. Team A gave the lowest mass values, and so we present them below, along with the old Direct 2.0 2007 values (which we call D2-2007), and the current 2008 values (D2-2008). Note that all these values include their respective margins.

                             Team A  D2-2007  D2-2008
Engine Support Systems (kg)   2620     3081      ?
Secondary Structures (kg)     2368     1397      ?
Ancillary Systems (kg)        2876     3312      ?
                            ------   ------   ------
Sub-Total ms (kg)             7864     7790     2268
Tank mt (kg)                 18179    19239    14273
Engine me (kg)                4898     3080     4944
                            ------   ------   ------
Dry Mass md (kg)             30941    30109    21485
Propellant mp (kg)          324196   314931   359065
Tank Ratio mt/mp (%)          5.61     6.11     3.97

Of note, Team A used an older mass specification for the J-2X and D2-2007 incorrectly used the engine mass for the J-2S (plus 10% margin). The Ancillary Systems consist of seperation systems, thermal protection system (TPS), thermal control system (TCS), auxillary propulsion system (APS), electrical and hydraulic power, avionics and miscellaneous. The APS mass is not included in D2-2007. The masses and margins for all these systems are detailed in [1] and [2].

We see that Team A's Engine Support Systems, Ancillary Systems, and Tank mass are all less than D2-2007's values. So, lets take NASA's lower values for Engine Support Systems and Ancillary Systems and the lower D2-2007 value for Secondary Structures. This gives ms = 2620 + 1397 + 2876 = 6893 kg. This is 4625 kg greater than the value currently used of ms = 2268 kg.

Lets assume that the tank ratio of 3.97% can be achieved as in the D2-2008 model. This implies that tank mass is reduced by 3.97/5.61 = 29% compared to Team A's separate tank model. I think this is a reasonable assumption considering the conformal tank and Al-Li material used. However, if we use ms = 6893 kg, which I think is valid, then dry mass increases by 4625 kg to md = 26,110 kg.

Using the rocket equation, we can show that for every kg that dry mass increases, trans Lunar injection (TLI) mass decreases by 1.9025 kg (1 kg from the increase in the dry mass stage, and 0.9025 kg from the loss of 1 kg of propellant). This implies that TLI mass decreases by 1.9025*4625 = 8799 kg. That is, TLI mass is decreased from 74,025 kg to 65,226 kg. This is 5.9 t below NASA's requirement of 71.1 t.

The information I would to see from the Direct 2.0 team is a detailed mass breakdown, like that in [1] and [2], for the current EDS stage.

[1] S. L. Metschan, C. A. Longton, R. B. Tierney, A. H. F. Maia, and P. J. Metschan, "Achieving the vision for space exploration on time and within budget," AIAA Space 2007 Conf. & Expo., AIAA 2007-6231, Sep. 2007.
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf

[2] Marshal Space Flight Center, "DIRECT 2.0 space exploration architecture performance analysis," Oct. 2007.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/257003main_NASA%20Performance%20Assessment%20of%20(DIRECT%202)%20Compiled.0702.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/10/2008 09:38 am
Hmmm, very interesting. I've become increasingly wary of the Jupiter EDS numbers.
Direct 1.0 had an achilles heel in the form of the regen RS68, which JIS was fond of calling 'magic'. Not that it was unbuildable, but that it was an easy target for NASA t pick on.
Is Direct 2.0's achilles going to be its EDS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/10/2008 12:19 pm
The information I would to see from the Direct 2.0 team is a detailed mass breakdown, like that in [1] and [2], for the current EDS stage.

I would *love* to be able to provide that to you.   But it is proprietary information from Lockheed and we are not allowed to release it.

There is something coming in the middle of next month (January) which is extremely relevant to this discussion though.   An external source from beyond our group, validating once and for all, every single one of our claims in this regard.   And I think you will find the source to be utterly impeccable.

All I'm going to do for now, is ask you to wait until you see that before attempting to make any judgments.

In the mean-time, don't assume that the design approach of the WBC stage has any relation at all to the NASA approach.   They are radically different approaches.   The difference between them is more akin to the difference between the S-IC and the S-II stages.   They were both 10m dia and both had 5 engines powering them.   But the designs and the execution was totally different.   This is a surprisingly similar situation.

FYI, on our current baseline Upper Stage the total 'secondary structures' which you refer to are actually slightly smaller -- just 2,179kg on this WBC design.

If you want a real-world estimate, why not try using the current Shuttle SLWT ET tankage to get a figure for the tankage element.  ET's are roughly double the capacity of the Jupiter Upper Stage.   It doesn't even include any mass benefits from a common bulkhead design, but it does include a lot of equivalent thrust structure hardware.   Work out the equivalent mass from that and I think you'll find that our 14,363kg figure for tankage-only is well under that curve, yet that's a proven human-rated flight system.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/10/2008 04:22 pm
I'm very busy, but I wanted to address this a little better for you Steven, just to tide you over until mid-January.   Forgive me, because this will be relatively brief, but I think it will help.

I can't release the proprietary detailed breakouts, as I mentioned, but I can at least show a comparison of the tanking if it were to be built using other existing methods.

I think we can all agree that the ratio of Tank Mass : Propellant Capacity remains fairly linear for each manufacturing method.   So I would like to show what the tank masses could be if this stage were built using existing manufacturing -- specifically the Shuttle External Tank and the modified ET manufacturing expected to build the Jupiter Core as well.

Limiting the analysis to just these tankage mass elements, leaving everything else out (including the Interstage and the elements of the Common Bulkhead which are not part of the pressure vessels), we get:-

SLWT External Tank:
LOX Tank Mass: 4672kg, contains 631549kg.   Ratio: 1:135.18
LH2 Tank Mass: 10705kg, contains 103811kg.   Ratio: 1:81.65
TOTAL ET TANKAGE MASS: 15377kg

Jupiter Core Stage (JCS):
LOX Tank Mass: 7735kg, contains 631549kg.   Ratio: 1:81.65 (65.6% heavier)
LH2 Tank Mass: 14380kg, contains 103811kg.   Ratio: 1:7.22 (34.3% heavier)
TOTAL JCS TANKAGE MASS: 22115kg

Now, lets compare those ratio's, but using the capacity of the Jupiter Upper Stage:

External Tank based Jupiter Upper Stage:
LOX Tank Mass: 2281kg, contains 308376kg.   Ratio: 1:135.18
LH2 Tank Mass: 5227kg, contains 50689kg.   Ratio: 1:9.70
TOTAL JUS TANKAGE MASS: 7508kg

Jupiter Core Stage based Jupiter Upper Stage:
LOX Tank Mass: 3777kg, contains 308376kg.   Ratio: 1:81.65
LH2 Tank Mass: 7022kg, contains 50689kg.   Ratio: 1:7.22
TOTAL JUS TANKAGE MASS: 10799kg



The ACTUAL Jupiter Upper Stage Tankage Mass is:
LOX Tank Mass: 4736kg, contains 308376kg.   Ratio: 1:65.12
LH2 Tank Mass: 8804kg, contains 50689kg.   Ratio: 1:5.76
TOTAL JUS TANKAGE MASS: 13540kg

So our estimate is considerably higher than either ET or Core Stage equivalents.   It's 80.3% heavier tankage mass than if the tanking were made using existing flying Shuttle SLWT External Tank manufacturing systems.   And it's 25.4% heavier tankage mass than the tanking which is expected to be needed on the Jupiter Core Stage.

The bottom line is that existing systems indicate strongly that our current mass estimate can probably be improved upon -- and that is consistent with what LM tell us directly too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/10/2008 05:04 pm
I'm very busy, but I wanted to address this a little better for you Steven, just to tide you over until mid-January.
     .......

Ross.

Ross,

So is mid-January actually January 21st?  :)

Also, is that the new due date for the rebuttal document, or for something else entirely? 

Sorry if I sound so demanding. I think everyone is eagerly looking forward to the rebuttal document, not just me.

Finally, if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. I am not a rocket scientist, but I can proof-read for speeling and, grammatical errors.

Thanks,
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 12/10/2008 05:12 pm
speeling ?

j/k ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/10/2008 05:23 pm
speeling ?

j/k ;)
Just proving my qualifications!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Alpha Control on 12/10/2008 05:42 pm
speeling ?

j/k ;)
Just proving my qualifications!


I think you proved Marsavian's qualifications! :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/10/2008 05:52 pm

Ross,
Also, is that the new due date for the rebuttal document, or for something else entirely? 
Thanks, Mark S.

Something entirely different in addition to the Rebuttal.
It will be, shall we say, "interesting".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/10/2008 05:58 pm
So is mid-January actually January 21st?  :)

Nope.   This one is completely separate from our efforts regarding the President or the Transition Team.

I'm not sure of the precise date of this release, but I understand this info will be coming out around the second week of January.   That's all I've been told so far.


Quote
Also, is that the new due date for the rebuttal document, or for something else entirely?

Trying to get that out well ahead of then.   We need about four or five straight days to get that finished.   If we don't get interrupted it could be out in a week.   But interruptions currently seem to be a fairly routine thing, so don't hold your breath! :)

I wanted to get it out last week, but we got sidelined by preparing RoadMaps, Manifests, IMS's, Budgets and a host of other fun things.   Only just got back onto the Rebuttal two days ago and we've still got a lot of data to collate for it.


Quote
Sorry if I sound so demanding. I think everyone is eagerly looking forward to the rebuttal document, not just me.

Believe me, you're looking forward to its release only about half as much as we are! :)


Quote
Finally, if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. I am not a rocket scientist, but I can proof-read for speeling and, grammatical errors.

Thanks for the offer.   I think we've currently got enough eyes on this one, but if we do need help I'll let you know.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/10/2008 06:52 pm
..........
Believe me, you're looking forward to its release only about half as much as we are! :)
..........
Ross.

Ross,

    After re-reading the NASA 'performance assessment' document, I am hoping that your rebuttal will be able to address some of the snarky comments contained therein. Such as:

1. DIRECT cost and safety claims lack supporting data and analysis
2. Ares V has evolved to optimize both ... legs of lunar mission
3. DIRECT launch architecture does not identify minimum set of technologies and technology development plan for initial, lunar and Mars phases
4. DIRECT does not provide a test strategy for any of the three identified launch architectures
      -- and several snarky subcomments
5. DIRECT launch architecture does not identify key risks (performance, cost or schedule) or mitigation plans
      -- I can't believe they had the nerve to even bring up 'key risks', considering the hairball that the Ares has become.
6. DIRECT launch architecture does not include a description of analysis methodology for assessment of
      ... basically everything
7. More detail on Launch Infrastructure than on vehicle design.

And from the FINAL document:

8. analysis shows that the DIRECT proposal would cost more than the Ares family in the near-term and also on a recurring launch basis
9. the DIRECT proposal would take longer to develop when compared to the Ares vehicles
10. NASA’s analysis confirms that the Ares I and V vehicles enable the lowest cost and safest launch architecture
11. The Jupiter common core requires new design efforts for the main propulsion system, new thrust structure, new avionics, new forward liquid oxygen tank structure and a new payload shroud, substantial intertank/liquid hydrogen tank redesign and aft Y-ring interfacing and a completely new stack integration effort.

Does NASA have any numbers to back these assertions up? Because I sure didn't see anything other than bald statements that are completely contrary to common sense. Especially point 11, since Ares requires the development of two completely new launch systems from scratch, and they are giving DIRECT a hard time for having to make substantial but way fewer changes to create Jupiter.

Sorry for the length of this post.  The more I read those documents, the more they get under my skin...

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/10/2008 07:16 pm
Yes, all those are addressed, and all the others too.   No stone left unturned.   That's one of the reasons why it has taken so long.   Another is that none of us do this as a 9-5 day job :)

The cost complaints are the ones which nark me the most.   Talk about a double standard.   Just how much cost data has NASA officially released regarding Ares again?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: GraphGuy on 12/10/2008 07:24 pm
Kraisee (et al):  you win.  I'm a Direct adherent now.  I've spent the last few weeks thinking about how to build an Ares I/Ares V replacement ("lego style").  The only way I could find something better than direct was to recreate the RD-170 or to create a RD-180 derived Ares I first stage/Ares V strap-on.

When the VSE first came out, I applauded the shuttle reuse.  Then came issues with the air start SSME.  Then the 5+ segment SRBs...  I had hoped for an EELV approach for two reasons.  First the EELV's exist now.  Secondly I hate SRBs (I viewed their inclusion in VSE as a congressional jobs boondoggle).  I still don't like SRBs but accept that political realities will require their use (and appreciate the thrust they provide).  Finally I have come around to Direct and see how it leverages existing technology with minor modifications.

What got me hooked on DIRECT was the reuse of the 8 meter shuttle tankage, the reuse of the existing RS-68, no air start for Jupiter, cargo to ISS with the CEV, and no new infrastructure.  In case you are curious, the final argument was the realization that the RS-68 can be throttled and will work well in tandem with SRBs (using the SRBs for what they were intended for - strap ons).

Anyhow, keep working as what you are doing matters.

Edit: I think (IMHO) that the point to push is that the Direct rockets have margin.  Margin that allows for unforseen issues.  Margin that allows for new things in the future.  Margin that means that the CEV is going to make it to orbit.  Ares I has no margin.  When was the last time that NASA bet its future on a rocket with no margin- no room for the unexpected or for future growth?  How far does Ares V go to cover the lack of margin in Ares I?  How little margin does Ares V have?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/10/2008 07:38 pm
GraphGuy,
I'm glad you've been convinced.   You and many others are gradually coming our way.

But please don't stop asking the tough questions.   Always keep putting logic in the drivers seat for your decisions on this subject.   We need decisions made on factual data interpreted by cold hard logic and reasoned thinking.   Emotion and human preference should always remain checked at the door -- that's precisely what got us into trouble with Ares.

Within the team itself we regularly have people questioning various aspects.   It is always useful to have that, because we always go back and double check our data and confirm it afresh.   Ultimately, that only ever helps keep us honest.   This forum has been a useful sounding board too, allowing us to get extra peer review.

All of that has honed the proposal a lot over the last few years and continues to do so.   It all helps.   And I think I speak for every one of the team when I say that if a real showstopper came along or a better way presented itself, I don't think any of us are so deeply invested in DIRECT that we couldn't change.

We haven't heard any strong reasoned argument against this yet, even when our opposition has tried extremely hard to put such an argument together against us.   If our opposition, who have virtually unlimited resources I might add, have only been able to come up with very tenuous reasoning and disinformation when they've tried to find flaws, we have to be on to something pretty solid.   That only lends strength to our belief that what we have, really does work.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/10/2008 08:07 pm
......... 
This one is completely separate from our efforts regarding the President or the Transition Team.

I'm not sure of the precise date of this release, but I understand this info will be coming out around the second week of January.   That's all I've been told so far.
...........

Ross.

Sounds good! Maybe it will be on January 14th, the fifth anniversary of President Bush's VSE speech. That would be cool, especially considering that that's my birthday. I always thought of the VSE as my very own birthday present. If only Griffin wasn't making such a mess of it!

Mark S.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 12/10/2008 08:10 pm
Quick question. The SRBs support the weight of the whole stack, right? Can they support the weight (without modification) of a Jupiter 232?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 12/10/2008 08:13 pm
Ross,

I thought NASA's objections about the 2 engine EDS LIDS stress and the undocumented orbit docking processes was their recent strongest argument against DIRECT, do you have strong counter arguments for both of these now ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/10/2008 08:14 pm
Quick question. The SRBs support the weight of the whole stack, right? Can they support the weight (without modification) of a Jupiter 232?

Yes, they can.   There's a lot of margin sitting static on the ground, even fully fueled on launch day.

The forces involved during the launch are vastly more significant and if they are strong enough to handle those, sitting on the Pad ends up not being much of a concern.   Still, you always run the numbers anyway, just to be sure.   We did.   They do. :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/10/2008 08:22 pm
Ross,

I thought NASA's objections about the 2 engine EDS LIDS stress and the undocumented orbit docking processes was their recent strongest argument against DIRECT, do you have strong counter arguments for both of these now?

Yes.   I'll leave the Rebuttal to tackle the details, but essentially you build your first ~6 LSAM/CEV/LIDS systems stronger, with sufficient margins to handle any extra loads.   After that, the program is switching to a 1-launch Depot solution in 2019 where the Orion transition doesn't occur until after TLI and thus the LIDS problem goes away.   But you also design the vehicle in the same way as Shuttle and Submarines do -- you vector the thrust through the point you choose.   In this case, you vector it through that 'weak point' so that the loads are always kept to an absolute minimum there.

Similarly, for the first ~half-dozen missions the LSAM aft docking sequence is exactly as described in the original ESAS EIRA baseline.   Again, once the Depot comes online the whole issue completely goes away.   The analysis was deliberately trying to be "stupid" in this regard and conveniently forgot that ESAS had already tackled the LSAM aft docking issue and rated it quite safe for crew use.   Changing tune now in order to discredit the competition is a simple case of hypocracy and needs to be exposed as such.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/10/2008 08:24 pm
Ross,

I thought NASA's objections about the 2 engine EDS LIDS stress and the undocumented orbit docking processes was their recent strongest argument against DIRECT, do you have strong counter arguments for both of these now ?

The two J-2X engines on the EDS are aligned so that their centerline extends directly thru the center of the LIDS. There's quite a bit more to it than that but essentially there are no forces being exerted on the LIDS that do not go directly thru there. Even if the 2 engines are not thrusting at the same rate, what they are doing always goes directly thru the center.

I'm not sure what you mean by "undocumented" orbit docking. We were pretty clear on what we intended to do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/10/2008 08:32 pm
Ross,

I thought NASA's objections about the 2 engine EDS LIDS stress and the undocumented orbit docking processes was their recent strongest argument against DIRECT, do you have strong counter arguments for both of these now ?

Mars,

    The latest NASA documents that I have go into lengthy discussions about why a fuel depot is a bad idea, even though Direct is no longer calling for on-orbit refueling for the lunar missions.  Their attitude seems to be that if they can't figure it out, it must be impossible.

     They also gripe about the acceleration rate during the TLI burn using two J2X engines, when they had problems with a single J2X.  I don't see the problem there as long as the g's are designed for.

    And yes, they don't like the idea of actually docking in space.  Who ever heard of such a thing?!  Why, someone could get hurt doing that.

    What I don't like is the total negativity of the NASA documents attempting to repudiate DIRECT.  Every technique that they criticize as dangerous, unproven, or too expensive, are exactly the techniques that NASA has been working on mastering for the past 50 years.  If NASA is not willing to work in space, to expand our knowledge, and to master the outer domains of our solar system, then what the heck are they there for?  I say that if current NASA management is not up to the challenge, then let's find someone else.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/10/2008 08:54 pm
It seems to me the whole difference between ESAS and DIRECT boils down to one of budget in the context of cost vs. schedule:

ESAS: build the biggest rocket the infrastructure can accommodate and let the funds accumulate over open-ended time, from your fixed annual budget.

DIRECT: build the biggest rocket you can in the time alloted, from your fixed annual budget.

One gets you a bigger rocket someday, the other gets you a smaller rocket on a known day.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/10/2008 09:08 pm
It seems to me the whole difference between ESAS and DIRECT boils down to one of budget in the context of cost vs. schedule:

ESAS: build the biggest rocket the infrastructure can accommodate and let the funds accumulate over open-ended time, from your fixed annual budget.

DIRECT: build the biggest rocket you can in the time alloted, from your fixed annual budget.

One gets you a bigger rocket someday, the other gets you a smaller rocket on a known day.

The smaller rocket, the Jupiter-232, provides a performance level of 110mT IMLEO, and we are unlikely to ever need more than that, especially when the propellant depot comes online. I really do not see us ever actually having a *genuine* requirement for a rocket the size of the Ares-V (an artificial one can always be ginned up if required). It's inefficient, wasteful and gawd-aweful expensive. There are NO requirements for a 185mT lift that can't be more efficiently filled by a pair of 110mT lifts and for less money. The Ares-V is a genuine dinosaur, completely unnecessary.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/10/2008 09:20 pm
It seems to me the whole difference between ESAS and DIRECT boils down to one of budget in the context of cost vs. schedule:

ESAS: build the biggest rocket the infrastructure can accommodate and let the funds accumulate over open-ended time, from your fixed annual budget.

DIRECT: build the biggest rocket you can in the time alloted, from your fixed annual budget.

One gets you a bigger rocket someday, the other gets you a smaller rocket on a known day.

ESAS: build the biggest rocket the infrastructure can accommodate even remotely possible and let the funds accumulate over open-ended time, from your fixed annual budget that will have to be significantly increased to have a chance at succeeding.

DIRECT: build the biggest best rocket you can in the time alloted, from your fixed annual budget, while maximizing re-use of Shuttle components, infrastructure, and personnel.

There, fixed that for you... :)

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/10/2008 09:29 pm
Chuck, but how is anyone suppose to live with only 110 MT?  Sarcasm off

William's message above refers to DIRECT as the smaller rocket.  But I don't think you can ever refer to 110 MT to IMLEO as 'smaller'.

110 MT, I think we can probably get to the moon with two of those.

I like direct for several reasons, but not the least of which is that MAF could crank them out like sausages. (compared to Ares V, which would probably only do 2 per year.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/10/2008 09:43 pm
    You know, I've been thinking about the poor little Ares-V, and how Von Braun and company didn't build them a VAB that is big enough. Those puny high-bay doors are only, what, 23m wide and 125m high, right?

    It seems that the Ares-V team are still having problems with the 10m tank diameter, and maybe even 12.5m would be too restrictive for the amazingly advanced Ares architecture.  Witness the so-called Ares-V H-Max and the Ares-V Max concepts.  So I was wondering, would it be possible to turn the whole rocket 90 degrees about its axis, so that the SRB's are no longer the limiting factor when moving through the VAB doors?  That way, I figure they could go up to at least a 20m tank diameter with no problem. 

     Of course, they would have to completely rip out the interior of the VAB, but they are planning on that anyways, right?  And just think about how many RS-68 engines they could fit under a 20m tank!  Why stop at six?   After all, money is no object and the sky is not the limit...

Cheers!
    Mark S.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm feeling a little frisky today...  Hope this isn't too far off topic...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 12/10/2008 10:16 pm
Ross,

I thought NASA's objections about the 2 engine EDS LIDS stress and the undocumented orbit docking processes was their recent strongest argument against DIRECT, do you have strong counter arguments for both of these now ?

The two J-2X engines on the EDS are aligned so that their centerline extends directly thru the center of the LIDS. There's quite a bit more to it than that but essentially there are no forces being exerted on the LIDS that do not go directly thru there. Even if the 2 engines are not thrusting at the same rate, what they are doing always goes directly thru the center.

I'm not sure what you mean by "undocumented" orbit docking. We were pretty clear on what we intended to do.

EDS - Do you have a simple diagram to illustrate as I'm having trouble visualising it, sorry.

Docking - Those were NASA's words. Not a question of what but how, the precise docking techniques and mechanisms intended.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: fotoguzzi on 12/11/2008 12:21 am
    It seems that the Ares-V team are still having problems with the 10m tank diameter,

How about a truncated cone 17 m at the base, 6 m wide at the top, and 62 m tall? There should be enough room for forty-two motors in there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/11/2008 12:49 am
    It seems that the Ares-V team are still having problems with the 10m tank diameter,

How about a truncated cone 17 m at the base, 6 m wide at the top, and 62 m tall? There should be enough room for forty-two motors in there.

   That's the spirit, fotoguzzi!  NASA is working on Ares-Max, let's see if we can help them out.

    I don't think a truncated cone would work, though, because of the SRB's.

    But if my idea of sliding the rocket out of the VAB sideways has any merit, then yes it could be truly huge.   Maybe not 20m diameter, but how about a 15m core tank with two SRB's on each side, for the first stage core.   Then a 12m second stage tank from the interstage all the way up to the maximum 120m height.

     With a 15m diameter first stage core, you could easily fit 12 or 13 RS-68's under there in a nice symmetrical arrangement.   Probably wouldn't need extra skirts, either!   Then throw half a dozen J2X under the second stage and we're good to go.

    Think: "Big enough to launch both Godzilla and Mothra into LEO at the same time."   :)

    And that would be my vision of Ares-Max.   NASA is free to use it completely free of charge!   After they work the numbers, they can go back and retroactively change the ESAS specs to state that no CaLV is suitable unless it can launch, say 250mT into LEO.   Therefore DIRECT need not apply.

Cheers!
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 12/11/2008 12:53 am
    It seems that the Ares-V team are still having problems with the 10m tank diameter,

How about a truncated cone 17 m at the base, 6 m wide at the top, and 62 m tall? There should be enough room for forty-two motors in there.

   That's the spirit, fotoguzzi!  NASA is working on Ares-Max, let's see if we can help them out.

    I don't think a truncated cone would work, though, because of the SRB's.

    But if my idea of sliding the rocket out of the VAB sideways has any merit, then yes it could be truly huge.   Maybe not 20m diameter, but how about a 15m core tank with two SRB's on each side, for the first stage core.   Then a 12m second stage tank from the interstage all the way up to the maximum 120m height.

     With a 15m diameter first stage core, you could easily fit 12 or 13 RS-68's under there in a nice symmetrical arrangement. Probably wouldn't need extra skirts, either!

    Think: "Big enough to launch both Godzilla and Mothra into LEO at the same time."   :)

    And that would be my vision of Ares-Max. NASA is free to use it completely free of charge!

Mark S.


You're forgetting the 8 segment SRBs!

Ares-Max was already studied in the 60s, it was called Nova...time to just give it up and go with what is realistic. Remember the Team Vision Jupiter III, the thing was awesome, but it was tossed out because it is just too ridiculous right now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/11/2008 01:01 am
Ares-Max was already studied in the 60s, it was called Nova...time to just give it up and go with what is realistic. Remember the Team Vision Jupiter III, the thing was awesome, but it was tossed out because it is just too ridiculous right now.

Jupiter III? Sweet!

Got any docs on that? That must have been before I discovered DIRECT.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 02:22 am
The giant Jupiter-III even pre-dates DIRECT!

That thing honestly scares the hell out of me, but I sure would love to see it feature in some Sci-Fi film or in an anime series somewhere.   It really belongs in one of those and would make an awesome spectacle to watch launch!

The background behind that monster is actually kinda interesting.   It came out of a multi-million dollar engineering contract which Steve Metschan's company, Team Vision, had with NASA a few years back.   They said they wanted a low-development-cost rocket design, based on Shuttle and/or Apollo hardware, but able to lift 1,000,000lb to LEO in order to support potential Mars missions.   The Jupiter-III was the result of that requirement.

But it wasn't just thrown together just for S+G's.   There is some real engineering behind it.

Steve has this amazing analysis software which allows you to analyze incredibly complicated engineering problems using an organizations large network of PC's and workstations to do the number crunching -- kind of like the way SETI at Home works across the internet, but within a single company/organization's own Intranet.   Its called "Distributed Networking" and Steve's software uses that technique to bring super-computer power to serious engineering problems, but without the organization having to buy a new super-computer.

Steve has had contracts with DoD, FAA and a lot of different companies over the years, but around the 2000-2005 period he was working for NASA.   His software was being used to analyze the multitude of potential rocket configurations as well as to define which mission architectures the agency could afford to look at.   The reason was initially because NASA wanted to work out what missions it could afford to fund after ISS was completed around 2010-2015.   After the loss of Columbia the new program became higher profile and so too did the need for a new vehicle.

The software was set up with a huge database of thousands of rocket engineering variables, such as details of what engines/stages/spacecraft exist today, including factors such as cost, performance, reliability etc, or what sort of engines/stages/spacecraft could be developed.   Other factors such as existing vs. new manufacturing facilities, infrastructure elements and workforce requirements were all programmed in for the analysis too.

When the database is fully populated with all the possible variables, the software is set the very daunting task of number-crunching every single potential combination of all those different options, using the power of hundreds or even thousands of computers to analyze them all.   When it is finally finished it will have created a new database of literally millions of different combination which can then be presented to the user.   Those are then sorted depending upon a set of Factors Of Merit.   The criteria for those FOM's can be any number of things, such as the maximum yearly budget, or the development time-frame limits, or how many staff can be to dedicated to it etc.   So once you have the database of all the possible options and you set the criteria for the sorting, the software will then present all of the options in order of strongest to weakest.

Steve likes to describe it as 'shining a light on every option so that none can escape'.

Jupiter-III came out of a criteria which NASA set to come up with a Shuttle-derived million-pounds-to-orbit class vehicle.   The analysis spat that configuration out as the one with the best cost/schedule/performance balance to meet their specific criteria.

The problem was that at around that time, Mike Griffin was appointed NASA's new Administrator.   Steve's contract was discontinued shortly thereafter because his services were no longer required.   Within a few weeks of Griffin being appointed, in April of 2005, Steve was told that the new Administrator already had a plan he was going to execute and further studies were simply not required, thank-you, goodbye.   This was 6-7 months before the ESAS Report.

Anyway, the software had also defined a path to get to that Jupiter-III vehicle if you wanted to do it in stages.   It started with a relatively small Jupiter-1 vehicle, then a larger Jupiter-2 and finally the monster Jupiter-3.   Steve was quite piqued by the decision to sideline the years he had put in to his analysis work, so he decided to release the results of the study anyway -- entirely on his own dime.   He did so in September 2006 with this AIAA paper (http://www.teamvisioninc.com/downloads/AIAA-2006-7517-146.pdf).   I feel it necessary to point out that this paper had nothing to do with DIRECT when it was published and that the Jupiter-III has never been part of our plans.

DIRECT had just released our own v1.0 proposal a few months earlier and we were amazed to see that the Jupiter-1 was almost identical to the DIRECT launch vehicle proposed around the same time; with an In-Line ET-derived 8.4m diameter Core Stage powered by two RS-68's and with the payload mounted on top.   The two designs were remarkably similar, yet they came from two completely unrelated groups.   The similarities were commented on a number of times here on NSF even.

Steve's efforts and DIRECT eventually merged in early 2007.   When we combined forces one of the very first things we did was throw out NASA's million-pound requirement entirely because there was no logical reason for it -- and that choice took with it the Jupiter-III configuration.   Instead we decided to concentrate on a vehicle design which was much more affordable and far simpler to bring together.

We ended up with the Jupiter-120 which evolves fairly easily into the Jupiter-232 and between those two vehicles, every conceivable mission profile from ISS to the Moon, Mars and Beyond are all covered quite comfortably.   We simply can't find a single real-world requirement for anything bigger.

And that's the story of how the terms "DIRECT" and "Jupiter" actually came together, originating from two completely different directions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/11/2008 02:58 am
The giant Jupiter-III even pre-dates DIRECT!

That thing honestly scares the hell out of me, ........

And that's the story of how the terms "DIRECT" and "Jupiter" actually came together, originating from two completely different directions.

Ross.

    Awesome story, Ross!   I hope you guys have that all documented, because I get the feeling that it will become a seminal part of space history very soon. 

    Just picture this, as told by some old coot in the L5 old folks' home: "Well, it was way back in ought-6 when we were hanging out in the NSF forums... What? Forums, that's where people could type messages to each other back and forth on the Internet. Yes, that Internet. Now be quiet, sonny, while I get on with my story..."

    Seriously, though, 1 Million lbs to LEO? Since Stephen released it at his expense, is it still available? I sure would like to take a look at that. That's almost as big as the Ares-V/VI/VII/VIII/... is eventually going to be before it gets canned.

    Thanks Ross! :)

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 03:15 am
EDS - Do you have a simple diagram to illustrate as I'm having trouble visualising it, sorry.

Here's a very quick diagram for you.

CofG moves forward (towards LSAM/CEV) as the JUS burns propellant.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 03:22 am
    Awesome story, Ross!   I hope you guys have that all documented, because I get the feeling that it will become a seminal part of space history very soon.

It is all documented right here on NSF.   This is a 214 page thread right here, plus there's a 250 page and another 120+ page thread all about this.   It's all here.   For everyone to research to their hearts content.   It will remain here for as long as NSF remains online.

The history I'm interested in really reading twenty years from now, is the inside story as to what went on within Griffin's circle which led to the collapse of Ares.   That is going to be a history book which will be curriculum reading material for all business and engineering management students around the world in the future -- it will be the seminal work on how not to do it.


Quote
Seriously, though, 1 Million lbs to LEO? Since Stephen released it at his expense, is it still available?

I have added the link in the text above.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/11/2008 05:49 am
Thankyou for your reply Ross, but the error I believe I have found has nothing to do with tank mass, but with Engine Support Systems and Ancillary Systems mass. Please go back and read again my post on page 212. It does not appear that you have correctly accounted for Engine Support Systems and Ancillary Systems mass. I have no problem with your tank mass.

Thanks also for your tank mass and secondary structures mass values. All I need now are your Engine Support Systems mass and Ancillary Systems mass (broken down into their respective sub-systems). The corrected table is now
                             Team A  D2-2007  D2-2008
Engine Support Systems (kg)   2620     3081      ?
Secondary Structures (kg)     2368     1397     2197
Ancillary Systems (kg)        2876     3312      ?
                            ------   ------   ------
Sub-Total ms (kg)             7864     7790     3001
Tank mt (kg)                 18179    19239    13540
Engine me (kg)                4898     3080     4944
                            ------   ------   ------
Dry Mass md (kg)             30941    30109    21485
Propellant mp (kg)          324196   314931   359065
Tank Ratio mt/mp (%)          5.61     6.11     3.77

Using the lesser Team A Engine Support Systems and Ancillary Systems mass and D2-2008 Secondary Structures mass we have ms = 2620 + 2197 + 2876 = 7693 kg. This implies TLI mass is reduced by 1.9025*(7693-3001) = 8927 kg. That is TLI mass is reduced from 74,025 kg to 65,098 kg. This is 6.0 t below NASA's requirement of 71.1 t.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: savuporo on 12/11/2008 07:04 am
    The latest NASA documents that I have go into lengthy discussions about why a fuel depot is a bad idea, even though Direct is no longer calling for on-orbit refueling for the lunar missions.  Their attitude seems to be that if they can't figure it out, it must be impossible.
...
    And yes, they don't like the idea of actually docking in space.  Who ever heard of such a thing?!  Why, someone could get hurt doing that.
...
    What I don't like is the total negativity of the NASA documents attempting to repudiate DIRECT.  Every technique that they criticize as dangerous, unproven, or too expensive, are exactly the techniques that NASA has been working on mastering for the past 50 years.  If NASA is not willing to work in space, to expand our knowledge, and to master the outer domains of our solar system, then what the heck are they there for?  I say that if current NASA management is not up to the challenge, then let's find someone else.


Excellent points. In regards to ESAS, they are acting like nothing else than Apollo has ever been done in space. Dockings, propellant transfers, huh ?

Also makes one wonder why the hell do we have this multibillion dollar world-class space laboratory circling overhead, if we cant use it to do basic shakeout of techniques like these.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/11/2008 07:31 am
The smaller rocket, the Jupiter-232, provides a performance level of 110mT IMLEO, and we are unlikely to ever need more than that, especially when the propellant depot comes online.

Couldn`t you get more by simply optimising Jupiter over time? Better engines, lighter materials, new boosters?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2008 07:35 am
I'm curious what payload to a 28-degree orbit a J-232 could do if it were fitted with 3x RS-68B engines and 5-Segment SRBs? Other than a Jupiter with Hydrocarbon Boosters, is that as good as it would get? That would still be an Earth-shaking launcher, eventual existence of Ares V/VI or not!! :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 09:55 am
Thankyou for your reply Ross

Steven,
Just for clarity, the 2197kg figure covers both Secondary Systems and Ancillary Items.

And that's the bit we are not allowed to breakdown.   Hell, because its ITAR *I* have never even seen it myself.

A couple of our engineers at MSFC have gone over the numbers and they confirm that LM's numbers are quite valid.   That's all I can do for you at this time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 10:07 am
Couldn`t you get more by simply optimising Jupiter over time? Better engines, lighter materials, new boosters?

Sure there are plenty of options to increase the performance of the Jupiter's.

The key question, though, is do you need to?

And if you don't need to, why spend your money on development of capabilities you don't really need when you have loads of other engineering development work which can be done instead -- specifically on the spacecraft going to different destinations.

Our real argument boils down to:   Once you have 100mT+ capability able to perform all the missions you want, why spend billions improving the Jupiter further when you could spend that money funding more missions instead?

We haven't found a single reason to justify any rocket larger than that.   A bigger rocket isn't needed for ISS.   It isn't needed for Lunar 'Connect Mode' missions.   It isn't needed for Lunar 'Depot Mode' missions.   And while 600mT looks to be a fair IMLEO total for a future Mars architecture, there are no elements in the Mars plans which can't be logically split into <90mT chunks for launch.   NASA's own Mars documentation clearly says so.

The key purpose of a Heavy Lifter is primarily to:

1) Reduce the number of flights to a point where logistics are manageable for each mission type.   In ESAS the argument was made that 1 launch to ISS, 2 launches to the moon and 5-6 launches to Mars was a logical target to aim for.   We would generally agree with that, although we believe there is a lot of room to simply "contract out" the propellant launches to the commercial sector and encourage growth throughout the entire aerospace industry through those lucrative contracts.

2) Provide large physical volume lift capability so that very wide and very tall modules can be launched.   Lunar Landers, Mars Entry systems, space habitats and space telescopes all benefit enormously from having very large (10m+) diameter payload capabilities.


In this particular situation you can add an extra requirement to this:

3) Effectively preserve the Space Shuttle's existing Workforce and prevent a repeat of the 1975-1981 "brain drain" between Apollo > Shuttle.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 10:17 am
I'm curious what payload to a 28-degree orbit a J-232 could do if it were fitted with 3x RS-68B engines and 5-Segment SRBs? Other than a Jupiter with Hydrocarbon Boosters, is that as good as it would get? That would still be an Earth-shaking launcher, eventual existence of Ares V/VI or not!! :)

5-segs buy the J-232 about 7mT of extra performance to LEO.

A Core Stretch at the same time would buy an additional 27mT to LEO -- but the stretched tank really hurts the J-120 configuration's performance.   You could possibly have both Core Stages in construction at the same time, but that's significantly higher cost & lower commonality.

And we are already assuming the upgraded 108% RS-68 variant will be used on J-232.   It will have been flying for over 5 years by the time J-232 is ready to fly, and we want to keep costs down so there is no point in NASA paying for a completely separate second production line.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/11/2008 10:28 am
27-mt? As much as that! Thanks, Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 10:29 am
Excellent points. In regards to ESAS, they are acting like nothing else than Apollo has ever been done in space. Dockings, propellant transfers, huh ?

Also makes one wonder why the hell do we have this multibillion dollar world-class space laboratory circling overhead, if we cant use it to do basic shakeout of techniques like these.

It's also even stranger because Apollo was planning to develop a Depot as the logical upgrade to the program.   There's quite a few documents on NTRS (ntrs.nasa.gov) showing their work in this area.

Checkout the AS-203 Low Gravity Orbital Experiment for an interesting read about cryogenic propellant behavior in LEO -- including very efficient low-velocity propellant settling techniques.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 10:32 am
27-mt? As much as that! Thanks, Ross.

Yeah.   There are still lots of potential upgrades available for Jupiter.

But we just don't need them.   We'd rather spend the money on increasing the number and capabilities of the missions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 12/11/2008 11:11 am
I'm curious what payload to a 28-degree orbit a J-232 could do if it were fitted with 3x RS-68B engines and 5-Segment SRBs? Other than a Jupiter with Hydrocarbon Boosters, is that as good as it would get? That would still be an Earth-shaking launcher, eventual existence of Ares V/VI or not!! :)

5-segs buy the J-232 about 7mT of extra performance to LEO.

A Core Stretch at the same time would buy an additional 27mT to LEO -- but the stretched tank really hurts the J-120 configuration's performance.   You could possibly have both Core Stages in construction at the same time, but that's significantly higher cost & lower commonality.

And we are already assuming the upgraded 108% RS-68 variant will be used on J-232.   It will have been flying for over 5 years by the time J-232 is ready to fly, and we want to keep costs down so there is no point in NASA paying for a completely separate second production line.

Ross.

If it's a choice between J-120 and an extra 27mT then J-120 is history which does point to an EELV CLV solution. Seriously NASA's not going to turn down that extra performance just for the CLV variant. Could you do a J-130 instead with that stretched core ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 12/11/2008 11:16 am
EDS - Do you have a simple diagram to illustrate as I'm having trouble visualising it, sorry.

Here's a very quick diagram for you.

CofG moves forward (towards LSAM/CEV) as the JUS burns propellant.

Ross.

Thanks Ross. Is there any (serious) performance hit in having to vector the J2-Xs off vertical in this fashion ? Also what if you lose one engine, won't you have to change the configuration of the other engine to prevent sideways motion, i.e. revert to vertical which would put stress on the LIDS ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/11/2008 11:22 am

The background behind that monster is actually kinda interesting.   It came out of a multi-million dollar engineering contract which Steve Metschan's company, Team Vision, had with NASA a few years back.   They said they wanted a low-development-cost rocket design, based on Shuttle and/or Apollo hardware, but able to lift 1,000,000lb to LEO in order to support potential Mars missions.   The Jupiter-III was the result of that requirement.

Now that is very interesting. I recently read a 'report' on Steve which was basically a personal attack full of allegations and suppositions about his 'motives'. Very unpleasant reading, the work of an author (I won't credit him with the word 'journalist') who is known to be a 'Direct Hater'. Anyway, it didn't appear to mention this work that Steve was contracted to do, a massive ommission I think.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 11:51 am
I know precisely what you're talking about Kaputnik.

Like every other attack on us so far it is baseless, unfounded, poorly researched and was produced for no other reason than to try to discredit us.

Shocked, muchly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 12/11/2008 11:58 am
From an AIAA e-mail:

Quote
The Orlando Sentinel (12/11, Block, Matthews) reports, "NASA administrator Mike Griffin is not cooperating with President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, is obstructing its efforts to get information and has told its leader [Lori Garver] that she is 'not qualified' to judge his rocket program, the Orlando Sentinel has learned." According to the article, this is "part of a no-holds-barred effort to preserve the Constellation program," even though "Chris Shank, NASA's Chief of Strategic Communications, denied that Griffin is trying to keep information from the team." At a recent aerospace meeting Garver reportedly told participants that a new administrator would be named soon. "According to industry officials, Griffin started calling heads of companies working for NASA, demanding that they either tell the Obama team that they support Constellation or refrain from talking about alternatives." 

By Constellation, do you suppose they mean the whole program, or specifically the Ares vehicles?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 12/11/2008 12:10 pm
     With a 15m diameter first stage core, you could easily fit 12 or 13 RS-68's under there in a nice symmetrical arrangement.   Probably wouldn't need extra skirts, either!   Then throw half a dozen J2X under the second stage and we're good to go.

That's child toy. Make 12m tank, strap 2 6seg SRBs to the sides, strap another two 12m tanks to other two sides, _and_ add 2 same SRBs to each of those. Or 3 - there's one free side left! Who cares that crawlerway and pad need to be completely rebuilt.

Will make those pesky EELV people to forget how to propose NASA to launch people to ISS on Delta IV! Second stage will need to have 12m tank _at least_.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 12:13 pm
Thanks Ross. Is there any (serious) performance hit in having to vector the J2-Xs off vertical in this fashion ?

About 1%-ish.   We've covered the dispersion.


Quote
Also what if you lose one engine, won't you have to change the configuration of the other engine to prevent sideways motion, i.e. revert to vertical which would put stress on the LIDS ?

Yes, that's precisely why I mentioned strengthening that interface.

In the case of an engine-out, the vector needs to be re-targeted through the CofG, but that would impart extra loads on the interface.

We would be okay with up to 700kg of mass penalty to perform the necessary strengthening to cover such a situation.   A 700kg mass penalty would still allow us to close all of NASA's performance targets without requiring any of the other J-232 upgrades.   If it were above 700kg, then we can still dip into the bag of potential upgrades.

It should be noted that it can only affect the first half-dozen flights.   After that, the Depot removes this concern completely.   Our analysis shows there is a low probability (approx 1 in 300) of a single-engine-out situation occurring on each of the 6 flights, which means we have a total program-level risk of about 1 in 50 of affecting one of those missions.

However, this is not an LOM situation.   The mission can continue on the one remaining engine.   So we believe this is acceptable.   It is certainly not an LOC risk.   It is just one potential fault in the two-fault tolerant tree towards an LOM risk.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 12/11/2008 12:19 pm
From an AIAA e-mail:

Quote
The Orlando Sentinel (12/11, Block, Matthews) reports, ... "According to industry officials, Griffin started calling heads of companies working for NASA, demanding that they either tell the Obama team that they support Constellation or refrain from talking about alternatives." 

 :o *If it's true,* our Mike is losing the contact with reality. Why would they listen to the Admin whose days are numbered? But this behavior will be remebered for sure. He is destroying his credibility. *If it's true,* of course.

EDIT: URL: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 12/11/2008 12:21 pm
Not good. I thought the depot was supposed to be entirely optional, and now you're saying that there's a 1:300 LOM event that can't be fixed without it? Keep it out of the critical path! You have to be able to sell DIRECT on J120 and J230 ALONE. In my opinion, of course.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 12:26 pm
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

In case anyone doesn't know what gospacex is referring to, that's the link.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 12:31 pm
Crispy,
No, its not a 1 in 300 risk of LOM.

This is just a 1 in 300 risk of experiencing a single-engine-out situation.

That does not mean it becomes an LOM though -- although an engine-out would automatically mean an LOM for any mission using a single-engine on its EDS.

If this occurred, it means you would switch to performing the TLI with a single engine instead of the nominal pair.   The vectoring software switches to a mode suitable for single-engine use and you should be able to proceed on with the mission unhindered.

This would however be the first step on a fault-tree towards an LOM.   But you would have to lose the other engine as well to create the LOM situation and the chance of losing both engines is very, very low.


The Depot is *not* essential to success.   We could do the missions without it, so technically it isn't in the critical path.   But the program is *vastly* strengthened if we can get it and we are *really* strongly pursuing it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 12/11/2008 12:36 pm
Not good. I thought the depot was supposed to be entirely optional, and now you're saying that there's a 1:300 LOM event that can't be fixed without it?

Apollo had a 1:9 Lunar LOM rate.

Quote
Keep it out of the critical path! You have to be able to sell DIRECT on J120 and J230 ALONE. In my opinion, of course.

What happens if you lose an engine when you only have one engine to start with?  I think I would like to have a spare engine available.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/11/2008 01:27 pm
The key question, though, is do you need to?

Well, you have to advance your technology. And having more mass on the Moon is good, too.

Besides, if you could do Mars missions with two or three launches without building new infrastructure, it would be great.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/11/2008 01:46 pm
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

In case anyone doesn't know what gospacex is referring to, that's the link.

Ross.



Quote from the end of the full article:

Alan Ladwig, a transition team member who was at the party with Garver, shouted out: “Well, we’re here now, Mike.”

Soon after, Garver and Griffin engaged in what witnesses said was an animated conversation. Some overheard parts of it.

“Mike, I don’t understand what the problem is. We are just trying to look under the hood,” Garver said.

“If you are looking under the hood, then you are calling me a liar,” Griffin replied. “Because it means you don’t trust what I say is under the hood.

/quote


   Wow.   Just, wow.   That is an amazingly arrogant thing for Griffin to say to the head of the transition team.   The whole article is full of FAIL, as they say here on the interwebs.   And the fact that he has cowed the aero contractors into toeing the NASA line is very disheartening.   Is Griffin such a tin-pot dictator that even people who don't work for him are afraid?   Sheesh.

    If I was Garver, the first thing I would tell Obama is that Griffin has to go, sooner rather than later, no doubt about it.   Those actions and statements are the hallmarks of a bully and a coward.   No need to look under the hood, indeed.

     See ya, Mike!   Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out....

    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 01:57 pm
Well, you have to advance your technology. And having more mass on the Moon is good, too.

The problem is that development work is so darned expensive.

Take the $1.8bn contract to ATK for the modification of the current 4-segment SRB's into the new 5-segment SRB as a case in point.   You can immediately match that value again with the additional expenses covering administration and program integration which ATK aren't responsible for, so that upgrade will actually cost NASA more like $3.5bn in the end.

Say we choose to pay that to 'advance the technology' of the Jupiter-232 and make it into the Jupiter-232 Heavy.   Only after paying that and spending 6-8 years in development can you then start to build the enhanced rockets, which are also each more expensive than the regular ones, that will be able to land about one extra ton of material on the lunar surface.

If you had used that same money to purchase regular Jupiter-232's and Altairs, you could have simply flown 9 extra's, landing about 15mT of useful payload mass the Lunar surface every time, for a total of about 135mT of useful payload actually landed on the moon, all before the Jupiter-232 Heavy can even begin operating.

So which option actually buys you the best real-world result?

This is one of my chief concerns with Ares.   It's all about throwing money in the development pot and creating a system which is extremely costly to operate.    Ares might have the top line performance numbers, but it is not going to produce the best returns for the investment dollars -- not by a very long way.


Quote
Besides, if you could do Mars missions with two or three launches without building new infrastructure, it would be great.

The current baseline for DIRECT Mars Expeditions would use three-launch arrangements.   Two such three-launch missions would form a full Expedition, for a total of six launches across two 'batches'.    One mission would land a Habitat, supplies and the ISRU equipment.   The other mission would land the crew & a roving vehicle a while later.

Each 3-launch mission would essentially consist of a payload flight, and two propellant launches to support the TMI.   Although, just like with the moon missions, we hope that the propellant deliveries might be paid for (at least partially) by international partners and take some of the high cost burden off of the US tax-payer.

There are many other approaches which are possible to support Mars Expeditions too.   But this approach is currently being considered because it increases economies of scale of many of the components, which helps reduce individual mission costs considerably.

Also the advanced Lunar Missions pave the way for all of the LV-related technology which will later be needed to support the Mars missions.   It all gets fully-proven during the Lunar phase.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/11/2008 02:12 pm
which are also each more expensive than the regular ones

They don`t have to be more expensive. That would be a bad development if they were.

Of course, what you will have to calculate is cost per kilogram, adjusted for inflation.

But a given technology usually gets cheaper as time passes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 02:19 pm
It is pretty rare for a performance upgrade to cost less, at least in this field of US launch vehicles anyway :)

Normally if you upgrade the performance of an existing engine you will increase its production costs too, SSME Block-II for example.   Adding a fifth segment to the SRB will increase it's per-flight costs by about ~$7-15m depending upon flight rate.   Improving stages is similar too, for example the unit cost of the SLWT External Tank increased compared to the LWT.

I'm sure there are some situations where an evolutionary increase in performance on a specific vehicle has been accomplished at the same time as a cost reduction, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/11/2008 02:28 pm
Adding a fifth segment to the SRB will increase it's per-flight costs by about ~$7-15m depending upon flight rate.

And cost per kilogram of payload? Will it be increased too?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/11/2008 02:28 pm

Quote
Seriously, though, 1 Million lbs to LEO? Since Stephen released it at his expense, is it still available?

I have added the link in the text above.

Ross.

Now that is some interesting reading.   And I appreciate all of the hard work that must have gone into that document.   But the Jupiter-III concept was one butt-ugly rocket, 1M-lb to LEO or not.

By the way, in all of the trillions of scenarios that Steven evaluated, did anything like the current Ares architecture ever pop out of the toaster?   I see that he referenced the ESAS plan in his document, and his Jupiter-I is indeed very similar to the current Jupiter-120.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/11/2008 02:51 pm
     With a 15m diameter first stage core, you could easily fit 12 or 13 RS-68's under there in a nice symmetrical arrangement.   Probably wouldn't need extra skirts, either!   Then throw half a dozen J2X under the second stage and we're good to go.

That's child toy. Make 12m tank, strap 2 6seg SRBs to the sides, strap another two 12m tanks to other two sides, _and_ add 2 same SRBs to each of those. Or 3 - there's one free side left! Who cares that crawlerway and pad need to be completely rebuilt.

Will make those pesky EELV people to forget how to propose NASA to launch people to ISS on Delta IV! Second stage will need to have 12m tank _at least_.

Well, I was trying to come up with something that could be assembled in the current VAB and rolled out the door.   If that restriction is lifted because we need to build a new VAB anyway, then sure.

By the way, what you have just described is very close to the Jupiter-III concept from TeamVision Corp. way back in 05/06.   It is documented in the PDF that Ross linked to a few posts back.   And of course that is NOT a part of the current DIRECT plan.   At all.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 02:57 pm
Adding a fifth segment to the SRB will increase it's per-flight costs by about ~$7-15m depending upon flight rate.

And cost per kilogram of payload? Will it be increased too?

If you leave out the costs of development, there is a marginal improvement - around $200 per kg to LEO.

But if factor in the development costs, by amortizing the cost equally across the first 100 flight units, your $:kg costs go up.   So overall, no.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/11/2008 03:14 pm
From an AIAA e-mail:

Quote
The Orlando Sentinel (12/11, Block, Matthews) reports, ... "According to industry officials, Griffin started calling heads of companies working for NASA, demanding that they either tell the Obama team that they support Constellation or refrain from talking about alternatives." 

 :o *If it's true,* our Mike is losing the contact with reality. Why would they listen to the Admin whose days are numbered? But this behavior will be remebered for sure. He is destroying his credibility. *If it's true,* of course.

EDIT: URL: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.html

Regardless of any exchanges that may have occurred between Mike Griffin and Lori Garver, we need to remember that, at least for now, he is still the NASA Administrator. I know that the behavior is tempting to comment on, but that can quickly get out of hand. We must not allow this thread to degenerate into any kind of a bashing game. This thread is not about Mike Griffin, Lori Garver or the Obama Administration, although they all have influence. It’s about the DIRECT architecture and the Jupiter launch vehicles. President-Elect Obama will make the right decision, based on the circumstances and needs, when the time is appropriate. Beyond that, let’s please try to stay on topic.
Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 12/11/2008 04:27 pm
I'm waiting for the rebuttal before I start asking my questions, but I felt I had to inject a few of my own opinions.  The one thing I can agree on is the concept of DIRECT to not develop any new technology for the sake of going to the moon and mars (i.e. no upgrades to Jupiter).  However you still need to spend the money that you saved on development work - on development work.  Otherwise you will get to 2030 with the same 1970's era technology.  It's my opinion that one failure of Ares is developing technology specifically for the rocket.  You can't use off the shelf technology if you didn't put it on the shelf to begin with.

Thus one part of the DIRECT architecture should be (and probably is) to re-invigorate the development of engines and manufacturing techniques using the money saved by not developing engines and manufacturing for a LV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/11/2008 04:34 pm
I'm waiting for the rebuttal before I start asking my questions, but I felt I had to inject a few of my own opinions.  The one thing I can agree on is the concept of DIRECT to not develop any new technology for the sake of going to the moon and mars (i.e. no upgrades to Jupiter).  However you still need to spend the money that you saved on development work - on development work.  Otherwise you will get to 2030 with the same 1970's era technology.  It's my opinion that one failure of Ares is developing technology specifically for the rocket.  You can't use off the shelf technology if you didn't put it on the shelf to begin with.

Thus one part of the DIRECT architecture should be (and probably is) to re-invigorate the development of engines and manufacturing techniques using the money saved by not developing engines and manufacturing for a LV.

The latest Space Authorization Act already does this by requiring a percentage of the NASA budget to be spent in just this way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 12/11/2008 04:51 pm
Couldn`t you get more by simply optimising Jupiter over time? Better engines, lighter materials, new boosters?

Sure there are plenty of options to increase the performance of the Jupiter's.

The key question, though, is do you need to?

And if you don't need to, why spend your money on development of capabilities you don't really need when you have loads of other engineering development work which can be done instead -- specifically on the spacecraft going to different destinations.

Our real argument boils down to:   Once you have 100mT+ capability able to perform all the missions you want, why spend billions improving the Jupiter further when you could spend that money funding more missions instead?

We haven't found a single reason to justify any rocket larger than that.   A bigger rocket isn't needed for ISS.   It isn't needed for Lunar 'Connect Mode' missions.   It isn't needed for Lunar 'Depot Mode' missions. 
Ross.

I disagree, what cargo payload can a *single* J-232 currently deliver to the Moon ? 2mT ? That's relatively weak. Seriously if you have got 27mT extra performance from a stretched 5-seg J-232 than I suggest you go for it in your baseline, it would also satisfy NASA's current demands even using their pmf figures.  If this means that the J-120 suffers well so what, it's not that important in the scheme of things. Also it would mean the current ATK 5-seg contract wouldn't have to be cancelled.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 06:01 pm
marsavian,
A single Jupiter-232 flying a 1-launch cargo delivery mission to the moon and using the standard Altair LSAM Descent Module can land a 24.1mT LSAM anywhere on the Lunar surface (global access).   Slightly more to Polar.   More still to Equatorial.

That compares to a 26.9mT LSAM for a single-launch Ares-V cargo mission.   We achieve roughly 90% of the effective payload performance to the moon of the current CxP baseline.

As for changing the baseline, we have been leaving the option you describe 'open' so that NASA can claim it entirely as their own idea.   We understand the "Not Invented Here' syndrome and are attempting to leave the door open NASA to 'Invent' it themselves if they so wish.

Even then, our baseline is still the cheaper option overall and we have plans for utilizing every penny of development savings which we can achieve to further the missions and the science return instead.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 12/11/2008 06:13 pm
Is 24mT the weight of the LSAM or the weight of its payload ? Are you saying that the 5.5 seg 6 RS-68 Ares V can only deliver 2.8mT more to the Moon ? I find that hard to believe to the point of incredulity. I take your point about the NIH syndrome.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 06:36 pm
That's 24.1mT total landed mass.   Cargo would be around 11.8mT of that.

Ares-V is going to be capable of landing 26.9mT in total, of which about 14.6mT would be cargo.

Both assume the P-711B Altair configuration, the standard CxP margins and performance GR&A's throughout.   While the P-711B isn't quite the latest one, it is close enough to use for comparison purposes.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 12/11/2008 07:01 pm
Could you explain how an Ares V with 50mT more LEO capability ends up sending virtually the same weight LSAM, I still can't see it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/11/2008 07:19 pm
Optimaization.  Just because a rocket is bigger doesn't always mean it's better.  Sure it can lift a little more, but you also have to lift the extra mass of the rocket too.  So it becomes a trade study.  Is a little more cargo worth the changes to everything else and the money that goes with it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 12/11/2008 07:32 pm
The current baseline for DIRECT Mars Expeditions would use three-launch arrangements.   Two such three-launch missions would form a full Expedition, for a total of six launches across two 'batches'.    One mission would land a Habitat, supplies and the ISRU equipment.   The other mission would land the crew & a roving vehicle a while later.
Hi Ross
I don't want to be off topic, but is this architecture your implementation of Mars Direct ? "Direct Mars Direct" ;)
Or is this an implementation of NASA's DRM 3 ?
Off course you have to focus on the lunar exploration but I'd like to know more about this martian concept.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 08:24 pm
Could you explain how an Ares V with 50mT more LEO capability ends up sending virtually the same weight LSAM, I still can't see it.

The LSAM is the limiting item on the Ares Cargo profile.   It is highly optimized for the Crew Landing scenario where they are bringing a 20mT mass penalty through TLI (the CEV).   The optimal LSAM for that task is considerably smaller than could be supported by an Ares-V based 1-launch cargo mission.

An optimally designed DS for the cargo mission could probably squeeze more performance out, but it would need to be larger and more powerful -- and that means major additional development costs on top of the crew config.   And major additional costs is something the program really can't afford so it isn't going to happen.

Essentially they just aren't able to make full use all of the Ares-V's performance for the cargo mission because the LSAM is optimized for the smaller Crew mission.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/11/2008 08:30 pm
Hi Ross
I don't want to be off topic, but is this architecture your implementation of Mars Direct ? "Direct Mars Direct" ;)
Or is this an implementation of NASA's DRM 3 ?
Off course you have to focus on the lunar exploration but I'd like to know more about this martian concept.

Our launch systems could support any of the Mars architectures.

What we have as our own baseline is still very much "in development", but it uses elements from a number of the major plans.   I guess I would say that it is most similar to NASA's DRM 3.0, but it has a few elements of Dual Landers and Mars Society Mission (MSM) too.

The key thing which we are trying to design is a progressive architecture where many of the elements we develop for the Lunar program will have a real bearing on similar items needed later for Mars.   In that respect, it differs completely from all the other proposals.

It isn't really ready to release in detail yet though -- everything is very much up-in-the-air still, excuse the pun :)   We've had our hands pretty full for a while now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/12/2008 02:21 am
If your depot includes a solar-powered Nitrogen liquifier, then you could build it with a LN2 jacket and keep the LOX loss to zero without transferring H2.

So the Depot itself (the first one anyways) would be more of a high-dollar item with an extended on-orbit lifetime. And the tankers carrying the LOX/LH2 could be more affordable because they only have be smart enough to rendezvous, not dock.

Bingo.   The aim is to reduce the complexity of the delivery flights as much as possible to get the best possible value out of them.


Quote
Have you thought about having separate depots for LOX and LH2? First, to prevent the possibility of an on-orbit explosion should one or the other develop a leak. Second, because the LH2 requires much better cryo tech to maintain LH2 on orbit.

We've thought of it, but dismissed it.

The only way this really works is if the mission flight brings up its own LH2 with it and simply tops-off it's LOX tanks in orbit.   That approach works fairly well.

But you wouldn't want two separate rendezvous events, two dockings and two completely separate transfer events in the procedure for going to the moon each time.   That adds a lot more complexity and increases the chance of things going wrong.   It's better to minimize it.

Also to keep LOX cold, there are some extremely good methods to sacrifice the much lighter (and thus cheaper to lift) LH2 if it's already on-site in the same tanking.   You transfer the heat from the LOX to the LH2 and just vent a little of that overboard.   Doing that allows you to preserve almost all of the far more expensive LOX with near-zero boil-off.   You don't have that option if there is no LH2 in the same location.

I would suggest you take a few minutes to read Atlas Centaur Extensibility to Long-Duration In-Space
Applications (http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Atlas/Atlas_Centaur_Extensibility_to_Long-Duration_In-Space_Applications_2005-6738.pdf)
to get an idea of the direction we would like to pursue in this area.

Of course, a permanent depot should ideally have a highly efficient active cooling system to reduce boil-off to near-zero anyway.   But that's a technology development which may not be included in the very first versions of a Depot.


Quote
Finally, I would assume that the Depot would be a NASA developed item, and that it would be launched on a Jupiter vehicle. Although I guess it could be outsourced, but that doesn't seem likely to me.

We think it should be a NASA item built by whichever contractor is building the Jupiter Upper Stages.

Right now, our plan calls for Boeing to do that assuming we can get a smooth transition from the Ares-I US contract to the JUS.

It could eventually be replaced by a purely commercial unit, or even a foreign one.   But that last option would create a concern regarding political leverage in non-space national strategic interests, so we aren't a fan of it.   We recommend that the US take the lead on such a critical piece of hardware.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/12/2008 02:32 am
With the EDS, is it worth jettisoning one engine after orbit, so that you don't need to drag both to the moon and back?  Because once you're in orbit, you don't need huge accelerations anymore...

EDS - Do you have a simple diagram to illustrate as I'm having trouble visualising it, sorry.

Here's a very quick diagram for you.

CofG moves forward (towards LSAM/CEV) as the JUS burns propellant.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 12/12/2008 03:27 am
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-nasa1208dec12,0,7336017.story

"Garver didn't say what options her group might recommend, such as more money to keep flying the shuttle or changing the rocket systems NASA is currently developing to go to the moon. However, she promised that "there is going to be change."

Hmmm... Please let it be DIRECT... With all the BS that is going on in Washington these days, it would be of great encouragement if they actually made one right decision...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/12/2008 03:51 am
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

In case anyone doesn't know what gospacex is referring to, that's the link.

Ross.


Man, I never saw so many comments on a single newspaper article.   And that's not even a space-related paper (except for location).

I guess NASA (or maybe just Griffin) still knows how to stir up the passions of average Americans....

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/12/2008 05:23 am
kraisee wrote on 12/11/2008 10:55 AM

>Just for clarity, the 2197kg figure covers both Secondary Systems and Ancillary
>Items.

What about Secondary Structures and Engine Support Systems?

>And that's the bit we are not allowed to breakdown. Hell, because its ITAR *I*
>have never even seen it myself.

You previously gave this information in your AIAA 2007 paper. Here it is below.

Main Propulsion System Mass:             Margin
  Total Engine:                 2,800  10%    200 kg
  Support Systems:              2,934   5%    147 kg
  Sub-Total:                    5,734             kg

Structures Mass:
  Primary Body Structures:     17,490  10%  1,749 kg
  Secondary Structures:         1,215  15%    182 kg
  Sub-Total:                   18,706             kg

Ancillary Systems:
  Separation Systems:             178  10%     18 kg
  TPS:                            283  15%     42 kg
  TCS:                          1,323  15%    198 kg
  Power (Electrical):             641  10%     64 kg
  Power (Hydraulic):              183  10%     18 kg
  Avionics:                       195  15%     29 kg
  Miscellaneous:                  117  20%     23 kg
  Sub-Tolal:                    2,920             kg

Total Dry Mass Without Glowth: 27,360

  GR&A Dry Mass Allowance:      2,752       2,752 kg

Total Dry Mass With Growth:    30,111             kg

NASA gave the exact same mass breakdown (but with different values) for their three analysis of Direct 2.0 (Team A and B in May 2007 and Team B in September 2007). If you previously gave this mass breakdown and NASA gives this mass breakdown, I don't see how you can argue that your current mass breakdown can not be shown due to ITAR. Please ask your sources for a mass breakdown of the type shown above.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/12/2008 01:15 pm
You previously gave this information in your AIAA 2007 paper. Here it is below.

[SNIP]

NASA gave the exact same mass breakdown (but with different values)

[SNIP]

The way NASA derives those numbers is via a tool called "INTROS".   It was developed (IIRC) at NASA Ames and is currently used by NASA MSFC and NASA Langley as well.   That table arrangement is the output report of an INTROS run.

The problem is that that tool is not the same one which Lockheed uses.   They have their own *proprietary* tools which are used for developing Centaurs, Wide Body Centaurs, ICES and also the Shuttle's External Tank.   Lockheed's internal tools simply do not break the masses down in the same way as INTROS and are thus never going to allow for a direct apples-to-apples comparison like that.

The key difference though, is that there has never been a single stage actually flown which started-out being designed in INTROS first -- not a single one so far.   Compare that, for a moment, to the number of Centaur Upper Stages and Shuttle External Tanks which have flown successfully using LM's design methodologies.

The contrast couldn't be any more stark.

It also cuts to the heart of the issue of who's figures are the more reliable.

I've spoken with a few of my colleagues to get a better "feel" for what the key differences are and they've given me a couple of simplified explanations without going into any details.   I'll tell you what I know.   One of the key differences with the WBC design we want to use seems to be that a great deal of structural mass is saved in Lockheed's designs by creating integrated structures which serve more than one purpose.   For example, the lower LOX tank dome forms not just the pressure vessel of the tanking, but is also a substantial part of the thrust structure.   You can see how the dome transfers a lot of the forces to the structure in their ICES diagrams (which I've attached).   There is a significantly smaller conical thrust structure compared to traditional designs.   Apparently this sort of change can save a vast amount of mass.   But which of the INTROS classifications would the tank dome now fit into?   Is it Thrust Structure or Tanking?   How do you break it up when its not just simply one or the other?   You can't realistically do so.

Another example, is the LH2 feedline(s) pass through the LOX tank on LM's WBC designs, not down the outside of the stage.   As such it is no longer really part of the secondary systems, but is part of the tanking structure.   It is even a pressurized vessel because the LOX and LH2 are pressurized to two different levels.   There just isn't an equivalent category in INTROS to account for this element though.   So what do you do?   Put it in tanking?   Or do you leave it in secondary systems?   Or is it part of the common bulkhead?    Or do you just stick it in some new category arbitrarily?  You probably couldn't just leave it out :)

The two approaches are just different, from the ground up.   They have a lot of incompatibilities.   Unfortunately they are never going to offer apples-to-apples comparable figures the way you want them to.   All you're going to be able to get is "this approach does it this way and results in x, while that approach does it differently and results in y".

I guess its kinda like the difference between a family sedan and a motorbike.   They're two completely different approaches to the transportation problem.   They have radically different designs, but both achieve their intended function.   But you just can't realistically start comparing a 600cc two-stroke motorcycle engine to a 2.2liter 4-stroke car engine, or the 6-speed semi-auto gearbox of the bike to the 4-speed auto box on the car.   Those sorts of comparison are of absolutely no use to anyone and the two use completely different comparative scales from each other.

This INTROS vs. Centaur design methodology difference is a similar situation.

Our September 2007 AIAA paper used INTROS to derive our figures which is why we could provide those numbers.   Our later materials use LM's tools, and because they are proprietary we can't publish the anything other than the high-level breakdowns in public.   LM are the only ones authorized to do that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/12/2008 01:41 pm
What about if you use the analogy of an hybrid car and a normal car?  In a mormal car--the battery might be part of the electrical system, in a hybrid--are the batteries still part of the electrical system or part of the main engine?  Things are now differant, and where the weight is distributed is now differant as well.  But at the end of the day, both get you to where you want to go.  :-)

Is this going to be a problem in that you cannot publish LM authorized numbers expect in a general breakdown sense?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/12/2008 01:47 pm
You previously gave this information in your AIAA 2007 paper. Here it is below.

[SNIP]

NASA gave the exact same mass breakdown (but with different values)

[SNIP]

The way NASA derives those numbers is via a tool called "INTROS".   It was developed (IIRC) at NASA Ames and is currently used by NASA MSFC and NASA Langley as well.   That table arrangement is the output report of an INTROS run.

............

Ross.

Ross,

So if I can sum up your position regarding the J-232 upper stage / EDS masses:

    Steven is asking for exact numbers from a tool that is used to estimate masses based on certain preconceived construction criteria and methodologies that differ significantly from what is planned.

    You are using proprietary tools developed by the builders of the technology, based on real-world usage, for the specific construction model that you are intending to use.

    So you feel that your numbers are more accurate than any estimate that Steven can come up with, because he is not modeling the item with complete and accurate information.   And you can't give him that information because it is proprietary and confidential.

    Which is understandable, but still unfortunate. DIRECT is left in the position of saying, "Trust me on this."   And for a project that is trying to accomplish it's goals in an open an transparent manner, that does not sit well.   Especially when you are going up against the establishment that has already said your numbers don't work.   If you want people to accept your numbers over the word of the incumbent, you really really need to be able to be open and verifiable.

    This is a very tough problem and I don't see a way around it. The only option is to convince the proprietary stakeholders that they stand to gain more through openness than they might gain through being secretive.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/12/2008 01:53 pm
HIP,
Not sure that analogy works either.

I guess the car analogy which is most appropriate would be between the latest mid-engined Ferrari road car and its Formula 1 counterpart (American's could choose a NASCAR equivalent analogy if you wish, but I'm British and I like to be able to turn right as well as left!).

From a pure overview perspective the two cars are both pretty similar in high-level concept terms.   Both have four wheels, independent suspension, disc brakes, an engine located behind the driver's cabin, a performance chassis and a transmission powering the rear wheels.   But it is the *design methodology* and the execution where they diverge radically.

They might even possibly both have a V8 engine of about the same capacity, so at least on paper they still appear similar.   But again, the design methodology sets the two engines completely apart.


Forget the analogies though, they're just a point used to demonstrate an idea.

The key is that in this INTROS vs. LM methodology comparison, you just can't use the same yardstick to measure them both by.   You have to assess each one on its own specific merits, and then all you can do is compare the final results against one another.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/12/2008 01:59 pm
[SNIP]

This is a very tough problem and I don't see a way around it.

That was a good, accurate and unemotional summation there.   Nicely done Mark.

Yes, it is a tricky one.   As we see over in the other popular thread right now, getting contractors like LM to speak out about such things officially has been next-to-impossible while Griffin remains in charge of NASA.

But we do have a solution for this in the end.   Just be patient and you will all see for yourselves.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/12/2008 02:30 pm
Um, Ross...

For those of us who are not the brightest lights on the tree, could you do some sort of secret handshake or imbedded link in the text or something to identify this "other popular thread"??

I would thank you, and my overwrought, overloaded, overworked brain would thank you as well...

;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/12/2008 02:38 pm
It's the Orlando Sentinel article thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14928.0;all

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/12/2008 02:46 pm
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

In case anyone doesn't know what gospacex is referring to, that's the link.

Ross.


Man, I never saw so many comments on a single newspaper article.   And that's not even a space-related paper (except for location).

I guess NASA (or maybe just Griffin) still knows how to stir up the passions of average Americans....

Mark S.


It's the NASA story that just won't die! Yesterday it was covered on Fark.com (http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=4076630), today it's on  Slashdot (http://Slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/12/1340243).  It's either a very slow week for news, or there is a lot of pent up resentment against Griffin and/or NASA itself.

If you guys would like to see what the Internet masses are thinking about Griffin, NASA, and space in general, here is your chance.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/12/2008 02:58 pm
If you guys would like to see what the Internet masses are thinking about Griffin, NASA, and space in general, here is your chance.

It is truly frightening what the public sentiment is.   Go read the huge list of comments to the original article (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.html).

About 70% seem to want Griffin gone, but half of those want NASA gone as well!

About 15% seem to want Garver gone instead.

The rest seem to only be interested in making it a totally off-topic political squabble and spiraling the whole thing into a real mud-fight centered around that.

And the quality of literacy of the commentary is nothing short of breathtaking to behold.   You'll quickly see what I mean.   I'm more shocked by that than anything else here to be honest.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/12/2008 03:10 pm
If you guys would like to see what the Internet masses are thinking about Griffin, NASA, and space in general, here is your chance.

It is truly frightening what the public sentiment is.   Go read the huge list of comments to the original article (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.html).

About 70% seem to want Griffin gone, but half of those want NASA gone as well!

About 15% seem to want Garver gone instead.

The rest seem to only be interested in making it a totally off-topic political squabble and spiraling the whole thing into a real mud-fight centered around that.

And the quality of literacy of the commentary is nothing short of breathtaking to behold.   You'll quickly see what I mean.   I'm more shocked by that than anything else here to be honest.

Ross.

    Yeah, it's pretty amazing, but not in a good way.

    The commentary in the other two forums is a little better, but not by much.  I tried to get a plug for DIRECT in to both conversations, but with little luck.  The common sentiment seems to be "Well, if they're so smart, why aren't they in charge?"

    Other posters try to point out that NASA is less than 1% of the federal budget, but that doesn't seem to stop the masses from crying about the "billions and billions" of dollars going to space research. 

    Which is why it is absolutely imperative to get a responsible and successful new program going at NASA.  We will never be able to convince everyone, but we need to keep a large enough segment of the population engaged and informed.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/12/2008 03:20 pm
    Which is why it is absolutely imperative to get a responsible and successful new program going at NASA.  We will never be able to convince everyone, but we need to keep a large enough segment of the population engaged and informed.

Mark S.

I think this is the most important point that can be made.  NASA needs to do something in a very effective manner.  That is what made their reputation.  Things like STS, ISS, X-33, X-34 and now perhaps Ares/Constellation are spoiling that.

NASA needs a system that is effective and reliable and to get humans and spacecraft out there doing exploration.   That has to include meeting budget and schedule and getting things going instead of a decade long plan for development. 

I think I speak for nearly everyone in the USA at this point when I say that after this economy American tax payers want results and government to work.  Not more paper, promises and platitudes.

Just get it done.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: holgar5 on 12/12/2008 03:28 pm
Optimaization.  Just because a rocket is bigger doesn't always mean it's better.  Sure it can lift a little more, but you also have to lift the extra mass of the rocket too.  So it becomes a trade study.  Is a little more cargo worth the changes to everything else and the money that goes with it?

Is it right that mainly the optimization of the EDS is yielding the higher payload fraction of the Jupiter-232 in comparison to Ares-V ? Could an upperstage for Ares I optimized in the same way solve all the mass penalties for Ares I ? Sorry for this "nasty" question, but it was coming to my mind reading the thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 12/12/2008 03:30 pm
It is truly frightening what the public sentiment is.   Go read the huge list of comments to the original article (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.html).

About 70% seem to want Griffin gone, but half of those want NASA gone as well!

About 15% seem to want Garver gone instead.

The rest seem to only be interested in making it a totally off-topic political squabble and spiraling the whole thing into a real mud-fight centered around that.

And the quality of literacy of the commentary is nothing short of breathtaking to behold.   You'll quickly see what I mean.   I'm more shocked by that than anything else here to be honest.

This reaction should surprise no one.  The assumption by "pro space" and/or "pro NASA" people that the American Public is firmly behind the manned space program is not universally true, especially in times of economic crisis.

NASA needs to learn how to do more with less, which to me means taking a little bit of risk to fundamentally change the game.  One huge thing they could do is develop in orbit refueling technologies and then commit to buying at least LOX from a commercial LEO depot.  NASA should be developing technologies and letting industry develop the acutal infrastructure.

Their approach to space travel should be as close to NACA's approach to helping develop aircraft in the glory days of aircraft development.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/12/2008 03:40 pm

This reaction should surprise no one.  The assumption by "pro space" and/or "pro NASA" people that the American Public is firmly behind the manned space program is not universally true, especially in times of economic crisis.

NASA needs to learn how to do more with less, which to me means taking a little bit of risk to fundamentally change the game.  One huge thing they could do is develop in orbit refueling technologies and then commit to buying at least LOX from a commercial LEO depot.  NASA should be developing technologies and letting industry develop the acutal infrastructure.

Their approach to space travel should be as close to NACA's approach to helping develop aircraft in the glory days of aircraft development.

That is exactly what the DIRECT architecture is aiming to do – exactly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: agman25 on 12/12/2008 04:13 pm
Hi! My first post here. Have been lurking around for a while. I would like to say that no one should read to much into the responses to the Orlando Sentinel article. Negative responses always seem to dominate in public and loosely supervised blogs. Space is still supported by the "silent" majority. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jml on 12/12/2008 04:25 pm
Now there's an interesting question (even if slightly off topic), and I'd love to hear some knowledgeable responses.

It sure sounds like an ICES-derived Ares I US with a J-2X would likely solve a lot of mass and performance issues for Ares I (and Orion too). As I recall the Ares I US was long ago revised to use some pretty high-tech and high-cost items like composite construction and a common bulkhead between the LOX and LH2 tanks, so it might not even be that much more costly than the currently-proposed upper stage.

Changing the upper stage design at this point while still requiring the development programs for both the J-2X and 5-seg SRB's certainly wouldn't help the cost or schedule components of the program.

And, of course, an upper stage design change does nothing for the fundamental issue that Ares I is a third medium-lift class launcher when NASA has two perfectly good EELVs that could do the job for far less.

Is it right that mainly the optimization of the EDS is yielding the higher payload fraction of the Jupiter-232 in comparison to Ares-V ? Could an upperstage for Ares I optimized in the same way solve all the mass penalties for Ares I ? Sorry for this "nasty" question, but it was coming to my mind reading the thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/12/2008 06:47 pm
Now there's an interesting question (even if slightly off topic), and I'd love to hear some knowledgeable responses.

Its actually a totally off-topic discussion point and I'm going to ask the moderators to step in after this post.   But I will answer the question for you.

Boeing has a similar level of engineering expertise to LM.   They have been providing as much information as possible into the Ares-I US design team as they can.   But their hands are tied for two reasons:

1) NASA Management has dictated that the design will be NASA-led, not contractor-led and NASA's team just isn't quite as experienced as the industry teams are.   The reason being a desire to re-create the Apollo experience base within the government agency again instead of purely within private industry.   That's a political choice of the Administrator and every reader will have a different opinion on this.   This thread is not the place to discuss it though.

2) The real engineering problem is that Ares-I is going to fly through a much harsher environment than the Jupiter Upper Stage will have to.   The max-Q is around 1,050psf on nominal trajectories.   The acoustic vibration environment is up to 165dB.   The max-G peaks around 4g before SECO.   The bending loads for such a tall & thin configuration are high.   And it also has to handle TO as well.   All of these mean the US has to be stronger and heavier than if it were flying through a less harsh environment.

By comparison, the Jupiter-232 *never* exceeds 700psf, or 145dB or 2.5g, and the entire structure is much wider so it is much easier to disperse bending loads through the vehicle.

If the Jupiter Upper Stage had to fly through the same environment as Ares-I's US does, it too would have to be a lot heavier.


That's enough discussion of the Ares-I US on this thread thanks guys.   We have enough to talk about here already :)   Feel free to start a separate thread though if you wish.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/12/2008 06:49 pm
Let's say the next President is a smartman and wants something flying by 2012. 

His short term choices are?

A.  Orion on EELV--can this be achieved?
B.  Orion on Direct--can this be achieved?
C.  COTS-D--------can this be achieved?

2016 choices:

D.  Direct
E.  Ares?
F.  EELV


2020 choices

G.  Ares
H.  Direct
I.   EELV
J.   Other--private, etc.


I have put in 2020, but since he is not in office, so why would he care.

What choices do you think he will pick?  What impact will choices A,B,C have on the choices D,E,F?  Would he really worry about G, H, I, J since it is so far out?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/12/2008 06:58 pm
Let's say the next President is a smartman and wants something flying by 2012. 

His short term choices are?

A.  Orion on EELV--can this be achieved?
B.  Orion on Direct--can this be achieved?
C.  COTS-D--------can this be achieved?

2016 choices:

D.  Direct
E.  Ares?
F.  EELV


2020 choices

G.  Ares
H.  Direct
I.   EELV
J.   Other--private, etc.


I have put in 2020, but since he is not in office, so why would he care.

What choices do you think he will pick?  What impact will choices A,B,C have on the choices D,E,F?  Would he really worry about G, H, I, J since it is so far out?



2012:
A & B are all the same date -- both are 100% dictated by making the liquid engines (RS-68, RL-10 and RD-180) comply with NASA's human rating standards and building the engine health monitoring systems to support crew aborts.   That is the long pole of both options.   Everything else can be accomplished before those can be fully qualified.

C is an open question.   Human rating to Space-X's standards may be completely different to NASA's.   Also, judging by Falcon-1, the realistic schedule for a Falcon-9/Dragon pairing becoming operational will take longer than initial predictions indicate too.


2016:
D is achievable for Lunar-class IOC.

E can't go anywhere near the moon in that time-frame.   A minimum of 3 more years (2019) is required, and that only if the budget doesn't slip at all.

F Perhaps.

2020:
G Might just be getting operational.

H should have achieved 7 Lunar Crew landings (4 sorties, 3 6-month expeditions), 9 Assembly Cargo flights and three Logistics supply missions by this point.

I Unknown.

J Possibility of Lunar Flyby missions for super-wealthy tourists.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/12/2008 07:27 pm
Hey Ross.  I tried a little bit of DIRECT advocacy over on another site.  I wasn't very successful.  The one guy that I kept going back and forth with wasn't acknowledging any of my points, so I finally decided to call it a day.

He kept going on about how much cheaper the Ares will be over Direct, since the Ares-I costs so much less to operate than Jupiter.  I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry.  How can anyone think that Ares will be cheaper than Direct, either developmentally or operationally?

How do you deal with that?  I was stumped.  I guess I should just leave it up to the trained professionals. :)

(If this is too far off-topic, we can drop it.)

Thanks,
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/12/2008 08:10 pm
That's a good question.

It helps to have factual data to back up your arguments.

Let me put something together for you quickly...   Be back soon.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/12/2008 08:42 pm
That's a good question.

It helps to have factual data to back up your arguments.

Let me put something together for you quickly...   Be back soon.

Ross.

Sounds to me like your going to provide information to someone that isn't going to believe it and will stick with their belief system regardless of what you explain to them.

Lots of emotion going into space discussion this week.  I might need a break till after Jan 20.

Good luck.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/12/2008 09:11 pm

Sounds to me like your going to provide information to someone that isn't going to believe it and will stick with their belief system regardless of what you explain to them.


Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking.   Still, I didn't want to just accuse him of drinking Griffin's koolade.   There are a lot of good hard working people out there that just cannot accept anything that is not the prevailing wisdom, no matter how hard you try to explain it to them.   So all we have to do is make DIRECT the prevailing wisdom, and we will automatically have hordes of people on board.  Simple! :)

Seriously, though, I would like to be able to hold my own in situations like that, so whatever Ross comes up with will be greatly appreciated.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 01:50 am
Okay, here's a whole bunch of charts showing the different systems.

You should be able to use these.

The Mission Cost charts show just the LV's, and do not include the Orion or Altair spacecraft.

The Program Cost charts assume baseline missions only, with 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo and 1 Mars mission per year, all starting as early as possible and with ISS ending at the expected dated for each program.

These costs are not adjusted for inflation and simply show constant FY2008 US $ flat comparisons.

[EDIT: Corrected spelling mistake in Lunar Cargo so it is now at the end]

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/13/2008 02:30 am
Okay, here's a whole bunch of charts showing the different systems.

You should be able to use these.
......
Ross.

Ross,

You should change your handle to FedEx, because you deliver!

I will save these charts off and keep them handy for when the need arises again.

I will study them and let you know if I have any questions.

Thanks,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/13/2008 02:43 am

I will study them and let you know if I have any questions.


Ross,

    One other chart that I can think of that might be useful would be another cost vs. flights/year chart. But instead of the cost per launch, how about charting the cost per Kg to LEO on the Y axis  vs. the number of flights per year on the X axis.

    Not that you have anything else to do. :)

Thanks,
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: NUAETIUS on 12/13/2008 04:01 am
Going back a good bit for this question, but I noticed that all the cargo options for the Jupiter required the Orion to dock with the mission stage to be able to deliver significant amounts of cargo to the ISS. 

Assuming that the cost of a mission to the ISS is mostly static in relation to weight delivered, could a valid case be made for integrating a COTS cargo craft in place of mission stage for an Orion launch to the ISS?

By the time that Jupiter/Orion is in flight both COTS contracts will be fully completed.  That could mean that NASA will have 2 fully developed cargo stages as an option for the Jupiter. 

This would allow NASA to load either the Dragon or the Cyngus with the heaviest of consumables without fear of the launch vehicles capacity.  Also this would alleviate the need for a design and testing on a Jupiter specific cargo mission module.  Also, most importantly with would cut the amount of docking procedures that the Orion would be required to do.

Thanks to years of reading Jims responses I realize that spacecraft are not “plug and play”, also I know that both COTS craft will have dedicated, cheaper launchers at the time that this idea would be put into use.  But given that Jupiter does have the extra capacity when going to the ISS, and that NASA would already have throughly tested the designs of both craft, and approved them for integration with the ISS.  It seems like the perfect match of Commercial space and NASA.

I.a) DIVHUS with passive LIDS, inside J120's SLA:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/2672276647/
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/2672276647_84666acc4c.jpg)
(these are +/- recent renderings but also already outdated, click link for description and to access higher resolution version of the image)

This integration method means that J120 core would have to fully deliver the mission stage + CEV into LEO, then SLA would be jettisoned / would open, CEV would gain some distance, deploy solar panels, transpose, dock with mission stage...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/13/2008 08:45 am
Could you use the EDS to boost the ISS orbit, or would the thrust be too much for all those long, dangly connections?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 12/13/2008 08:52 am
Okay, here's a whole bunch of charts showing the different systems.

You should be able to use these.

The Mission Cost charts show just the LV's, and do not include the Orion or Altair spacecraft.

The Program Cost charts assume baseline missions only, with 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo and 1 Mars mission per year, all starting as early as possible and with ISS ending at the expected dated for each program.

These costs are not adjusted for inflation and simply show constant FY2008 US $ flat comparisons.
Ross, such useful informations should be posted on your website, because they will be hard to found back when the topic will have a zillion more pages ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JMSC on 12/13/2008 10:42 am
Okay, here's a whole bunch of charts showing the different systems.

You should be able to use these.

The Mission Cost charts show just the LV's, and do not include the Orion or Altair spacecraft.

The Program Cost charts assume baseline missions only, with 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo and 1 Mars mission per year, all starting as early as possible and with ISS ending at the expected dated for each program.

These costs are not adjusted for inflation and simply show constant FY2008 US $ flat comparisons.

[EDIT: Corrected spelling mistake in Lunar Cargo so it is now at the end]

Ross.

Hi Ross,

I found the DIRECT website a few months ago through one of those ineffective arguments made on another blog concerning the DIRECT approach vs. Ares.  While the blog didn’t convince me of the validity of DIRECT it did lead me to the DIRECT website which proved very convincing.  I just have a comment on the mission cost charts.  In particular, I don’t feel that the charts accurately portray the true cost of an EELV derived system. 

By this I mean that the development cost chart (chart 1) shows that to develop an ISS capable Orion launcher EELV is clearly the cheapest option.  However, the chart doesn’t display the cost for developing a lunar capable cargo variant.  I would assume this would either be an evolved EELV type launcher such as the Atlas Phase III or Atlas Phase, the Shuttle-C as shown, a Jupiter 232, or a version of the Ares V if for some reason you wanted to keep the 1.5 launch mission architecture.  In other words I think the charts could be misread to suggest that for $1 billion in development cost an EELV derived vehicle could get you to the moon. 

Also, don't the Ares and Jupiter numbers get you new infrastructure too?  $1 billion should get you a man rated EELV but I think you would need at least $1 billion more for to convert Pad 39A or 39B to handle a human rated EELV launch.  Not fully understanding the charts for use in a blog could lead to DIRECT looking much more expensive relative to EELV than it is.  I believe, right or wrong, that DIRECT is on the expensive side when compared to an EELV derived system if you are just trying to reach Low Earth Orbit, but that it really shines when the full costs of going to the moon are added up.

My feeling is that the charts need the appropriate caveats (e.g. EELV costs assume a 3-launch shuttle-C architecture to support lunar ops), or the charts should be revamped to clearly break out costs based on what is needed to develop an ISS capable architecture and what is needed for follow-on lunar architecture.  If all you want to do is go to LEO and back why would you do anything other than man-rate an existing EELV?  But, if you want a system that can take us beyond LEO, well that’s where DIRECT really looks to be the best option currently available, and ARES simply looks like the most expensive and least sustainable option for getting to LEO and/or getting to the moon.

John
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/13/2008 01:01 pm
Hey guys, just an update on getting the message out.  I caught a pretty widely-read political blogger repeating the line that cancelling Ares is tantamount to cancelling the manned space program (the guy is ex-JPL, actually and, I believe, worked on the Viking landers). 

I sent him an email basically letting him know that Ares-I is not the only game in town with reagard to LEO access.  I also recommended that he look at directlauncher.com for information on how to create a real working space infrastructure to support jobs in these harder times.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/13/2008 01:23 pm
Good luck Ben.

If its the guy I'm thinking about, he's just as rabid as those moon-landing hoax people. His way or the highway. With people like that, there is absolutely nothing you can say, no piece of evidence, no comeback, no argument, no nothing that will convince them of anything other than what they already want to believe.

But I (along with a bunch of others) hope that guys like that can be brought on board, so that we all can start generating enough pressure on our elected officials, from the President-elect right on down, to go in the direction that saves the most jobs, is the most cost-effective, and stands the best chance of success.

We all know what that is.

We just have to be able to get the message out more simply.

Perhaps that's the problem. There's no really simple way to counter the arguments that Griffin and his minions are putting out there, without looking like crackpots. They must have done that intentionally.

I say we need a simple, understandable, and clear set of statements that totally disprove and dispel all of the mis- and dis-information that is out there.

I wish I were able to generate it, but I'm only an historian, not a rocket-scientist!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 01:29 pm
One other chart that I can think of that might be useful would be another cost vs. flights/year chart. But instead of the cost per launch, how about charting the cost per Kg to LEO on the Y axis  vs. the number of flights per year on the X axis.

Dang, I thought I had that in there already.   Oh well, here 'tis.

And if you are curious:   The specific reason why the Jupiter's are so low is because so much of their fixed costs are split equally between J-120 and J-232 projects.   J-232 only pays half the Core/SRB costs and all of the EDS costs.   Ares-V can never get its Fixed Costs down that low, simply because it share so much less in common with Ares-I.

And the little 'jumps' on the EELV track are because of hitting the 40-units-per-year manufacturing limits.   Essentially, that jump represents building and operating a second or third factory churning out more units.   But your economies of scale are no longer linear if you do that.   Hence the bump.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 01:38 pm

[SNIP]

My feeling is that the charts need the appropriate caveats (e.g. EELV costs assume a 3-launch shuttle-C architecture to support lunar ops), or the charts should be revamped to clearly break out costs based on what is needed to develop an ISS capable architecture and what is needed for follow-on lunar architecture.  If all you want to do is go to LEO and back why would you do anything other than man-rate an existing EELV?  But, if you want a system that can take us beyond LEO, well that’s where DIRECT really looks to be the best option currently available, and ARES simply looks like the most expensive and least sustainable option for getting to LEO and/or getting to the moon.

John, that is a very fair point to make.   What we have here is the current argument that the existing EELV's can do the job.   In that spirit, these cost profiles aren't considering the Atlas Phase 2 or 3 vehicles at all, nor the heavier Delta's.   I figured there were already too many configurations on these charts and we are already risking "losing a lot of people" simply because of the complexity of the charts.

There are more alternatives, but right now these are the ones which are actually in the running.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/13/2008 01:41 pm
Have you uploaded anything on to change.gov?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 01:41 pm
Could you use the EDS to boost the ISS orbit, or would the thrust be too much for all those long, dangly connections?

Way too powerful.   You want an engine in the 7,000lbf thrust range for that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 02:13 pm
Assuming that the cost of a mission to the ISS is mostly static in relation to weight delivered, could a valid case be made for integrating a COTS cargo craft in place of mission stage for an Orion launch to the ISS?

Sure.   That would make for an interesting US equivalent of Europe's ATV or Japan's HTV.

It all depends on whether there is a requirement for it and whether the qualification process would make it cost effective or not.   My guess is that, yes, it would be.   But that's just a guess.

However, I would not plan it to replace any of the flights which will be supported by commercial launchers.   It is important to the industry that those remain exactly where they are, in this case flying upon Falcon-9's.   But as a supplement, to utilize the extra payload capacity of the J-120 for useful ends, I'm pretty sure Space-X wouldn't complain about a contract for a few extra Dragons...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 02:15 pm
Have you uploaded anything on to change.gov?

Nothing gets uploaded there until we have our meeting with them first.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 12/13/2008 02:25 pm
If this article is true, I don't think Ares I and V, or Griffin, will be around for long.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.html

Has the Direct team got access to the NASA transition team?

Good luck with it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 02:47 pm
Ross, such useful informations should be posted on your website, because they will be hard to found back when the topic will have a zillion more pages ;)

Agreed.   In work.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 02:48 pm
Has the Direct team got access to the NASA transition team?

You might think that.   But I couldn't possibly comment.


Quote
Good luck with it.

Thanks.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Xentry on 12/13/2008 03:40 pm
Has the Direct team got access to the NASA transition team?

You might think that.   But I couldn't possibly comment.

Thanks for all the interesting info you've been posting here, Ross. I have a question though...

At the moment it seems NASA is being asked by the transition team about how the Constellation program might be accelerated, and for NASA to quantify the budget allocations needed for that to happen, so I am assuming that people interested in promoting DIRECT to the transition team are intending to provide some answers to similar questions.

So, let's say the incoming administration was leaning towards replacing Constellation with either DIRECT or some version of it. How likely is it that you'd be able to quickly provide the new administration with a specific sequence of steps enabling the replacement of Constellation with DIRECT?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/13/2008 04:30 pm

And the little 'jumps' on the EELV track are because of hitting the 40-units-per-year manufacturing limits.   Essentially, that jump represents building and operating a second or third factory churning out more units.   But your economies of scale are no longer linear if you do that.   Hence the bump.

Ross.

I have to say Ross, I really admire all the hard work you and your team are putting in. These charts alone speak volumes.

I wonder if adding those little details you mention above, about EELV bumps, into your charts would help. Maybe not, as they could get too cluttered, but just a thought. They are certainly a help to those on the outside looking in. I am sure they would be in the text document.

Great work!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/13/2008 04:45 pm
One other chart that I can think of that might be useful would be another cost vs. flights/year chart. But instead of the cost per launch, how about charting the cost per Kg to LEO on the Y axis  vs. the number of flights per year on the X axis.

Dang, I thought I had that in there already.   Oh well, here 'tis.

.........

Ross.

Very interesting, Ross.  The Ares numbers are actually lower than the EELV scenarios for $/Kg, which is the point the pro-Ares people have been selling (and policy makers have been buying).  They are still higher than Jupiter in every case, though.  I think that the Direct team has to communicate that AND convince the policy makers (and space enthusiasts in general) of it's accuracy.

I assume these costs (and those in the other chart) do not include the cost of development.  Just operating costs, right?  And that if you included the development cost amortized over, say, 200 launches, that Ares and EELV would be considerably higher.

Finally, I noticed that you extended these two charts all the way out to 60 launches per year.  If we were trying to be realistic about the maximum number of launches per year for each vehicle, where would the cutoffs be?  I can see a higher number for the EELV since those are smaller.  For Jupiter, I could believe up to 24-26 per year, which is one every two weeks.  For Ares, I think even 12 per year would be way optimistic. 

And as we all remember, the Shuttle was sold to Congress as a "pickup-truck to space" that would fly every week, thus keeping costs down.  That never happened, and NASA's credibility has been in the toilet ever since then.  We need to make sure that never happens again, but that is exactly what I see happening with Ares.  They are over-promising in order to keep the money coming.  The Direct team needs to be sure that they are not over-selling, under-costing, or misrepresenting the Jupiter concept in any way.   I believe that is the case, but almost everyone else will be very skeptical.

These charts are very valuable and the communicate volumes of info at a glance.  I second the motion to get them up on the web site a.s.a.p.

Keep up the great work!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/13/2008 04:58 pm
Mark, I think having 'peer review' on NSF is much better at this point before throwing it on their own website. If there is an oversight/omission/typo, we might just catch it for them and ensure there aren't multiple revisions. We're all human...well, those on planet Earth and LEO at least.  ;)  lol

EDIT: Those we know of...MIB types excluded.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 05:07 pm
Xentry,
We're on just about as expeditious a timescale we think we can safely be.   We have about 9 months of slippage in total regarding our IOC date of December 2012, given a GO! no later than End of Feb 2009.

We think that's fair, but even a large cash injection isn't going to accelerate that by much, if any.


What we could do though, is close the "gap" to zero.

There is a vast amount of commonality between Shuttle and the Jupiter-120.   Some cost savings could be had for both programs if Congress were encouraged to inject about $1.5-2bn extra in FY2011 and FY2012 to fund the Shuttle extension without affecting the exploration development schedule.

Shuttle's manifest would stretch a little here, and a few flights would be added there, but essentially the Shuttle would fly through to the end of 2012, in parallel with the Jupiter test flight program.   In Sept 2012, the Shuttle Program would be closed permanently and the first Jupiter-120/Orion IOC occurs just a few months later.

The exact same SRB staff would process both the Shuttle missions and the X, Y and Z Jupiter test flights all at the same time.   The same ET staff would process ET's and also cross-train to process the Jupiter-120 Cores at the same time.By 2012 we plan for the first test fit articles for the EDS and the Altair will start being delivered, and many people will be moved into those programs following Shuttle.   The changeover can be made fairly smooth this way and very few of the workforce need be displaced.

We will need one MLP and will need to make arrangements for processing the upper levels in the VAB (still TBD).

An additional investment to make this happen would be our suggested use if we can get additional funding WRT the US human spaceflight program.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 05:21 pm
And as we all remember, the Shuttle was sold to Congress as a "pickup-truck to space" that would fly every week, thus keeping costs down.  That never happened, and NASA's credibility has been in the toilet ever since then.  We need to make sure that never happens again, but that is exactly what I see happening with Ares.  They are over-promising in order to keep the money coming.  The Direct team needs to be sure that they are not over-selling, under-costing, or misrepresenting the Jupiter concept in any way.   I believe that is the case, but almost everyone else will be very skeptical.

BE SKEPTICAL.   Always.

In this precise example, the Shuttle was supposed to fly 50 times a year.   We know that if such a flight-rate could be afforded, the total cost of each mission would get down to a fairly competitive level.   But we also know that the Shuttle's are just too complicated to allow them to fly that often -- that each one requires months of preparations between each launch.

We have made a lot of effort not to replicate the same mistakes as Shuttle.   We have performed a detailed analysis and we believe we could support up a maximum of about 16 J-232 launches per year using the current 3 MLP's and the current two VAB High Bays (20+ if we could get an extra High Bay).

Given those limits, we are baselineing an actual expectation of no more than 12 launches per year, with a more likely flight rate around 8-10 each year.

We think that's a fairly reasonable target to aim for.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/13/2008 05:25 pm
Xentry,
We're on just about as expeditious a timescale we think we can safely be.   We have about 9 months of slippage in total regarding our IOC date of December 2012, given a GO! no later than End of Feb 2009.

We think that's fair, but even a large cash injection isn't going to accelerate that by much, if any.


What we could do though, is close the "gap" to zero.

There is a vast amount of commonality between Shuttle and the Jupiter-120.   Some cost savings could be had for both programs if Congress were encouraged to inject about $1.5-2bn extra in FY2011 and FY2012 to fund the Shuttle extension without affecting the exploration development schedule.

Shuttle's manifest would stretch a little here, and a few flights would be added there, but essentially the Shuttle would fly through to the end of 2012, in parallel with the Jupiter test flight program.   In Sept 2012, the Shuttle Program would be closed permanently and the first Jupiter-120/Orion IOC occurs just a few months later.

The exact same SRB staff would process both the Shuttle missions and the X, Y and Z Jupiter test flights all at the same time.   The same ET staff would process ET's and also cross-train to process the Jupiter-120 Cores at the same time.By 2012 we plan for the first test fit articles for the EDS and the Altair will start being delivered, and many people will be moved into those programs following Shuttle.   The changeover can be made fairly smooth this way and very few of the workforce need be displaced.

We will need one MLP and will need to make arrangements for processing the upper levels in the VAB (still TBD).

An additional investment to make this happen would be our suggested use if we can get additional funding WRT the US human spaceflight program.

Ross.

Questions:

1.  What do you think is the liklyhood of NASA being told to switch to Direct by the end of Feb. 2009?

2.  What risk confidance level do you have of having an IOC of 2012?

3.  What is the revised confidence level with additional funds in FY2011, FY2012?

4.  You mentioned that the long pole items are the health monitoring system, what confidence level do you believe they will be ready by 2012?

5.  Even if Direct is ready by 2012, when will Orion be ready?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/13/2008 05:26 pm

So, let's say the incoming administration was leaning towards replacing Constellation with either DIRECT or some version of it. How likely is it that you'd be able to quickly provide the new administration with a specific sequence of steps enabling the replacement of Constellation with DIRECT?

Direct doesn't replace Constellation.  It only replaces the Ares launchers.   Constellation is the overarching program that includes Orion, Altair, Ares launch vehicles, EVA suits, lunar outposts, etc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/13/2008 05:33 pm
And as we all remember, the Shuttle was sold to Congress as a "pickup-truck to space" that would fly every week, thus keeping costs down.  That never happened, and NASA's credibility has been in the toilet ever since then.  We need to make sure that never happens again, but that is exactly what I see happening with Ares.  They are over-promising in order to keep the money coming.  The Direct team needs to be sure that they are not over-selling, under-costing, or misrepresenting the Jupiter concept in any way.   I believe that is the case, but almost everyone else will be very skeptical.

BE SKEPTICAL.   Always.

In this precise example, the Shuttle was supposed to fly 50 times a year.   We know that if such a flight-rate could be afforded, the total cost of each mission would get down to a fairly competitive level.   But we also know that the Shuttle's are just too complicated to allow them to fly that often -- that each one requires months of preparations between each launch.

We have made a lot of effort not to replicate the same mistakes as Shuttle.   We have performed a detailed analysis and we believe we could support up a maximum of about 16 J-232 launches per year using the current 3 MLP's and the current two VAB High Bays (20+ if we could get an extra High Bay).

Given those limits, we are baselineing an actual expectation of no more than 12 launches per year, with a more likely flight rate around 8-10 each year.

We think that's a fairly reasonable target to aim for.

Ross.

I would change the chart to go out to 8-12 launches per year.  That is realistic, given how much the Shuttle flies.  No-one I feel, thinks that the new launcher is going to fly more than that.  That is 1 launch every 4-6 weeks.

Promise less and deliver more, is better than promising more and delivering less. Remember--that is what Shuttle into trouble.

Remember most of the launches will be for the moon--cargo and crew.  With a PD, Direct can now do a 1 launch system.  Once we see a flight rate of 8 luanches/year--yes public interest may wane--but then you can really do intersting things--offer 1 seat/year to best engineering student to fly in space, offer seat for teacher in space program, fly to NEO, build obersvatory on backside of moon, build up lunar base, send material to build solar power stations, etc.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/13/2008 07:26 pm
Can you fly some of the ISS bits on cargo-only J120 test flights, in conjunction with the shuttle?

Assuming you already have a shuttle up there for assembly, EVA support, etc, it would be a good way to get bits built faster, and be great publicity for the program.

Xentry,
We're on just about as expeditious a timescale we think we can safely be.   We have about 9 months of slippage in total regarding our IOC date of December 2012, given a GO! no later than End of Feb 2009.

We think that's fair, but even a large cash injection isn't going to accelerate that by much, if any.


What we could do though, is close the "gap" to zero.

There is a vast amount of commonality between Shuttle and the Jupiter-120.   Some cost savings could be had for both programs if Congress were encouraged to inject about $1.5-2bn extra in FY2011 and FY2012 to fund the Shuttle extension without affecting the exploration development schedule.

Shuttle's manifest would stretch a little here, and a few flights would be added there, but essentially the Shuttle would fly through to the end of 2012, in parallel with the Jupiter test flight program.   In Sept 2012, the Shuttle Program would be closed permanently and the first Jupiter-120/Orion IOC occurs just a few months later.

The exact same SRB staff would process both the Shuttle missions and the X, Y and Z Jupiter test flights all at the same time.   The same ET staff would process ET's and also cross-train to process the Jupiter-120 Cores at the same time.By 2012 we plan for the first test fit articles for the EDS and the Altair will start being delivered, and many people will be moved into those programs following Shuttle.   The changeover can be made fairly smooth this way and very few of the workforce need be displaced.

We will need one MLP and will need to make arrangements for processing the upper levels in the VAB (still TBD).

An additional investment to make this happen would be our suggested use if we can get additional funding WRT the US human spaceflight program.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mlorrey on 12/13/2008 09:14 pm
Hey all, been away a long time, busy in virtual reality.

I am curious as to whether the Obama transition team has been presented the DIRECT plan in detail and what their comments are on it? It reminds me of a similar plan I had proposed back in 2004, tho using 7 engines and no SRBs for the LEO option and mating three such stacks side by side for the heavy lifter for lunar missions.

I am also curious as to whether we will wind up with a "Back to Venturestar" type major change in course with the democratic administration and congress, or that GTX and various combined cycle engine concepts will be revived to get NASA away once again from the ICBM-Industrial Complex.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 09:49 pm
Questions:

1.  What do you think is the liklyhood of NASA being told to switch to Direct by the end of Feb. 2009?

Extremely low.   I personally don't think a change will happen until after a full review is conducted.   That'll be a minimum of 60 days.   And that won't be ordered until Jan 21st at the earliest.   Late March is probably the best case date.   We can either use a month of our slippage to keep the date set to Dec 2012, or slip to Jan 2013.


Quote
2.  What risk confidance level do you have of having an IOC of 2012?

We're staying apples-to-apples with Constellation on this one.   That date is 65% budget confidence level.


Quote
3.  What is the revised confidence level with additional funds in FY2011, FY2012?

The bottlenecks are 1) Orion's schedule, then 2) RS-68 re-qualification for human use.   There isn't much that can be done to expedite either much beyond what we're already talking about.

If we get the two billion dollars which was promised during the campaign, injected early enough in FY2009 it could be used to speed-up the changeover from Ares to Jupiter.   That might buy you a 6 month improvement -- if you're lucky.

Personally (i.e. not an official DIRECT Team position), I think that money would be better spent extending Shuttle and closing the gap from that direction instead.   With Shuttle's performing routing crew rotation at the ISS, we only need 1 extra Soyuz inserted into the standard rotation to cover the needs of an emergency crew escape craft, and Griffin has already paid $2.6bn for Soyuz thru 2013 already, so it isn't an issue.


Quote
4.  You mentioned that the long pole items are the health monitoring system, what confidence level do you believe they will be ready by 2012?

The software is the time-consuming part.   The equipment would probably be based on a 'compact production version' of the same monitoring equipment which the original RS-68 development program used during the flight-qualification process.

The engines were fitted with extensive engine monitoring equipment while on the test stands.   Production engines aren't fitted with a lot many such sensors, because it is simply assumed that any engine problems are just going to drop the payload in the ocean anyway.   But a human vehicle will need many similar sensors put back on to enable the LAS to be activated at the first signs of major engine problems.

The trick will be getting the associated avionics ready for flight and programming and exhaustively testing the software.   That's the bit that is going to take the longest -- in association with lots of test-stand firings.


Quote
5.  Even if Direct is ready by 2012, when will Orion be ready?

We plan to reduce the total costs of developing the launcher down by about $5bn compared to the Ares-I.

A good portion of that money is redirected back into the Orion program to speed it up.   For example, it allows a cash injection into the Orion program of approximately $1.1bn above Ares expectations in 2011 alone.   This sort of increase allows Orion to be accelerated considerably.

In addition to this, Orion was almost ready to go through it's PDR this year, but because Ares-I's performance is so low, they've had to go back and completely redesign the thing afresh.   With Jupiter's additional performance, this is not necessary.   Orion could shelve the new work (and all its associated additional costs) and simply go straight into PDR with the original design.   With extra cash, and with a much more lenient mass target, Orion would be in an excellent position to proceed through to CDR on a highly expedited schedule.

Overall Orion's total development budget wouldn't change -- I think the projected cost delta is only ~$200m out of about $11bn.   But it would be compressed into a shorter time, with significantly larger chunks each year.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 09:58 pm
Direct doesn't replace Constellation.  It only replaces the Ares launchers.   Constellation is the overarching program that includes Orion, Altair, Ares launch vehicles, EVA suits, lunar outposts, etc


Exactly Jim.   Let me even try to expand on that a bit too...

The Vision for Space Exploration (now called the US Space Exploration Policy) is the political governmental policy determining what NASA's targets are.

The Constellation Program is NASA's new (~4 years old) high-level Directorate in charge of creating a new Architecture designed to achieve all of the Exploration goals.

The Architecture chosen is the "ESAS 1.5-launch solution".

The Ares-I Project, the Ares-V Project, the Orion Project and the Altair Project are the specific sub-departments which have been set-up (so far) to build each of the major elements which will perform the missions.


DIRECT replaces the ESAS Architecture.   The Jupiter Project replaces both the Ares-I Project and the Ares-V Project with a single sub-department.   For the most-part everything else remains unaffected.

Hope that helps clarify.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/13/2008 09:58 pm
Given those limits, we are baselineing an actual expectation of no more than 12 launches per year, with a more likely flight rate around 8-10 each year.

We think that's a fairly reasonable target to aim for.

Ross.

I would change the chart to go out to 8-12 launches per year.  That is realistic, given how much the Shuttle flies.  No-one I feel, thinks that the new launcher is going to fly more than that.  That is 1 launch every 4-6 weeks.

Promise less and deliver more, is better than promising more and delivering less. Remember--that is what Shuttle into trouble.

That's the direction I was going, with one little change.  I was going to suggest that we limit the range for each vehicle class to maybe twice the maximum supportable launches per year. So the Shuttle lines would stop at 16 flights per year, Ares also at 16, Jupiter at 24, and EELV at maybe 32 or so. (I don't know too much about the proposed EELV architecture, though, so that number may be high or low...feel free to correct.)

That would show the realistic trend lines without extending them way past what is possible.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/13/2008 10:13 pm
Given those limits, we are baselineing an actual expectation of no more than 12 launches per year, with a more likely flight rate around 8-10 each year.

We think that's a fairly reasonable target to aim for.

Ross.

I would change the chart to go out to 8-12 launches per year.  That is realistic, given how much the Shuttle flies.  No-one I feel, thinks that the new launcher is going to fly more than that.  That is 1 launch every 4-6 weeks.

Promise less and deliver more, is better than promising more and delivering less. Remember--that is what Shuttle into trouble.

That's the direction I was going, with one little change.  I was going to suggest that we limit the range for each vehicle class to maybe twice the maximum supportable launches per year. So the Shuttle lines would stop at 16 flights per year, Ares also at 16, Jupiter at 24, and EELV at maybe 32 or so. (I don't know too much about the proposed EELV architecture, though, so that number may be high or low...feel free to correct.)

That would show the realistic trend lines without extending them way past what is possible.

Mark S.


Tell me when NASA/DOD has flown EELV, shuttle more than 12 times in a year? Does NASA plan to fly Ares 16 times annually--where will all that money come from?  I would limit the chart to 12--that is 1 flight/month.  I

If you promise 12 and only do 10...you have set yourself up for people coming back at you....now if you promise a 12 and do 12+---great!

Anything is possible--remember the shuttle was meant to fly weekly...tell me what happened?  We were luckly if it flew every 8 weeks.   Remember what they say KISS!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/13/2008 10:18 pm
I would change the chart to go out to 8-12 launches per year.  That is realistic, given how much the Shuttle flies.  No-one I feel, thinks that the new launcher is going to fly more than that.  That is 1 launch every 4-6 weeks.

Our manifest shows 12 launches in 2020 (2 are J-120 to ISS).

That is a peak during the Outpost construction.   We'd like to ease the throttle back a bit once construction is completed.

Still, that is a high enough flight-rate to place the Altair's and Orion's costs both on the shallower part of their cost curves too -- which is our key goal.

We want the total "cost per mission" to be as low as possible to the US tax payer.

The way you do that is reduce the Fixed Costs and increase the production numbers of all the units -- LV's and spacecraft alike -- and that means more *missions*.   The great side-effect of more missions, is that you get more done and return more results.

This flight rate supports 4 Cargo landings per year and 3 Crew landings -- which is a lot.   That means 12 Lunar astronauts every year, each staying for 6 months on the moon.   Half of those would be American's and half would be international partners who each provided something like 55-60mT of LH2/LOX to the Depot for their seat.

That seems quite doable to us.


Quote
Promise less and deliver more, is better than promising more and delivering less. Remember--that is what Shuttle into trouble.

Agreed.

Remember most of the launches will be for the moon--cargo and crew.  With a PD, Direct can now do a 1 launch system.  Once we see a flight rate of 8 luanches/year--yes public interest may wane--but then you can really do intersting things--offer 1 seat/year to best engineering student to fly in space, offer seat for teacher in space program, fly to NEO, build obersvatory on backside of moon, build up lunar base, send material to build solar power stations, etc.
[/quote]
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/13/2008 10:23 pm
Given those limits, we are baselineing an actual expectation of no more than 12 launches per year, with a more likely flight rate around 8-10 each year.

We think that's a fairly reasonable target to aim for.

Ross.

I would change the chart to go out to 8-12 launches per year.  That is realistic, given how much the Shuttle flies.  No-one I feel, thinks that the new launcher is going to fly more than that.  That is 1 launch every 4-6 weeks.

Promise less and deliver more, is better than promising more and delivering less. Remember--that is what Shuttle into trouble.

That's the direction I was going, with one little change.  I was going to suggest that we limit the range for each vehicle class to maybe twice the maximum supportable launches per year. So the Shuttle lines would stop at 16 flights per year, Ares also at 16, Jupiter at 24, and EELV at maybe 32 or so. (I don't know too much about the proposed EELV architecture, though, so that number may be high or low...feel free to correct.)

That would show the realistic trend lines without extending them way past what is possible.

Mark S.


Tell me when NASA/DOD has flown EELV, shuttle more than 12 times in a year? Does NASA plan to fly Ares 16 times annually--where will all that money come from?  I would limit the chart to 12--that is 1 flight/month.  I

If you promise 12 and only do 10...you have set yourself up for people coming back at you....now if you promise a 12 and do 12+---great!

Anything is possible--remember the shuttle was meant to fly weekly...tell me what happened?  We were luckly if it flew every 8 weeks.   Remember what they say KISS!

Chill. I was only talking about the lines on the cost per flight and cost per kg charts.  Ross had the trend lines going all the way out to 60 flights per year for ALL architectures.

And I did say "twice what is physically possible", not "exactly what we are promising to fly".

Cheers!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/13/2008 11:49 pm

Chill. I was only talking about the lines on the cost per flight and cost per kg charts.  Ross had the trend lines going all the way out to 60 flights per year for ALL architectures.

And I did say "twice what is physically possible", not "exactly what we are promising to fly".

Cheers!
Mark S.


My recommendation (for what it's worth) would be vertical bars with tags indicating typical or recommended 'cut-off' targets. For an overall picture, looking at that graph, I'd say 42 is the overall limit, since the numbers get fairly linear at this point (except STS, but not realistic anyways).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: fotoguzzi on 12/14/2008 12:09 am
I was only talking about the lines on the cost per flight and cost per kg charts.  Ross had the trend lines going all the way out to 60 flights per year for ALL architectures.

If the price / kg truly continues to decrease for all architectures to and beyond 730 launches per year ("twice, daily" service), then putting that on a graph seems justified.  However, I am surprised not to see some more bumps for other architectures as you increase the number of missions.  If for an architecture to get past a certain number of launches, you had to, e. g., build an LC-39C or add a second story to the Vehicle Assembly Building, wouldn't that put a hump on the graphed line for that architecture?

But, please do not let this distract from your efforts to make the best possible case for DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 12/14/2008 12:44 pm
If the price / kg truly continues to decrease for all architectures to and beyond 730 launches per year ("twice, daily" service), then putting that on a graph seems justified.  However, I am surprised not to see some more bumps for other architectures as you increase the number of missions.  If for an architecture to get past a certain number of launches, you had to, e. g., build an LC-39C or add a second story to the Vehicle Assembly Building, wouldn't that put a hump on the graphed line for that architecture?

But, please do not let this distract from your efforts to make the best possible case for DIRECT.

I agree with the sentiments here - the danger of over-modelling high numbers of flights is to your credibility with "waverers" - you could be dismissed as just spreadsheet jockeys. I suggest the lines should just end at appropriate numbers for each architecture; ie the maximum realistic or track-record flight rate as appropriate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/14/2008 01:57 pm
ICBM-Industrial Complex.

That doesn't exist.

Proof:  Elon Musk, Japanese launch vehicles
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/14/2008 04:20 pm
Regarding CEV and ISS: IN section 1.1.4 of the final ESAS report, "Design Reference Missions" (DRM), the first sub-section, 1.1.4.1 "Crew Transport To and From ISS".  The DRM scenario is for the CLV to place the CEV with six crew members in an ISS redezvous orbit.  Then the CEV docks with the ISS and stays docked for six months as "a 'rescue vehicle' for the duration of the crew increment".

Question: Have the shortcomings of the Ares-I CLV compromised this mission? From what I have read, they are no longer planning on sending six crew to the ISS on the Orion, due to weight constraints placed on the Orion.

Sub-section 1.1.4.2 DRM is for unpressurized cargo transport to ISS using a Cargo Delivery Vehicle (CDV). The CDV should be able to deliver "up to 6,000 kg gross mass of external ISS logistics".

Question: Is the CDV under development, because I haven't heard anything about it in the forums.  (Maybe it's just not controversial, or everything is going fine?) If so, will Ares-1 still be able to lift a CDV with 6000 Kg to ISS?

There are similar DRM sections for lunar and Mars missions, but the focus there is the CaLV, assuming the CLV performs as desired.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: Is the current CLV meeting its design goals, or are the design goals being abandoned or modified in order to continue with a failed CLV design?

Thanks,
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/14/2008 05:03 pm

Question: Is the CDV under development, because I haven't heard anything about it in the forums.

CDV was canceled
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 12/15/2008 03:34 am
Yep, folded into COTS.  Here's a link to a paper on the ESAS CDV.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070017847_2007015480.pdf

F=ma



Question: Is the CDV under development, because I haven't heard anything about it in the forums.

CDV was canceled
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/16/2008 02:26 am
Our guys at MSFC have completed a round of FEM analyses to determine the best shape of the DIRECT payload fairings.   And big thanks to all those folk who have put in long nights for us on this!!!

We have not yet changed the baseline to this, but one of the most promising of the new configurations is an ogive-shaped PLF.   It is producing surprisingly good aerodynamic performance.

Our baseline remains the standard Ares-I 18ft diameter ogive section around the Orion, with the lower 'conical' PLF section below that, but it is quite possible we will change some time in the future.

I've just finished whipping up some imagery to show everyone a quick peek into some of the recent changes we're considering making.   Once the Rebuttal is squared away I'll try to get on a set of 3D imagery of this too.

Enjoy,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/16/2008 02:34 am
While Ross is talking about the PLF, everyone please also notice the base of the vehicle. We have changed the shape of the aft skirt in response to studies about base heating. Because our engine arrangement is a straight line, we are able to eliminate a considerable percentage of the base heating problem by going to this tapered shape. Note that this solution is totally unavailable to the Ares-V and remains a SIGNIFICANT problem for that launch vehicle design. But this change for the Jupiter drops that problem into the area of simple engineering to complete; the majority of the problem having been mitigated by this change to the aft skirt.

Look for further improvements, such as the PLF change; all driven by competent engineering studies, done by people who do this stuff for a living. The design continues to evolve.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/16/2008 02:58 am
Looking VERY nice guys...great job, to you and your team!
And that is excellent news on the refinements. The base, at first glance, would be cool as a cucumber during ascent...very well spaced & aerodynamic. You must have gained around 0.3 - 0.8% off of drag from the skirt alone?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/16/2008 03:41 am
The J-232s have now acquired a waist.  People will ask about its aerodynamics so a preprepared answer will be useful.

The waist/neck makes it much easier to tell the J-120 and J-232 apart.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/16/2008 05:24 am
kraisee wrote on 12/12/2008 02:15 PM

>The way NASA derives those numbers is via a tool called "INTROS". It was
>developed (IIRC) at NASA Ames and is currently used by NASA MSFC and NASA
>Langley as well. That table arrangement is the output report of an INTROS run.

Thanks for your reply Ross. That helps a lot in understanding the situation. I have some more questions though. On page 212 you say that 2179 kg is for "secondary structures", but on page 215 you say "the 2197 kg figure covers both Secondary Systems and Ancillary Items." Could you please clarify whether this mass is 2179 ot 2197 kg? Am I correct in assuming that 2179 kg includes both secondary structures, secondary systems and ancillary items?

So far you have given the following masses for your EDS stage.

LOX Tank   4736 kg
LH2 Tank   8804 kg
Secondary  2179 kg
???         822 kg
------------------     
Total     16541 kg

Can you let us know what the 822 kg mass is?

>The problem is that that tool is not the same one which Lockheed uses. They
>have their own *proprietary* tools which are used for developing Centaurs,
>Wide Body Centaurs, ICES and also the Shuttle's External Tank.

Have you confirmed with LM that their tool has been updated to use J-2X engines? Centaur, WBC and ICES all use RL-10 engines. One of the surprising numbers from INTROS is that the Engine Support Systems mass is quite high, 3081 kg in your AIAA 2007 paper and 2620 kg from Team A. I'm wondering if LM have correctly taken into account the Engine Support Systems mass for two J-2X engines.

Another thing I learnt from my analysis are that the EDS experiences quite different loads for its two separate launches. For the first launch, it carries a full propellant load, ASE latches and a nose cone. For the second launch, it carries a partially full tank, Altair, Orion, payload fairing and launch launch abort system (LAS) on top. This means that the first launch experiences less vertical loads (due to much lower payload mass and a smaller diameter payload fairing), implying that internal pressure can be less. However, the greater propellant mass implies greater hydrostatic pressures in the first launch. Has LM taken into account these two different loads for the two launch scenarios?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/16/2008 02:25 pm
Our guys at MSFC have completed a round of FEM analyses to determine the best shape of the DIRECT payload fairings.   And big thanks to all those folk who have put in long nights for us on this!!!

...............

Enjoy,

Ross.

Sweet!

If I understand this picture correctly, all configurations shown have the new ogive shape in either 8.4m or 10m diameter. So from left to right we have:

1. J-120 CLV w/8.4m PLF to launch CEV plus up to 23 mT payload.
2. J-120 CaLV w/8.4m PLF to launch up to 50 mT payload.
3. J-120 CLV w/10m PLF to launch CEV plus up to 23 mT payload.
4. J-120 CaLV w/10m PLF to launch up to 50 mT payload.
5. J-232 CLV w/10m PLF to launch CEV and LSAM.
6. J-232 w/8.4m nose cone to launch EDS only.
7. J-232 CaLV w/10m PLF to launch up to 110 mT payload.

I assume the 10m PLF on the J-120 is simply to allow for larger-diameter payloads, not that they would carry heavier loads (e.g. J-130 etc).  It could also keep costs down by increasing the amount of commonality between J-120 and J-232, and if needed, by allowing you to eliminate the 8.4m PLF altogether.

Thanks,
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 12/16/2008 02:32 pm
While Ross is talking about the PLF, everyone please also notice the base of the vehicle. We have changed the shape of the aft skirt in response to studies about base heating.

Very nice and probably as elegant-looking as a SDLV can get. The new skirt adds a certain Delta IV CBC look to the core. An oversized one, of course!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 12/16/2008 03:26 pm
While Ross is talking about the PLF, everyone please also notice the base of the vehicle. We have changed the shape of the aft skirt in response to studies about base heating. Because our engine arrangement is a straight line, we are able to eliminate a considerable percentage of the base heating problem by going to this tapered shape. Note that this solution is totally unavailable to the Ares-V and remains a SIGNIFICANT problem for that launch vehicle design. But this change for the Jupiter drops that problem into the area of simple engineering to complete; the majority of the problem having been mitigated by this change to the aft skirt.

Look for further improvements, such as the PLF change; all driven by competent engineering studies, done by people who do this stuff for a living. The design continues to evolve.

Is there any significant mass savings? It looks like there would be at least some...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/16/2008 03:51 pm
Great work and graphic.

Regarding the skirt, are there, or could there be, slots of grooves in the skirt used to direct air flow in areas that is needed or does the impact of air flow in the heating dissipate too quickly for that to help?

Great work Direct Team, this vehicle has a feel for me that looks right.  Like a rocket should look.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/16/2008 06:11 pm
kraisee wrote on 12/12/2008 02:15 PM
On page 212 you say that 2179 kg is for "secondary structures", but on page 215 you say "the 2197 kg figure covers both Secondary Systems and Ancillary Items." Could you please clarify whether this mass is 2179 ot 2197 kg?

2,178.60kg, to be precise.

The 2197 was the typo slip :)


Quote
Am I correct in assuming that 2179 kg includes both secondary structures, secondary systems and ancillary items?

Correct.


Quote
Can you let us know what the 822 kg mass is?

I will try to confirm that for you as I haven't seen the breakdown myself.

My current understanding is that this accounts for the minimal length skirts and separation systems, which aren't part of the tanking, but which are part of the structure.

At this point I should probably make note that all our skirts are *very* short (~42") compared to the design of something like Saturn, this is to allow the maximum possible mass to be jettisoned during Interstage or PLF separation.


Quote
Have you confirmed with LM that their tool has been updated to use J-2X engines? Centaur, WBC and ICES all use RL-10 engines. One of the surprising numbers from INTROS is that the Engine Support Systems mass is quite high, 3081 kg in your AIAA 2007 paper and 2620 kg from Team A. I'm wondering if LM have correctly taken into account the Engine Support Systems mass for two J-2X engines.

They are quite confident with these numbers.


Quote
Another thing I learnt from my analysis are that the EDS experiences quite different loads for its two separate launches. For the first launch, it carries a full propellant load, ASE latches and a nose cone. For the second launch, it carries a partially full tank, Altair, Orion, payload fairing and launch launch abort system (LAS) on top. This means that the first launch experiences less vertical loads (due to much lower payload mass and a smaller diameter payload fairing), implying that internal pressure can be less. However, the greater propellant mass implies greater hydrostatic pressures in the first launch. Has LM taken into account these two different loads for the two launch scenarios?

Yes.   Our MSFC guys have explicitly confirmed this exact requirement through their channels.   What we have in our design is a stage which can be flown with either 2% pressurized ullage space or up to 75% pressurized ullage space at liftoff.

On Jupiter-232 we have the added advantage of having a fairly low max-q and relatively low max-g requirements.   If it were as high as Ares-I or Ares-V, the stage would need to be noticeably stronger & heavier.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/16/2008 06:21 pm
Sweet!

If I understand this picture correctly, all configurations shown have the new ogive shape in either 8.4m or 10m diameter. So from left to right we have:

1. J-120 CLV w/8.4m PLF to launch CEV plus up to 23 mT payload.
2. J-120 CaLV w/8.4m PLF to launch up to 50 mT payload.
3. J-120 CLV w/10m PLF to launch CEV plus up to 23 mT payload.
4. J-120 CaLV w/10m PLF to launch up to 50 mT payload.
5. J-232 CLV w/10m PLF to launch CEV and LSAM.
6. J-232 w/8.4m nose cone to launch EDS only.
7. J-232 CaLV w/10m PLF to launch up to 110 mT payload.

I assume the 10m PLF on the J-120 is simply to allow for larger-diameter payloads, not that they would carry heavier loads (e.g. J-130 etc).  It could also keep costs down by increasing the amount of commonality between J-120 and J-232, and if needed, by allowing you to eliminate the 8.4m PLF altogether.

The 10m PLF's are heavier than the 8.4m ones.   For example, the 10m barrel section Jupiter-120 CLV PLF's mass 5,334kg for the 8.4m dia version and 6,690kg for the 10m dia.

To get the maximum possible ISS performance the 8.4m PLF is the way to go.   Also the 8.4m minimal 'cap' on the EDS launch maximizes performance for that flight too.

But the wider PLF's can be tested on the Jupiter-120 long before ever flying on the Jupiter-232.

And the wider PLF's offer a lot of capability in their own right.   For example, a new large-scale space telescope doesn't actually need 100mT lift capacity.   50mT is quite sufficient.   The diameter of the mirror though, that is the determining factor the resolution of the images -- and that is always limited by the diameter of the PLF.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/16/2008 06:41 pm
Is there any significant mass savings? It looks like there would be at least some...

A little, but not much.   The draft Baseball Cards which I showed previously already include those Core Stage mass changes.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/16/2008 06:47 pm
Great work and graphic.

Regarding the skirt, are there, or could there be, slots of grooves in the skirt used to direct air flow in areas that is needed or does the impact of air flow in the heating dissipate too quickly for that to help?

At this point our guys don't think so.

The flow around where the engine nacelles join to the rear of the aft Skirt is an 'interesting' area from an airflow perspective, but it isn't "bad".   They're keeping an eye on it, but its not a major concern.

Adding grooves would mean adding more materials to the stage.   That create a negative effect on performance.   While it might theoretically improve drag, its unlikely that there would be much of a benefit overall.   General consensus right now, is to just keep it simple.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 12/16/2008 07:08 pm
I noticed a recent story about an MIT report on the space program:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/nasa-needs-a-ne.html (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/nasa-needs-a-ne.html)

Did the Direct 2.0 Team have any contact with the MIT's Space, Policy and Society Research Group prior to the release of this report?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/16/2008 07:41 pm
...General consensus right now, is to just keep it simple.

I like that.  Simple is usually cheaper too.  A double win.

Good responses Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zinfab on 12/16/2008 07:42 pm
You're obviously missing a fantastic opportunity to add fins. I'm deeply saddened by this oversight. *grins*

-z

Great work and graphic.

Regarding the skirt, are there, or could there be, slots of grooves in the skirt used to direct air flow in areas that is needed or does the impact of air flow in the heating dissipate too quickly for that to help?

At this point our guys don't think so.

The flow around where the engine nacelles join to the rear of the aft Skirt is an 'interesting' area from an airflow perspective, but it isn't "bad".   They're keeping an eye on it, but its not a major concern.

Adding grooves would mean adding more materials to the stage.   That create a negative effect on performance.   While it might theoretically improve drag, its unlikely that there would be much of a benefit overall.   General consensus right now, is to just keep it simple.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 12/16/2008 07:49 pm
     With a 15m diameter first stage core, you could easily fit 12 or 13 RS-68's under there in a nice symmetrical arrangement.   Probably wouldn't need extra skirts, either!   Then throw half a dozen J2X under the second stage and we're good to go.

That's child toy. Make 12m tank, strap 2 6seg SRBs to the sides, strap another two 12m tanks to other two sides, _and_ add 2 same SRBs to each of those. Or 3 - there's one free side left! Who cares that crawlerway and pad need to be completely rebuilt.

Will make those pesky EELV people to forget how to propose NASA to launch people to ISS on Delta IV! Second stage will need to have 12m tank _at least_.

But just think of WHAT a HUGE space telescope or space station core you could build from a 15 meter tank!!! 

I bet it would almost be big enough to see all the way across Mike Griffin's EGO!!! LOL:)  (J/K)

Yall have a good one!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/16/2008 09:11 pm
     With a 15m diameter first stage core, you could easily fit 12 or 13 RS-68's under there in a nice symmetrical arrangement.   Probably wouldn't need extra skirts, either!   Then throw half a dozen J2X under the second stage and we're good to go.

That's child toy. Make 12m tank, strap 2 6seg SRBs to the sides, strap another two 12m tanks to other two sides, _and_ add 2 same SRBs to each of those. Or 3 - there's one free side left! Who cares that crawlerway and pad need to be completely rebuilt.

Will make those pesky EELV people to forget how to propose NASA to launch people to ISS on Delta IV! Second stage will need to have 12m tank _at least_.

But just think of WHAT a HUGE space telescope or space station core you could build from a 15 meter tank!!! 
Well, all kidding aside, the Hubble Space Telescope has a primary mirror that is only a puny 2.4 m diameter, and look at the amazing images that have come out of that instrument!

So a simple Jupiter-120 Cargo with the spiffy 10 m fairing would enable us to launch a new space telescope with a single mirror approaching, say 8.5 m diameter.  Not to mention that it could mass up to nearly 50 mT.

Truly awesome would be a J-232 Cargo launch of a telescope with a segmented primary that somehow folds or stacks into a 10 m fairing. The segments could be either hexagonal and vertically stacked, or in a petal arrangement and folded up for launch.

Are any astro-astronomers thinking along these lines?  Maybe we could get some endorsements from the science side of NASA with something like this.

Quote
I bet it would almost be big enough to see all the way across Mike Griffin's EGO!!! LOL:)  (J/K)

Well, yeah, I guess anything is technically possible...

Quote
Yall have a good one!  OL JR :)

Snowy, icy day in Dallas.  But still a good one!

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/16/2008 09:19 pm

...So a simple Jupiter-120 Cargo with the spiffy 10 m fairing would enable us to launch a new space telescope with a single mirror approaching, say 8.5 m diameter.  Not to mention that it could mass up to nearly 50 mT.

Truly awesome would be a J-232 Cargo launch of a telescope with a segmented primary that somehow folds or stacks into a 10 m fairing. The segments could be either hexagonal and vertically stacked, or in a petal arrangement and folded up for launch.

Are any astro-astronomers thinking along these lines?  Maybe we could get some endorsements from the science side of NASA with something like this.

Yes, I've been there for awhile, JWST on hyper steroids sort of thing.  I received some light heat for suggesting an Ares-V science payload because of the obvious cost.  But I think an international mission for something like an 8.5 meter (or better yet 30 meter) space telescope could be supported at a 5 to 10 billion (or more, it's hard to keep track of the billions these days) could be supported internationally.

Something that big would have to be serviceable as a 20 to 50 year life span would probably be desirable. (Edit: 20+ would be required for such a huge investment)

Call it the Griffin Array perhaps.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 12/16/2008 09:38 pm
Ross -

Just FYI, INTROS is a MSFC product.  Here's a paper by Reggie Alexander of MSFC Advanced Concepts Office that gives an overview of INTROS anyd their vehicle design process.

smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/8021/3/SSEC_SA2_doc.pdf -

Also, do you plan to put cryo insulation on the J-232 Upper Stage?  How about MM/OD shielding?

F=ma



The way NASA derives those numbers is via a tool called "INTROS".   It was developed (IIRC) at NASA Ames and is currently used by NASA MSFC and NASA Langley as well.   That table arrangement is the output report of an INTROS run.

...

Our September 2007 AIAA paper used INTROS to derive our figures which is why we could provide those numbers.   Our later materials use LM's tools, and because they are proprietary we can't publish the anything other than the high-level breakdowns in public.   LM are the only ones authorized to do that.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/16/2008 09:40 pm
Really huge serviceable space telescope is a bad idea. Interferometry is the future. What we need is an array of space telescopes that can be used as one. This way you can constantly update it by disposing of old units and launching new ones.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/16/2008 09:40 pm

...So a simple Jupiter-120 Cargo with the spiffy 10 m fairing would enable us to launch a new space telescope with a single mirror approaching, say 8.5 m diameter.  Not to mention that it could mass up to nearly 50 mT.

Truly awesome would be a J-232 Cargo launch of a telescope with a segmented primary that somehow folds or stacks into a 10 m fairing. The segments could be either hexagonal and vertically stacked, or in a petal arrangement and folded up for launch.

Are any astro-astronomers thinking along these lines?  Maybe we could get some endorsements from the science side of NASA with something like this.

Yes, I've been there for awhile, JWST on hyper steroids sort of thing.  I received some light heat for suggesting an Ares-V science payload because of the obvious cost.  But I think an international mission for something like an 8.5 meter (or better yet 30 meter) space telescope could be supported at a 5 to 10 billion (or more, it's hard to keep track of the billions these days) could be supported internationally.

Something that big would have to be serviceable as a 20 to 50 year life span would probably be desirable. (Edit: 20+ would be required for such a huge investment)

Call it the Griffin Array perhaps.

Seems like the lower cost of a Jupiter launch (as compared to Ares-V) would make this type of "increased opportunity" mission much more desirable, maybe even likely.  This kind of mission, while not currently a technical 'requirement', should make Jupiter even more attractive to the space-science constituency.  We should ask the science teams this question: If heavy-lift space access becomes affordable and regular, what could you do with it?

And with affordable J-120 support missions, telescope maintenance, upgrades, and reboost should not be the problem that it currently is.  Jupiter makes it possible, Ares gives it a pass.

Griffin is so focused on Moon/Mars that he is forgetting why we want to go there in the first place.  We need to master the space environment, increase our knowledge and first-hand experience, and make access to space affordable and commonplace.  It's hard to 'boldly go' anywhere when you can only afford to launch a couple of times a year, and when you say "it's not on my agenda" to anything other than Moon/Mars.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/16/2008 09:53 pm
Really huge serviceable space telescope is a bad idea. Interferometry is the future. What we need is an array of space telescopes that can be used as one. This way you can constantly update it by disposing of old units and launching new ones.

Fine by me.  More 'scopes, more launches, more cost savings through economies of scale.  Still, would such a component scope have to be tiny like Hubble, or could they still be 7 or 8 m diameter each?

But really, is a huge space 'scope it a bad idea, or does it address a different class of observational problems than an interferometric instrument?

I don't know these answers, I get my astronomy skillz from Discover magazine. :)

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/16/2008 10:42 pm
So a simple Jupiter-120 Cargo with the spiffy 10 m fairing would enable us to launch a new space telescope with a single mirror approaching, say 8.5 m diameter.  Not to mention that it could mass up to nearly 50 mT.

It could only mass 50 tonnes if you wanted to deploy it in low Earth orbit.  These days, most expensive space telescopes are being put into solar orbit or at L2.  So you need a centaur or other transfer stage, and substantially less mass for the telescope.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 12/16/2008 10:53 pm
While Ross is talking about the PLF, everyone please also notice the base of the vehicle. We have changed the shape of the aft skirt in response to studies about base heating. Because our engine arrangement is a straight line, we are able to eliminate a considerable percentage of the base heating problem by going to this tapered shape. Note that this solution is totally unavailable to the Ares-V and remains a SIGNIFICANT problem for that launch vehicle design. But this change for the Jupiter drops that problem into the area of simple engineering to complete; the majority of the problem having been mitigated by this change to the aft skirt.


Look for further improvements, such as the PLF change; all driven by competent engineering studies, done by people who do this stuff for a living. The design continues to evolve.

Do yall have a pic of the aft skirt/thrust structure, like a picture of the core alone in profile, or a side profile shot with the SRB so one can get an idea of the profile of the aft skirt??  Are the fairings conical intersecting a truncated cylindrical shaped thrust structure, or are they cylindrical fairings intersecting a conical shaped thrust structure?? 

TIA!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/17/2008 12:44 am
I noticed a recent story about an MIT report on the space program:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/nasa-needs-a-ne.html (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/nasa-needs-a-ne.html)

Did the Direct 2.0 Team have any contact with the MIT's Space, Policy and Society Research Group prior to the release of this report?

I am not aware of any contact to date.   But our stuff has been 'out there' for a while.   It wouldn't surprise me if people have been reading it :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/17/2008 12:52 am
Really huge serviceable space telescope is a bad idea. Interferometry is the future. What we need is an array of space telescopes that can be used as one. This way you can constantly update it by disposing of old units and launching new ones.

Short wavelength optical interferometry is no easy task, even on Earth.  Doing it in space would be really, really hard at this time.  Hubble is 2.4 meters in diameter.  Going to 8.4 meters would be a huge improvement of 3.5x in diffraction-limited resolution, and over 12x in light gathering aperture.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/17/2008 12:57 am

But just think of WHAT a HUGE space telescope or space station core you could build from a 15 meter tank!!!

Just for you, here's a hypothetical 15m diameter, 20m long PLF on a Jupiter-120.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/17/2008 01:11 am
Really huge serviceable space telescope is a bad idea. Interferometry is the future. What we need is an array of space telescopes that can be used as one. This way you can constantly update it by disposing of old units and launching new ones.

What we are hoping to do is a "production run" of large-diameter telescopes.   Each would have something in the order of an 8.2m diameter mirror (launched inside a 10m PLF), making them extraordinarily powerful in their own right.   Each one would be designed to operate independently, but would be able to also work together too.

The first three would be placed in LEO, each essentially doing the job of Hubble, just with higher resolution.   Each of those would be launched using a Jupiter-120.   These would be test-bed systems to make sure everything is 'sorted out' for the later versions.   As long as one works, we call them a success.   They pave the way for...

The other five would each be deployed, by Jupiter-232, one to each of the five Earth-Sun Lagrange points.

The imagery from any 3 or more of these Lagrange telescopes could also then be brought together to act as one giant interferometer 'scope with the long axis roughly 93 million miles across.    Together, such a vast scope would be beyond anything else we've ever considered doing.   Such a large array wouldn't just be able to spot Earth-sized planets in other solar systems, our information suggests it should be able to render the weather patterns on those 'other Earths'!

The whole project isn't a cheap one.   But we are aiming for a price-point around $250-300m per unit in order that each one could be categorized as a regular "Discovery" (http://discovery.nasa.gov/) class Science mission.   The telescopes don't need 'all the frills'.   The priority is to make them as solid, robust and simple as can be done.   K.I.S.S.

Given that the DIRECT plan calls for doubling (at least) the size of SMD's annual budget, we should be able to realistically consider a long-running project like this, launching one or more of these units each year.

By planning to make quite a lot of units (10 or 12 in total) on the same production line, the cost for each one can be kept relatively low (its the high fixed costs vs. low variable cost thing again).

It would be relatively in-expensive to build a few spare units and keep them in storage so that any failed units would ultimately just be replaced instead of having to be maintained.   You get good value per unit and you also get value through lower-cost designs which don't have the added complication of planning for human maintenance.   Keeping the technology requirement fairly simple and "no frills" is also a critical goal to keeping the costs down.

The only post-launch maintenance option which I think might be valuable would be the inclusion of hypergolic refueling capability using some sort of robotic delivery.

This is just one of the things that we'd really like to do.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/17/2008 01:16 am

But just think of WHAT a HUGE space telescope or space station core you could build from a 15 meter tank!!!

Just for you, here's a hypothetical 15m diameter, 20m long PLF on a Jupiter-120.

Ross.

That's too funny Ross. Good thing you put 'theoretical' on it  ;)

Reminds me of the Super Guppy!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/17/2008 01:25 am

But just think of WHAT a HUGE space telescope or space station core you could build from a 15 meter tank!!!

Just for you, here's a hypothetical 15m diameter, 20m long PLF on a Jupiter-120.

Ross.

That's too funny Ross. Good thing you put 'theoretical' on it  ;)

Reminds me of the Super Guppy!

Actually, it should be able to fly.   The back-of-the-envelope loads don't seem to be anywhere near as high as the J-232 experiences routinely, so the configuration should be plausible on the J-120.

I put theoretical over it because we've never run any detailed FEM tests to be sure.   I also don't want anyone trying to make the claim that that's our new baseline!   :)

[EDIT:   Just as a reference point, here's a picture of the current 3.8m dia Atlas-V with its 5.0m PLF.   The proportions between the diameter of the Core and the PLF aren't actually vastly different from the 15m PLF which I just showed on the Jupiter.   We're certainly talking about a very different scale, of course, but this sort of thing isn't completely unheard of :) ]

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/17/2008 01:34 am
I needed a break from the Rebuttal tonight, so I've spent an hour doing the 3D imagery of the new config.

Remember, this arrangement has NOT yet been made our baseline.

Enjoy,

Ross (still trying to figure out whether I prefer the look of this, compared to the 'biconic' original...)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/17/2008 02:31 am

That's too funny Ross. Good thing you put 'theoretical' on it  ;)

Reminds me of the Super Guppy!

Actually, it should be able to fly.   The back-of-the-envelope loads don't seem to be anywhere near as high as the J-232 experiences routinely, so the configuration should be plausible on the J-120.

I put theoretical over it because we've never run any detailed FEM tests to be sure.   I also don't want anyone trying to make the claim that that's our new baseline!

Ross.

My point on theoretical was your last point...imagine the responses to that baby! Although I would think there would be a problem with aerodynamics affecting the SRBs. It's just a little 'too' wide in that respect.

I see you got the 3D bug in you now...once you start, you can't stop. I wish I had time for my own fancies (lunar rover, and an SSRMS propellant depot idea for you), but work is too crazy at the moment...going bug eyed (word to the wise). Hopefully the New Year.

And on that note, if I don't catch you later, have a Happy Christmas and a most excellent New Year.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/17/2008 02:33 am
The imagery from any 3 or more of these Lagrange telescopes could also then be brought together to act as one giant interferometer 'scope with the long axis roughly 93 million miles across.

How do you do nanometer-accurate positioning over a 93 million mile baseline with nothing against which to react?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 12/17/2008 02:34 am

But just think of WHAT a HUGE space telescope or space station core you could build from a 15 meter tank!!!

Just for you, here's a hypothetical 15m diameter, 20m long PLF on a Jupiter-120.

Ross.

Thanks Ross, great pic...

The comment you refer to was made firmly with tongue in cheek... LOL:) 
(though now that I think about it you COULD put a 15 meter Mars entry heat shield in there... LOL:)  (J/K)  I doubt there would be ANY money left to pay for it though, let alone whatever Mars lander you might have intended to put on top of it...

Yall have a good one!  OL JR :) 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/17/2008 02:57 am
I needed a break from the Rebuttal tonight, so I've spent an hour doing the 3D imagery of the new config.

Remember, this arrangement has NOT yet been made our baseline.

Enjoy,

Ross (still trying to figure out whether I prefer the look of this, compared to the 'biconic' original...)

Ross,

    Well, umm...,  there is one little thing.  It's just that....   Well, you know....   I mean....  Aren't you worried about being accused of just wanting to build the worlds most powerful flying phallic symbol ever?  Not that there's anything wrong with that....

:)

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/17/2008 03:06 am
There's an anecdote here which I don't think Chris will let me tell in full :)

It has to do with my GF glancing at an image of the Ares-I one day, about a year ago.   The LAS was just off the top of the screen, so it looked a little more 'rounded'.   Lets just say she thought I was shopping online for a rather personal birthday present for her...   I'll leave the rest to your dirty little minds.  ::)

"The Stick" has always had a slightly different inference to me ever since that day...   But I digress.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/17/2008 03:14 am
I just wanted to say two things:

1) It is SO good to see the sense of humour that is coming out, especially this time of year. It is great that everyone can inject a bit of levity into the forum from time to time.

2) :

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/MerryJupiter.jpg)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: fotoguzzi on 12/17/2008 03:16 am
There's an anecdote here which I don't think Chris will let me tell in full :)

Ares I.  Is that the one with the vibration problem?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Crispy on 12/17/2008 07:08 am
Groan!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/17/2008 10:07 am
What we are hoping to do is a "production run" of large-diameter telescopes.

Interesting.  Have you thought of going to any of the space science groups with this? Every bit of professional support will help.  Besides Hubble is such an unequivocal 'win' story that the politicians would be keen to see a successor mission, especially an ambitious one.

The other five would each be deployed, by Jupiter-232, one to each of the five Earth-Sun Lagrange points.

That is spread out over a pretty huge area.  However, there are precidents for optical interferometry with relatively small mirrors over a large area.  However, the 'LaGrange Array' would be the undisputed record breaker (~210 million mile effective apperture?  When aligned with the LEO 'scopes you would probably have the resolution to image earth-type planets around nearby stars).  If that is a bit too ambitious, you could put six into a halo orbit around SEL-2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: fotoguzzi on 12/17/2008 10:40 am
How do you do nanometer-accurate positioning over a 93 million mile baseline with nothing against which to react?

I do not find a good reference to answer this (but I do notice that a lot of people use L1 - L5 to describe lens assemblies). I would ask, though, if each telescope had an accurate clock on board, and one telescope could signal the other to get a range, would that not be enough?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/17/2008 10:51 am

I do not find a good reference to answer this (but I do notice that a lot of people use L1 - L5 to describe lens assemblies).

L1 - L5 are names for the five Earth-Sun Lagrange points
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - questions
Post by: robert_d on 12/17/2008 11:01 am
Two questions for the Direct team:
Was a 2nd stage included in the NLS studies of the early 90's, and if so how much did it weigh?

One of NASA's responses was that they are planning on new technology such as friction stir welding to cut the recurring costs of the Ares rockets.  Seems like that could apply equally to Direct.  Any comment?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/17/2008 11:54 am

But just think of WHAT a HUGE space telescope or space station core you could build from a 15 meter tank!!!

Just for you, here's a hypothetical 15m diameter, 20m long PLF on a Jupiter-120.

Ross.

Me, I'm visualizing what I can do in an SF story using a Jupiter-232 topped by a 15m diameter, 40m barrel PLF. I guess that wouldn't clear the VAB door...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - questions
Post by: clongton on 12/17/2008 12:40 pm

2. One of NASA's responses was that they are planning on new technology such as friction stir welding to cut the recurring costs of the Ares rockets.  Seems like that could apply equally to Direct.  Any comment?

Friction Stir welding is one of the many process advancements that the program will eventually benefit from - but not now. The fundamental philosophy of DIRECT is to use what we currently have to get back in the air as quickly as we can. We are not going to spend one dime on new processes -now- that we don't absolutely need to. Job number one is to use the existing facilities and infrastructure and get back in the air. We can consider incrimental improvements later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - questions
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/17/2008 02:58 pm
...The fundamental philosophy of DIRECT is to use what we currently have to get back in the air as quickly as we can. We are not going to spend one dime on new processes -now- that we don't absolutely need to. Job number one is to use the existing facilities and infrastructure and get back in the air. We can consider incrimental improvements later.

In the spirit of the season: I LOVE YOU GUYS.

It makes so much sense its awesome. 
You guys must be engineers and scientists. 
All that reasonable thinking and pragmatism, I just love it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 12/17/2008 05:06 pm
I'm sorry to bring the SSME vs RS-68 back up, but I wanted to be clear on somethings.

Is the SSME a better, more efficient engine? Is the only problem it's cost? Will a newly man-rated RS-68 be 'safer' than the current SSME.

How much time/money will it take to man-rate the RS-68? Will there be any loss of performance in man-rating it?

Could you use 3 SSME on the J-120 (might lose a little bit of performance, but I think there is some to spare) and 5 SSME on the J-232 (might actually gain some performance?)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/17/2008 05:17 pm
The problem, as I understand it, is a) no one is making SSMEs anymore, and b) SSMEs are too expensive to throw away.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 12/17/2008 05:23 pm
I ask because, according to Boeing:

"The Space Shuttle Main Engine is the most reliable and highly tested large rocket engine ever built."

And if you want something that is known inside and out, I think an SSME would be it.

Wouldn't the cost come down if they were manufactured in higher quantity?

But, I guess I see your point. If they don't even have the tools to make them anymore, it would cost quite a bit to restart/rebuild those mechanisms to produce SSMEs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: GraphGuy on 12/17/2008 05:24 pm
I'm sorry to bring the SSME vs RS-68 back up, but I wanted to be clear on somethings.

Is the SSME a better, more efficient engine? Is the only problem it's cost? Will a newly man-rated RS-68 be 'safer' than the current SSME.

How much time/money will it take to man-rate the RS-68? Will there be any loss of performance in man-rating it?

Could you use 3 SSME on the J-120 (might lose a little bit of performance, but I think there is some to spare) and 5 SSME on the J-232 (might actually gain some performance?)?


Off the top of my head (YMMV):

SSME wins against RS-68 on specific impulse (~450 vs ~400)
SSME looses against RS-68 on cost (~15 million vs ~50 million)
SSME looses against RS-68 on thrust (~800k lb vs ~700k lb)
SSME looses against RS-68 on complexity (RS-68 has ~80% fewer parts)

SSME is no longer in production, RS-68 "manrated" does not exist yet.

It is very easy to see how the cost difference of the RS-68 more than makes up for the lack of specific impulse.  SSME's were not designed to be used once and no sane person would use them that way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 12/17/2008 05:35 pm
I'm sorry to bring the SSME vs RS-68 back up, but I wanted to be clear on somethings.

Is the SSME a better, more efficient engine? Is the only problem it's cost? Will a newly man-rated RS-68 be 'safer' than the current SSME.

How much time/money will it take to man-rate the RS-68? Will there be any loss of performance in man-rating it?

Could you use 3 SSME on the J-120 (might lose a little bit of performance, but I think there is some to spare) and 5 SSME on the J-232 (might actually gain some performance?)?


Off the top of my head (YMMV):

SSME wins against RS-68 on specific impulse (~450 vs ~400)
SSME looses against RS-68 on cost (~15 million vs ~50 million)
SSME looses against RS-68 on thrust (~800k lb vs ~700k lb)
SSME looses against RS-68 on complexity (RS-68 has ~80% fewer parts)

Theres also the T/W difference:
SSME vs. RS-68 = 73 vs 51

I'm beginning to think that's the main reason SSME outperforms RS-68 even in cases which RS-68 was built for - liftoff through early boost phase.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: GraphGuy on 12/17/2008 05:39 pm

Theres also the T/W difference:
SSME vs. RS-68 = 73 vs 51

I'm beginning to think that's the main reason SSME outperforms RS-68 even in cases which RS-68 was built for - liftoff through early boost phase.

Good point.  Having 2 SRBs next to the engine helps in the thrust department.

I'd say that the two main reasons the RS-68 is better than SSME are cost and lack of complexity.  Nothing against the SSME, it is a great engine when you plan on reuse.  In terms of cost, you can do the math to see how much you save per year and it can be a billion per year alone just on using the RS-68.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/17/2008 06:20 pm
SSME would be an ideal engine for the smaller vehicle without the upper stage -- essentially that configuration is an extremely similar total mass as Shuttle, which is precisely what they were designed to power in the first place.   You get about 75mT payload to orbit, which is *really* nice.

But three SSME's is a little short on thrust compared to three RS-68's for the larger configuration.   The Isp improvement isn't so important for lower stages.   You need Isp mostly once you're in space, and the Core is disposed of half way through the flight.   Down low in the atmosphere, your Thrust levels are king.

Today, we've been toying with some SSME-based configurations in our spare (!) time -- such as it is! :)

There are some interesting options possible, although there are also a few tricks which need to be resolved too.

We have a J-232 configuration which works pretty well.   Also a J-241 configuration which has really awesome performance (closes CxP's Lunar performance targets by a whole 9mT!) -- although fitting four SSME's all in a row under the tank gets pretty interesting :)


A disposable SSME (RS-25e) design could be developed to reduce the production costs -- that was actually ESAS's original recommendation.   But such a thing seriously front-loads your expenditure.   And that development program is probably a 4-6-year process and would likely cost half a billion bucks or so.

The logical question then becomes, if you're going to consider paying for a development program, a Regenerative Nozzle for the RS-68 must also go back into the pot for consideration too.   And I'm sure ULA/DoD would be interested in that for Delta-IV too, so perhaps there's an opportunity to share some of the costs with them.

Overall, PWR predict that with 80% fewer parts the current RS-68 should be about twice as reliable as the already excellent SSME.   Predicted RS-68 reliability is 99.87% compared to 99.83% demonstrated reliability of SSME.   Add a Regen (in the style of the Volvo design planned for J-2X) and the part-count increases a bit once again, but should still be an improvement.

It's all a very interesting debate.   And is probably one which doesn't have a "single right answer".   Lots to test.   Lots to analyse.   Lots to decide.   Only time will tell.   We have other priorities this week though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 12/17/2008 07:07 pm
SSME would be an ideal engine for the smaller vehicle without the upper stage -- essentially that configuration is an extremely similar total mass as Shuttle, which is precisely what they were designed to power in the first place.   You get about 75mT payload to orbit, which is *really* nice.

That's basically my question. How much sooner could you do a J-130 using 3 SSMEs? I realize it would in fact cost more per mission, but you could do alot of useful stuff with 75mT.

Then you would not be under a time crunch to get the RS-68 man-rated? Taking all the necessary time to consider additional performance improvements?

Could you not phase out the J-130 as the newer RS-68 core comes online?

But three SSME's is a little short on thrust compared to three RS-68's for the larger configuration.   The Isp improvement isn't so important for lower stages.   You need Isp mostly once you're in space, and the Core is disposed of half way through the flight.   Down low in the atmosphere, your Thrust levels are king.

Today, we've been toying with some SSME-based configurations in our spare (!) time -- such as it is! :)

There are some interesting options possible, although there are also a few tricks which need to be resolved too.

We have a J-232 configuration which works pretty well.   Also a J-241 configuration which has really awesome performance (closes CxP's Lunar performance targets by a whole 9mT!) -- although fitting four SSME's all in a row under the tank gets pretty interesting :)

If they can squeeze 6 RS-68s under Ares-V, I'm sure you can get 4-5 SSMEs under there ;)

A disposable SSME (RS-25e) design could be developed to reduce the production costs -- that was actually ESAS's original recommendation.   But such a thing seriously front-loads your expenditure.   And that development program is probably a 4-6-year process and would likely cost half a billion bucks or so.

The logical question then becomes, if you're going to consider paying for a development program, a Regenerative Nozzle for the RS-68 must also go back into the pot for consideration too.   And I'm sure ULA/DoD would be interested in that for Delta-IV too, so perhaps there's an opportunity to share some of the costs with them.

Overall, PWR predict that with 80% fewer parts the current RS-68 should be about twice as reliable as the already excellent SSME.   Predicted RS-68 reliability is 99.87% compared to 99.83% demonstrated reliability of SSME.   Add a Regen and the part-count increases a bit once again, but should still be an improvement.

It's all a very interesting debate.   And is probably one which doesn't have a "single right answer".   Lots to test.   Lots to analyse.   Lots to decide.   Only time will tell.   We have other priorities this week though.

Ross.

I think you would not want to continue development of the SSME but use it to trade time for $$$. I realize that avionics and stuff would be a little different, but my guess is that developing the avionics for a SSME-powered J-130 would be quicker than manrating the RS-68 and developing the avionics for that system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/17/2008 07:23 pm
That's basically my question. How much sooner could you do a J-130 using 3 SSMEs?

The long-pole of both is not the engines or the launcher.   It is Orion.

You could complete either the RS-68 human-rating or the SSME new-production by the time the Orion is ready.


Quote
If they can squeeze 6 RS-68s under Ares-V, I'm sure you can get 4-5 SSMEs under there ;)

They fit.   But its a little tight.   No worse than the aft arrangement of the Shuttle though...   Attached a quick 'n dirty image to show.


Quote
I think you would not want to continue development of the SSME but use it to trade time for $$$. I realize that avionics and stuff would be a little different, but my guess is that developing the avionics for a SSME-powered J-130 would be quicker than manrating the RS-68 and developing the avionics for that system.

As I say, the operational flights are not dependent on the launchers or the engines, but on Orion.

It's exactly the same for EELV's too, in fact.   They can't fly a crew any sooner than Jupiter can -- for precisely the same reason.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 12/17/2008 08:39 pm
4 SSME = $200Million?  How much do you save getting rid of one J-2X?  Although that does eliminate concerns about LIDS interface....

How much mass can you lift to LEO on SSME J-120?  Is that 75mT that you stated above?
What's the cost per ton to LEO for SSME vs RS68A J-120s? 

Seems like you could easily lift a 10M fairing and LEO payload(telescopes?) with that kind of performance.

Although SSME based variant at 75mT is expensive overkill for any trip to ISS carrying Orion.. 


Can you do a J-110 with an SSME?  With 5-seg Solids?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/17/2008 08:45 pm
75 mT should allow a few more modules to be lifted to the ISS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/17/2008 08:48 pm
75 mT should allow a few more modules to be lifted to the ISS.

what modules?  None are planned.   Any new ones would be 5-7 years away
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/17/2008 09:12 pm
Speculation about the RS-25e is interesting, but what we have designed works just fine. Our current design completely closes all the ESAS goals for the lunar missions with a 2xJupiter-232 launch. Any switch to the RS-25e would buy us more landed mass on the moon at the expense of introducing an engine development program on the critical path to RTF, which could actually slow us down if problems develop. But it would not buy us nearly as much as a propellant depot does. The cost of fielding a depot would be roughly on a par with creating the RS-25e and buys us much more from a program perspective. The PD is simply a much better use of the funding. RS-68's provide us commonality and cost sharing with the DOD while the RS-25e burdens NASA with the total cost of a vastly more complicated and expensive engine.

Remember - use what we already have and have already paid for that gets the job done now - improve and upgrade later, when a real need justifies it. Just being able to lift more is not a real need. The Jupiter-232 easily places in excess of 110mT into LEO. There is simply no real need to better that. Right now there is no need for the SSME on the Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/17/2008 09:50 pm
To add another thing to Chuck's comment, if we were ever planning to invest in a fairly costly engine program like putting a redeveloped expendable SSME (RS-25e) into mass production, then why not consider other options at the same time:-

Regen nozzle for RS-68.   That would fix any base heating problems and also improve performance to a point matching the SSME option.   But it would also have commonality with Delta's production line, so many of the production costs would be shared even if DoD didn't want to use the regen version.   Of course, they might be convinced to share some of the development costs to boost Delta performance some more too.

Cobra would make for a very interesting development program indeed.   There are quite a few applications I can think of for an air-startable 1-million lb thrust LOX/LH2 engine.


But I'm swiftly coming around to the opinion that Jupiter just doesn't need the SSME option, that its probably better-off with the much lower cost RS-68.   We don't need an option which is going to add more than a billion dollars to the yearly operational costs unless we absolutely have to (Example: 3 $60m engines instead of 3 $20m engines = $120m extra cost per launcher.   12 such launchers per year = $1.44bn higher yearly costs).

To that end, I am looking forward to seeing the reports behind this study -- to find out exactly *why* such costly changes are being considered on Ares-V.   If there's something unexpected there, we will be watching closely.   We could go in that direction if we must, but right now I don't think it buys us any real advantages.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/18/2008 12:37 am
75 mT should allow a few more modules to be lifted to the ISS.

what modules?  None are planned.   Any new ones would be 5-7 years away

Supply money and some one will plan more ISS modules if only to replace the ones that are wearing out.

As for 5-7 years away so is normal use of the alternative LV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 12/18/2008 12:54 am
75 mT should allow a few more modules to be lifted to the ISS.

what modules?  None are planned.   Any new ones would be 5-7 years away

Supply money and some one will plan more ISS modules if only to replace the ones that are wearing out.

1) New money is unlikely
2) Even if there is new money, there are a thousand things NASA *should* be spending it on instead of new ISS modules.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/18/2008 12:58 am
You are assuming that the new modules are paid for by NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 12/18/2008 01:00 am

A disposable SSME (RS-25e) design could be developed to reduce the production costs -- that was actually ESAS's original recommendation.   But such a thing seriously front-loads your expenditure.   And that development program is probably a 4-6-year process and would likely cost half a billion bucks or so.

Ross.

As much as I love the SSME, I have to agree that using RS-25 on Direct is costly and pointless. Much better going with RS-68A.

However, when it comes to scheduling...throwing the SSME into the mix provides some interesting possibilities:

1) You start with almost 100% shuttle-derived (if not actual) hardware. You have a person-rated engine that, depending on shuttle retirement date, allows you to draw off existing inventories for vehicle testing. That shaves some time off development, and all that's left is Orion & J2-X development.

2) While the RS-25 configuration is being tested/flown, you can develop the RS-25e in such a way that it is a direct fit to the original version.

The whole development cost thing may not give you any returns in the end, and you have to spend money to save money, so the savings don't really exist until so far in the future you shake your head as to why. Quite a trade-off to deal with!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 12/18/2008 01:05 am
You are assuming that the new modules are paid for by NASA.

Of course. The Module Fairy could leave some under my pillow.

I really don't see the IPs paying the colossal price of both building a 75 mT ISS module and paying to launch it on a Jupiter.

I really don't see the private sector paying that kind of money either.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 12/18/2008 01:14 am
Really huge serviceable space telescope is a bad idea. Interferometry is the future. What we need is an array of space telescopes that can be used as one. This way you can constantly update it by disposing of old units and launching new ones.

What we are hoping to do is a "production run" of large-diameter telescopes.   Each would have something in the order of an 8.2m diameter mirror (launched inside a 10m PLF), making them extraordinarily powerful in their own right.   Each one would be designed to operate independently, but would be able to also work together too.

The first three would be placed in LEO, each essentially doing the job of Hubble, just with higher resolution.   Each of those would be launched using a Jupiter-120.   These would be test-bed systems to make sure everything is 'sorted out' for the later versions.   As long as one works, we call them a success.   They pave the way for...

The other five would each be deployed, by Jupiter-232, one to each of the five Earth-Sun Lagrange points.

The imagery from any 3 or more of these Lagrange telescopes could also then be brought together to act as one giant interferometer 'scope with the long axis roughly 93 million miles across.    Together, such a vast scope would be beyond anything else we've ever considered doing.   Such a large array wouldn't just be able to spot Earth-sized planets in other solar systems, our information suggests it should be able to render the weather patterns on those 'other Earths'!

The whole project isn't a cheap one.   But we are aiming for a price-point around $250-300m per unit in order that each one could be categorized as a regular "Discovery" (http://discovery.nasa.gov/) class Science mission.   The telescopes don't need 'all the frills'.   The priority is to make them as solid, robust and simple as can be done.   K.I.S.S.

Given that the DIRECT plan calls for doubling (at least) the size of SMD's annual budget, we should be able to realistically consider a long-running project like this, launching one or more of these units each year.

By planning to make quite a lot of units (10 or 12 in total) on the same production line, the cost for each one can be kept relatively low (its the high fixed costs vs. low variable cost thing again).

It would be relatively in-expensive to build a few spare units and keep them in storage so that any failed units would ultimately just be replaced instead of having to be maintained.   You get good value per unit and you also get value through lower-cost designs which don't have the added complication of planning for human maintenance.   Keeping the technology requirement fairly simple and "no frills" is also a critical goal to keeping the costs down.

The only post-launch maintenance option which I think might be valuable would be the inclusion of hypergolic refueling capability using some sort of robotic delivery.

This is just one of the things that we'd really like to do.

Ross.

The L3 point passes closer to Venus than to Earth and is quite unstable.

It is still a great point WRT science returns.

Also, why both an L1 and L2 telescope? These would be quite close together compared to the others (not counting the LEO telescopes)

I expect that a phase-sensitive detector would be required for the interferometry.  You can't beam light 93 million km and have any path length control (micron accuracy required).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 12/18/2008 01:41 am
I expect that a phase-sensitive detector would be required for the interferometry.  You can't beam light 93 million km and have any path length control (micron accuracy required).

Well, from what I read about Gravity Probe B - they orbited the thing for what? several YEARS? maintaining rotating metal spheres inside it without contact with the case, IOW, in *perfect free fall*. If that is possible, I don't see why micron precision formation flying with millions of kms of separation is such an impossible thing.

Hard? Definitely. But not impossible. There is no air and no turbulence to disrupt spacecraft as they carefully measure and adjust their relative positions...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/18/2008 01:53 am
75 mT should allow a few more modules to be lifted to the ISS.

ISS is under utilized now and doesn't have a strong reason to exist any way.

If a new space station is needed DIRECT or Ares could put up a station in 1 plop.

If the ISS and 25+ years of STS has taught us anything it's that LEO is boring.  Exploration requires a destination.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 12/18/2008 02:02 am
I expect that a phase-sensitive detector would be required for the interferometry.  You can't beam light 93 million km and have any path length control (micron accuracy required).

Well, from what I read about Gravity Probe B - they orbited the thing for what? several YEARS? maintaining rotating metal spheres inside it without contact with the case, IOW, in *perfect free fall*. If that is possible, I don't see why micron precision formation flying with millions of kms of separation is such an impossible thing.

Hard? Definitely. But not impossible. There is no air and no turbulence to disrupt spacecraft as they carefully measure and adjust their relative positions...

The problem is that the spacecraft are moving relative to each other.  However, nanotechnology (visible-light antennas) may allow interferometry to be done the same way that it is done for radio waves.

It would be a piece of cake at radio wavelengths.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/18/2008 02:25 am
Really huge serviceable space telescope is a bad idea. Interferometry is the future. What we need is an array of space telescopes that can be used as one. This way you can constantly update it by disposing of old units and launching new ones.

The imagery from any 3 or more of these Lagrange telescopes could also then be brought together to act as one giant interferometer 'scope with the long axis roughly 93 million miles across.    Together, such a vast scope would be beyond anything else we've ever considered doing.   Such a large array wouldn't just be able to spot Earth-sized planets in other solar systems, our information suggests it should be able to render the weather patterns on those 'other Earths'!


Holy Moses and Buddha, now there is a proposal for you. If we discovered life-bearing planets around Alpha Centauri A or B... personally, I can't wait for the TPF mission.

Now if you sent those same telescopes to the Jupiter-Sun libration points...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/18/2008 02:29 am
75 mT should allow a few more modules to be lifted to the ISS.

ISS is under utilized now and doesn't have a strong reason to exist any way.

If a new space station is needed DIRECT or Ares could put up a station in 1 plop.

If the ISS and 25+ years of STS has taught us anything it's that LEO is boring.  Exploration requires a destination.

LEO is a destination.  Exploration requires the opposite of a destination, it requires almost continuous travel.  A base, be it in LEO, on the Moon, or on Mars, is the opposite of exploration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 12/18/2008 02:40 am
SSMEs For Sale from NASA(Post Shuttle).... CHEAP!

Between $400,000 and $800,000 a copy..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468969,00.html

2 Space Shuttles..  FREE! 
(you pay shipping and handling)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/18/2008 02:41 am
I'll just buy a couple for that SSTO I'm building in the garage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/18/2008 02:43 am
75 mT should allow a few more modules to be lifted to the ISS.

ISS is under utilized now and doesn't have a strong reason to exist any way.

If a new space station is needed DIRECT or Ares could put up a station in 1 plop.

If the ISS and 25+ years of STS has taught us anything it's that LEO is boring.  Exploration requires a destination.

LEO is a destination.  Exploration requires the opposite of a destination, it requires almost continuous travel.  A base, be it in LEO, on the Moon, or on Mars, is the opposite of exploration.

Your just playing on words now ;p

What you were describing is mindless wondering, not exploration.  Unless waving to Mars as we fly by it is what you had in mind.

But you are right we must have a continues reliable means of transportation to our destination and is required for exploration of our solar system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/18/2008 03:01 am
Exploration is going somewhere, stopping long enough to find out what's there, and then moving to the next spot.  Building a base somewhere to be permanently inhabited is "settling" not "exploring".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/18/2008 03:24 am
If a new space station is needed DIRECT or Ares could put up a station in 1 plop.

This side trail is about the suggested SSME rival to both DIRECT v2.0 and Ares so they would not exist.  We would be in the situation of having, for several years, a man rated heavy lift LV without a capsule.

Unless someone is seriously planning to build the SSME J-120 we are now off topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/18/2008 03:25 am
I guess people are waiting for the rebbutal document.  Even though I want to read it like yesterday---I hope that take at least a week of carefull review after it is finished.  NASA and others are going to try and pick it apart. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Marsman on 12/18/2008 03:36 am
I hope that take at least a week of carefull review after it is finished. 

You have no idea how much of an understatement that is :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 12/18/2008 10:53 am
Ross, how many documents are you producing? I expect that in addition to the rebuttal document itself there will be a detailed DIRECT architecture and plan document equivalent to the AIAA document (over 100 pages) as well as a DIRECT summary document (around 10 pages). Is it the case?

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/18/2008 11:44 am
I expect that a phase-sensitive detector would be required for the interferometry.  You can't beam light 93 million km and have any path length control (micron accuracy required).

Well, from what I read about Gravity Probe B - they orbited the thing for what? several YEARS? maintaining rotating metal spheres inside it without contact with the case, IOW, in *perfect free fall*. If that is possible, I don't see why micron precision formation flying with millions of kms of separation is such an impossible thing.

Hard? Definitely. But not impossible. There is no air and no turbulence to disrupt spacecraft as they carefully measure and adjust their relative positions...

The problem is that the spacecraft are moving relative to each other.  However, nanotechnology (visible-light antennas) may allow interferometry to be done the same way that it is done for radio waves.

It would be a piece of cake at radio wavelengths.

I think the larger problem might be the effect of the solar gravitational field on electromagnetic radiation. I have no idea if deterministic calculations for that are even possible. Way beyond the math I can do, at any rate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 12/18/2008 12:16 pm
Exploration is going somewhere, stopping long enough to find out what's there, and then moving to the next spot.  Building a base somewhere to be permanently inhabited is "settling" not "exploring".

Exploration is just a step to the goal. Settling *is* the goal.

If you don't plan to settle on Moon/Mars/etc, what's the point in exploring them? Just to know what's there?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/18/2008 12:23 pm
If you don't plan to settle on Moon/Mars/etc, what's the point in exploring them? Just to know what's there?

You have to know what's there before you can decide if it's worth the effort to settle. Exploration is the precursor to settlement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/18/2008 01:03 pm
I think the first wave of off-earth "settlers" are probably going to be researchers on long term projects who find a new project in the same place when the first one is over. My father was a USGS field geologist when I was a boy, and I spent part of my childhood living in a travel trailer. If they'd sent us to Mars (instead of the Colorado Plateau), we might all be there still. Second wave will be workers with very far away jobs, some of who will like it enough they'll manage to stay (or possibly be abandoned in place by their employer). I will be surprised if there will ever be Greek/Phoenecean-style commercial colonies any time in this century, but you never know. Plus there's always the remote possibility of a politically fomented "colony race."

I've long had a vision of the solar system 500 years hence, with a de-industrialized "garden earth" inhabited by rich people, welfare recipients, TV commentators, and various other species of social parasite; am "industrial park" Moon inhabbited by people with jobs to do, and smaller "resource node" colonies and habitats on asteroids, Mars, Callisto, the moons of Saturn, etc., feeding the Luna via mass drivers, solar sails, and relying on the pipeline effect (you don't care how long it takes synfuel to get from Titan to Luna, so long as a steady flow of tankers show up where you need them). Science fiction now, but it has a particular logic too it, and it fits into the flow of human history.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacecase on 12/18/2008 01:13 pm
On the baseball card of J120 version LV 35.4010.0 dated 19 OCT 08, it states payload for an orbit of 100.0 x 220.0 nm (185.2 x 407.4 km). That is a relatively stable orbit, though we understand that it will degrade in time. (Weeks or months)

While this is an inherently stable situation for translation and docking of Orion to retrieve a payload module before continuing on to the ISS with less Orion fuel, that leaves a very large upper stage in orbit for a long time.

Is that the intent of the Direct team? The way I see it there one of four approaches the Direct team is taking on disposal of the core stage:

1) Put it in the 100.0 x 220.0 nm orbit (preferably with the apogee below the ISS orbit) and let it decay naturally. This would entail no mass penalty, but requires tracking of the cores in orbit and *no control* of the entry location. The core stage has more mass and more parts designed for 1000 degree f temperatures (including ablative nozzles) than the current ET, hence more risk of parts making it through reentry.

2) De-orbit the stage at the appropriate time. This allows for a controlled reentry of the core after the payload is extracted, but has a fairly hefty mass penalty. Not only does the core have to take up mass to execute the deorbit burn, which requires another subsystem to the vehicle, but it needs to be able to control its attitude until the burn which would be 2 - 5 hours after launch (for burn at apogee of Revs 1 - 4). Oh yeah, the electrical system would require the battery to power the RCS and reentry subsystems until the deorbit burn.

3) Target the real vehicle for an Aries I type launch of 200 x -11 km, which would give you about 10 minutes to extract the payload and burn to a stable orbit for the crew. (If any problems, then the payload bites the dust!) This would remove the worry of orbiting cores and extra subsystems added to the vehicle, but at higher risk to the payload. If this is chosen, then the payload mass could be higher as long as Orion has enough fuel to get to the ISS and deorbit okay.

4) This is an operational problem that NASA will figure out for themselves anyway. We are just modeling a flight path that gives a payload capacity close to what the Shuttle is flying now. Any lower orbit will only improve the payload numbers!

Any insight from the Direct team would be appreciated.

------------------
BTW, this concept has real promise, though the term Direct did throw me off for months. I originally dismissed it as a single launch to the moon concept. But when I looked at it closely it made a lot of sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/18/2008 01:24 pm
The structural relationship between J120 and J232 are what sold me on DIRECT as superior to various Shuttle-C and other side-mount SDV solutions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/18/2008 02:31 pm
There are two options that we are making available for NASA to choose between:

1. We can place the core and spacecraft directly into the 100 x 220 nm orbit, decouple the spacecraft, and then extract any accompanying payload without a large time constraint. The core will deorbit with built-in ulage motors. This can be done within minutes of the spacecraft separation or payload extraction, or at any time up to the life of the batteries, which will be good for several complete orbits. This option preserves all of the spacecraft SM propellant for in-space activity and avoids any time constraint on payload extraction. Battery power for the core stage avionics is not an issue and the de-orbit burn event can be built into the electronics. This is the preferred option and the one we baseline.

2. The core can place itself and the spacecraft into a 30 x 220 nm orbit, and the spacecraft, after separation will raise the perigee to 100nm. The atmospheric drag at the 30nm perigee is low enough that it will destructively deorbit the core, and also low enough to bring the spacecraft back down without a de-orbit burn if there is a problem identified with the SM engine after separation. This is an available option, but is not baselined for the Jupiter because it places a severe time constraint on any payload extraction. This is what Shuttle does, using the OMS engines to raise its perigee. But Shuttle does not have to extract it's payload from a core, so disposal of the ET in this manner makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/18/2008 02:43 pm
There are two options that we are making available for NASA to choose between:

1. We can place the core and spacecraft directly into the 100 x 220 nm orbit, decouple the spacecraft, and then extract any accompanying payload without a time constraint. The core will deorbit with built-in ulage motors. This can be done within minutes of the spacecraft separation or payload extraction, or at any time up to the life of the batteries, which will be good for several complete orbits. This option preserves all of the spacecraft SM propellant for in-space activity. Battery power for the core stage avionics is not an issue and the de-orbit burn event can be built into the electronics. This is the preferred option and the one we baseline.

2. The core can place itself and the spacecraft into a 30 x 220 nm orbit, and the spacecraft, after separation will raise the perigee to 100nm. The atmospheric drag at the 30nm perigee is low enough that it will destructively deorbit the core, and also low enough to bring the spacecraft back down without a de-orbit burn if there is a problem identified after separation. This is an available option, but is not baselined.

Where would core fragments typically impact (ground footprint) for a 30 x 220 nm orbit? It seems like it should be the western Gulf of Mexico, and assuming a 56deg NE azimuth, that would be an ascending leg crossing right over Mexico City. That's just from visualization looking at a globe, though, so I'm probably wrong. In the unlikely event I'm right, there'd be politics involved, so a controlled reentry with site selection is much better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/18/2008 02:47 pm
There are two options that we are making available for NASA to choose between:

1. We can place the core and spacecraft directly into the 100 x 220 nm orbit, decouple the spacecraft, and then extract any accompanying payload without a time constraint. The core will deorbit with built-in ulage motors. This can be done within minutes of the spacecraft separation or payload extraction, or at any time up to the life of the batteries, which will be good for several complete orbits. This option preserves all of the spacecraft SM propellant for in-space activity. Battery power for the core stage avionics is not an issue and the de-orbit burn event can be built into the electronics. This is the preferred option and the one we baseline.

2. The core can place itself and the spacecraft into a 30 x 220 nm orbit, and the spacecraft, after separation will raise the perigee to 100nm. The atmospheric drag at the 30nm perigee is low enough that it will destructively deorbit the core, and also low enough to bring the spacecraft back down without a de-orbit burn if there is a problem identified after separation. This is an available option, but is not baselined.

Where would core fragments typically impact (ground footprint) for a 30 x 220 nm orbit? It seems like it should be the western Gulf of Mexico, and assuming a 56deg NE azimuth, that would be an ascending leg crossing right over Mexico City. That's just from visualization looking at a globe, though, so I'm probably wrong. In the unlikely event I'm right, there'd be politics involved, so a controlled reentry with site selection is much better.

Same place as the Shuttle ET - in the open ocean.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/18/2008 02:54 pm
Exploration is going somewhere, stopping long enough to find out what's there, and then moving to the next spot.  Building a base somewhere to be permanently inhabited is "settling" not "exploring".

Exploration is just a step to the goal. Settling *is* the goal.

If you don't plan to settle on Moon/Mars/etc, what's the point in exploring them? Just to know what's there?

Yes...you can't make a plan, settlement or otherwise, without knowing what's there first.  If what you discover during exploration warrants a settlement for some good reason, then you plan a settlement.  If you don't find a good reason to settle, you don't.  At this time, there's no good reason I'm aware of for a settlement on either the Moon or Mars.  Sure, there are hypothetical possibilities including radio astronomy and ISRU, but there are too many unknowns right now to be planning those activities, or others like them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/18/2008 03:38 pm
Settling is a goal of exploration?

I explore enzymes, should I settle on them?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/18/2008 03:57 pm
There are two options that we are making available for NASA to choose between:

1. We can place the core and spacecraft directly into the 100 x 220 nm orbit, decouple the spacecraft, and then extract any accompanying payload without a time constraint. The core will deorbit with built-in ulage motors. This can be done within minutes of the spacecraft separation or payload extraction, or at any time up to the life of the batteries, which will be good for several complete orbits. This option preserves all of the spacecraft SM propellant for in-space activity. Battery power for the core stage avionics is not an issue and the de-orbit burn event can be built into the electronics. This is the preferred option and the one we baseline.

2. The core can place itself and the spacecraft into a 30 x 220 nm orbit, and the spacecraft, after separation will raise the perigee to 100nm. The atmospheric drag at the 30nm perigee is low enough that it will destructively deorbit the core, and also low enough to bring the spacecraft back down without a de-orbit burn if there is a problem identified after separation. This is an available option, but is not baselined.

Where would core fragments typically impact (ground footprint) for a 30 x 220 nm orbit? It seems like it should be the western Gulf of Mexico, and assuming a 56deg NE azimuth, that would be an ascending leg crossing right over Mexico City. That's just from visualization looking at a globe, though, so I'm probably wrong. In the unlikely event I'm right, there'd be politics involved, so a controlled reentry with site selection is much better.

Same place as the Shuttle ET - in the open ocean.

I guess I'm asking first "where," and then "why there?" I can probably figure it out, just hoping someone has a canned explanation. "Open ocean" covers a lot of water, even assuming just the water under the ground track. ET is pretty non-dense, so I'd guess upper atmosphere slows it down enough it's falling a lot farther back along the orbit than the theoretical perigee. Would that be true for a first stage with engines, thrust structure, etc.?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 12/18/2008 04:09 pm
There are two options that we are making available for NASA to choose between:

1. We can place the core and spacecraft directly into the 100 x 220 nm orbit, decouple the spacecraft, and then extract any accompanying payload without a time constraint. The core will deorbit with built-in ulage motors. This can be done within minutes of the spacecraft separation or payload extraction, or at any time up to the life of the batteries, which will be good for several complete orbits. This option preserves all of the spacecraft SM propellant for in-space activity. Battery power for the core stage avionics is not an issue and the de-orbit burn event can be built into the electronics. This is the preferred option and the one we baseline.

2. The core can place itself and the spacecraft into a 30 x 220 nm orbit, and the spacecraft, after separation will raise the perigee to 100nm. The atmospheric drag at the 30nm perigee is low enough that it will destructively deorbit the core, and also low enough to bring the spacecraft back down without a de-orbit burn if there is a problem identified after separation. This is an available option, but is not baselined.

Where would core fragments typically impact (ground footprint) for a 30 x 220 nm orbit? It seems like it should be the western Gulf of Mexico, and assuming a 56deg NE azimuth, that would be an ascending leg crossing right over Mexico City. That's just from visualization looking at a globe, though, so I'm probably wrong. In the unlikely event I'm right, there'd be politics involved, so a controlled reentry with site selection is much better.

Same place as the Shuttle ET - in the open ocean.

I guess I'm asking first "where,"

Mid-Pacific.

Quote
and then "why there?"

Very little to hit; shuttle's always done it that way for DI missions.

Post-MECO perigee is almost always around 30 nmi; DI apogee ranges from 122 nmi (ISS) to 297 nmi (HST). The MECO targets are "shaped" to bring the ET down in the same box in the mid-Pacific.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/18/2008 07:57 pm
"It's quiet in this town...  too quiet.  It's like everyone is sitting or standing still, just waiting.  Waiting for...  something big."

Okay, so my Hollywood script-writing skills need a little work.  The point is, we need to jazz up this thread somehow.

Is there any technical aspect of Direct that is controversial or not generally accepted by the community at large?  It seems to me that the only technical questions still being asked are about the Jupiter upper stage.  (Yeah Steve P, I'm looking at you!)  Those will apparently be addressed (as much as possible) soon.  Are there other technical criticisms that have yet to be answered by the Direct team?  Most of the remaining opposition seems to be political, budgetary, or policy based, not technical.

This thread is in the neighborhood of 3400 posts, and though I didn't get here until late October, I can see that most of the posts are repeats and rehashes of previous discussions.  Even given that, the volume is still way down. 

I guess we're all just waiting for the Obama posse to ride into town and set things right.  Is that all we can do at this point?

Cheers,
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 12/18/2008 08:16 pm
Just out of curiosity, what kind of LEO payload could a Direct vehicle produce with two Zeniths attached instead of the solids?  Or two Atlas V phase II boosters.  It would seem to be a larger payload because of the lighter boosters than the solids.  Just curious. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/18/2008 08:18 pm
There are two options that we are making available for NASA to choose between:

1. We can place the core and spacecraft directly into the 100 x 220 nm orbit, decouple the spacecraft, and then extract any accompanying payload without a time constraint. The core will deorbit with built-in ulage motors. This can be done within minutes of the spacecraft separation or payload extraction, or at any time up to the life of the batteries, which will be good for several complete orbits. This option preserves all of the spacecraft SM propellant for in-space activity. Battery power for the core stage avionics is not an issue and the de-orbit burn event can be built into the electronics. This is the preferred option and the one we baseline.

2. The core can place itself and the spacecraft into a 30 x 220 nm orbit, and the spacecraft, after separation will raise the perigee to 100nm. The atmospheric drag at the 30nm perigee is low enough that it will destructively deorbit the core, and also low enough to bring the spacecraft back down without a de-orbit burn if there is a problem identified after separation. This is an available option, but is not baselined.

Where would core fragments typically impact (ground footprint) for a 30 x 220 nm orbit? It seems like it should be the western Gulf of Mexico, and assuming a 56deg NE azimuth, that would be an ascending leg crossing right over Mexico City. That's just from visualization looking at a globe, though, so I'm probably wrong. In the unlikely event I'm right, there'd be politics involved, so a controlled reentry with site selection is much better.

Same place as the Shuttle ET - in the open ocean.

I guess I'm asking first "where,"

Mid-Pacific.

Quote
and then "why there?"

Very little to hit; shuttle's always done it that way for DI missions.

Post-MECO perigee is almost always around 30 nmi; DI apogee ranges from 122 nmi (ISS) to 297 nmi (HST). The MECO targets are "shaped" to bring the ET down in the same box in the mid-Pacific.

That's not what I meant. I know the Pacific east of NZ is pretty empty. I guess I am asking about the shaping of the trajectory. Maybe my conception of this is too simplistic for me to picture it correctly.  I think the problem is, I am visualizing first apogee halfway around first orbit and first perigee rotationally west of launch site at end of first orbit (i.e., at end of first revolution). I think I'm look for an explanation of why that's not necessarily so (a sentence or two if possible). Remember, while I'm a pretty high-end software developer (and used to be a pretty high-end mechanic), the part of me involved in space exploration just writes fairy tales.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/18/2008 08:21 pm
Just out of curiosity, what kind of LEO payload could a Direct vehicle produce with two Zeniths attached instead of the solids?  Or two Atlas V phase II boosters.  It would seem to be a larger payload because of the lighter boosters than the solids.  Just curious. 

We're trying really hard to stay focused on the basic Jupiter. There are all kinds of things that could be done at a later date, once Jupiter is flying. But to entertain any of them now just distracts from job #1 - getting Jupiter into the air.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: renclod on 12/18/2008 09:23 pm
There are two options that we are making available for NASA to choose between:

1. We can place the core and spacecraft directly into the 100 x 220 nm orbit, decouple the spacecraft, and then extract any accompanying payload without a large time constraint. The core will deorbit with built-in ulage motors.
...

What is happening with the payload fairing, Chuck ?

Do you propose to keep the "petals" attached [to whatever stage does orbital injection, be it "J-120" core or "J-232" EDS] with hinges ?

Or you just eject the petals and leave them in orbit ?

Or you propose to somehow make the p.l.f. petals deorbit themselves ?

The "Direct" payload fairing is an essential element, it carries Orion through stable orbit, of course you cannot just eject them sub-orbital.

Large p.l.f., heavy too. More orbital junk ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/18/2008 10:42 pm
A payload fairing would deorbit rather quickly, due to their large volume to mass ratio (more drag for less inertia, like a bullet made of styrofoam).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - questions
Post by: jongoff on 12/18/2008 10:50 pm

2. One of NASA's responses was that they are planning on new technology such as friction stir welding to cut the recurring costs of the Ares rockets.  Seems like that could apply equally to Direct.  Any comment?

Friction Stir welding is one of the many process advancements that the program will eventually benefit from - but not now. The fundamental philosophy of DIRECT is to use what we currently have to get back in the air as quickly as we can. We are not going to spend one dime on new processes -now- that we don't absolutely need to. Job number one is to use the existing facilities and infrastructure and get back in the air. We can consider incrimental improvements later.

Actually, IIRC the information you got from LM/ULA sources for their ACES stages assumed using FSW.  They had done a lot of work over the past several years with KSC on doing thin lap joint friction stir welds, and as far as I know that was what they were baselining for the tanks in their ACES stage.  But I've been out of the loop since introducing you to them, so I could be wrong.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/18/2008 10:57 pm
I expect that a phase-sensitive detector would be required for the interferometry.  You can't beam light 93 million km and have any path length control (micron accuracy required).

Well, from what I read about Gravity Probe B - they orbited the thing for what? several YEARS? maintaining rotating metal spheres inside it without contact with the case, IOW, in *perfect free fall*. If that is possible, I don't see why micron precision formation flying with millions of kms of separation is such an impossible thing.

Hard? Definitely. But not impossible. There is no air and no turbulence to disrupt spacecraft as they carefully measure and adjust their relative positions...

The problem is that the spacecraft are moving relative to each other.  However, nanotechnology (visible-light antennas) may allow interferometry to be done the same way that it is done for radio waves.

It would be a piece of cake at radio wavelengths.

I think the larger problem might be the effect of the solar gravitational field on electromagnetic radiation. I have no idea if deterministic calculations for that are even possible. Way beyond the math I can do, at any rate.

That can all be figured in. The maths is pretty intense for GPS, they calculate to within the nanosecond for relativistic effects. That got them to the ~1m accuracy level.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/18/2008 11:03 pm
There are two options that we are making available for NASA to choose between:

1. We can place the core and spacecraft directly into the 100 x 220 nm orbit, decouple the spacecraft, and then extract any accompanying payload without a time constraint. The core will deorbit with built-in ulage motors. This can be done within minutes of the spacecraft separation or payload extraction, or at any time up to the life of the batteries, which will be good for several complete orbits. This option preserves all of the spacecraft SM propellant for in-space activity. Battery power for the core stage avionics is not an issue and the de-orbit burn event can be built into the electronics. This is the preferred option and the one we baseline.

2. The core can place itself and the spacecraft into a 30 x 220 nm orbit, and the spacecraft, after separation will raise the perigee to 100nm. The atmospheric drag at the 30nm perigee is low enough that it will destructively deorbit the core, and also low enough to bring the spacecraft back down without a de-orbit burn if there is a problem identified after separation. This is an available option, but is not baselined.

Where would core fragments typically impact (ground footprint) for a 30 x 220 nm orbit? It seems like it should be the western Gulf of Mexico, and assuming a 56deg NE azimuth, that would be an ascending leg crossing right over Mexico City. That's just from visualization looking at a globe, though, so I'm probably wrong. In the unlikely event I'm right, there'd be politics involved, so a controlled reentry with site selection is much better.

Same place as the Shuttle ET - in the open ocean.

Back in the day they found charred ETs bobbing in the Indian Ocean. Switching to LWT changed that as it was thin enough to break up despite its low falling speed. If I remember correctly. An ISS insertion would have a steeper profile going into the south Pacific and it would probably come down on the north-going leg of the orbit. Having engines on board would probably assure destruction.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - questions
Post by: kraisee on 12/18/2008 11:06 pm
Actually, IIRC the information you got from LM/ULA sources for their ACES stages assumed using FSW.  They had done a lot of work over the past several years with KSC on doing thin lap joint friction stir welds, and as far as I know that was what they were baselining for the tanks in their ACES stage.  But I've been out of the loop since introducing you to them, so I could be wrong.

Jon,
There's some sort of misunderstanding here.   I think we're mixing up Core Stage and Upper Stage here.

We plan to use the existing ET tooling, modified where needed, to produce the Jupiter Core Stage in order to get Orion flying on the J-120 configuration as swiftly as possible.   This uses only limited FSW in some areas.

The Upper Stage comes 4 years later.   It will have on its own brand-new production line and FSW is assumed there from the get-go.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - questions
Post by: jongoff on 12/18/2008 11:15 pm
There's some sort of misunderstanding here.   I think we're mixing up Core Stage and Upper Stage here.

We plan to use the existing ET tooling, modified where needed, to produce the Jupiter Core Stage in order to get Orion flying on the J-120 configuration as swiftly as possible.   This uses only limited FSW in some areas.

The Upper Stage comes 4 years later.   It will have on its own brand-new production line and FSW is assumed there from the get-go.

Ah, ok.  That makes a lot more sense.  Yeah, I was misunderstanding.  BTW, what's this "Rebuttal" for?  I haven't been following this thread very closely lately (it is getting a wee bit long after all...)

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/18/2008 11:18 pm
I guess we're all just waiting for the Obama posse to ride into town and set things right.  Is that all we can do at this point?

There's an awful lot going on behind the scenes and very little of it is the sort of thing which makes interesting reading on a forum.

We've got analyses being conducted into a variety of things, we're preparing the rebuttal, two different presentations, a white paper and a host of new graphics and baseball cards are all in work at present too.   And I've recently been interviewed for the Space Show radio program for the third time and we've all been involved in a couple of new magazine articles which will be coming out when they're ready.   Plus there's an infinite number of other bits as well.   We're organizing a variety of meetings, committee's and other contacts.   And just the other day we starting to look at how we might put together our very own advisory board next year too.   That's all "in-work" right now.

We're like a "Swan" -- all quiet, sedate and tranquil to the casual observer, but we're paddling our tails off just under the surface :)

Unfortunately, until each bit is actually ready, there's not really a lot which can be released.   We have a lot coming out over the next few weeks.   So just consider this quiet period as the calm before the storm ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - questions
Post by: kraisee on 12/18/2008 11:27 pm
Ah, ok.  That makes a lot more sense.  Yeah, I was misunderstanding.

No worries.   Glad to have helped clear it up.


Quote
BTW, what's this "Rebuttal" for?  I haven't been following this thread very closely lately (it is getting a wee bit long after all...)

NASA did an analysis of DIRECT v2.0 back in October 2007, but never released it.   Keith over at NASAWatch managed to locate a copy just a few months ago.   When we saw it, we noticed a lot of glaring mistakes contained within it.

We're in the process of pulling it apart, explicitly identifying each the mistakes, providing corrected data and performing a full re-analysis.   It will be a comprehensive rebuttal and it is pretty close to release now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - questions
Post by: jongoff on 12/18/2008 11:43 pm
NASA did an analysis of DIRECT v2.0 back in October 2007, but never released it.   Keith over at NASAWatch managed to locate a copy just a few months ago.   When we saw it, we noticed a lot of glaring mistakes contained within it.

We're in the process of pulling it apart, explicitly identifying each the mistakes, providing corrected data and performing a full re-analysis.   It will be a comprehensive rebuttal and it is pretty close to release now.

Did Keith post that publicly?  Do you have a url?  I can't remember if I saw this already.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - questions
Post by: kraisee on 12/18/2008 11:49 pm
Did Keith post that publicly?  Do you have a url?  I can't remember if I saw this already.

There's a copy on his site, but NASA eventually put an un-watermarked copy up on their own site too:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/257003main_NASA%20Performance%20Assessment%20of%20(DIRECT%202)%20Compiled.0702.pdf

Before asking questions about it, be aware that we have covered this a few times already in this thread so I'd prefer if you would please look back at previous replies first.   We have decided, for the most part, that we are better-off putting most of our energies into the formal Rebuttal rather than answering endless Q&A's about this on a public forum.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 12/19/2008 12:26 am
Exploration is going somewhere, stopping long enough to find out what's there, and then moving to the next spot.  Building a base somewhere to be permanently inhabited is "settling" not "exploring".

Exploration is just a step to the goal. Settling *is* the goal.

If you don't plan to settle on Moon/Mars/etc, what's the point in exploring them? Just to know what's there?

Yes...you can't make a plan, settlement or otherwise, without knowing what's there first.

What makes you think that I propose to do that? That I propose to do settlements *instead* of exploration, as opposed to *after* exploration?

Quote
If what you discover during exploration warrants a settlement for some good reason, then you plan a settlement.  If you don't find a good reason to settle, you don't.

I can't imagine what kind of "not good enough reasons" there could possibly be. Moon and Mars are a given, we can't choose something else.

Staying on Earth forever and ever is simply not a viable alternative, it's a way to eventually die off like mammoths.

So, we need to explore both, find the best place for the base there (or "the least bad place", if you prefer), and create that base.

It can well turn out that whichever nation (or commercial entity) will do it first, will get an enormous advantage over the rest, huge initial expenses notwithstanding.

Today's UK has a very powerful and culturally close ally. Which was created when some really small number of colonists went to distant lands and established a few villages here.

What would be left, if anything, of UK today if that did not happen?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/19/2008 01:06 am
I can't imagine what kind of "not good enough reasons" there could possibly be. Moon and Mars are a given, we can't choose something else.

Staying on Earth forever and ever is simply not a viable alternative, it's a way to eventually die off like mammoths.

So, we need to explore both, find the best place for the base there (or "the least bad place", if you prefer), and create that base.

If the goal is to find room for Humans to live because we are overpopulating the Earth, then I'm afraid to say that this endeavor is hopeless.  The amount of value that the Earth's biosphere provides to us is so huge that re-creating it in a hostile environment like Mars or the Moon is simply way, way too expensive to be viable for more than a very small number of people doing very specialized tasks.  We simply don't have anywhere near the technology we need to move large numbers of people out into space and support them either through an artificial biosphere or through terraforming.  DIRECT/Jupiter might be an efficient use of resources, but it has nowhere near the needed lift capacity or cost reduction to enable such a task.  If that's the reason we're going, we should stay here and fix our problems on Earth - it's cheaper.  I support exploration, both human and robotic, but not for this reason unless some currently-science-fiction technology becomes available in the real world.

DIRECT and Jupiter should enable us to find out what's out there, in detail.  It does not have the capability to allow any real "settlement" of those locations, and chemical rockets never will in my opinion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 12/19/2008 01:33 am
I can't imagine what kind of "not good enough reasons" there could possibly be. Moon and Mars are a given, we can't choose something else.

Staying on Earth forever and ever is simply not a viable alternative, it's a way to eventually die off like mammoths.

So, we need to explore both, find the best place for the base there (or "the least bad place", if you prefer), and create that base.

If the goal is to find room for Humans to live because we are overpopulating the Earth,

No, the goal is to make Homo sapiens a multi-planet species as an "insurance policy" against planetwide catastrophe.

Quote
If that's the reason we're going, we should stay here and fix our problems on Earth - it's cheaper.

It's also a dead-end. Just ask the dinosaurs. Oh, wait - we can't ask them. They're extinct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 12/19/2008 01:38 am
Is there any technical aspect of Direct that is controversial or not generally accepted by the community at large?  It seems to me that the only technical questions still being asked are about the Jupiter upper stage.  (Yeah Steve P, I'm looking at you!)  Those will apparently be addressed (as much as possible) soon.  Are there other technical criticisms that have yet to be answered by the Direct team?  Most of the remaining opposition seems to be political, budgetary, or policy based, not technical.

I think that the amount of modification that the ET will need is underestimated with DIRECT, but I'm waiting for the rebuttal before I really start to talk about it.  Truth is, I don't know much about cost or trajectory, so I suppose I have to take DIRECT's word for it - but I know a great deal about structural engineering and some about the ET - and I have some concerns.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - questions
Post by: jongoff on 12/19/2008 01:40 am

There's a copy on his site, but NASA eventually put an un-watermarked copy up on their own site too:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/257003main_NASA%20Performance%20Assessment%20of%20(DIRECT%202)%20Compiled.0702.pdf

Ah, that's right.  I had already seen that one.  Looking forward to the rebuttal.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2008 01:40 am
The L3 point passes closer to Venus than to Earth and is quite unstable.

We've got plenty of margin on J-232 to include quite a bit of station-keeping propellant.


Quote
It is still a great point WRT science returns.

Yes.   It turns out that when you talk with the science teams, they are far more interested in large volume than in large mass.

They like high delta-v throw-capacity, but only if it doesn't break the bank in terms of launch costs.

But they are seriously limited on what they can launch right now in terms of diameter, and to a lesser-degree, also length.

The Jupiter-120 with an EELV Upper Stage is getting a great deal of attention from a lot of the science community players we've been talking to recently.


[/quote]Also, why both an L1 and L2 telescope? These would be quite close together compared to the others (not counting the LEO telescopes)[/quote]

The various scopes could theoretically work in all sorts of different combinations.   You could have one really large 4-part array covering L2, L3 and L4, and then there could be a totally separate array looking elsewhere using the scopes at L1, L5 and one of the scopes in LEO.   That still leaves two more LEO-based scopes for more 'regular' duties.


Quote
I expect that a phase-sensitive detector would be required for the interferometry.  You can't beam light 93 million km and have any path length control (micron accuracy required).

I know nothing about the "how" this stuff is done, its totally beyond my area of understanding :)

But the ideas were brought to us from experts in this field.   They seem to think this is possible and they seem to know what they're talking about and they seem to believe the engineering can be made to work.   How and when is their field.   We're going with their expert opinions for now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 12/19/2008 02:03 am
Deep space 3, was supposed to have tested this out, and technology has come a long way since then.

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19374/1/98-0717.pdf (http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19374/1/98-0717.pdf)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/19/2008 02:14 am
I seem to recall that the Apollo EDS, or third stage, or whatever they called it, was crashed into the moon by venting the excess fuel through the engines (without lighting them).  Could you deorbit the J120 core in a similar way?

There are two options that we are making available for NASA to choose between:

1. We can place the core and spacecraft directly into the 100 x 220 nm orbit, decouple the spacecraft, and then extract any accompanying payload without a large time constraint. The core will deorbit with built-in ulage motors. This can be done within minutes of the spacecraft separation or payload extraction, or at any time up to the life of the batteries, which will be good for several complete orbits. This option preserves all of the spacecraft SM propellant for in-space activity and avoids any time constraint on payload extraction. Battery power for the core stage avionics is not an issue and the de-orbit burn event can be built into the electronics. This is the preferred option and the one we baseline.

2. The core can place itself and the spacecraft into a 30 x 220 nm orbit, and the spacecraft, after separation will raise the perigee to 100nm. The atmospheric drag at the 30nm perigee is low enough that it will destructively deorbit the core, and also low enough to bring the spacecraft back down without a de-orbit burn if there is a problem identified with the SM engine after separation. This is an available option, but is not baselined for the Jupiter because it places a severe time constraint on any payload extraction. This is what Shuttle does, using the OMS engines to raise its perigee. But Shuttle does not have to extract it's payload from a core, so disposal of the ET in this manner makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/19/2008 02:27 am
I guess we're all just waiting for the Obama posse to ride into town and set things right.  Is that all we can do at this point?

There's an awful lot going on behind the scenes and very little of it is the sort of thing which makes interesting reading on a forum.

We've got analyses being conducted into a variety of things, we're preparing the rebuttal, two different presentations, a white paper and a host of new graphics and baseball cards are all in work at present too.   And I've recently been interviewed for the Space Show radio program for the third time and we've all been involved in a couple of new magazine articles which will be coming out when they're ready.   Plus there's an infinite number of other bits as well.   We're organizing a variety of meetings, committee's and other contacts.   And just the other day we starting to look at how we might put together our very own advisory board next year too.   That's all "in-work" right now.

We're like a "Swan" -- all quiet, sedate and tranquil to the casual observer, but we're paddling our tails off just under the surface :)

Unfortunately, until each bit is actually ready, there's not really a lot which can be released.   We have a lot coming out over the next few weeks.   So just consider this quiet period as the calm before the storm ;)

Ross.

Thanks Ross. That's about what I figured, and I was trying not to be a pest about the rebuttal.  It'll be ready when it's ready.

I was wondering more about what "we" as a special interest forum might be able to talk about while waiting for the Direct team to publish the rebuttal and associated documents.  I have been going back and reading a lot of the Direct threads going back for the past three years.  There is a lot of ground to cover, and yes it was starting to get a little repetitive, even for me.

It seems that most of the recent conversations keep covering ground that has been already covered before, even since I joined just this past October.  As you have repeatedly stated, that is not a bad thing at all.  I was just wondering if all of the ground has been covered, if anyone had anything new to bring up, or any specific technical concerns that the team has not addressed yet.  I don't, but I'm not an aerospace engineer, just a computer geek.

That's why I brought up the science constituency and what their needs might be, outside of the Moon and Mars.  The J-120 will be a much better workhorse for any LEO mission than Ares-I, whether it's for ISS, Hubble, or some new science payload.  Regular, routine, assured, and affordable access to space has been a dream for a long time, and I believe J-120 is just the ticket.  Ares, not so much.

I'm glad your perspective is not as narrow as Mike Griffin's.

Thanks,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 12/19/2008 02:28 am
I seem to recall that the Apollo EDS, or third stage, or whatever they called it, was crashed into the moon by venting the excess fuel through the engines (without lighting them).  Could you deorbit the J120 core in a similar way?

The Saturn S-IVB was already on a translunar trajectory post-TLI and only needed a small trajectory correction to impact the moon.

The J-120 core would need a delta-V of about 300 fps to deorbit. I highly doubt you can get that much by venting.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2008 02:44 am
Back in the day they found charred ETs bobbing in the Indian Ocean. Switching to LWT changed that as it was thin enough to break up despite its low falling speed. If I remember correctly. An ISS insertion would have a steeper profile going into the south Pacific and it would probably come down on the north-going leg of the orbit. Having engines on board would probably assure destruction.

The Jupiter Core's would be made using SLWT-based construction methods, so their tanking structures are even lighter weight again.   Very little of the tanking will make it to the surface intact and the large Orbiter mounts and Separation hardware which are the typical bits large enough to get all the way down are no longer included on the design of the Jupiter Core.

But instead, there are certain pretty large engine components which will remain largely intact through re-entry -- such as the main combustion chamber and turbo-pump assemblies.   As the breakup of Columbia clearly proved for engines in this size range (and larger), these items will make it all the way to the surface -- typically they also have sufficient mass to retain a lot of their inertia too, so they will tend to make landfall at the farthest end of the debris impact zone.   We have been aware of this for over two years and have developed a number of strategies for dealing with it, although final choices aren't really ours to decide.

All Jupiter-232 missions dispose of the Core Stage early enough that it will always fall into the Atlantic Ocean before ever getting close to either the European or African coastlines, so it is not of too great a concern.

For Jupiter-120 missions flying nothing but an Orion spacecraft, we believe it might be wise to fly a sub-orbital trajectory designed specifically to target the Core to come back in a safe zone either in the Pacific or Indian Ocean, like the Shuttle ET does today.

For Jupiter-120 missions taking a payload up with the Orion, we prefer an approach which inserts the stack into a relatively stable orbit because we will need at least an hour (or three) to safely transition the Orion spacecraft, dock to the payload and extract it.   We then require an active method to de-orbit the Core safely from this orbit so that the debris zone can be accurately predicted.   Ideas range from utilizing an identical RCS skirt from the Upper Stage to control attitude and perform the de-orbit burn, to placing a collection of SRB separation motors in various locations to do the same job, to utilizing a few carefully located RCS thrusters mounted on directional Canfield Joints.   The Trade Studies are on-going at this time and we are not prepared to indicate a clear winner, but I will say that we are leaning towards the common RCS system at this time mostly due to common development & production costs.

Jupiter-232 Upper Stages still have the fairly large J-2X on them too, so any which will be required to re-enter, would similarly need to be de-orbited in a controlled manner.   For these, utilizing their regular RCS system is the most logical approach.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/19/2008 03:02 am
I can't imagine what kind of "not good enough reasons" there could possibly be. Moon and Mars are a given, we can't choose something else.
-snip-

If the goal is to find room for Humans to live because we are overpopulating the Earth, then I'm afraid to say that this endeavor is hopeless. 
-snip-

Even if we terraform Mars, Venus and the Moon, there still won't be enough land area to allow everyone to live at US standards. Certainly not when there are 12 billion people come the end of next century.

What DIRECT can do is support a strong manned presence in space. Having big cheap rockets is an incentive to do stuff in space. As more people start visitng space and the more it starts to generate money, the better. It stimulates the knowledge economy down here on Earth.

I'm pretty sure we'll find earthlike planets around Alpha Centauri, and DIRECT may be the launch system that sends the first probe on its way. A 12m shroud should be big enough to contain a Polywell reactor...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2008 03:23 am
I'm glad your perspective is not as narrow as Mike Griffin's.

I really don't like saying bad things about anyone, and for all the vitriol between us, I can even understand his agenda, although I don't agree with it.

I believe his intention has been to create the largest launch vehicle we can possibly build so that we remove as many performance limitations from our lift capabilities as possible.

That *IS* a worthy concept in and of itself.   I can understand it and acknowledge the reasoning behind it.   However, I think it is a concept which is a 'step-too-far'.   When the concept met the hard-nosed realities of tight budgets, political wrangling and major schedule constraints the rocket has taken the central position as the #1 goal of the program.

But I've never been interested in building the biggest of anything, just because we can.   I've been about finding the most effective solutions for the tasks we wish to accomplish -- whatever they may be.

IMHO the task we want to accomplish right now is not to build a giant rocket, but to explore this Solar System as thoroughly as possible given a fairly small budget.   So what I want to do is find a way to 1) Decrease the cost to implement the solution, while 2) Increasing the number of missions we can perform every year so we can get a much greater return for our investment.

I really don't give a hoot what the vehicle is, just as long as it breaks the ridiculous cycle we currently impose upon ourselves of limiting human spaceflight to half-a-dozen missions per year, lifting just a couple of dozen people at most.   After 40 years in this game we should be able to do an awful lot better than that.

I'm not trying to get an order of magnitude increase -- I don't think we could afford that at present.   But I am asking for more.   What I want is a system which can support up to a dozen missions each year -- double the current rate.

To be able to afford that, I firstly want to keep the development costs sane by reusing a lot of existing, proven, equipment.   Equally, I want to keep the operational costs sane too, by hitting a good point on the flight cost-curve for not just the launchers, but also the even-more-expensive spacecraft too.   And I want to plan a solution which learns lessons from previous experiences.

That last one is really important for me.   Shuttle & ISS are the prime example.   Shuttle's original purpose was to build an orbiting space station in LEO.   That's why it was developed 25 years ago.   Well a quarter of a century later, it's almost done it.

We have spent almost a decade building ISS so far, yet we still haven't started utilizing it the way it was intended.   It still hasn't got a descent-sized crew able to conduct mass-quantities of science research.   That's still to come in the future.

25 years and 10 years.   Those are both awfully long periods of time to have been stuck in the "preparation phase" for finally accomplishing that goal which was laid out originally in the 1970's.

I fear that a slow mission rate will mean that the Lunar Outpost rollout will be equally slow and tedious, that it will bog us down in the mud in precisely the same way and we will have failed to learn the valuable lessons which we should have.


What I want, is to create an affordable system capable of landing the entire Lunar Outpost in the first 24-36 months of the Lunar Program.   Three years in, I want the base fully operational and in regular use, producing lots of valuable scientific return and preparing the way towards long-term economic exploitation of the moon ahead of permanent settlement sometime later in the 21st Century.

But I then want us to move on and progress further.

This time I don't want us to get stuck for a whole decade (or three) getting the Lunar Outpost ready to be used.   I want it up and operational and in full use by 2020.   If we can do that, then the development teams can really set-to focusing their attention on Mars early in the 2020's ready for a human mission around 2030.


The only way that can be done is to have a high annual mission rate.   And the only way to do that is to keep total launch costs down while also keeping lift capacities up.


What we have put together with DIRECT, is an wide-reaching architecture which is low enough cost that we can realistically plan a dozen missions every year paid for by NASA's regular budget, coupled together with 40-60 EELV-class launches per year -- paid for by partners -- all to make a globally supported system which can do in two years what Ares is currently going to take 6 or more years to accomplish.

This is where I believe my focus differs from the good Doctor's.   Mine is not on the launch vehicles as the goal -- they are just a tool to me.   My focus is on the wide range of mission objectives we can accomplish with the right tools.   The launch vehicles are just a single thread in supporting all of those objectives and when the many threads are woven together in the right way, they can form a very strong rope which I want us all to be able to climb.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/19/2008 05:24 am
I have a question about the one-launch fuel depot lunar mission:

Can that be flown with a LOX-only depot, or does it require orbital LH2 storage capability in the fuel depot?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2008 05:41 am
I have a question about the one-launch fuel depot lunar mission:

Can that be flown with a LOX-only depot, or does it require orbital LH2 storage capability in the fuel depot?

Yes, this is a possibility.

The spacecraft mass a total of ~76mT (20.2mT CEV, 54mT LSAM, 1.4mT ASE) and the vehicle has a lift capability of over 103mT (after margins), so there's plenty of spare lift performance for lifting LH2 inside the EDS.

For the regular baseline-sized mission we need to lift somewhere around 16mT of LH2 for the TLI burn, and the EDS is sized for this extra capacity already.   So we have quite a bit of performance headroom available to do this.

My only concern is that the EDS must be designed to support the loads of a full LH2 tank, but only a partially filled LOX tank.   I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone on our team has run that particular scenario yet.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 12/19/2008 05:59 am
if you have a 60 tonne core and a 40 tonne payload, wouldn't 1 require 50% more force than 2?

If you did 1, but with a payload extraction that gave you the needed ~90m/s change (is that what a previous commenter said you needed?), wouldn't that be the most efficient?  The payload can then rearrange itself leisurely once in a stable orbit.

Could you dual-purposize the tippy-toppy emergency crew evacuation rocket (TTECER) to extract the entire payload at apogee, or would the max. acceleration squash everything?

There are two options that we are making available for NASA to choose between:

1. We can place the core and spacecraft directly into the 100 x 220 nm orbit, decouple the spacecraft, and then extract any accompanying payload without a large time constraint. The core will deorbit with built-in ulage motors. This can be done within minutes of the spacecraft separation or payload extraction, or at any time up to the life of the batteries, which will be good for several complete orbits. This option preserves all of the spacecraft SM propellant for in-space activity and avoids any time constraint on payload extraction. Battery power for the core stage avionics is not an issue and the de-orbit burn event can be built into the electronics. This is the preferred option and the one we baseline.

2. The core can place itself and the spacecraft into a 30 x 220 nm orbit, and the spacecraft, after separation will raise the perigee to 100nm. The atmospheric drag at the 30nm perigee is low enough that it will destructively deorbit the core, and also low enough to bring the spacecraft back down without a de-orbit burn if there is a problem identified with the SM engine after separation. This is an available option, but is not baselined for the Jupiter because it places a severe time constraint on any payload extraction. This is what Shuttle does, using the OMS engines to raise its perigee. But Shuttle does not have to extract it's payload from a core, so disposal of the ET in this manner makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2008 06:16 am
Lab,
You don't want to carry the LAS all the way to orbit.   It's over 7 tons which you really want to dispose of quite a bit earlier.

Once you're up and out of the thick atmosphere, the SM engine is actually sufficiently powerful to perform aborts instead.   So jettisoning the LAS shortly after staging is a pretty good idea.

Also, you would have to beef up the structure of both the Orion Service Module and also the Payload Fairing to handle the forces of using the LAS to pull the entire mass of the stack from the front.   That would add more mass to the Orion's structure which hurts its Lunar performance quite a lot.   That in turn means it will also need more fuel for the TEI and that adds yet more mass.

Its a bit of a vicious circle which you really don't ever want to get started.   As it is, Orion isn't happy with the CM structure being in the load path having to support the 'weight' of the LAS pushing down on it with very high aerodynamic force during ascent.   It's one of the design problems they're tackling currently.   They certainly don't want any more structural mass though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: RedSky on 12/19/2008 11:33 am
The Orlando Sentinel has an interesting editorial today, which basically calls for an independent panel of experts to review Ares & Direct to see which is better.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed19108dec19,0,5847524.story

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: fotoguzzi on 12/19/2008 11:34 am
I was wondering more about what "we" as a special interest forum might be able to talk about while waiting for the Direct team to publish the rebuttal and associated documents. 

Mark, maybe a FAQ (or best of or hall of fame) based on the three DIRECT threads (and perhaps the DIRECT website)?  I suppose it would start with a spreadsheet with entries like:  | Message3453 | dummy segments |  -- and then either end up in the classic FAQ form or just be a link to Message 3453. I like how clean the forum looks, but I wonder if  each entry could be keyworded.  (I think I would stick with clean, personally.) 

I could also imagine someone new to the site reading the Rebuttal, forming their own keywords, and looking them up with the forum's search utility.  If they wanted to know the forces exerted on/by a redesigned solid rocket motor, they might not think to search for the words balloon and unzip to find the best posts on the subject.  I don't know which (if any!) of the hundreds of posts on thrust oscillation I would recommend to a new reader.

I think I would concentrate on a traditional FAQ and let people search the forum archives on their own.  Good FAQs seem to have maybe fifty questions in five to ten categories.  In other words, most/all of the questions (or at least the categories) should be visible in the initial page view.  I could think of the same ten questions applying to each lower and upper stage rocket engine candidate.  The main FAQ might jump to a rocket engine FAQ. (And, Lord, forgive me if there already is a FAQ that I have never noticed! . . .)

Modify: Punctuation, multi-page FAQ
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: BigDustyman on 12/19/2008 12:19 pm
i was thinking since direct has such a large large margin over aries 1 it would probably be possible to put back much of the capabilty in orion that has been reduced for weight savings, suc as dry landing capability
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/19/2008 12:19 pm
I was wondering more about what "we" as a special interest forum might be able to talk about while waiting for the Direct team to publish the rebuttal and associated documents. 

Mark, maybe a FAQ (or best of or hall of fame) based on the three DIRECT threads (and perhaps the DIRECT website)?  I suppose it would start with a spreadsheet with entries like:  | Message3453 | dummy segments |  -- and then either end up in the classic FAQ form or just be a link to Message 3453. I like how clean the forum looks, but I wonder if  each entry could be keyworded.  (I think I would stick with clean, personally.) 

I could also imagine someone new to the site reading the Rebuttal, forming their own keywords, and looking them up with the forum's search utility.  If they wanted to know the forces exerted on/by a solid rocket booster motor, they might not think to search for the words balloon and unzip to find the best posts on the subject.

I think I would concentrate on a traditional FAQ and let people search the forum archives on their own.  Good FAQs seem to have maybe fifty questions in five to ten categories.  In other words, most/all of the questions (or at least the categories) should be visible in the initial page view.  I could think of the same ten questions applying to each lower and upper stage rocket engine.  The main FAQ might jump to a rocket engine FAQ. (And, Lord, forgive me if there already is a FAQ that I have never noticed! . . .)

Modify: Punctuation, multi-page FAQ

fotoguzzi, there is actually a small FAQ on the Direct website under "What is DIRECT", "FAQS".  But it is more of a general introduction than what you have in mind.  I like the idea of a FAQ that has links to specific entries in this forum.

But before we could put together a real FAQ, we would need to figure out which questions are actually asked frequently.  That would take quite a bit of processing: read all the entries, extract the questions, extract the answers, and link back to the forum entries.  Then the questions would have to be categorized so they could be grouped by subject, frequency and applicability, and finally posted on a web page somewhere.

I could try to put together some kind of searchable back end for that, if we could get anyone else interested in helping with the research and question/answer collation.  What do you think?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: fotoguzzi on 12/19/2008 01:54 pm
 
What do you think?

Rather than trudge through all the posts first, I might start with a), b), or both:

a) Parts of a rocket from top to bottom (or vice versa)
b) Chronological events of a launch

and find the best descriptions of each part/event.  b) gets harder as you bring in different mission goals/destinations, fuel depots, multiple launches for the same mission, etc.

Much of the forum is safety, budget, politics, infrastructure, and manufacturing process flow.  That would be harder yet to organize and summarize.  I would save this for later.

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 12/19/2008 02:24 pm
I find the wikipedia article on DIRECT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT) much more informative than the website.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/19/2008 02:42 pm
Ross:

If you get a chance, could you send me a private message? I have something I need to discuss with you, that is both off-topic, and unrelated to DIRECT.

If you can't PM me, could you please send me an email?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/19/2008 02:45 pm
I can't imagine what kind of "not good enough reasons" there could possibly be. Moon and Mars are a given, we can't choose something else.

Staying on Earth forever and ever is simply not a viable alternative, it's a way to eventually die off like mammoths.

So, we need to explore both, find the best place for the base there (or "the least bad place", if you prefer), and create that base.

If the goal is to find room for Humans to live because we are overpopulating the Earth,

No, the goal is to make Homo sapiens a multi-planet species as an "insurance policy" against planetwide catastrophe.

Quote
If that's the reason we're going, we should stay here and fix our problems on Earth - it's cheaper.

It's also a dead-end. Just ask the dinosaurs. Oh, wait - we can't ask them. They're extinct.

It's hard for me to imagine a planet-wide catastrophe that would make Earth less inhabitable for us than the Moon or Mars are right now.  Certainly the impact that led the dinosaurs to either die out or evolve into birds left this planet far more inhabitable than either the Moon or Mars.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/19/2008 03:04 pm
I find the wikipedia article on DIRECT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT) much more informative than the website.

Hmm.  You're right about that.  The wiki has improved a lot since the last time I looked at it.  Maybe Ross could just put a link to it from the Direct web page, plus a link to the current Direct thread here on NSF.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/19/2008 03:10 pm
I find the wikipedia article on DIRECT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT) much more informative than the website.

Hmm.  You're right about that.  The wiki has improved a lot since the last time I looked at it.  Maybe Ross could just put a link to it from the Direct web page, plus a link to the current Direct thread here on NSF.

Mark S.


Although there is one little thing that bothers me about the wiki.  In the context of manned rockets, I don't really think that having "exploded" views of the J-120 and J-232 has a good ring to it.  Maybe someone should change the wording to "component" or "disassembled" views instead of "exploded" views?   :)

Open for suggestions.  Or I am just being touchy?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bad_astra on 12/19/2008 03:36 pm
ATK must be kept marginally happy, too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/19/2008 03:42 pm
The Orlando Sentinel has an interesting editorial today, which basically calls for an independent panel of experts to review Ares & Direct to see which is better.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed19108dec19,0,5847524.story (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed19108dec19,0,5847524.story)


I went and read this, and it seemed like a great article, until I read all of the "comments" and I was thunderstruck at the sheer political vitriol leveled at the incoming administration. What the #&!! does any of that have to do with which LV is better? I have seen nowhere in any of the statements released by the Obama team that they want to "gut" or "do away with" NASA. I have also seen nowhere in any of their statements that they want to give all of NASA's budget money to "welfare recipents".

What is wrong with people that they don't see how vitally important it is that we keep our technological superiority intact, in order to not become a third-world nation? When was the last time you went shopping and didn't buy something that was made in China? We're on the verge of losing our last remaining industrial base (the automakers) and people just don't seem to grasp how critical it is that we do something about that! I only saw one or two comments that even addressed DIRECT.

Please, people... Go and make some comments on this article at the Orlando Sentinel website, and try to steer the commentary away from political attacks, and back onto why DIRECT is better than Ares. Let's not get so caught up in fighting alligators, that we forget we're trying to drain the swamp, eh?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/19/2008 04:26 pm
The Orlando Sentinel has an interesting editorial today, which basically calls for an independent panel of experts to review Ares & Direct to see which is better.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed19108dec19,0,5847524.story (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed19108dec19,0,5847524.story)


....

Please, people... Go and make some comments on this article at the Orlando Sentinel website, and try to steer the commentary away from political attacks, and back onto why DIRECT is better than Ares. Let's not get so caught up in fighting alligators, that we forget we're trying to drain the swamp, eh?

I agree completely, Lancer525, the tone and viciousness of the attacks on Obama and the incoming administration are atrocious.  A few posts of the normal "no money for space until all problems on Earth are solved" variety also make their appearance, and could use some rebuttal.

I put my $0.02 in, who's next?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/19/2008 05:13 pm
People that jump all over one political party just because it's not their party are really missing the point.  I think these are loud small minded people.

The enemy is not your fellow citizens.  Treating your fellow citizens like a war enemy is waste of energy and counter productive.

For the love of Pete the guy isn't even in office and some people are tearing him to shreds.

It's painful to watch and frankly undemocratic.   People can we please be civilized?

I would welcome an independent review but that is not likely.  If there is an architecture change it will probably be decided at a higher level and on the basis of shuttle work force and using existing capabilities. 

EELV may be the cheapest and fastest but I don't think it is likely as most of KSC wouldn't be needed and you don't have the super heavy lift capability.

There will be US manned spaceflight.  I like Direct but if Ares 1 is truly the best vehicle I can support that too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: texas_space on 12/19/2008 05:16 pm
Agreed the political attacks are irrelevant to the discussion on the comments section.  The Sentinel is right: an independent review of the Constellation program's implementation is in order. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2008 08:08 pm
URGENT REQUEST:   Scale Model Maker needed!

We desperately need a desktop model of Jupiter-120 or Jupiter-232 in roughly two to three weeks time.

If anyone here thinks they could whip one up for us (scratch-built or a modified Revell/Airfix Shuttle kit, whatever works, either in 1:144 or 1:200 scale) over the holiday period, please contact me.   It will be going to a very good home.

I would love to do it myself, but my hands are completely full across the whole holiday.

Many thanks in advance for any assistance anyone may be able to provide at such short notice.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2008 08:17 pm
The Orlando Sentinel has an interesting editorial today, which basically calls for an independent panel of experts to review Ares & Direct to see which is better.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed19108dec19,0,5847524.story

Very interesting.   That's an extremely level-headed piece.

I think they're right, but I guess that revelation wouldn't shock anyone here :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: RedSky on 12/19/2008 08:34 pm
URGENT REQUEST:   Scale Model Maker needed!
We desperately need a desktop model of Jupiter-120 or Jupiter-232 in roughly two to three weeks time.


Hmmmmm.  Does this mean there is some face to face presentation in the works to some folks soon to come to power where mere powerpoint slides won't do?  Your urgency seems very telling!

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/19/2008 08:38 pm
The Orlando Sentinel has an interesting editorial today, which basically calls for an independent panel of experts to review Ares & Direct to see which is better.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed19108dec19,0,5847524.story

Very interesting.   That's an extremely level-headed piece.

I think they're right, but I guess that revelation wouldn't shock anyone here :)

Ross.

I totally agree that a third party group should review both sides for sure.  How statements like these...

"For NASA, the transition between the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama has been a bumpy ride. The blame goes to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin."

It makes me believe the paper isn't so level headed.  Their source is an anonymous disgruntled "engineer" that left the program.  Hmmmm, yet they talk about it as if it's fact with no questions needed to be made.  Feels like election coverage all over again ;p
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2008 08:40 pm
Hmmmmm.  Does this mean there is some face to face presentation in the works to some folks soon to come to power where mere powerpoint slides won't do?  Your urgency seems very telling!

You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2008 08:50 pm
Mark, maybe a FAQ

That is a truly brilliant idea.

I've been wanting to update the FAQ on our own website with a lot more information for a long time now, but haven't had any time to do it.

An FAQ here on NSF would be just as good though, perhaps better in fact given the higher traffic rate here.

Its an awfully big job, and there's a lot of out-of-date material which could complicate things a bit, but if there are people here willing to help us out, it would make an amazingly valuable archive for people to reference in the future.

If there is interest, I very strongly welcome your efforts.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2008 08:53 pm
ATK must be kept marginally happy, too.

Agreed.   They are a major player in this industry and have had an amazing amount of influence in recent years.

I wish they'd realize that we would actually increase their total profits for the 2011-2020 period by more than $2bn compared to Ares though.

You'd think that increasing their business by roughly 45% would appeal to them.   I wish they'd take a serious look and really investigate the option for themselves.   DIRECT would be better for them.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/19/2008 09:01 pm
I would certainly like to see more detail on how Direct arrived at their LOC/LOM estimates
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/19/2008 09:10 pm
We'd love to publish them Will, but NASA has classified all that material as ITAR, so we can't.

The methodology is precisely the same one being used to predict Ares-I and Ares-V risk figures.   It is calculated by precisely the same people who's job it is today to calculate those numbers internally for CxP.

You might be able to FOIA for the current risk assessment methods, but it is entirely up to NASA whether they will release that information to you.

The last publicly released version which I am aware of was included in the ESAS Report -- and even that isn't very comprehensive or detailed.   It also isn't up-to-date any longer either, having been altered in many ways over many CxP meetings.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/19/2008 10:48 pm
URGENT REQUEST:   Scale Model Maker needed!

We desperately need a desktop model of Jupiter-120 or Jupiter-232 in roughly two to three weeks time.


Okay, I PMed you...

Time's ticking away! LOL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/20/2008 03:06 am
Just a brief follow-up to a previous post, there was another configuration of PLF which did very well in the FEM analysis we did recently.   I didn't quite understand what the designers were getting at when they described it over the phone, but I've finally seen a picture of the configuration this evening.   It actually looks more elegant to me, so I've quickly put a set of drawings together to show it off.

I guess this might be called the 'Tapered Ogive BPC with Cone' arrangement.

The 'full ogive' arrangement which I showed recently is only marginally better acoustically, but this 'tapered ogive' configuration is apparently a stronger shape for supporting the mass of the Orion, so should allow for a lower final mass.

There are more studies on-going over the holidays.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/20/2008 03:27 am
From the rumblings in the air I see around the site, it seems that the transition team is looking between a shuttle extension and Ares delay to EELV launched solutions instead, and not one hint of Jupiter anywhere.  Should I be concerned?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/20/2008 03:42 am
Ron,
I'm not concerned.

Be patient.   Allow all the events to play out.   We are only a short way through this Play and we haven't even finished Act 2 yet.   There are still weeks of activities ahead of us and its too early to guess how this will end.

I am personally 100% convinced Ares-I is essentially over.

I'm 100% certain something will be replacing it.

I think we have better than 50:50 chance that it will be DIRECT, but we have a lot more work ahead of us over the coming weeks and we can improve those odds significantly in that time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/20/2008 04:11 am
Ross,

    I have a question about the J-232 cargo missions to deliver supplies to the lunar outpost.  From the manifest and from your Jupiter family drawing, it looks like a single J-232 will be able to send an unmanned LSAM Cargo (or similar vehicle) to the moon by itself, i.e. not a paired launch like the manned missions.

    I take it that is because the EDS doesn't have to lift the CLV in addition to the LSAM.  Is that correct?  And if so, will the cargo LSAM have additional down capacity, since it doesn't have to carry a return vehicle down to the surface?  Is the cargo LSAM the only thing under the PLF on the J-232 Cargo?  If so, why is the PLF so long?  If I had to guess, I would say it is to enable the use of the same PLF as the J-232 CLV.

   I realize these lunar details are still pretty far off in the future.  I'm just trying to understand the mission profiles and the various Jupiter configurations that you have planned.

Thanks,
   Mark S.

P.S.  I still can't get over the difference between the Ares and the Direct manifests from 2010-2020.  How can anyone look at those two schedules and claim to actually prefer Ares over Direct?  The mind boggles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 12/20/2008 04:18 am
Ron,
I'm not concerned.

Be patient.   Allow all the events to play out.   We are only a short way through this Play and we haven't even finished Act 2 yet.   There are still weeks of activities ahead of us and its too early to guess how this will end.

I am personally 100% convinced Ares-I is essentially over.

I'm 100% certain something will be replacing it.

I think we have better than 50:50 chance that it will be DIRECT, but we have a lot more work ahead of us over the coming weeks and we can improve those odds significantly in that time.

Ross.

What makes you 100% certain ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/20/2008 04:22 am
Ross,

You have been in on Direct for at least 2 years, and this is the 4th quarter and you are about to do the 2 min. drill.  Even though I want the latest information--now is the time to be really cranking on Direct--finish the rebuttal.  Think about timing when it will be released.  What do you think NASA's reaction is going to be and how do you counter it?  Remember NASA had the last study sitting on the shelve for over 6 months.  Don't you think they have another study just waiting? Think about ANY weakpoints..cost, schedule, etc and think of an agrument in favor of Direct--remember Ares was promised as Safe, Simple, and we will be waiting till 2016!  If you are going to talk to the Transistion team, think about how you will impress them?  The last NASA study (ESAS)was 60 days long, I think we might need a longer study/a study that looks at a lot more of the things that NASA wants to do to implement the vision for Space.  I know that you do a tom of work and you don't get paid for this.  NASA has hundreds of engineers that they can bring to bear on Direct--so you have to be prepared.

I am willing to wait till mid Jan. for what ever announcement and the rebuttal.   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 12/20/2008 04:57 am
P.S.  I still can't get over the difference between the Ares and the Direct manifests from 2010-2020.  How can anyone look at those two schedules and claim to actually prefer Ares over Direct?  The mind boggles.


I agree.  Being able to do that kind of manned and unmanned exploration is hugely exciting.  This is exactly the kind of thing that could attract enormous public interest.  Just think of the scientific and educational value.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 12/20/2008 05:01 am
I'm more interested in seeing the 3rd party evaluation that Ross mentioned a while ago.  Depending on who it is and its content, another NASA apples to oranges review might just do them more harm than good.

Ross,

You have been in on Direct for at least 2 years, and this is the 4th quarter and you are about to do the 2 min. drill.  Even though I want the latest information--now is the time to be really cranking on Direct--finish the rebuttal.  Think about timing when it will be released.  What do you think NASA's reaction is going to be and how do you counter it?  Remember NASA had the last study sitting on the shelve for over 6 months.  Don't you think they have another study just waiting? Think about ANY weakpoints..cost, schedule, etc and think of an agrument in favor of Direct--remember Ares was promised as Safe, Simple, and we will be waiting till 2016!  If you are going to talk to the Transistion team, think about how you will impress them?  The last NASA study (ESAS)was 60 days long, I think we might need a longer study/a study that looks at a lot more of the things that NASA wants to do to implement the vision for Space.  I know that you do a tom of work and you don't get paid for this.  NASA has hundreds of engineers that they can bring to bear on Direct--so you have to be prepared.

I am willing to wait till mid Jan. for what ever announcement and the rebuttal.   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Alpha Control on 12/20/2008 06:06 am
Ross,

    I have a question about the J-232 cargo missions to deliver supplies to the lunar outpost.  From the manifest and from your Jupiter family drawing, it looks like a single J-232 will be able to send an unmanned LSAM Cargo (or similar vehicle) to the moon by itself, i.e. not a paired launch like the manned missions.

    I take it that is because the EDS doesn't have to lift the CLV in addition to the LSAM.  Is that correct?  And if so, will the cargo LSAM have additional down capacity, since it doesn't have to carry a return vehicle down to the surface?  Is the cargo LSAM the only thing under the PLF on the J-232 Cargo?  If so, why is the PLF so long?  If I had to guess, I would say it is to enable the use of the same PLF as the J-232 CLV.

   I realize these lunar details are still pretty far off in the future.  I'm just trying to understand the mission profiles and the various Jupiter configurations that you have planned.

Thanks,
   Mark S.

P.S.  I still can't get over the difference between the Ares and the Direct manifests from 2010-2020.  How can anyone look at those two schedules and claim to actually prefer Ares over Direct?  The mind boggles.


Mark S.,

With respect, I think we should hold off on the "Future Direct" questions for Ross & company at this time.  None of the future questions matter much if Direct itself doesn't become a reality.

From all indications, the next few months will be a critical time for the Direct concept, as the new administration takes office, and looks for new ideas.  It seems to truly be "now or never", which we all will follow with great interest: Will the new president choose the NASA-preferred Ares 1/V?  Or will he choose the EELV route?  Or will there be what has been advocated for a quite some time in this thread, an independent 3rd party evaluation of all the launcher concepts?

I know we are all anxious to learn how this will turn out. 

David
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/20/2008 12:50 pm
I know we are all anxious to learn how this will turn out. 

If that isn't the Understatement of the Century, I don't know what is...

I agree with you, Alpha. I think now is the time for everyone to sort of sit back a little, check over the documents we've seen, anticipate what NASA will intentionally screw up to paint DIRECT as badly as it can, and have an answer ready for that contingency.

It's sort of like what the SimSups did to the Controllers back in the Apollo days. Give them a scenario that could never happen on a spaceflight, and then see what they can do to fix it. Except this is the real mission. We don't get a chance to call off the sim, and reset the switches. Not just lives, but the entire manned space program could be at stake.

So far, I haven't found anything that the DIRECT team could have overlooked, except for preparing for what NASA could mislead people about. If they can anticipate that, based on NASA's past performance, and create a document that counters it before it even gets said, then they'll be ahead of the game, and National Heroes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 12/20/2008 01:53 pm
...

I fear that a slow mission rate will mean that the Lunar Outpost rollout will be equally slow and tedious, that it will bog us down in the mud in precisely the same way and we will have failed to learn the valuable lessons which we should have.


What I want, is to create an affordable system capable of landing the entire Lunar Outpost in the first 24-36 months of the Lunar Program.   Three years in, I want the base fully operational and in regular use, producing lots of valuable scientific return and preparing the way towards long-term economic exploitation of the moon ahead of permanent settlement sometime later in the 21st Century.

But I then want us to move on and progress further.

This time I don't want us to get stuck for a whole decade (or three) getting the Lunar Outpost ready to be used.   I want it up and operational and in full use by 2020.   If we can do that, then the development teams can really set-to focusing their attention on Mars early in the 2020's ready for a human mission around 2030.


The only way that can be done is to have a high annual mission rate.   And the only way to do that is to keep total launch costs down while also keeping lift capacities up.


What we have put together with DIRECT, is an wide-reaching architecture which is low enough cost that we can realistically plan a dozen missions every year paid for by NASA's regular budget, coupled together with 40-60 EELV-class launches per year -- paid for by partners -- all to make a globally supported system which can do in two years what Ares is currently going to take 6 or more years to accomplish.

This is where I believe my focus differs from the good Doctor's.   Mine is not on the launch vehicles as the goal -- they are just a tool to me.   My focus is on the wide range of mission objectives we can accomplish with the right tools.   The launch vehicles are just a single thread in supporting all of those objectives and when the many threads are woven together in the right way, they can form a very strong rope which I want us all to be able to climb.

Ross.


So, basically - make it cheap enough that you can actually get something worthwhile done. Once people see some return for their investment, I think that will slowly change their negative attitude to NASA.

For all that robotic explorers achieve in terms of science, I still believe that the public dream of Star Trek. They don't expect warp drives, or even to get out of the solar system, but they don't see the point of putting their dollars in unless we're making baby steps in that direction. Shuttle has made them lose confidence in NASA (hell, I'm desperately disappointed that we're having to step from reusable spaceplanes back to those sad little cones), but results are what we need.

Results, before some other country comes in and offers to outsource the whole moon infrastructure for half the price. You can almost hear the arguments now - "does it matter if America builds the rockets and the bases, as long as it's Americans who fly?"

You've seen it with manufacturing, the IT industry, call centres, and now the car industry. Space is next.

Put a moonbase up - one that's got enough (wo)manpower to actually explore, rather than just maintain itself (unlike ISS) and surely people will feel that they're getting something for their investment. Something that justifies all those people employed on the ground, and the technology that trickles down into everyday life.

Maybe then they'll be prepared to fund the push on to Mars, because it's not going to happen without some proof closer to home first.

cheers, Martin

PS sorry - that turned into a bit of a rant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/20/2008 01:59 pm
With respect, I think we should hold off on the "Future Direct" questions for Ross & company at this time.  None of the future questions matter much if Direct itself doesn't become a reality.

I agree 100%, but Ross and Chuck are free to choose which questions they answer. 

I think my questions are on topic, as they are regarding the lunar mission, which is the first actual Direct/Constellation destination.  I know that Direct is not directly involved with the LSAM design, but they have to be designing the J232 with all aspects of the lunar mission completely spelled out.  Otherwise NASA will call them out on it and declare the Direct will never work because we didn't account for the additional down-mass for the lunar cargo LSAM, or whatever other BS they can think of.

Now, if I had asked about replacing RS-68 with SSME, or switching from LOX/LH2 to RP1, or stretching the ET to accommodate the 5-seg SRB, or using Russian-based liquid strap-on boosters instead of SRB, or detailed questions about NEO and/or Mars projections, or launching  X-38 on the J-120, or any number of other speculative or irrelevant questions, ....

I think as long as any questions are on topic, and help clarify any aspect of the missions in the 2010-2020 time frame, then it should be okay to ask them.

Believe me, I am on pins and needles waiting for the rebuttal too.

Cheers!
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/20/2008 02:39 pm
From the rumblings in the air I see around the site, it seems that the transition team is looking between a shuttle extension and Ares delay to EELV launched solutions instead, and not one hint of Jupiter anywhere.  Should I be concerned?

I think they are evaluating options.  It could be seen as suggesting one way or another.  But trying to be objective it looks reasonable that they would ask the questions they have.  Check all options and see what shakes out.  I don't see any preconceived strategy in the known facts about the transition team. 

The transition teams rumours, well that's another ball of wax.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 12/20/2008 02:56 pm
How can anyone look at those two schedules and claim to actually prefer Ares over Direct?

They don't believe those schedules.
Evidence of that skepticism has surfaced within the past couple of days of postings....

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: RedSky on 12/20/2008 04:11 pm
In terms of changing the current direction, would the following be a possible alternative for the next admin to close the gap & still have the moon?  You'll get direct, but not immediately:

1) possibly extend STS till 2012 (4 extra launches)
2) meanwhile man-rate EELV, ready to lift ISS Orion in 2013
3) Start work on Direct (which takes the place of Ares V)
    Still have lunar mission by 2020 if not sooner

Seems with what Ares I is costing, 1 & 2 would be possible to do together if Ares went away. Once STS goes away, begin Direct.

Seems it would be a less expensive & more timely way to keep the moon, given the financial issues these days.  I'm just afraid if its Ares I, then Ares V will never get built cause it'll be too costly (especially with what I'm reading on L2).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/20/2008 04:29 pm
That would result in a huge interruption in tank production, and therefore a huge interruption to the workforce, that DIRECT is seeking to avoid.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/20/2008 04:32 pm
Red Sky,
Essentially yes, that's one alternative.

The only problem with that is that J-232 can't be ready (IOC) much before 2017.   So the Shuttle workforce will have a period of 7 years with nothing to do other than three test flights.   That will result in lots of job losses and political support for such a plan will be real thin.

That's why J-120 makes so much sense as the interim launcher.   It can be operational on the same date as an EELV, because Orion is the determining factor in both schedules.   Just it provides a means to bridge the workforce across the gap.   The additional capability it has also results in a lot more work being required, so even more workers can be retained.


Also, regarding the way to do the Shuttle extension, we believe that the better arrangement is to 'spread out' the current 9-flight Shuttle manifest a bit, so that two of those flights slide into FY2011.   Then we just need to add two more utilization flights in FY2012 (inc. the STS-134 AMS flight).   That keeps the costs to a minimum and also helps to reduce the overall program risk as well.

This removes a lot of scheduling pressures from SSP (anyone remember CAIB's recommendations regarding this issue?) yet only adds one extra flight to the manifest beyond what we're already planning.   That is an acceptable degree of additional risk to be considering.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: RedSky on 12/20/2008 04:40 pm
I guess the main issue then is to convince the new administration of whether they want to save the current workforce.  Yes, that was a congressional mandate a while ago, but these days... (hey, if they don't care about US auto workforce... this will just be a small blip). With Ares I, the workforce is gone anyway, isn't it?  So then that is the issue. To keep it or not, and to close the gap or not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/20/2008 04:42 pm
The DIRECT architecture intends to include the EELVs in the mission planning, right from the beginning. Jupiter shares the engine with the Delta-IV, so while work is being done on the Jupiter core and thrust structure, etc, the RS-68 will begin its human rating program, both programs taking about 3 years. The Atlas engine has a Russian human rated heritage. When the RS-68 engine program is completed, both DoD and CxP will have a human rated engine in the RS-68, so cost sharing is built in between DoD and NASA for the engine. The RS-68 is coupled to the Jupiter and flight testing begins. In the mean time, Boeing and LM begin the human rating programs of their upper stage engines. All this while, work on Orion continues.  Six months before Orion is ready for FOC, the EELV program will be complete and the Jupiter program will be flight certified. At that point, the United States will have not one, but THREE human rated launch vehicles capable of placing Orion into LEO. Human flights to LEO will be divided between ISS crew rotation and resupply and the lunar program testing. Most of them will initially be on the Jupiter as the shakedown program begins, and will include a few missions to the ISS as well. The Atlas and the Delta will gradually begin their programs of ISS crew rotation and resupply, leaving the Jupiter to concentrate more and more on the cis-lunar program. There will be some mixing and matching between the three of course, but we will have effectively turned the ISS maintenance program over to commercial space, as the Congress has directed, and used commercial space to great advantage in getting the lunar program underway. Sometime around Christmas 2013, a Jupiter with a Delta upper stage will be able to send a human crew on a mission around the moon, like the Apollo-8 mission. During all this time the J-2X and Jupiter upper stage programs will be underway, and this could lead to the first human landing on the moon in 2017.

The view from 10k feet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/20/2008 04:58 pm
They don't believe those schedules.
Evidence of that skepticism has surfaced within the past couple of days of postings....

Skepticism is a very good thing IMHO.   It helps keep you honest.

A healthy degree of skepticism is what we want throughout this business.   But it needs to be metered out equally.   We've said it before:   Don't believe us simply because we say so.   But equally, we all need to have the same degree of healthy skepticism about Mike Griffin's plans too.   He did publish a remarkably similar plan to ESAS 6 months before ever becoming Administrator, so he can't be said to be impartial regarding the choice behind Ares-I/Ares-V.

This why we are calling for an independent review of all the options.

If Griffin is right, he has nothing to fear from such a review.

But his "under the hood" comments would seem to indicate he doesn't want anybody else checking his claims.   That's suspicious behaviour any way you cut it.

We welcome an independent review.   We aren't scared of pitting our proposal against any of the others, in fact we really want that degree of validation because we think shining the torch under the hood of all the options is the only way we're going to get to the truth of which system benefits the US the most for this new 30-40 year long program.

We challenge Griffin to put his reputation where his mouth is and submit Ares to a true "level playing field" independent review which all the proponents can agree is impartial and lets get this resolved once and for all.   If Ares really is the best way to proceed Griffin has nothing to fear and everything to gain.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: RedSky on 12/20/2008 05:01 pm
Thanks for the info, guys.  I'm just having an ominous feeling about the future of the lunar program if things stay with Ares I.  There seems to be a lot of interest by the new admin on the gap. So that's either EELV or Direct. And cost-wise, to be Direct, that means convincing them to keep the workforce (which would have been gone with Ares anyway). So the argument is, then, with Direct, we're already almost there wrt upgrade to J-232 for the moon program.  No huge Ares V expense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/20/2008 05:04 pm
I guess the main issue then is to convince the new administration of whether they want to save the current workforce.  Yes, that was a congressional mandate a while ago, but these days... (hey, if they don't care about US auto workforce... this will just be a small blip). With Ares I, the workforce is gone anyway, isn't it?  So then that is the issue. To keep it or not, and to close the gap or not.

IMHO, the workforce is going to be a bigger issue over the next four years than it was over the last.

This period of economic downturn is not the time to be putting thousands of government contractors out of work.   Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration are already both supporting multi-billion dollar efforts to prop-up important sectors of the US industrial base.   'Space' is one such important sector.

There is a major specter of 3-8,000 jobs which are going to be lost under the Ares plans in the space sector within the next 2 years.   That is already causing quite a lot of consternation with the new administration-in-waiting and options which can reduce that are gaining interest.

I expect Shuttle workforce retention will prove to be a bigger issue next year than it is this.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: RedSky on 12/20/2008 05:12 pm
Thanks, Ross.  I hope you're right.

As Kosh also said... "And so it begins..."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/20/2008 05:13 pm

There is a major specter of 3-8,000 jobs which are going to be lost under the Ares plans in the space sector within the next 2 years.   That is already causing quite a lot of consternation with the new administration-in-waiting and options which can reduce that are gaining interest.

I expect Shuttle workforce retention will prove to be a bigger issue next year than it is this.


Perhaps THIS is what needs to be the focus of efforts to those Congresscritters who hold the purse strings. If they think that they'll be still in office after they failed to support something that would save big-time amounts of JOBS, they're crazier than we all think they already are.

I know this is late in the game, Ross ( & Co.) but is there any way to include graphs, charts, etc. that show the amounts of JOBS that will be lost Ares vs. DIRECT? How about the economic impact and infrastructure savings? What about the amount of economic stimulus that the program will generate? These are the kinds of things that politicians want to know. But the catch is, you have to be able to give it to them in a way that they will be able to understand it. Give it to them the right way, and you're in like Flynn. Those are the important factors here.

I think it was either Scott Carpenter or Wally Schirra who said, "Funding makes this bird go up. No bucks, no Buck Rogers." Well, the only way to get the bucks out of a parsimonious congress, is to show them it saves jobs, saves money, and keeps our precious infrastructure alive. Especially in their districts. Fla, Tx, La, and so on.

P.S. Ross: You misspelled "Spectre"....  ::)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rocketguy101 on 12/20/2008 05:28 pm
URGENT REQUEST:   Scale Model Maker needed!

We desperately need a desktop model of Jupiter-120 or Jupiter-232 in roughly two to three weeks time.

If anyone here thinks they could whip one up for us (scratch-built or a modified Revell/Airfix Shuttle kit, whatever works, either in 1:144 or 1:200 scale) over the holiday period, please contact me.   It will be going to a very good home.

I would love to do it myself, but my hands are completely full across the whole holiday.

Many thanks in advance for any assistance anyone may be able to provide at such short notice.

Ross.


Ross, I would love to, but year-end stuff is crazy at work right now.  I am posting my drawings of a 1:152 scale flying J-120 model based on the Estes BT-70 body tube.  Leave off the fins, of course ;)

My version has a different shroud on the core--I haven't updated to the latest version you posted above.

ps: while we are at it, is there 1 LOX line on the core, or 2?  Some of your animations show 2 lines, one on each side of the tank.  I modeled a single line.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rocketguy101 on 12/20/2008 05:49 pm
...and if anybody is interested, here are the full size shroud patterns in a zip file for above-mentioned model.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/20/2008 06:17 pm

There is a major specter of 3-8,000 jobs which are going to be lost under the Ares plans in the space sector within the next 2 years.   That is already causing quite a lot of consternation with the new administration-in-waiting and options which can reduce that are gaining interest.

I expect Shuttle workforce retention will prove to be a bigger issue next year than it is this.


Perhaps THIS is what needs to be the focus of efforts to those Congresscritters who hold the purse strings. If they think that they'll be still in office after they failed to support something that would save big-time amounts of JOBS, they're crazier than we all think they already are.

I know this is late in the game, Ross ( & Co.) but is there any way to include graphs, charts, etc. that show the amounts of JOBS that will be lost Ares vs. DIRECT? How about the economic impact and infrastructure savings? What about the amount of economic stimulus that the program will generate? These are the kinds of things that politicians want to know. But the catch is, you have to be able to give it to them in a way that they will be able to understand it. Give it to them the right way, and you're in like Flynn. Those are the important factors here.

I think it was either Scott Carpenter or Wally Schirra who said, "Funding makes this bird go up. No bucks, no Buck Rogers." Well, the only way to get the bucks out of a parsimonious congress, is to show them it saves jobs, saves money, and keeps our precious infrastructure alive. Especially in their districts. Fla, Tx, La, and so on.

P.S. Ross: You misspelled "Spectre"....  ::)

Almost everything NASA spends pays for labor one way or another. It's difficult to see how, for a given level of NASA funding, Direct is going to retain a greater total number of jobs than the baseline.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/20/2008 06:24 pm

Almost everything NASA spends pays for labor one way or another. It's difficult to see how, for a given level of NASA funding, Direct is going to retain a greater total number of jobs than the baseline.

Um, gee... By not laying off everyone at Michoud? By not laying off hundreds of people at JSC, KSC, MSFC, Stennis, and a dozen other facilities, during the gap that Ares has, but Direct doesn't have?

You've either not read any of this thread, or this was a joke. It couldn't have been a serious question. If it is, you're kidding, right?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/20/2008 06:28 pm

There is a major specter of 3-8,000 jobs which are going to be lost under the Ares plans in the space sector within the next 2 years.   That is already causing quite a lot of consternation with the new administration-in-waiting and options which can reduce that are gaining interest.

I expect Shuttle workforce retention will prove to be a bigger issue next year than it is this.


Perhaps THIS is what needs to be the focus of efforts to those Congresscritters who hold the purse strings. If they think that they'll be still in office after they failed to support something that would save big-time amounts of JOBS, they're crazier than we all think they already are.

I know this is late in the game, Ross ( & Co.) but is there any way to include graphs, charts, etc. that show the amounts of JOBS that will be lost Ares vs. DIRECT? How about the economic impact and infrastructure savings? What about the amount of economic stimulus that the program will generate? These are the kinds of things that politicians want to know. But the catch is, you have to be able to give it to them in a way that they will be able to understand it. Give it to them the right way, and you're in like Flynn. Those are the important factors here.

I think it was either Scott Carpenter or Wally Schirra who said, "Funding makes this bird go up. No bucks, no Buck Rogers." Well, the only way to get the bucks out of a parsimonious congress, is to show them it saves jobs, saves money, and keeps our precious infrastructure alive. Especially in their districts. Fla, Tx, La, and so on.

P.S. Ross: You misspelled "Spectre"....  ::)

Almost everything NASA spends pays for labor one way or another. It's difficult to see how, for a given level of NASA funding, Direct is going to retain a greater total number of jobs than the baseline.

Tell that to the folks who make External tanks.  Tell that to all the folks who work with the Orbiter.  NASA will not need those folks for 5+ years--guess what happens to their jobs?  Gone!  If you are a congressperson in that district you do not want that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/20/2008 06:49 pm
The DIRECT architecture intends to include the EELVs in the mission planning, right from the beginning. Jupiter shares the engine with the Delta-IV, so while work is being done on the Jupiter core and thrust structure, etc, the RS-68 will begin its human rating program, both programs taking about 3 years. The Atlas engine has a Russian human rated heritage. When the RS-68 engine program is completed, both DoD and CxP will have a human rated engine in the RS-68, so cost sharing is built in between DoD and NASA for the engine. The RS-68 is coupled to the Jupiter and flight testing begins. In the mean time, Boeing and LM begin the human rating programs of their upper stage engines. All this while, work on Orion continues.  Six months before Orion is ready for FOC, the EELV program will be complete and the Jupiter program will be flight certified. At that point, the United States will have not one, but THREE human rated launch vehicles capable of placing Orion into LEO. Human flights to LEO will be divided between ISS crew rotation and resupply and the lunar program testing. Most of them will initially be on the Jupiter as the shakedown program begins, and will include a few missions to the ISS as well. The Atlas and the Delta will gradually begin their programs of ISS crew rotation and resupply, leaving the Jupiter to concentrate more and more on the cis-lunar program. There will be some mixing and matching between the three of course, but we will have effectively turned the ISS maintenance program over to commercial space, as the Congress has directed, and used commercial space to great advantage in getting the lunar program underway. Sometime around Christmas 2013, a Jupiter with a Delta upper stage will be able to send a human crew on a mission around the moon, like the Apollo-8 mission. During all this time the J-2X and Jupiter upper stage programs will be underway, and this could lead to the first human landing on the moon in 2017.

The view from 10k feet.


For ISS Resupply--you do COTS-D for 2 companies.--$.5B

Company A--EELV--Boeing/LM--but NASA also give them abilty to get funds from DOD.  Boeing/LM would have to chip in some of thier own funds. 

Company B--SpaceX or another firm.


2013

A.  Both companies can market their products to Bigelow or whomever.
B.  Direct flies to ISS X2 a year.
C.  Atlas/Delta is human rated.

2014

A.  EELV/SpaceX fly cargo and crew to ISS up to four times.
B.  Direct flies to ISS X2/year
C.  Direct gets more involved in the moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/20/2008 08:18 pm
Almost everything NASA spends pays for labor one way or another. It's difficult to see how, for a given level of NASA funding, Direct is going to retain a greater total number of jobs than the baseline.

When you get right down to it the equation is pretty simple:

Ares requires more development jobs because there's a lot more development to do.   The 6-year gap means Ares doesn't need Operational staff.   So operational staff will be laid off and more development staff will be picked up instead.

This is confirmed easily by examining NASA's workforce transition strategy documents.   You will note that the chief design center -- MSFC -- doesn't lose any jobs at all, while the chief Operations centers -- KSC and JSC -- bear the brunt of the job losses.

What is going on at the ground-floor level though, is two low-paid Operational technicians at KSC who might be processing the Shuttle's RCS systems for example, are getting the boot in order to replace them with a single higher-paid design engineer at MSFC.


By having so much commonality back to Shuttle and Delta-IV, Jupiter-120 doesn't need so much development work.   We can get by with the current development team already in place at MSFC and the contractors.   Those teams don't have to grow.   If we don't have to pay for that extra high-paid designer, we have the money to continue paying the two technicians instead.

The question then is about ensuring we get useful value from those people.   And Jupiter does that by 1) Becoming operational sooner, thus 2) Accelerating all aspects of the program, EDS, Altair and Lunar Base -- all of which can pick up former Shuttle staff for their processing, and finally 3) By providing a brand-new unique class of lift capability which we haven't had for 3 decades, which will allow a whole new range of payloads to be planned.

All of these things will help create more work and will all need bodies to fill those positions.   Experienced Shuttle workers with track-records within the industry are going to be at the top of the selection lists for each of these projects.   It also doesn't hurt that these people have already been through the rigors of the selection process before, have been cleared to work on such projects already and are familiar with the general day-to-day practices involved.

Many of these people will require re-training, but that's to be expected, but its sure a lot less problematic for them than receiving a pink-slip.

One of the keys will be for NASA to carefully specify that all these new work projects/contracts must be located in the same regions affected by the end of the Shuttle in order to spread the work around to all the affected centers/regions.   That's an essential part to be included in the contract negotiation end of this, but specifying a location isn't unheard of in such negotiations.

Overall, we intend to reduce LV development costs in order to pay for more Operations work and also issue new contracts which utilize the greater capabilities of the Jupiter systems in order to pick up the balance of the Shuttle workforce and put them to productive use.

The devil is always in the details though, make no mistake :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/20/2008 09:01 pm
Almost everything NASA spends pays for labor one way or another. It's difficult to see how, for a given level of NASA funding, Direct is going to retain a greater total number of jobs than the baseline.

When you get right down to it the equation is pretty simple:

Ares requires more development jobs because there's a lot more development to do.   The 6-year gap means Ares doesn't need Operational staff.   So operational staff will be laid off and more development staff will be picked up instead.

This is confirmed easily by examining NASA's workforce transition strategy documents.   You will note that the chief design center -- MSFC -- doesn't lose any jobs at all, while the chief Operations centers -- KSC and JSC -- bear the brunt of the job losses.

What is going on at the ground-floor level though, is two low-paid Operational technicians at KSC who might be processing the Shuttle's RCS systems for example, are getting the boot in order to replace them with a single higher-paid design engineer at MSFC.


By having so much commonality back to Shuttle and Delta-IV, Jupiter-120 doesn't need so much development work.   We can get by with the current development team already in place at MSFC and the contractors.   Those teams don't have to grow.   If we don't have to pay for that extra high-paid designer, we have the money to continue paying the two technicians instead.

The question then is about ensuring we get useful value from those people.   And Jupiter does that by 1) Becoming operational sooner, thus 2) Accelerating all aspects of the program, EDS, Altair and Lunar Base -- all of which can pick up former Shuttle staff for their processing, and finally 3) By providing a brand-new unique class of lift capability which we haven't had for 3 decades, which will allow a whole new range of payloads to be planned.

All of these things will help create more work and will all need bodies to fill those positions.   Experienced Shuttle workers with track-records within the industry are going to be at the top of the selection lists for each of these projects.   It also doesn't hurt that these people have already been through the rigors of the selection process before, have been cleared to work on such projects already and are familiar with the general day-to-day practices involved.

Many of these people will require re-training, but that's to be expected, but its sure a lot less problematic for them than receiving a pink-slip.

One of the keys will be for NASA to carefully specify that all these new work projects/contracts must be located in the same regions affected by the end of the Shuttle in order to spread the work around to all the affected centers/regions.   That's an essential part to be included in the contract negotiation end of this, but specifying a location isn't unheard of in such negotiations.

Overall, we intend to reduce LV development costs in order to pay for more Operations work and also issue new contracts which utilize the greater capabilities of the Jupiter systems in order to pick up the balance of the Shuttle workforce and put them to productive use.

The devil is always in the details though, make no mistake :)

Ross.

Actually, there are several devils looking right at you with big flashy signs. 

As I have said before, stick with the technical proposal only.  When you talk about what "we" are planning or that "we" will be letting contracts, it just makes this whole thing look foolish. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/20/2008 09:48 pm
Almost everything NASA spends pays for labor one way or another. It's difficult to see how, for a given level of NASA funding, Direct is going to retain a greater total number of jobs than the baseline.

When you get right down to it the equation is pretty simple:

Ares requires more development jobs because there's a lot more development to do.   The 6-year gap means Ares doesn't need Operational staff.   So operational staff will be laid off and more development staff will be picked up instead.

This is confirmed easily by examining NASA's workforce transition strategy documents.   You will note that the chief design center -- MSFC -- doesn't lose any jobs at all, while the chief Operations centers -- KSC and JSC -- bear the brunt of the job losses.

What is going on at the ground-floor level though, is two low-paid Operational technicians at KSC who might be processing the Shuttle's RCS systems for example, are getting the boot in order to replace them with a single higher-paid design engineer at MSFC.




Right. But from an economic stimulus viewpoint, the affect is much the same.

Of course, if your main goal is to employ as many warm bodies as possible, NASA is going to lose. A "low-paid" NASA operational technician should make a lot more than somebody holding up a "slow" sign at a highway construction project.

And it isn't a six year gap for many of the employees. Long before 2013, Michoud employees will be bending metal for Ares upper stage structural test articles. Ares I-y will need to be stacked and launched, and so on.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/21/2008 12:50 am

As I have said before, stick with the technical proposal only.  When you talk about what "we" are planning or that "we" will be letting contracts, it just makes this whole thing look foolish. 

Only because you don't know the names on the list that are included in "we". It is not limited to the DIRECT team - not by a very, very long shot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 12/21/2008 01:27 am
The DIRECT architecture intends to include the EELVs in the mission planning, right from the beginning. Jupiter shares the engine with the Delta-IV, so while work is being done on the Jupiter core and thrust structure, etc, the RS-68 will begin its human rating program, both programs taking about 3 years. The Atlas engine has a Russian human rated heritage. When the RS-68 engine program is completed, both DoD and CxP will have a human rated engine in the RS-68, so cost sharing is built in between DoD and NASA for the engine. The RS-68 is coupled to the Jupiter and flight testing begins. In the mean time, Boeing and LM begin the human rating programs of their upper stage engines. All this while, work on Orion continues.  Six months before Orion is ready for FOC, the EELV program will be complete and the Jupiter program will be flight certified. At that point, the United States will have not one, but THREE human rated launch vehicles capable of placing Orion into LEO. Human flights to LEO will be divided between ISS crew rotation and resupply and the lunar program testing. Most of them will initially be on the Jupiter as the shakedown program begins, and will include a few missions to the ISS as well. The Atlas and the Delta will gradually begin their programs of ISS crew rotation and resupply, leaving the Jupiter to concentrate more and more on the cis-lunar program. There will be some mixing and matching between the three of course, but we will have effectively turned the ISS maintenance program over to commercial space, as the Congress has directed, and used commercial space to great advantage in getting the lunar program underway. Sometime around Christmas 2013, a Jupiter with a Delta upper stage will be able to send a human crew on a mission around the moon, like the Apollo-8 mission. During all this time the J-2X and Jupiter upper stage programs will be underway, and this could lead to the first human landing on the moon in 2017.

The view from 10k feet.


It is smart to include EELVs in your initial plan as it provides insurance against J-120 not being ready in time. Also gets a substantial rival camp on board with your HLV plan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 12/21/2008 01:47 am
The DIRECT architecture intends to include the EELVs in the mission planning, right from the beginning. Jupiter shares the engine with the Delta-IV, so while work is being done on the Jupiter core and thrust structure, etc, the RS-68 will begin its human rating program, both programs taking about 3 years. The Atlas engine has a Russian human rated heritage. When the RS-68 engine program is completed, both DoD and CxP will have a human rated engine in the RS-68, so cost sharing is built in between DoD and NASA for the engine. The RS-68 is coupled to the Jupiter and flight testing begins. In the mean time, Boeing and LM begin the human rating programs of their upper stage engines. All this while, work on Orion continues.  Six months before Orion is ready for FOC, the EELV program will be complete and the Jupiter program will be flight certified. At that point, the United States will have not one, but THREE human rated launch vehicles capable of placing Orion into LEO. Human flights to LEO will be divided between ISS crew rotation and resupply and the lunar program testing. Most of them will initially be on the Jupiter as the shakedown program begins, and will include a few missions to the ISS as well. The Atlas and the Delta will gradually begin their programs of ISS crew rotation and resupply, leaving the Jupiter to concentrate more and more on the cis-lunar program. There will be some mixing and matching between the three of course, but we will have effectively turned the ISS maintenance program over to commercial space, as the Congress has directed, and used commercial space to great advantage in getting the lunar program underway. Sometime around Christmas 2013, a Jupiter with a Delta upper stage will be able to send a human crew on a mission around the moon, like the Apollo-8 mission. During all this time the J-2X and Jupiter upper stage programs will be underway, and this could lead to the first human landing on the moon in 2017.

The view from 10k feet.


It is smart to include EELVs in your initial plan as it provides insurance against J-120 not being ready in time. Also gets a substantial rival camp on board with your HLV plan.


In a way it throws everyone a bone. Exploration people are satisfied. The EELV guys get a piece of the pie early on, and the Shuttle guys get to keep their job.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/21/2008 02:21 am
Also, regarding the way to do the Shuttle extension, we believe that the better arrangement is to 'spread out' the current 9-flight Shuttle manifest a bit, so that two of those flights slide into FY2011.   Then we just need to add two more utilization flights in FY2012 (inc. the STS-134 AMS flight).   That keeps the costs to a minimum and also helps to reduce the overall program risk as well.

That's the best idea for a shuttle extension I have heard yet.  Adds the least number of flights and keeps the resupply going.

Shuttle extension is political exercise in work force retention and optics.  Both are important but, IMHO the lower the number of added flights the better (both from cost and risk).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/21/2008 03:20 am

As I have said before, stick with the technical proposal only.  When you talk about what "we" are planning or that "we" will be letting contracts, it just makes this whole thing look foolish. 

Only because you don't know the names on the list that are included in "we". It is not limited to the DIRECT team - not by a very, very long shot.

So, you claim to have the ear of someone important.  Good for you.  After all, this design has been on the board more or less for approximately 30 years.  It is a very valid design. 

However, some of the things some on the team say have no real basis in reality.  For example, JSC is not just a mission operations center.  It is the home of the Orbiter Project, amonst other things.  When Orbiter goes away so do those jobs.  No way to get around that.  You can't relocate work from some other part of the country to the "affected areas" because then you affect those areas.  You can't force someone to hire someone who has no qualifications for a particular job just because the job they did work is no longer in existence.  The list goes on. 

Unless, the "we" is someone powerfull enough to make you either NASA administrator, ESMD head, SOMD head, a Center director, CxP manager, Orion or Ares Project manager, Space Shuttle Prgram manager, HQ Chief Contracting Officer or some other high ranking official......well then it just doesn't pass the sniff test. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 12/21/2008 12:12 pm
well then it just doesn't pass the sniff test. 

The who freaking Ares project doesn't pass the sniff test! And you are complaining about his use of the term 'we'?

How many 'Mars architectures' are out there? Do they not use the term 'we' in describing how they would do things?

The *only* problem with DIRECT is that it doesn't spend enough money... I would bet there are higher margins on rocket design than there are on rocket production.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/21/2008 02:20 pm
well then it just doesn't pass the sniff test. 

The who freaking Ares project doesn't pass the sniff test! And you are complaining about his use of the term 'we'?

How many 'Mars architectures' are out there? Do they not use the term 'we' in describing how they would do things?

The *only* problem with DIRECT is that it doesn't spend enough money... I would bet there are higher margins on rocket design than there are on rocket production.

Yes and the Direct guys know why.  They are making extrodinary claims on what they "plan" with a switch to Jupiter.  Even if NASA ends up switching to a similar system most of it is so far out of bounds that, in my opinion, it takes away the credibility of the technical viability of the project.  Given the press it has recieved, some take what is said as gospel even though those who work in this business understand otherwise. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/21/2008 02:54 pm
well then it just doesn't pass the sniff test. 

The who freaking Ares project doesn't pass the sniff test! And you are complaining about his use of the term 'we'?

How many 'Mars architectures' are out there? Do they not use the term 'we' in describing how they would do things?

The *only* problem with DIRECT is that it doesn't spend enough money... I would bet there are higher margins on rocket design than there are on rocket production.

Yes and the Direct guys know why.  They are making extrodinary claims on what they "plan" with a switch to Jupiter.  Even if NASA ends up switching to a similar system most of it is so far out of bounds that, in my opinion, it takes away the credibility of the technical viability of the project.  Given the press it has recieved, some take what is said as gospel even though those who work in this business understand otherwise. 

They might be making "extraordinary claims" but their numbers actually do add up to something that actually works. Ares has, so far, been one big problem after another, and so much good money has been thrown after bad, that it is obvious to anyone who has eyes that it is a money hole, not a rocket. And a dangerous one at that.

What I don't understand, is how you can sit there and write that the "credibility of the technical viability" of the project is doubtful, because it saves money. HOW is it "out of bounds"? You haven't provided one shred of evidence, calculation, engineering analysis, or even technical specification that demonstrates that what you write is anything more than your opinion. WHY is it "out of bounds"? Because you say so?

I may only be an historian, but even I know that numbers can only be manipulated so far. And the only manipulation I have seen yet, is coming out of the Ares camp. Why? Because they KNOW that what they've got simply can't work the way it has been advertised.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/21/2008 03:04 pm
and you have absolutely and totally missed my point.  I have actually said the technical merit is quite good.  Ares is not even a part of this discussion.  It is the other proposals beyond the technical validity about jobs, contracts, etc that I have major issues with.  If you would read these posts more thouroughly before reacting you would have noticed that. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/21/2008 03:27 pm
Write more clearly next time and say what you mean to say, and then you won't have to come back and try to "explain" what your point was.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/21/2008 03:34 pm
I did.  Sorry to upset you so much by questioning your Direct -------- that you felt compelled to rush to their defense without knowing what point you were even attempting to argue. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 12/21/2008 03:35 pm
...  For example, JSC is not just a mission operations center.  It is the home of the Orbiter Project, amonst other things.  When Orbiter goes away so do those jobs.  No way to get around that. ...

I would be interested to have more details about this.  I'm not on L2 and I don't have any NASA connections.  I know of a former co-worker that moved there to work on Orion. 

Also, what are those folks going to be doing under the Ares plan?

It seems to me Orion will last quite a while, won't there be a need for any of those folks on the Orion project?

Perhaps a shuttle extension for a year or two could bridge the gap for those folks into something else?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/21/2008 03:42 pm
Lancer. Drop your tone or lose your posting privileges.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/21/2008 03:44 pm
...  For example, JSC is not just a mission operations center.  It is the home of the Orbiter Project, amonst other things.  When Orbiter goes away so do those jobs.  No way to get around that. ...

I would be interested to have more details about this.  I'm not on L2 and I don't have any NASA connections.  I know of a former co-worker that moved there to work on Orion. 

Also, what are those folks going to be doing under the Ares plan?

It seems to me Orion will last quite a while, won't there be a need for any of those folks on the Orion project?

Perhaps a shuttle extension for a year or two could bridge the gap for those folks into something else?

JSC is the design center for Orbiter.  That means there are many engineers who work the systems from a standpoint of sustaining engineering, solving the issues we may have inbetween flights, design changes etc. 

Boeing and other contractors are resonsible for Orbiter and Lockheed and others for Orion.  There are obvious contractual issues that do not let one jump back and forth.  Even if those were out of the picture, Orion cannot really wait for Orbiter to finish and Orbiter cannot afford to let everyone go work Orion. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 12/21/2008 03:59 pm
Are you suggesting the timing is bad?  If so that's unfortunate.  So as it is now, with Ares, these folks are going to lose their jobs? 

My next question is, what could be done to provide better timing or a different scenario to allow a transition for some if not all of these folks?  It would be a tragedy to lose a lot of experienced people when their skills are going to be needed.



JSC is the design center for Orbiter.  That means there are many engineers who work the systems from a standpoint of sustaining engineering, solving the issues we may have inbetween flights, design changes etc. 

Boeing and other contractors are resonsible for Orbiter and Lockheed and others for Orion.  There are obvious contractual issues that do not let one jump back and forth.  Even if those were out of the picture, Orion cannot really wait for Orbiter to finish and Orbiter cannot afford to let everyone go work Orion. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/21/2008 04:10 pm
Everyone--let's take it down a little. The Direct poeple are working on the project.  On every project there is technical and cost side.  With the Direct project there is also the political and job side.  I agree that you have to answer the technical question if Direct can do the job.  You also have to have a fair idea what political questions may be answered.  Your answers do not have to be in alot of detail, since that is manly up to our political masters--but you have better thought about it at least a little. 

Please remember, Direct is going for a job interview.  You can flashly models, but sometimes it the preparation that you do beforehand is the differance between getting the job and not getting the job.  You may never be asked any questions, but it is whole lot better to be prepared with well thoughtout answers than to say you do not know.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/21/2008 04:37 pm
Are you suggesting the timing is bad?  If so that's unfortunate.  So as it is now, with Ares, these folks are going to lose their jobs? 

My next question is, what could be done to provide better timing or a different scenario to allow a transition for some if not all of these folks?  It would be a tragedy to lose a lot of experienced people when their skills are going to be needed.



JSC is the design center for Orbiter.  That means there are many engineers who work the systems from a standpoint of sustaining engineering, solving the issues we may have inbetween flights, design changes etc. 

Boeing and other contractors are resonsible for Orbiter and Lockheed and others for Orion.  There are obvious contractual issues that do not let one jump back and forth.  Even if those were out of the picture, Orion cannot really wait for Orbiter to finish and Orbiter cannot afford to let everyone go work Orion. 

People are unfortunately considering Direct/Jupiter as a savior and either rightly or wrongly assuming that all jobs can be saved.  The Constellation and Shuttle programs have totally and completely different missions, concept of operations, plans of doing business and manpower requirements. 

Ares is one leg of Constellation.  If something like Jupiter was to replace Ares, it would only affect that leg.  That being said, a Jupiter-like vehicle could potentially be operational sooner than Ares with both a LEO and deep space variant.  That could mean money and DDT&E and operations of follow on projects quicker than planned with the current architecture.  In addition, a system like that could offer better synergy with any shuttle extension utilizing existing assetts and people.

In the end, I like the concept of Jupiter and think it has merit as I have said before.  However, make no mistake about it but the landscape will change and it must.  Unfortunately this is the nature of this business and some may have to move and some who held a job doing a particular tech skill or clerical job may find themselves without a job.  You cannot just take the shuttle infrastructure, promise everyone a job and redistrubute the contracts because then you have only saddled Constellation with the cost of Shuttle right from the start, which is a non-starter option.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/21/2008 06:21 pm
Are you suggesting the timing is bad?  If so that's unfortunate.  So as it is now, with Ares, these folks are going to lose their jobs? 

My next question is, what could be done to provide better timing or a different scenario to allow a transition for some if not all of these folks?  It would be a tragedy to lose a lot of experienced people when their skills are going to be needed.



JSC is the design center for Orbiter.  That means there are many engineers who work the systems from a standpoint of sustaining engineering, solving the issues we may have inbetween flights, design changes etc. 

Boeing and other contractors are resonsible for Orbiter and Lockheed and others for Orion.  There are obvious contractual issues that do not let one jump back and forth.  Even if those were out of the picture, Orion cannot really wait for Orbiter to finish and Orbiter cannot afford to let everyone go work Orion. 

People are unfortunately considering Direct/Jupiter as a savior and either rightly or wrongly assuming that all jobs can be saved.  The Constellation and Shuttle programs have totally and completely different missions, concept of operations, plans of doing business and manpower requirements. 

Ares is one leg of Constellation.  If something like Jupiter was to replace Ares, it would only affect that leg.  That being said, a Jupiter-like vehicle could potentially be operational sooner than Ares with both a LEO and deep space variant.  That could mean money and DDT&E and operations of follow on projects quicker than planned with the current architecture.  In addition, a system like that could offer better synergy with any shuttle extension utilizing existing assetts and people.

In the end, I like the concept of Jupiter and think it has merit as I have said before.  However, make no mistake about it but the landscape will change and it must.  Unfortunately this is the nature of this business and some may have to move and some who held a job doing a particular tech skill or clerical job may find themselves without a job.  You cannot just take the shuttle infrastructure, promise everyone a job and redistrubute the contracts because then you have only saddled Constellation with the cost of Shuttle right from the start, which is a non-starter option.

I agree with you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 12/21/2008 08:20 pm
I expect Shuttle workforce retention will prove to be a bigger issue next year than it is this.

I definitely expect that employment will be a bigger issue next year than it is this.  It is less clear to me what role NASA-related workforce retention will play.  Whatever money is secured for NASA, I expect the dollar numbers to decline pretty steeply prior to 2012.  I would plan for that kind of scenario, though certainly not publicize it. 

I have liked Direct because it appears to be leaner, but it has never been clear to me if it is lean enough, and times look tougher than they looked to me at the beginning of the year.  A front-loaded schedule would work better, as it appears clear that the incoming administration isn't afraid to spend money, at least for the first two years.  Things would work a lot better if you could be done with the vast amount of work prior to the expiration of the bottomless spending appetite. Perhaps just have something to show for the work prior.  An unmanned J120 flight?  A PoC with non-manrated engines, absent Orion?  I'm not really sure what works for Congress-critters, though.

Best of luck folks,
-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lars_J on 12/21/2008 09:12 pm
Things would work a lot better if you could be done with the vast amount of work prior to the expiration of the bottomless spending appetite. Perhaps just have something to show for the work prior.  An unmanned J120 flight?  A PoC with non-manrated engines, absent Orion?  I'm not really sure what works for Congress-critters, though.

Isn't it a given that the first few launches of a potential J120 would be unmanned? I would certainly hope so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/21/2008 09:42 pm
well then it just doesn't pass the sniff test. 

The who freaking Ares project doesn't pass the sniff test! And you are complaining about his use of the term 'we'?

How many 'Mars architectures' are out there? Do they not use the term 'we' in describing how they would do things?

The *only* problem with DIRECT is that it doesn't spend enough money... I would bet there are higher margins on rocket design than there are on rocket production.

Yes and the Direct guys know why.  They are making extrodinary claims on what they "plan" with a switch to Jupiter.  Even if NASA ends up switching to a similar system most of it is so far out of bounds that, in my opinion, it takes away the credibility of the technical viability of the project.  Given the press it has recieved, some take what is said as gospel even though those who work in this business understand otherwise. 

OV-106 -

I think the point to take away from all this is that $20 billion dollars buys a whole lot of launches.  That is the money that the Direct plan saves by not having to develop two completely new launch vehicles and infrastructures.  The entire Jupiter development cost, including LEO and Lunar capability, is less than the development cost of just the Ares-I.

I know we have all been indoctrinated (by experience) to be cynical (maybe even despondent) when it comes to the number and frequency of NASA launches.  And it is right to question Direct's numbers.  But to just say that they are making "extraordinary claims", without pointing out where they are wrong, is neither productive nor convincing.  It is an appeal to people's pessimism.

If $20B can't really support the number launches that Direct is claiming over Ares, please explain why.  If their schedule is overly optimistic or even physically impossible, please explain why.  If there really is no hope for a better architecture than Ares, please explain why.

And I don't recall Direct ever claiming that their plan would save *all* current space jobs.  That would be physically impossible.  What they have claimed is that Direct will dramatically shorten the flight gap, and keep the workers at MAF busy in the interim with the new Jupiter core.

Finally, I think it is off base to be criticizing the Direct team for the act of making detailed plans.  It was brought up several times in the NASA Direct "study" that the Direct plan was not detailed enough and didn't cover all aspects of design, risk assessment, etc.  So you might disagree with the contents of the Direct plan.  But I think it is unwarranted to be giving them a hard time for planning at all.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/21/2008 09:44 pm
Ross claimed (IIRC) that DIRECT would save all *forced* separations, instead the major job losses would be due to attrition and retirement.  There's a slide/graph on that somewhere in this thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/21/2008 09:59 pm
From an earlier post in another thread regarding someone's post comparing DIRECT's workforce outlook to a "jobs plan"

Quote
You speak as if I were recommending keeping the workforce around moving piles of dirt from one place at the cape to another until something useful comes along. Nothing, and I mean nothing, could be further from the truth. If that's all there is to do then furlough them - plain and simple. No, I'm speaking of rearranging the entire implementation and transition plan from STS to CxP in such a way that the majority of the workforce can be retained, and actually be working at stuff that CxP will actually need done. That's not a jobs program, because I do not advocate "making work" for them. I advocate them working a revised CxP transition schedule. I advocate downsizing the workforce, mostly thru normal attrition and retirements, and furloughing the rest, until you have a workforce that is properly sized to the tasks. But I want the schedule rearranged so that CxP actually gets work done that needs to be done. If that means that some of it is ahead of schedule, then so be it. But it's got to be stuff that would actually need doing. That is not a jobs program. That's being smart about retaining the skill sets and skilled labor in the industry. As a business owner, you should know that it is *always* less expensive to retain a skilled workforce thru lean times, if you can, than it is to fire them and then replace them later with people, while very smart people, who don't have a clue how to do this stuff. I want the CxP program rearranged to retain the workforce in that manner. Not welfare, and not a jobs program - real work

Just by way of a little clarification. Once the lunar program itself is in full swing, make no mistake that the workforce will be much bigger than it is today - it will have to be. But in the interim, there is no need for it to be decimated. Downsized, yes; decimated, no. There are ways to reduce it to a smaller size, intelligently. DIRECT's approach does that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/21/2008 10:16 pm
Mark S

Anyone or any group of people can design and build a launch vehicle with the proper knowledge.  If designed correctly, the vehicle will fly because it must conform to the laws of physics.  It takes a more in depth knowledge, one I believe lacking and not governed by the laws of physics, to be able to discuss operations, contracts, workforce, etc and the details associated with such. 

With all due respect, I do not need to be lectured on frequency of launches and costs associated with each.  What I have been consistently pointing out is there is a huge differnce between the technical specifications of a launch vehicle and operations costs, contracts, workforce allocation, etc.  Throughout this thread and the infamous "Direct and Jobs thread" I have consistently pointed that out. 

Jupiter, or any vehicle based of the NLS design, if ever built must be about much more than just the workforce.  Otherwise my children will be having this same discussion in a generation.  I do not see how I can make that point more clear than I have in the last several posts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/21/2008 10:26 pm
After all, this design has been on the board more or less for approximately 30 years.  It is a very valid design. 

OV, you're not considering what DIRECT is at this stage:   It is a proposal, containing a series of recommendations.

The proposal has been worked out in a pretty decent level of detail given the small team which we have access to, but its a little unreasonable to expect that it is as 'filled out' as a fully funded project would be.

Way back when we started out, we began with a narrow perspective focused almost entirely upon the technical proposal for a different rocket.

But ever since we started this, those people who want to support us politically need more than a simple technical suggestion.   We have been forced to back our initial proposals up with detailed cost profiles and schedules, workforce retention projections, risk analysis and technology readiness reviews (amongst other things).

As an aside, we've been amazingly lucky to get a lot of people involved who really know their stuff across all these topics.   The diverse cross-section of engineers, managers, analysts, accountants, legal eagles and others who are contributing to us is simply stunning to me.   These people have helped really refine the idea into an extremely thorough proposal these days -- which continues to evolve.

We have had to work out the workforce retention aspects in quite a lot of detail in order to work up our budget profiles accurately.   The two go hand-in-hand with one another.   If you ever want accurate cost profiles, you simply MUST know how many staff will be working on it.

In the broadest of strokes, those profiles indicate that the Jupiter-120 needs only about 50% of the current Shuttle workforce to process the launch vehicle and the Orion together (not including any other payload staff in this).   That leaves a large number of Shuttle folk, somewhere around 7,000 on-site employees across the country, who will not be involved in processing Jupiter-120's.

And yes, J-232 needs extra staff, but not straight after Shuttle finishes.

But we need to keep in mind that the full Lunar Exploration Program will require at least the same number of Shuttle/ISS people we have now.   In actual fact, the numbers show we will ultimately need more if we're going to utilize the moon facility and begin developing the next steps going to NEO's and Mars.

So the real question is this:

Do we sack all the surplus staff now and plan on picking up fresh faces in 5 years time, or do we try and come up with a plan which allows us to retain the current experienced workforce until they are needed later?

That's what it all boils down to in the end.

Ares is taking the approach of sacking all the surplus staff and planning to rehire new people at some point down the line.   They have to do that because they have to pay for all the additional development work involved in Ares, so they have to make deep cuts in the operational side of the agency in order to pay for the larger design side.

We don't think that's the right option.

Under DIRECT's plan we have a lot less development in the LV portion of the program.   That reduces our development cost profiles significantly: By about $5bn for Jupiter-120 vs. Ares-I and by about $12bn for Jupiter-232 vs. Ares-V.   That's a lot of money we save which can be used to pay for other things.   We're actually talking saving somewhere between $1-3bn each year compared to current Ares cost profile projections.

What that means is that we would still have sufficient budget available to pay almost all of the current Shuttle salaries.   But this is *NOT* a welfare program.   I think we can all agree that keeping workers on the payroll just for the sake of it is a pretty stupid idea.   If we're going to keep them, we need to put them to work and get some real VALUE from them.

So what we have endeavored to do is put together a comprehensive plan for how those staff can be put to valuable work in the interim years.   We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy working out the details, the costs, the schedules and the staffing implications and consulting with not just our own team, but a whole host of people throughout the contractor networks too.


What all that effort has produced, is a series of recommendations for some brand-new work projects which can be supported at part of the DIRECT architecture.

By removing the Ares-V development costs from the schedule we can re-focus MSFC's design attention away from the LV's and on to the far more important Lunar elements; the EDS, the Altair and all the different Lunar Outpost modules (Solar arrays, Power Supply Units, Pressurized Rovers, Habitats and ISRU equipment) much sooner -- by about two to three years.   That helps to close-down the current 7-8 year "workforce gap" from the far end.   While that is clearly useful, it still leaves about 5 years requiring a "bridge" for many of the existing staff.

So we need something in the middle-years of 2011 thru 2015 or so, which is valuable enough to warrant the cost of a 'bridge' contract, or more accurately a series of bridge contracts each picking up one portion of the workers.

It turns out that actually is not so hard to do.

Firstly, remember that DIRECT isn't planning to pay-through-the-nose for a second full launch vehicle development program (Ares-V) we will have a fair bit of spare budget available and having money gives you lots of options.

Second, the Jupiter-120 isn't limited to just lifting Orion capsules the way Ares-I is.   Jupiter-120 can do an awful lot more besides that.   It can bring up 20mT payloads along with Orion's, or it can fly 50mT unmanned payloads on its own, or 75mT payloads if using an EELV Upper Stage on top.

The combination of spare budget, coupled together with much greater payload lift capability, means a lot more *things* are possible with just the Jupiter-120 than can be done with Ares-I.

For a start, if we are able to continue launching Shuttle-sized payloads with Orion, that instantly means that all of the staff around the country currently preparing and processing Shuttle payloads will be keeping their jobs to process similar payloads for Jupiter-120 flights -- that's something Ares-I is never going to do -- right now nothing but 600 jobs are required for processing Orion's, any payload processing staff who don't get on the Orion contract are really going to up sh*t creek without a paddle.

Jupiter-120 allows us to plan on routinely delivering 40mT of additional payload to ISS every year.   Those flights would be a mixture of upgrades, logistics and science deliveries.   A lot of Shuttle and ISS staff will get to keep their jobs with all this extra work coming down the pipeline.   We estimate that about 800-1000 additional staff are requires for this work, in addition to regular Orion work.

More Orion-based Hubble Servicing Missions can also be planned for after Shuttle has retired.   That directly affects about 50 staff at Goddard, who are currently facing the sack.   They will all be needed under the DIRECT plans though.

Brand-new science missions can be supported either with Orion's or completely unmanned.   Missions like a human Lunar Flyby mission in 2013/14 become possible (~700 staff).   MSFC, Stennis and ULA will be busy man-rating the EELV stage (~550 staff).   USA will stay busy processing those configurations at KSC including test flights and operational flights preparing for it (~400 staff).

In addition to James Webb, new 8m diameter large-scale Space Telescopes will need designers, assembly staff and processing staff (~900 staff) scattered across a few centers.

A large-scale Mars Sample Return mission can be launched on a single Jupiter-120+HDCUS configuration, which makes it a lot more economical than the current multi-launch plan in place right now.   Savings can be made in both launch costs and also in integration complexity reduction.

There are more projects which we are discussing at present too.   But each of these projects require new contracts and staff to do the work located all around the various NASA Centers.   There are many Shuttle staff who would be able to retrain into one of those areas.

To enable some of these new missions we will also need new hardware to be built, like our Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module's.   We expect to need somewhere between 6 to 12 of those units, and the contract to build those will be able to pick up Shuttle workers (~900).   People who have experience with Shuttle structures, propulsion and TPS are obviously useful in such a project.   And I'm not just talking about KSC.   You mentioned JSC as the lead center for Orbiter and you're dead right.   Who do you think would be the most experienced team to take the lead in designing and operating the 'Orbiter payload bay' SSPDM project?   The manufacturing aspects are better suited to the staff at KSC who perform OMDT's though, so there's work there in addition to the obvious payload processing.


What our proposal is *recommending* is that all these plans shoud be examined, together, in a coordinated way.   We propose that with a sufficient number of such projects because they can provide really valuable work for almost all of the staff who will otherwise be displaced at the end of Shuttle.

We have merely done the early leg-work to *identify* a number of such options.   There are more, but these would pave the way towards saving most of the Shuttle jobs.

But this is only possible if we can cut the development costs of the new launcher.   If the LV development projects suck all the air ($$$) out of the room, these options are no longer possible.   Ares-I plus Ares-V development, both occurring at the same time costs so much together that all of these options become completely unaffordable.


And no, this isn't the whole plan.   This is just another 'broad brush strokes' view of what we're doing behind the scenes at present.   The details are a real spiders-web of logistics and are going to require some pretty good management to get it all arranged properly.   I don't imagine for one second it will be completely smooth (its a government operation after all), but if we could pull just half of it off we would be in a far better position (workforce-wise) compared to Ares.

I wish you could accept that what we've managed to work out with this is based on a lot of extremely professional research and management.   Some of your own colleagues have worked their butts off to pull this lot together for us and they really are confident that it would work.   More than that, we are getting a lot of interest from the people who are likely to try to make this actually happen.

But don't confuse this as anything other than a proposal at this point.   It's a pretty well researched one (sorry if that sounds like blowing our own trumpet, but we're proud of the effort), but its just a proposal still.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/21/2008 10:31 pm
if you have a 60 tonne core and a 40 tonne payload, wouldn't 1 require 50% more force than 2?

If you did 1, but with a payload extraction that gave you the needed ~90m/s change (is that what a previous commenter said you needed?), wouldn't that be the most efficient?  The payload can then rearrange itself leisurely once in a stable orbit.

Could you dual-purposize the tippy-toppy emergency crew evacuation rocket (TTECER) to extract the entire payload at apogee, or would the max. acceleration squash everything?


You have a wicked sense of humour, old chap. :D Yes, you could do it, but you would have to design the loads to handle it (extra-strength tensioning around the Onion shell - payload adapter etc). Also, it's a Nice Idea But In The Real World... kind of idea. (I've had many of those myself!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/21/2008 10:35 pm
Jupiter, or any vehicle based of the NLS design, if ever built must be about much more than just the workforce.  Otherwise my children will be having this same discussion in a generation.  I do not see how I can make that point more clear than I have in the last several posts.

Valid point, OV. I've often pondered the wisdom of hanging onto those SRBs when instead the best thing is a kerolox / EELV route. But I think Ross' workforce considerations, optimistic though they may be, are an important factor. I do not foresee Ares V being replaced by an EELV derivative.

Reading Ross' post, though, it makes me wonder at all the amount of work that goes into a statement like "we can protect worker's jobs during the gap." I'm sure that it's at least 75% accurate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/21/2008 10:58 pm
Ross,

Your post is quite long and honestly says nothing new to me or should it be anything new to anyone within the greater agency with good technical expertise and anyone who knows anything about responsible project management.

For one more time, I have always thought you should stick to the more technical aspects of an NLS derived launcher.  It's a solid proposal in my opinion.  I cannot speak one way or the other if you have been asked for any of those details and if the person who has asked them of you is really in any kind of influencial posistion.  My doubts are high on that front because if true and it came from within the agency or inside government you cannot get the kind of data you claim to have without it becoming pretty much general knowledge to those inside the Program at a certain level. 

However, all that said, make the proposals.  I have no problem with people doing that.  I do start to get uncomfortable when you and others on the Direct Team claim "we are planning....." or "we will do..." when it comes to workforce or contracts and you have absolutely no authority to make those claims.  Some of your "broad stoke" proposals have problems written all over them and if you have really got the help you claim from the many facets of the program you claim they should be able to tell you that. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/21/2008 11:38 pm
OV,
You're absolutely right that the plans which we have have had to deal with problems.   It hasn't been smooth sailing, not at all.   But we have worked the issues down and we believe we have managed to find ways to solve them.

I'm not trying to make small of the issues.   Honestly, I only have a rough idea of what they all are myself they're way outside of my experience base :)   But they just aren't things you can discuss properly on a forum -- you can only really look at the high-level view in a public forum and you certainly can't get into any proprietary stuff here, which really limits the scope of the explanations.

There's an awfully long way to go still,  but I think we've identified a number of good options for saving jobs.   We have also identified many of the key problems and have managed to find solutions for them.

I think we've got a solidly researched plan, with as many details as anyone could hope to have for a project which is still firmly at the Proposal stage.


Maybe you could contact me by PM and raise the specific issues you have in detail if you like.   I will then try to find out how those specific issues are dealt with in the proposals.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 12/21/2008 11:44 pm
Isn't it a given that the first few launches of a potential J120 would be unmanned? I would certainly hope so.

I was wondering if the current schedule (delivery of test articles mid-2010) could be expedited by not waiting for the man-rated RS68.  However, I see elsewhere that those are not MR until 2012ish, so, I withdraw my question :)

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/22/2008 12:49 am
Things would work a lot better if you could be done with the vast amount of work prior to the expiration of the bottomless spending appetite. Perhaps just have something to show for the work prior.  An unmanned J120 flight?  A PoC with non-manrated engines, absent Orion?  I'm not really sure what works for Congress-critters, though.

Isn't it a given that the first few launches of a potential J120 would be unmanned? I would certainly hope so.

Absolutely.   Checkout the manifest which is attached.

We have the first three Jupiter-120-X, -Y and -Z test flights all flying unmanned, each progressively getting closer and closer to final flight-spec.

The fourth flight is Jupiter-120-1, with a two-person test crew (CDR & PLT).   This flight marks "Initial Operational Capability" (IOC).

We repeat that on Jupiter-120-2 to build confidence.

Then finally, on the 6th flight we can fly a full 6-person crew.   This marks "Full Operational Capability" (FOC).


We then do the same basic arrangement later with Jupiter-232 too, with the 6th flight carrying its first full operational crew.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/22/2008 01:17 am
Isn't it a given that the first few launches of a potential J120 would be unmanned? I would certainly hope so.

I was wondering if the current schedule (delivery of test articles mid-2010) could be expedited by not waiting for the man-rated RS68.  However, I see elsewhere that those are not MR until 2012ish, so, I withdraw my question :)

Our plan is that the Jupiter-120-X would use standard "off the shelf" RS-68's without any of the human rating equipment included.

The HR hardware would be developed and tested on the test stands first, obviously.   The first flown unit would be an early developmental unit fitted to a Delta-IV Medium, to gain some inexpensive flight experience.

That flight would not have a regular payload.   However, we think it would make for a really good opportunity for a re-entry test of an early Orion boilerplate too, if the Orion Program would like to use it.

Jupiter-120-Y would fly the first set of HR hardware on the Jupiter.   Again, this would be development hardware, but more advanced and closer to final spec.

Another Delta Medium would fly a final flight-spec version to work out any remaining wrinkles.

Jupiter-120-Z would fly a full flight spec version of the hardware, just with some additional telemetry equipment for monitoring purposes.   Essentially it would be a full dress rehearsal flight, but would carry a lot of monitoring equipment instead of a crew -- just to make sure everything works perfectly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 12/22/2008 01:24 am
Sorry if this has been asked before, but if the Obama team were to recommend some plan that uses a combination of EELV / Jupiter, and since the favored EELV is the Atlas V, is it possible for Jupiter to use the RD-180 engines?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/22/2008 01:32 am
Sorry if this has been asked before, but if the Obama team were to recommend some plan that uses a combination of EELV / Jupiter, and since the favored EELV is the Atlas V, is it possible for Jupiter to use the RD-180 engines?

My personal opinion is that it would be better if they didn't use the same engines.  Having two dissimilar means to get people to orbit is a good thing when something gets grounded for some issue.  That's only my opinion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/22/2008 01:49 am
Sorry if this has been asked before, but if the Obama team were to recommend some plan that uses a combination of EELV / Jupiter, and since the favored EELV is the Atlas V, is it possible for Jupiter to use the RD-180 engines?

I would say it's rather an uprated Delta IVH. RD-180 engine availability is an issue. Sufficient say for EELV flights but not in the quantities required for a J-232. What you would effectively be doing is replacing SRBs with RD-180s, and that means a new liquid booster concept as well. I think ATK will not like. I think ATK will like some 5 seg version of J-232 or 8.4m Ares V, which is where I think NASA is headed soon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/22/2008 01:51 am
IMHO, the best option of all is to build Jupiter-120 and plan to also use the Delta-IV Heavy's Upper Stage on it in some configurations.

By doing that, you essentially human-rate about three-quarters of Delta-IV at the same time.   Human-rating the rest of Delta-IV isn't so difficult at that point.

The Shuttle jobs are under threat now, so preserving those has to take priority.   The EELV staff aren't under any such pressure.   Whether their system starts getting human-rated now or in three years time is not going to affect their jobs at all.


So, once Jupiter-120 is ready you finish human-rating Delta-IV.   That gives you a backup system, accepting that the RS-68-HR is a common system where a failure would ground both systems.


At this point, there are a number of commercial opportunities which are already planning build a second tier of human-rated capability anyway:

   1) Bigelow/ULA are planning to human-rate the Atlas-V.

   2) Space-X are also planning to human-rate their Falcon-9.

Add in Jupiter-232 into the mix and this approach will result in US having 5 different human-rated vehicles across three different performance classes.   I personally think that's enough to be going on with.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/22/2008 02:08 am
How does COTS and if funded COTS-D affect Direct?

Let's assume Ares I is dead?  What replaces it?  What combination of EELV, COTS-D and Direct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 12/22/2008 02:11 am

I'm not trying to make small of the issues.   Honestly, I only have a rough idea of what they all are myself they're way outside of my experience base :)   


Exactly my point.  If you are not qualified nor have any level of authority whatsoever, you should not be saying you *will do* or *plan* anything at all.  For example, it would be like me saying, "I will bring peace to the Middle East and my plan when implemented will consist of..."


But they just aren't things you can discuss properly on a forum -- you can only really look at the high-level view in a public forum and you certainly can't get into any proprietary stuff here, which really limits the scope of the explanations.


Like above, this is exactly the reason you should not go around saying "we will" etc.  I'm not sure what you have that is proprietary since you openly publish the technical specifications, as far as what you say about contracts and the workforce I would very much hope for your sakes you do not have anything related to the details of current contracts, otherwise you could be in trouble and that is what you are calling proprietary. 


There's an awfully long way to go still,  but I think we've identified a number of good options for saving jobs.   We have also identified many of the key problems and have managed to find solutions for them.


Thank you, but I won't be PM'ing you.  I think this conversation is realevant to the forum.  So for the job scenerio, keeping it at the top level of course, what do you do with essentially the entire Orbiter team,  those at KSC, JSC, Boeing Huntington Beach, the various vendors who build parts for Orbiter that are not required after Orbiter stops flying? 

Obviously a Jupiter-ish vehicle would retain MAF, some of the processing in the VAB at KSC and the various booster shops and much of the sustaining engineering element so we will ignore that for the sake of arguement. 

I'll give you an example system that will have some commonality with Orion to make it more simple, OMS/RCS.  Please keep in mind you have KSC, JSC and Huntington Beach to deal with.  Assuming your contacts and plans are as thourough as claimed, you will understand which role each plays and what the appropriate job will be for them after shuttle completion.  Even with a top level assessment it can be understood if the details are anywhere near valid. 



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/22/2008 02:54 am
HIP,
We would ultimately like to focus all Jupiter flights on lifting the Lunar mission hardware and have the commercial guys (COTS and EELV) lifting all the propellant and taking over routine crew-lift duties for all missions heading just for LEO.

Ares is currently assuming a cost of somewhere in the region of $10.5bn per year to pay for 2 ISS missions, 2 Lunar Crew missions and 2 Lunar Cargo missions each year.   That's the cost for 4 x Ares-I's, 4 x Ares-V's, 4 x Orion's and 4 x Altair's (mission ops, crew ops and science payloads are extra)

What could we achieve for the same money?

12 x Jupiter-232's and 2 x Jupiter-120's together would cost about $4.4bn, 8 x Orion's about $1.0bn and 12 x Altair's about $5.4bn.   That's an almost identical $10.8bn.   Yet that covers 2 x ISS flights and 6 x Lunar Crew missions and 6 x Lunar Cargo missions; triple the number of exploration-class missions every year.

We would be launching 12 US astronauts to the ISS each year, plus 24 Lunar astronauts every year, half of which would be international partners who supplied propellant in return for their seats.

Isn't this the sort of capability you need to be aiming for if you ever want to encourage additional investment from Congress in NASA?

And with that sort of total capability, you can re-allocate a Jupiter mission to an NEO mission quite easily (fuel supplied by partners who want seats on that).   You could even allocate 4 of the Jupiter's to lift all the hardware for a Mars mission too (fuel paid for by partners again).

Isn't this the sort of diverse capability you want to design into the system which you're planning to operate for the next 40 years?


Just for curiosity, lets just compare how much it would cost the other programs to match this same number of missions (Orion & Altair inclusive):

Ares = $16.2bn.

EELV = $18.8bn  (Note: Requires 120 cores to support, which is 3 times above the current maximum production rate).

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/22/2008 03:07 am
Direct 2.0.2 claims Ares Upper stage development cost of over $5 billion. Is this the Ares V EDS or does it include the Ares I upper stage as well?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 12/22/2008 05:03 am
OV-106, it seems pretty clear that "we..." is just short for "we, the Direct Team, propose that NASA...".

I can see how someone working at NASA might see "we..." on it's own as pre-sumptve, but given the clear context of this thread...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/22/2008 05:06 am
Some what off subject but when I read over NASA's review of Direct 2.0 I saw that one of their reasons for not going with Direct was because it did not meet performance standards for Constellation.  What in their estimation did Direct not perform, crew safety?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/22/2008 09:49 am
What in their estimation did Direct not perform, crew safety?

IIRC, NASA's objection was that the Jupiter-232 cannot lift the Ares-V EDS/Altair combination.  However, this is actually a red herring as, under the DIRECT proposals, the J-232 actually uses its own, different, EDS and the Altair would be lifted seperately with the Orion on the CLV.

Basically, NASA's review team made the cardinal error of cutting Ares-V's numbers out of their plan and pasting J-232's numbers in its place.  They either did not realise or chose to ignore that the change to DIRECT would lead to further changes downstream on how the lunar mission would be carried out and what equipment would be used.  Additionally, NASA is still trying to analyse the Jupiter family of rockets in the terms of the CLV/CaLV paradigm where you only have 'all-crew' or 'all-cargo' launches.  This is a paradigm that DIRECT explicity rejects from the outset as is seen from the fact that J-120 will launch dual-manifest crew/cargo missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/22/2008 09:57 am
In 'spreading the word' about DIRECT, I think it'll be important to have a concise, honest, explanation of the concept. If I'm understanding the issues correctly, it would be something like this:

- Keep within the limits of existing STS infrastructure, resulting in a slightly smaller heavy lifter but a big saving in costs.
- Build a single vehicle which can perform a two-launch lunar mission or be flown without an upper stage as a crew launcher. Even though the crew launcher is thus quite large, the savings in operational and development costs more than make up for it.
- Use a different upper stage design than Ares, to achieve better performance Is this the weak point of the concept?
- Accept lower vehicle performance and use the cost savings to fly more missions instead. This includes being open to the concept of a propellant depot for future expansion needs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 12/22/2008 10:26 am
OV-106, it seems pretty clear that "we..." is just short for "we, the Direct Team, propose that NASA...".

I can see how someone working at NASA might see "we..." on it's own as pre-sumptve, but given the clear context of this thread...

I agree. The context is very clear. Time to move on.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/22/2008 12:25 pm

I'll give you an example system that will have some commonality with Orion to make it more simple, OMS/RCS.  Please keep in mind you have KSC, JSC and Huntington Beach to deal with.  Assuming your contacts and plans are as thourough as claimed, you will understand which role each plays and what the appropriate job will be for them after shuttle completion.  Even with a top level assessment it can be understood if the details are anywhere near valid. 


Huntington Beach is not needed.
LM is building the Service Module.  It will have the vehicle engineering experts at Houston and/Denver and the vendors of the systems will have experts.  JSC will have "some" engineering and mission ops experts on the systems.

LM Denver will have to assemble its own experts since they are not coming from Huntington Beach.  People at JSC and Houston can move between companies as needed.

LM, at the O&C, will assemble components (OME, tanks, thrusters, etc) from the vendors.   LM KSC  personnel won't be coming from direct conversions from an existing contract.  LM will build up from people leaving USA and Boeing and others.  There will be no official movement of people. 

Propellent loading for Orion will be done by the new ground ops contractor that will take over from SFOC and also CAPPS.  This is the only direct conversion of people from one contract to another.  However, this isn't that beneficial since there are many groups at the cape that can load propellants.

There is no need for a large standing army at KSC since the OMS/RCS is not reused and refurb.

Same thing is similar for the SSME personnel at KSC.  They are not need once RS-68's, J-2 and even if RS-25's are used.  The stages come with the engines preintegrated and there is no work to be done on them.  This is how Delta and Atlas and Saturn did it.  There is only a small (less than 10 people) resident office at the center.  If there is work needed to be done on an engine (a rare event) either the vehicle contractor personnel do it under supervision of the resident office or the engine contractor sends people TDY

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/22/2008 02:03 pm
In 'spreading the word' about DIRECT, I think it'll be important to have a concise, honest, explanation of the concept. If I'm understanding the issues correctly, it would be something like this:

- Keep within the limits of existing STS infrastructure, resulting in a slightly smaller heavy lifter but a big saving in costs.
- Build a single vehicle which can perform a two-launch lunar mission or be flown without an upper stage as a crew launcher. Even though the crew launcher is thus quite large, the savings in operational and development costs more than make up for it.
- Use a different upper stage design than Ares, to achieve better performance Is this the weak point of the concept?

Absolutely. With less burnout mass than the latest Ares EDS, Direct claims to be able to mount another J2 and carry 36% more usable propellant.

If this sort of mass fraction is practical, then it should be part of the Ares baseline, in which case Ares V would be a lot smaller.

If it isn't, then Jupiter will not meet its claimed performance
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 12/22/2008 02:24 pm
If this sort of mass fraction is practical, then it should be part of the Ares baseline, in which case Ares V would be a lot smaller.

   I'm not seeing the point of making it the Ares V baseline. If you shrink the Ares V down, such as reducing the tank diameter, removing some SRB segments and using fewer engines, you essentially end up with a Jupiter-232-SH. If Ares V just becomes a Jupiter, what's the point of either Ares I or V?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mnewcomb on 12/22/2008 03:45 pm
Ares looks done...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3868153/Barack-Obama-under-fire-from-Nasa-over-plans-to-slash-budget.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zinfab on 12/22/2008 04:32 pm
That article looks hackneyed as all get-out. it refers to the original Sentinel article without adding much more than Nasa [sic] confirms reports.

That said, I don't expect the Telegraph to be as plugged-in as others. They don't even back up their premise.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/22/2008 04:47 pm
Absolutely. With less burnout mass than the latest Ares EDS, Direct claims to be able to mount another J2 and carry 36% more usable propellant.

If this sort of mass fraction is practical, then it should be part of the Ares baseline, in which case Ares V would be a lot smaller.

If it isn't, then Jupiter will not meet its claimed performance

You're forgetting that Jupiter-232 is intended to launch a lot less into LEO than the baseline Ares-V, about 50% less, IIRC. 

Ares-V has been, from the outset, crippled by this need to launch 150mt into LEO for no other apparent reason than a desire to be the most powerful LV of all time.  Because of this, it is unable to use the mass and efficiency savings that makes Jupiter-232 able to do what it does.

I think that the talking point we get from this comparison is to remember that the Ares-V design process is driven first and foremost by politics, not mission.  The mission has been subsequently written around the political objective (most powerful LV), not around any inviolable engineering or mission planning requirements.  Jupiter gets away with being smaller and lighter because, in practice, there is no compelling reason why it needs to be larger.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 12/22/2008 04:56 pm
Excuse me, where's the politics, besides the VSE?

Ares V is a better Mars rocket than J-232, that's the very apparent reason. We could return to the moon with less.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 12/22/2008 04:57 pm
Ares V is a better Mars rocket than J-232

Define "better".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/22/2008 05:03 pm
Excuse me, where's the politics, besides the VSE?

Ares V is a better Mars rocket than J-232, that's the very apparent reason. We could return to the moon with less.

I keep seeing this assertion but no facts to back it up.  Are you under the impression that the Mars mission can be carried off with a single launch of a single Ares-V?  Or that there is come critical Mars component that must be lifted on a single 150-187 mT launch?  Because that's the only way I can see how it could be considered "better" than J-232.

Of course, that is not the plan.  From what I have seen, the comparison is between 4xAres-V+1xAres-I, versus 5xJ232.  Both involve five launches.  So again, how is Ares-V better?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/22/2008 05:08 pm
Excuse me, where's the politics, besides the VSE?

Out of respect to Chris, I'm trying to avoid causing this debate to degenerate into (yet another) character assassination directed at Dr. Griffin but that is getting harder to do. :P

There are politics at the national/executive level (VSE) and then there is politics at the corporate level (non-mission-oriented objectives of NASA policy makers)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/22/2008 05:21 pm
Absolutely. With less burnout mass than the latest Ares EDS, Direct claims to be able to mount another J2 and carry 36% more usable propellant.

If this sort of mass fraction is practical, then it should be part of the Ares baseline, in which case Ares V would be a lot smaller.

If it isn't, then Jupiter will not meet its claimed performance

You're forgetting that Jupiter-232 is intended to launch a lot less into LEO than the baseline Ares-V, about 50% less, IIRC. 

Using a smaller rocket doesn't make it easier to achieve a favorable mass fraction. The reverse is true because of scaling issues.

The key point is that the Direct team is being being much more agressive in assuming they can build a very light upper stage than NASA is.

I agree with their key point that one launcher is cheaper to develop and fly than two. But I suspect that a launcher big enough to do a two launch solution that meets NASA's lunar access goals is going to need to be a bit bigger than a good launcher based on 4 segment solids and the external tank diameter.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 12/22/2008 05:36 pm
Ares V is a better Mars rocket than J-232

Define "better".

IMHO..  The one that actually has a chance of getting built
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 12/22/2008 05:42 pm
Ares V is a better Mars rocket than J-232

Define "better".

IMHO..  The one that actually has a chance of getting built

Just the payload makes it better. Less launches required for a mission.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 12/22/2008 05:44 pm
Excuse me, where's the politics, besides the VSE?

Ares V is a better Mars rocket than J-232, that's the very apparent reason. We could return to the moon with less.

I keep seeing this assertion but no facts to back it up.  Are you under the impression that the Mars mission can be carried off with a single launch of a single Ares-V? 

[...]


No, I am not.

I believe J-232 can do the Moon missions and that if you want your "heavier lift" for Mars you could incrementally upgrade J-232 until you get your Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 12/22/2008 05:48 pm
Just the payload makes it better. Less launches required for a mission.

If the metric is number of launches, then it's arguable it's better for a Mars mission. Why stop there, why not a 500 mt launcher instead? Only one launch!

Obviously, that's not the only metric and certainly not the most important one. Do cost and sustainability ever get into the picture?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 12/22/2008 05:52 pm

[...]

Obviously, that's not the only metric and certainly not the most important one. Do cost and sustainability ever get into the picture?

Yes, it's not the only metric. For me an important metric is the track record set by ISS. How much time to get my Mars spacecraft assembled on orbit and what kind of infrastructure is required?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 12/22/2008 05:58 pm
For me an important metric is the track record set by ISS. How much time to get my Mars spacecraft assembled on orbit and what kind of infrastructure is required?

How does ISS play into this? Was ISS construction time limited only by available launch frequency?

Are you saying 4 launches on an Ares V are acceptable to assemble a Mars ship, but 5 or 6 or even 7 are unacceptable? Where is the sensible cutoff since even Ares V can't lift that much in one piece?

I don't know if you've noticed, but noone's exactly rushing to get to Mars as quickly as possible lately.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/22/2008 06:00 pm

The key point is that the Direct team is being being much more agressive in assuming they can build a very light upper stage than NASA is.

We are not being overly aggressive – we are using a more efficient design for our upper stage than NASA is.

The current evolution of NASA’s upper stage is much heavier than ours and less efficient in the way it handles the cryo propellants. It has been designed by engineers who have never designed an upper stage before, working in a design office that has not produced an upper stage in more than 40 years, and using a design tool that has never – ever produced a successful upper stage design.

The Jupiter upper stage is solidly based on the existing design of the Centaur, using LM proprietary Cold Technology for cryo propellant handling, and with the assistance of design engineers who build these stages for a living. It has a much better mass fraction than NASA’s design because it is based on existing industry standards and is designed around more than 40 years of flight experience by designers who have been doing this continually for decades.

In actual matter of fact, those design engineers tell us that our stage will perform much better than what we have advertised. They have told us what their analysis predicts, but we haven’t divulged that because (1) people already don’t believe our numbers as they are and (2) that leaves us quite a bit of additional margin to cover mass overruns.

No – we are not being overly aggressive. The problem is not the Jupiter upper stage; it’s the inability of the inexperienced NASA designers to duplicate it using tools that have never produced a successful design. Having said that I want to be clear that is not a swipe at them because they are among the brightest design engineers anywhere. They just have the wrong tools and lack the 40 years of flight experience that created this design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 12/22/2008 06:05 pm
[...]

Are you saying 4 launches on an Ares V are acceptable to assemble a Mars ship, but 5 or 6 or even 7 are unacceptable? Where is the sensible cutoff since even Ares V can't lift that much in one piece?

No, I am just saying that less launches is better (and this I believe has been proven by ISS assembly). I am doing no J-bashing saying this. On the contrary, I consider J-232 an excellent starting point to develop bigger rockets, if required.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/22/2008 06:06 pm
Excuse me, where's the politics, besides the VSE?

Ares V is a better Mars rocket than J-232, that's the very apparent reason. We could return to the moon with less.

I keep seeing this assertion but no facts to back it up.  Are you under the impression that the Mars mission can be carried off with a single launch of a single Ares-V? 

[...]


No, I am not.

I believe J-232 can do the Moon missions and that if you want your "heavier lift" for Mars you could incrementally upgrade J-232 until you get your Ares V.

Well, based on the facts that:
    1) The Mars mission profile is not well defined for either architecture
    2) Any Mars missions are at least 20 years in the future

Therefore, I think the best architecture is the one that:
   A) Is workable for a wide variety of LEO, Lunar, and NEO missions
   B) Is affordable and sustainable from the start
   C) Starts returning results on investment A.S.A.P.
   D) Can be expanded and improved in small, incremental steps to reduce long-term risks.

All of those factors favor Direct.

Cheers!
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 12/22/2008 06:14 pm
[...]

    1) The Mars mission profile is not well defined for either architecture

[...]

Well, Mars DRM's exist and it is envisioned that about 270 t are required on orbit for a mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/22/2008 09:45 pm
Well, Mars DRM's exist and it is envisioned that about 270 t are required on orbit for a mission.

Absolutely correct sandrot.

There are some other interesting facts from the various Mars architectures (NASA DRM inclusive) too:

1) More than half of that total Initial Mass in LEO is the TMI propellant.   The spacecraft (including descent propellant for the lander) represents less than half of that total.

2) There is no individual module massing more than ~90mT which needs to be lifted.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 12/22/2008 09:47 pm
We all know propellant depots make sense, we all know what NASA preference is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 12/23/2008 12:49 am
Ross,

With regard to what "you-direct" would "do" with projected savings fostered by the adoption of the Jupiter series launcher, I would recommend saying things like:

Projected savings would make possible ...
Anticipated efficencies and reuse of components could enable retention of .....  personnel and potential acceleration of up to ... months/years
In our view, such and such course of action, allows
We recommend such and such ...
Example manifests ...

and so on.

This allows you to forward plan, maintain your optimistic projections, and perhaps removes some of the overly strong language that essentiallly appears to cut Congress, NASA Administration, and the contracting process out of the plan.

You also have to realize that if a government agency "saves" money, they frequently don't get to reprogram it, they lose it in the following fiscal year and any excess from the current year is returned to the general fund of the United States Treasury.


I'm not trying to make small of the issues.   Honestly, I only have a rough idea of what they all are myself they're way outside of my experience base :)   


Exactly my point.  If you are not qualified nor have any level of authority whatsoever, you should not be saying you *will do* or *plan* anything at all.  For example, it would be like me saying, "I will bring peace to the Middle East and my plan when implemented will consist of..."


But they just aren't things you can discuss properly on a forum -- you can only really look at the high-level view in a public forum and you certainly can't get into any proprietary stuff here, which really limits the scope of the explanations.


Like above, this is exactly the reason you should not go around saying "we will" etc.  I'm not sure what you have that is proprietary since you openly publish the technical specifications, as far as what you say about contracts and the workforce I would very much hope for your sakes you do not have anything related to the details of current contracts, otherwise you could be in trouble and that is what you are calling proprietary. 


There's an awfully long way to go still,  but I think we've identified a number of good options for saving jobs.   We have also identified many of the key problems and have managed to find solutions for them.


Thank you, but I won't be PM'ing you.  I think this conversation is realevant to the forum.  So for the job scenerio, keeping it at the top level of course, what do you do with essentially the entire Orbiter team,  those at KSC, JSC, Boeing Huntington Beach, the various vendors who build parts for Orbiter that are not required after Orbiter stops flying? 

Obviously a Jupiter-ish vehicle would retain MAF, some of the processing in the VAB at KSC and the various booster shops and much of the sustaining engineering element so we will ignore that for the sake of arguement. 

I'll give you an example system that will have some commonality with Orion to make it more simple, OMS/RCS.  Please keep in mind you have KSC, JSC and Huntington Beach to deal with.  Assuming your contacts and plans are as thourough as claimed, you will understand which role each plays and what the appropriate job will be for them after shuttle completion.  Even with a top level assessment it can be understood if the details are anywhere near valid. 




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 12/23/2008 01:03 am
I continue not to get the economy you all attach to propellent depots.

For the sake of argument, lets say I have a launcher than can put 10,000 gallons of fuel/oxydizer into orbit and maintain it there.

I have no doubt left off some costs, like the cost of maintaining my own little mission control to keep the monitor/control the depot.  Also, the cost of my development program to develop the orbital refueling capability, my test plan, etc, which you are going to pay for too.

Cost of my launcher (minus the payload) to orbit  is 254 million.
Cost to produce the payload $5.00/gallon = 50,000
Total Cost = 254,050,000
Profit @15% = 38,107,500*
Grand Total Cost to you = 292,157,500

Price per gallon to you = 29215.75

*In spite of our free market, the government limits profits of aerospace contractors, otherwise, I might charge you 100% profit.  :)

What this does is offload some of the actual launches to someone else so that you do not have to loft and monitor your own depot, but you are going to pay for it.

I certainly recognise that there is an operational gain to be had, just not an economic gain to you.  It may well end up costing you more than it would to just loft the stuff yourself.

Mike

P.S.  I know we have gone round this issue before.  I am perhaps a little slow to grasp the economics that you, chuck, and the others see so clearly.




We all know propellant depots make sense, we all know what NASA preference is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: The-Hammer on 12/23/2008 01:34 am
The economics are:
a) NASA won't be paying cash for the propellant. They'll be paying lunar expedition seats.
b) As the EELV class rockets [Delta IV, Atlas V, Falcon 9, Ariane V, Proton, H-II] fly more often to support the propellant depot they become cheaper on a per-flight basis. EVERY EELV-class customer, including NASA, DoD, ESA, Commercial, etc, benefit from the cheaper flights.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/23/2008 02:22 am
We all know propellant depots make sense, we all know what NASA preference is.

Orbital cryogenic propellant depots make sense if they work as hoped. The history of space travel is littered with ideas that would have been wonderful if they worked as hoped.

For artificial gravity all you need to do is spin two modules on a tether. What could go wrong? Tethers have lots of other potential, once you get them to unspool. How hard can that be?

To reduce costs, what we need is a reusable orbital vehicle. Once we do that, cost will plummetl, right?

Single stage to orbit. Microgravity manufacturing.

Propellant depots have a lot of potential. Let's let them show they can fulfill it before we  count on them.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 12/23/2008 02:49 am
Actually I am so and so in favor of orbital depots. But I let once Ross talk me into that...

The argument of building the "depot economy" is good. But only up to a certain point: if my neighborhood gas station had to be filled by cars instead of tanker trucks... well, I guess that the gas would cost me a whole lot more. So if you have a depot you have to have the equivalent of a tanker truck or "heavy lift". Now, that role cannot be fulfilled by EELV's, and cannot be fulfilled by other countries launchers that are not heavy lift.

2nd argument against is: what orbital inclination do I choose? That could be relevant as a wrong choice could prevent certain types of exploration missions.

That being said, I understand why NASA wants to go all the way up to orbit with all the fuel required for the mission.

But it is true that for Moon or Mars exploration an orbital depot might be the way to go.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/23/2008 02:51 am
Mike,
   It's pretty straight forward.   Instead of America paying for all of it, we get our international partners to pick up some of the bill by lifting the fuel instead.

   Its something they can afford to do and its a real and extremely valuable contribution to each mission.

   The HLLV Jupiter's are a NASA asset and so they aren't available on the commercial market.   But the Atlas and Delta EELV's and all of the New-Space companies are all supposedly commercial operations, right?   Well there will be a whole new commercial market for propellant deliveries from all those countries who don't have their own space mature programs.   And there's over 130 countries in the world, most of whom don't have their own space programs, but who are still probably interested in the prestige of flying an astronaut to the moon for a reasonable price.

   The cost to the US drops.   That money can then be used to pay for extra missions and that's how we can grow the program without all the costs resting entirely upon the shoulders of the US Tax Payer.

   Strategically speaking, space has been one of the greatest of human endeavours which has helped bring countries together.   Apollo/Soyuz.   MIR/Shuttle.   ISS.   All these program have increased the scope of international cooperation in space, even between some very serious adversaries (USA / USSR).   This program could end up growing into the biggest international cooperative effort in human history.   Perhaps.   And I don't think I'm the only one hoping for much better international relations over the next decade than we've had in the last.   This sort of program could be used politically as a proverbial Olive Branch for the 21st Century.   Imagine a flight with An American CDR, a Russian PLT and both a Muslim and a Jewish Missions Specialist all on the one flight, cooperating together in space on a 6-month exploration mission.   It's theoretically possible.   All we really need, is the will to make it happen.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/23/2008 02:55 am
if my neighborhood gas station had to be filled by cars instead of tanker trucks... well, I guess that the gas would cost me a whole lot more. So if you have a depot you have to have the equivalent of a tanker truck or "heavy lift". Now, that role cannot be fulfilled by EELV's, and cannot be fulfilled by other countries launchers that are not heavy lift.


Wrong analogy.   EELV's are not cars, they are the tankers.  HLV would be supertankers.

Depots supported by EELV's are viable
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 12/23/2008 03:04 am
I really don't know Jim, if the tanker is 20t fuel to LEO and my car needs 70t fuel for its mission where does the economy of the system go?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/23/2008 03:19 am
I really don't know Jim, if the tanker is 20t fuel to LEO and my car needs 70t fuel for its mission where does the economy of the system go?


Even though your tanker needs 70 tons, you do not care how it gets there, you just care that the fuel is there.

Water is worth more than gold to a dying man in the desert.  You just need it there.  If I do not have to carry all my fuel, that space is now can be used for the cargo which is very valuable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/23/2008 03:21 am
Propellant depots have a lot of potential. Let's let them show they can fulfill it before we  count on them.

Okay, Will, I think that is a big part of what Direct is trying to do.  Unless we actually design and build a PD, how will it ever be able to prove itself?  And unless we give international partners the chance to contribute and participate at a financial level that they can afford, how will we know if that economic model is valid or not?

Did you have something else in mind than actually building a PD and trying to put it into operation?  Because I don't really see how else the concept could possibly "prove itself" to all of the committed skeptics out there without a full-blown operational success.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 12/23/2008 04:22 am
Ares looks done...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3868153/Barack-Obama-under-fire-from-Nasa-over-plans-to-slash-budget.html


That article also claims that both Atlas V and Delta IV are over 20 years old. Yes the families date back to the 60s, but they are pretty much brand new designs with the Atlas and Delta name slapped on them.

But I tend to agree that Ares' days are numbered. Now I think the battle changes from proving Ares I is not the way to go, to proving to the Obama team that Jupiter will still allow us the option to go to the Moon. Going to the Moon will get much harder if it is just EELV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: fotoguzzi on 12/23/2008 05:21 am
I continue not to get the economy you all attach to propellent depots.

My impressions from past threads:

DIRECT is expensive, so it should haul the most valuable cargo.

VAB, LC39-A, and LC39-B are expensive, so only DIRECT rockets should launch from there.  For a multi-rocket mission, the fewer DIRECT rockets needed, the fewer resources wasted in LEO waiting for modules to arrive.

It should be cheaper per kg to get propellant to a depot by other means than DIRECT, and it might help the schedule at LC39 to do so.

If, however, it is not cheaper, it still might be worthwhile to a country to pay the same $ / kg to send up some propellant in exchange for a mission seat.

Modify: added words, but still trying to keep it short



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 12/23/2008 06:20 am
Quote
Propellant depots have a lot of potential. Let's let them show they can fulfill it before we  count on them.

If propellant depots fail to work as hoped for, upgrade Jupiter 232 to Ares V class once it becomes obvious depots won't work. With Direct 2.0, that option shall remain out there.
 
If propellant depots do work, the taxpayers avoid those unnecessary development costs. Find out if propellant depots work before spending the development money on Ares 1 and Ares V.

Whether or not LOX can be carried to the depot at a lower cost per kilogram, the operational benefits and flexibility should reduce NASA's cost structure for a lunar mission, for example. If EELV or the COTS players cannot succeed, pre-deploy LOX with a 3rd Jupiter 232 well in advance of the actual mission.

Politically, spreading the wealth by giving EELV and NewSpace COTS players the opportunity to potentially compete in the fuel slogging business, grows a larger constituency that can express their support to Congress for the entire program.

If Ares sucks all the $$$ out of the budget, how does NASA build and retain a political coalition to support the VSE?

Jupiter 120 should also assist the Orion designers by giving that team large mass margins, especially in the early going, and that could save considerable design expense. For example, if a 1200 kg "add on" solves a problem without extended engineering effort, that saves money and the J-120 can absorb the extra mass easily enough.

Upgrade to a more elegant solution after flights commence, as the budget allows.



We all know propellant depots make sense, we all know what NASA preference is.

Orbital cryogenic propellant depots make sense if they work as hoped. The history of space travel is littered with ideas that would have been wonderful if they worked as hoped.

For artificial gravity all you need to do is spin two modules on a tether. What could go wrong? Tethers have lots of other potential, once you get them to unspool. How hard can that be?

To reduce costs, what we need is a reusable orbital vehicle. Once we do that, cost will plummetl, right?

Single stage to orbit. Microgravity manufacturing.

Propellant depots have a lot of potential. Let's let them show they can fulfill it before we  count on them.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/23/2008 11:13 am
I really don't know Jim, if the tanker is 20t fuel to LEO and my car needs 70t fuel for its mission where does the economy of the system go?

70t is not a car.  It is a motor home that only gets used once or twice a year (Ares V flight rate).  The economy of the system is that you added 3-4 more launches to an existing launch vehicles. This increases flight rates and reduces costs per launch.  It does need the huge ground infrastructure development and costs for an HLV.  Also it does need the huge development costs of the HLV
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/23/2008 11:48 am
I continue not to get the economy you all attach to propellant depots.

Mike- You're missing the whole point. It's not about making the propellant cheaper. It's about spreading the cost of the propellant around to other players besides NASA, thus lowering NASA's costs and creating a profitable market for commercial space to compete in. By deploying a propellant depot, DIRECT hopes to bring international and NGO partners into the VSE missions. In the process, commercial space gets into the business on a “for-profit” basis. It truly is a "build it and they will come" situation. Here's some "off the wall" numbers to make the point. Remember, these are "for example" numbers only. Don't read anything, like percentages, into them. They just make a point.

Let's say that it costs $1,000 to launch a Jupiter-232 carrying Orion, LSAM and EDS with enough propellant to reach orbit. It also costs $1,000 to launch a second Jupiter-232 with a full EDS to perform the TLI burn for the stack.

Scenario 1: Every time NASA does a lunar mission on its own dime, it spends $2,000 just to get underway, $1,000 for each of two launches of the Jupiter-232. For that money, you get 4 American astronauts on the lunar surface.

Scenario 2: Let's say that Bosnia and Spain want to go to the moon with us. Neither one has launch facilities of any kind that can participate in the VSE but they do have trained astronauts. So Spain enters into a contract with ULA to put half the lunar mission propellant in the depot on an Atlas, and Bosnia contracts with SpaceX to put the other half in the depot on a Falcon-9. Now there is enough propellant in the depot to go to the moon. Only the crew now consists of two Americans, one Spaniard and one Bosnian. A single Jupiter-232 launches with Orion, the LSAM and an EDS with enough propellant to get to orbit. The launch costs NASA $1,000, the same as before. But instead of launching a second Jupiter-232 with a full EDS, the Orion-LSAM and nearly empty EDS proceeds to the depot, fills the tanks and then departs for the moon. Total cost of the mission * TO NASA * is $1,000, half the previous cost. In the process, both ULA and SpaceX have made a handsome profit.

Here’s the key: I don’t give a rip how much it cost Bosnia and Spain to put propellant in the depot. Whatever the cost was, it was worth it to them to be able to send their countrymen to the moon. All I really care about is my budget and that NASA got to the moon for half the cost. Now, I can either keep the number of missions the same and do the VSE for half price or I can keep the original budget and do twice as many missions. If I choose to increase the number of missions, I increase the flight rates of the commercial launchers that are being contracted to fill the depot. That brings their price down and increases their bottom-line profit margin. The stockholders will get better dividends.

The depot gives me that choice.
It also gives commercial space a profitable market to exploit.
In addition, it gives any nation, anywhere on earth, an opportunity to actually participate in human spaceflight.

By opening space to more and more players, the depot will become central to human spaceflight. Eventually it won't be a "for NASA-only" depot. The ESA will use it. The Russians will use it. The Indians will use it, The Chinese will use it, large corporations will use it as well as other NGO's. Any number of nations capable of contracting for propellant deliveries and/or launch services for their own manned spacecraft will use it. There’s nothing preventing SpaceDev, for example, from deploying DreamChaser or any other “Spacecraft Manufacturer” and then, just like Ford or GM, sell it at retail to any customer that can afford it, anywhere on earth, who would then purchase a launch services contract with any commercial company capable of lifting their spacecraft into LEO. There is nothing preventing Argentina, Mexico or Norway from deploying their own manned spacecraft on a Soyuz, Long March or man-rated Ariaine, Falcon, Delta or Atlas except the ability to have enough propellant available on-orbit to enable them to actually do something with it once they get there. Available propellant on-orbit actually opens human spaceflight to the whole world. Flight traffic and launch rates will increase, propellant use will increase and the price per kilogram of on-orbit propellant will come down. It’s simple supply & demand. But in the interim, just by shifting half the cost of a lunar mission to another nation or nations, my costs, NASA's costs, are reduced. The others will pay what they will pay - it's worth it to them.

That's what a propellant depot does for us.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/23/2008 02:07 pm
I continue not to get the economy you all attach to propellent depots.

We all know propellant depots make sense, we all know what NASA preference is.

The really big advantage is that you don't need to develop an Ares V class launcher to get to the moon. Or a Jupiter. And the launchers you do use will have a higher flight rate, which really helps their economics.

The more subtle advantage is that you don't need to haul a tank sized for 250 or 350 tons of fuel all the way to TLI, as Ares V or Jupiter 232 do. Instead of the useless extra mass, you can carry extra payload to the moon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/23/2008 02:19 pm

The more subtle advantage is that you don't need to haul a tank sized for 250 or 350 tons of fuel all the way to TLI, as Ares V or Jupiter 232 do. Instead of the useless extra mass, you can carry extra payload to the moon.

Close, but not quite. You do still need to have a big tank and haul it to the moon. The difference is that when you're bringing it up the gravity well into LEO, it comes up empty. You fill it on-orbit at the depot. It's the mass of the propellant that goes into the tank, not the mass of the empty tank, that puts such a payload limit on what we can lift during the mission launch. Not carrying all that propellant up the gravity well during the mission launch allows you to increase the payload.
Title: Anti DIRECT Motivation
Post by: robert_d on 12/23/2008 07:39 pm
Does this sound at least plausible?

Based on Chuck's comments, my imprudent use of the word 'hate' and the mistaken attribution of the timing of the ISS funding withdrawal, I hereby withdraw my speculation as unsupported and inappropriate for this thread.  Thanks to anyone who did comment, I like to think that I can learn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mfg5 on 12/23/2008 07:41 pm
Aargh!

The principle value of a propellant depot is more fundamental than cost savings-- it is operational.

It allows international participation without putting international partners on the critical path.  c.f. Russia and the ISS.
Title: Re: Anti DIRECT Motivation
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/23/2008 07:52 pm
I kind of disagree with Ross' atribution of motive to Mike Griffin to explain the Ares architecture choice. Ross thinks (at least partly) that Mr. Griffin wants to out Von Braun Von Braun by making the world's biggest rocket.  I think Mr. Griffin really believes that the ISS was a massive mistake that has locked us into LEO and prevents us from venturing outward.  That is why the original funding streams for ISS were to end in 2016 and it was from there that the development funding for Ares V would come.  He tried to gut any chance that the ISS would do real science because it might garner support for continuation.  Similarly, he wanted the Shuttle retirement to be a hard deadline because it would leave ISS in an unfinished and possible precarious situation for continued American occupation. Allocating one flight to Hubble even helped the scenario.  This also explains his support for Ares 1 and hatred of Jupiter 120.  With ARES I he gets the most expensive manned launcher (too expensive for mere ISS resupply) that also is too small to carry meaningful payloads - which again might allow new ISS science or unfinished modules to be sent to ISS.  In this sense the worse the performance of Ares 1, the better.  So the more the Direct team comes up with scenarios to augment ISS, the more Griffin hates them.  What he should realize is that a) national political support for ISS continuation was and will be stronger than he thought and b)  the Obama team may use the space program and ISS as a international tool of diplomacy, and so will not risk a long gap.
Does this sound at least plausible?


I agree with you. He is thinking of the end results and how to get there--If ISS and shuttle have to go...so be it.  :-( 

But what the Great Doctor failed to see, if Ares I is soo expensive he might not get the other half of his plan. He's gamble is all or nothing, rather it might have been more rational to go with the middle ground--that way I might not get all that I want, but the US is alot better off than the plan we have now.

If ISS stucks the US in LOE, what do you think Ares I alone will do?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/23/2008 08:02 pm
Well I doubt any one cares but after being on here for the last couple weeks I must say I am now in favor of Direct  :P
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/23/2008 08:03 pm
Aargh!

The principle value of a propellant depot is more fundamental than cost savings-- it is operational.

It allows international participation without putting international partners on the critical path.  c.f. Russia and the ISS.

I agree--a fuel depot gives you a choice as what to bring.  :-)
 
Think about moving cross country twice a year.   You can drive your car and bring your own tanker each time you drive cross country since there are no fuel stops.  Guess how much stuff I can bring in my car?  That's the Ares plan.

Now, if there is fuel stop 1/2 way say in the midwest?  I can leave the car at home, take the tanker, 1/2 empty with my furniture in the other half.  In the midwest, I stop and fuel up, and continual across country.  Guess what?  I now no longer need that extra car--I do not need that car storage and maintainance on it.  And addtional benefit, I may get to move more of stuff each trip.   Now, If I can get my friends to fill up that depot, for a ride across country.  I am happy and my friends are happy. My costs are lower and guess what, my friends do not have to buy, maintain or develop a new car to drive them--the Direct plan with a PD. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/23/2008 08:16 pm
We all have our opinions on the possible motives of Dr Griffin for the choices he has made. They've been voiced here before and the history of that on the forum has taught us that this kind of discussion can inflame passions and is not only off topic, but can easily  degenerate into some kind of character assassination. Regardless of his motives, Dr Griffin deserves better than that. I know that so far these recent comments haven't done that, but once again, they open the door, and that's something we don't want to do. I think it is fair to say that whatever his motives are, Dr Griffin has championed a launch architecture that is proving to be exceptionally expensive and technically difficult to field. The implications for the American manned spaceflight program are not optimal if this specific effort continues. This thread got its start almost three years ago in an attempt to identify an alternative launch architecture that would do the job defined in the ESAS but in a more practical and financially sound manner. I would ask that we refrain from trying to divine any of Dr Griffin's motives, which are his own private concern, and stick with the practical implications of his decisions and the alternative we have proposed; DIRECT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/23/2008 09:25 pm
Well I doubt any one cares but after being on here for the last couple weeks I must say I am now in favor of Direct  :P

I'll take that as an early Christmas present :)

Glad we were able to win you around.

Keep your questions/comments coming though.   The more eyes we have on this, the more peer-review we can get; the better for us all.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/23/2008 09:38 pm
If propellant depots fail to work as hoped for, upgrade Jupiter 232 to Ares V class once it becomes obvious depots won't work. With Direct 2.0, that option shall remain out there.

Don't forget that the standard 2x Jupiter-232 mission plan meets all of NASA's performance targets already, with spare margin -- and not even needing the 5-seg SRB's yet.

Even if we were never to get a working depot, we can still do every single mission CxP have planned.   And we can also do it for less money, both developmentally and operationally.

The Depot is not actually in the critical path to success.   We can do the whole program, for the next 30-40 years, without it.   But seeing as we can afford to develop it, the "icing on the cake" which it offers is exceptionally desirable.


mfg5's comment above is dead-on the money; the benefits of the Depot aren't just technical.   They reach well into the political and national strategic realms as well.   We don't have to, but we *should* plan it.   We can still achieve all our goals even if it were to prove impossible, but with it our total capabilities can grow by an order of magnitude.

And reading the work that was done during the early Apollo missions (AS-203 for example and the designs and plans which were put together by people such as von Braun, Mueller, Davis and Faget around Apollo Applications towards the end of the program, combined with experience built on Centaur, Delta and even some experiments flown on Shuttle all indicate that Depot technology is quite achievable.   In fact, all of the elements have been used previously, but always separately.   They have simply never been brought together in a single system.   The tanking, the MLI, the pumps, the disconnects, the pressurization equipment, the valves, the feedlines -- all have flown in some fashion or other before.   The TRL is really high for each of those as elements.   All we really need is an integration effort and the will (and budget) to allow it to happen.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/23/2008 09:58 pm
If this sort of mass fraction is practical, then it should be part of the Ares baseline, in which case Ares V would be a lot smaller.

Not sure this was answered fully yet.

The DIRECT team claim that it's possible to build a better EDS/US than NASA have baselined. Regardless of what happens lower down on the vehicle, this is an interesting argument. In fact is a standalone issue because Ares would benefit from such a switch, if it were possible.

We all know that NASA are trying hard to squeeze every last bit of performance from Ares-V: composite cases, 5.5seg, 6 or 7 engines, composite intertanks etc. The cynic in me thinks that if it were possible to create a significantly better EDS, then NASA would already have looked at that. What do NASA have to lose by altering the design of the stage? This makes me a little suspicious about DIRECT's numbers on the EDS.

This leads me back to my point earlier: DIRECT is really a three-pronged concept: single LV; smaller LV; different EDS. And the EDS looks like the weak point.
Title: Re: Anti DIRECT Motivation
Post by: renclod on 12/23/2008 10:09 pm
A lot of meat here, said the shark.
I kind of disagree with Ross' atribution of motive to Mike Griffin to explain the Ares architecture choice.
Agreed.
Quote
Ross thinks (at least partly) that Mr. Griffin wants to out Von Braun Von Braun by making the world's biggest rocket.
Yes, and it is kind of out of the hat assumption.
Quote
I think Mr. Griffin really believes that the ISS was a massive mistake that has locked us into LEO and prevents us from venturing outward.
If he does, he does not allow this belief to affect everyday ISS business. It went exceptionally well under Dr.Griffin's reign, and the few glitches were dealt with professionally (SARJ, ESA astronaut bout, various hardware malfunctions etc.)
Quote
That is why the original funding streams for ISS were to end in 2016 and it was from there that the development funding for Ares V would come.
True. It stems from a desire to move on to the moon.
Quote
He tried to gut any chance that the ISS would do real science because it might garner support for continuation.
Highly doubtfull. ISS as in international s.s. could easily smuggle real science against Dr.Griffin's assumed will.
Quote
Similarly, he wanted the Shuttle retirement to be a hard deadline because it would leave ISS in an unfinished and possible precarious situation for continued American occupation.
Fake motive here, ISS occupation is, again, international; the powers that be wanted the Shuttle retired and Dr.Griffin was brought in to steer the rudder (the rudder is burning his hand nevertheless)
Quote
Allocating one flight to Hubble even helped the scenario.
Interesting, never thought of that. It might never occured to the vocal Hubble-fan crowd either.
Quote
This also explains his support for Ares 1 and hatred of Jupiter 120.
Nope, your discourse is disconnected here.
Quote
With ARES I he gets the most expensive manned launcher (too expensive for mere ISS resupply) that also is too small to carry meaningful payloads - which again might allow new ISS science or unfinished modules to be sent to ISS.
Bogus. ISS resupply does not depend of Ares I's cost, see Progress, ATV, CRS contract.
Quote
In this sense the worse the performance of Ares 1, the better.
The better ... for the other current and expected ISS supply service providers ! ISS won't die if Ares I is too expensive. The reverse is true though, the worse Ares does, the better for ISS.
Quote
So the more the Direct team comes up with scenarios to augment ISS, the more Griffin hates them.
"Hate" is a crime even at lesser levels. Let's say "distaste" for the "Direct" proposal. Any scenario augmenting the ISS is a direct (pun intended) threat to lunar outpost objectives only if it diverts Constellation program's resources. "Direct" has a way to be all inclusive, its crunched numbers support a full replacement for STS (crew+augmenting cargo to ISS) plus the lunar outpost plus NEO exploration plus Mars sooner plus big space telescopes; it's magical in nature, to say the least.
Quote
What he should realize is that a) national political support for ISS continuation was and will be stronger than he thought
Only if you have an open door to inside his brain, allowing you to realize what he could possibly not do.
Quote
and b)  the Obama team may use the space program and ISS as a international tool of diplomacy, and so will not risk a long gap.
ISS is just a part of America's space program. The "Obama team" may as well use the lunar exploration in sequence as a tool of diplomacy. ISS can survive and evolve given the international and commercial interest.
Quote
Does this sound at least plausible?
Another FUD attack.
Title: Re: Anti DIRECT Motivation
Post by: kraisee on 12/23/2008 10:23 pm
I kind of disagree with Ross' atribution of motive to Mike Griffin to explain the Ares architecture choice. Ross thinks (at least partly) that Mr. Griffin wants to out Von Braun Von Braun by making the world's biggest rocket.  I think Mr. Griffin really believes that the ISS was a massive mistake that has locked us into LEO and prevents us from venturing outward.  That is why the original funding streams for ISS were to end in 2016 and it was from there that the development funding for Ares V would come.  He tried to gut any chance that the ISS would do real science because it might garner support for continuation.  Similarly, he wanted the Shuttle retirement to be a hard deadline because it would leave ISS in an unfinished and possible precarious situation for continued American occupation. Allocating one flight to Hubble even helped the scenario.  This also explains his support for Ares 1 and hatred of Jupiter 120.  With ARES I he gets the most expensive manned launcher (too expensive for mere ISS resupply) that also is too small to carry meaningful payloads - which again might allow new ISS science or unfinished modules to be sent to ISS.  In this sense the worse the performance of Ares 1, the better.  So the more the Direct team comes up with scenarios to augment ISS, the more Griffin hates them.  What he should realize is that a) national political support for ISS continuation was and will be stronger than he thought and b)  the Obama team may use the space program and ISS as a international tool of diplomacy, and so will not risk a long gap.
Does this sound at least plausible?

I agree with many parts, but not all.

Griffin clearly dislikes ISS, and I believe you're right about the reasons.   Also, according to some of his colleagues and friends he has a pure hatred of Shuttle too, having said on previous occasions that he wants to totally destroy it so thoroughly that there is no chance of anyone ever extending it or resurrecting it again.   It looks like the former might happen in spite of his efforts, although his Ares plans look to be very thorough WRT scouring the agency of everything Shuttle.

Griffin is a "Mars Man".   He certainly sees LEO as a trap we've been in for more than 30 years.   But he even sees the Lunar Program as nothing more than a stepping stone on the way to Mars.   If you talk to any of his former colleagues they'll all tell you he has always been a "Big Rocket Guy".

To Griffin, the mission is dictated purely by the size of the booster.   To a degree he's right, but this is still a very 60's-era perspective and doesn't take into account that technology and capabilities have moved on since then.   While the stability of a Lunar Lander is indeed determined by the width of its footprint, its always a law of diminishing returns.

Where Griffin has gone wrong is in prioritizing the launch vehicles above the mission requirements.

He deeply believes that canceling the Saturn-V was the #1 biggest mistake the US Space Program ever made.   He believes that the #2 biggest mistake was not going on and developing a Nova-class booster.   Now that he's got his hands on the reigns of NASA he is totally focused on trying to remedy those mistakes and simply isn't interested in anything standing in his way.   He came into the agency with a pre-formulated plan and ever since he arrived he has been rushing head-long to try to get it established permanently before the next Administration starts questioning it.

The problem is that he is doing this without ever having considered alternatives and without every considering some pretty important things like budget, schedule and politics.   He's a naive political mover a useless schedule-maker and I sure-as-hell wouldn't want him ever making any of my financial decisions for me.

His engineering skills are even in doubt these days with the debacle that is Ares-I.   That design is, was and always will be a "crazy idea" which should never have gotten past the back-of-the-envelope concept stage.   I'm sure it can be made to work if we throw enough tax-payer money and time at it, but I'm equally sure that with sufficient money and time NASA could drive a Model T Ford on the moon too.   But there is no point in flogging such a dead horse when there are not just one or two, but three different easier and simpler alternatives.


The NASA Administrator, more than anything else, needs to be an expert in Administration.   Griffin, sadly, is a long way short of that mark.   He is no James Webb.

Whoever he will be replaced by, I hope that political acumen and financial responsibility are the premier areas of expertise of the next NASA Administrator.

Ross.
Title: Re: Anti DIRECT Motivation
Post by: Jorge on 12/23/2008 10:30 pm
I think Mr. Griffin really believes that the ISS was a massive mistake that has locked us into LEO and prevents us from venturing outward.  That is why the original funding streams for ISS were to end in 2016 and it was from there that the development funding for Ares V would come.

That is not only incorrect but is temporally impossible.

The original VSE funding "sand chart", which was released in January 2004, showed ISS funding going to zero after 2016. Sean O'Keefe was NASA administrator at the time. Michael Griffin did not become NASA administrator until April 2005.

Quote
Does this sound at least plausible?

No, not really.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 12/23/2008 10:42 pm
Back to the discussion of depots in response to Chucks reply to me (which is too long to quote).  I am partly convinced.  :)  I did some further analysis, stated below:

So, we are to barter seats on space missions to nations in return for their stocking a propellant depot?  Lets look at the economics of that.

To set some basic parameters, we know the Russians charge about $20,000,000 for a Soyuz seat for 7 days.  Similarly if we wanted to charge an astronaut for a shuttle seat it would work out to about $60,608,270 (based on launch cost of $424,257,891 in 2007 dollars).  Finally, for a Lunar Mission on a Saturn V, a single seat would cost $883,095,682 (based on a launch cost of $2,649,287,046 in 2007 dollars.)

For the sake of argument, we shall average the Saturn V and shuttle Costs to estimate the cost of a lunar mission today at 1,536,772,468, and assuming it has 4 seats, we would charge $384,193,117 for a non-US Astronaut.
   
Now, again for the sake of argument, lets use an SIVB fuel load for our calculation.  It is loaded with 235,025 gallons of propellent, and let us further assume that we only need a 75% fuel load to place the spacecraft on a lunar trajectory, or about 174, 709 pounds.

So, let us further assume that we only use the Delta IVH, Atlas 551, and Ariane V to stock the propellent depot and that the depot is already in orbit.  Each vehicle has the following capability:
Vehicle   Payload (lbs)   Launch Cost
Delta IVH   50794 lbs   254,000,000
Ariane V   35273 lbs   214, 772,263
Atlas 551   45238 lbs   129,182,791*

The objective here is to orbit at least 174,709 pounds of propellant (to allow for some boil off), in the least amount of time, for the least cost.

Using 4 launches in the sequence Atlas 551, Delta IVH, Ariane 5, and Atlas 551 allows us to orbit 176,543 pounds of propellant for $727,137,845 in something approaching 30 – 45 days (assuming we can process an Atlas launch in 30 – 45 days.)

5 Ariane Launches is cheapest ($516,731,164), delivers 176,365 pounds of propellant, but would probably require on the order of 120 days for the launch campaign.

There are many other combinations (and of course, you could add different launch vehicles to the mix), but these give us a rough order of magnitude.  I like the first course of action as it spreads the launches between multiple vehicles and compresses them into about the least amount of time, and while it is not the least expense method, it is lower than many other alternatives.

So, if we charge another nation the fuel load for the mission for the EDS, then NASA makes a profit of about $342,000,000 on the seat, but still has to pay for $809,000,000 of launch costs.
So, in conclusion, even though my numbers may not be spot on, this analysis shows me that there is some economic benefit to the US in trading seats for fuel,and of course it does offer operational and political benefits.  But, I still question the economic sense of the deal if somebody just wants to put up a depot, stock it, and sell the fuel to NASA as a commercial business.  That looks to me to be a hard way to make a buck without either a federal subsidy or a reusable launch vehicle that can orbit a sizeable payload.

I have attached a spreadsheet so you can play what if, correct my numbers, or whatever.  Feel free to modify it an PM to me or post it here.

Mike

*This one frankly looks off to me, but I couldn’t find a better number
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/23/2008 10:50 pm
I wonder what people at NASA would do if Ares is canned and moved to Direct?  I know a lot of them favor Direct, but there is also a large portion that favors Ares as well.

Could Griffin be kept on if Obama goes with Direct as a sign of good will?  Direct doesn't compromise lunar missions and gets America out of LEO, all things Dr. Griffin wants to accomplish. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/23/2008 11:02 pm
Dr Griffin is certainly NOT the only person who wants to accomplish these things.

Surely there isn't a messiah complex surrounding the guy?   I guess some recent press reports are trying to convince us that "only he can show us the path".   That's utter rubbish, though.

There are many other people out there who want a robust space exploration program capable of supporting Earth Monitoring, Robotic Solar System investigation, Robotic Extra-Solar System Investigation, ISS Science Utilization, Robotic & Human Lunar Exploration and Robotic, & eventually Human, Mars Exploration too.

Griffin doesn't personally support half of that -- yet he darn well ought to.

Plenty of the alternatives have the necessary experience in the political, financial and management fields which Griffin does not.

Truth be told, engineers should really stick to engineering in the same way accountants should stick to accounting.   An experienced Administration expert is what we really need to run a Federal agency like NASA.   Someone who knows how to balance a budget, schmooze politicians for more money and manage a $17bn/year agency.

The Administrator should then rely upon the agency's Chief Engineer for all of the engineering stuff -- and that's the sort of position Griffin should never have been promoted beyond, IMHO.

James Webb did the Administration for NASA and relied upon Werner von Braun's people to do the engineering.   That's the best combination NASA ever had.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/24/2008 12:22 am

The DIRECT team claim that it's possible to build a better EDS/US than NASA have baselined.

Not only is it possible, it's already flying. It's called a Centaur. But Griffin is trying to recreate that design capability in-house rather than go "outside" to industry to get a better upper stage than NASA can build. NASA's designers are good, very good, but they do not have the 40 years of flight and design experience that already exists in industry, and he has told them to use a design tool that has never produced a successful upper stage. He has handicapped his own designers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/24/2008 12:36 am
Could Griffin be kept on if Obama goes with Direct as a sign of good will?

Griffin specifically said he wouldn't stay in such a situation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/24/2008 01:25 am

The DIRECT team claim that it's possible to build a better EDS/US than NASA have baselined.

Not only is it possible, it's already flying. It's called a Centaur. But Griffin is trying to recreate that design capability in-house rather than go "outside" to industry to get a better upper stage than NASA can build. NASA's designers are good, very good, but they do not have the 40 years of flight and design experience that already exists in industry, and he has told them to use a design tool that has never produced a successful upper stage. He has handicapped his own designers.

If your only figure of merit is mass fraction, then Centaur is "better".  I have to ask, then, why the Centaur design model hasn't found more followers.

As far as I know, three operational upper stages using LH were developed after Centaur and are are still in service; flying  on Ariane V, H2a and Delta IV. Only one uses a common bulkhead. None use balloon tanks. All are heavier for an equal propellant mass.

The most recent designs, H2a and Delta IV, shared neither feature with Centaur.

All this suggest that Centaur was designed to produce a very lightweight stage, but with significantly higher manufacturing and operational costs than other alternatives.

It might be compared to the R-7 launcher: an early design that may not be an optimal model for clean-sheet vehicles, but that survives because it has more flight experience than newer rivals.





Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/24/2008 03:01 am
Only one uses a common bulkhead. None use balloon tanks. All are heavier for an equal propellant mass.

Will,

   I am not familiar with the term "balloon tank".  Does that imply that a large portion of the structural strength comes from pressurizing the tanks to an unusually high PSI?  Or is it derived from some other characteristic of the design?

    Whatever the case, is there something about the "balloon tank" design that makes it inferior to non-balloon tanks?  Or is it a simple trade-off of strength vs. mass?

Thanks,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/24/2008 03:15 am
Will,
The "balloon tank" system was dropped by Centaur in 2002.   The older Titan-IV Centaur was one, and the Centaur II's and III's were all pressurized to keep their rigidity.   But the current generation of Centaur-V1 which is flying on the Atlas-V EELV are 'normal' self-supporting structures which don't need permanent pressurization to retain their structural rigidity.   The Wide Body Centaur is not proposed to be a balloon tank structure either.


As for Common Bulkheads, they aren't anything new.  The Centaur has used them reliably for over 40 years, launching .   The Saturn-I, Saturn-IB had one on each of the S-IV and S-IVB stages, which were built by the Douglas Aircraft company (now part of Boeing) and the Saturn-V also had a second Common Bulkhead in its S-II stage, built by North American, again nowadays part of Boeing.

More recently, Boeing also proposed a common bulkhead on their Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage (ACES) design when KSC contracted for a new long-duration cryogenic storage Upper Stage for future launch vehicles.   And Boeing are currently preparing to build a new stage with a Common Bulkhead for the Ares-I US.   Common Bulkheads are clearly not the exclusive purview of the Centaur program, although it can be argued that Centaur probably are the most experienced operator of them so far.


I often wonder if the reason NASA just doesn't want to use Centaur hasn't got something to do with the 40-year long "rivalry" between MSFC and the Centaur teams.   Their rivalry dates back to when Karel Bosart, one of Werner von Braun's prodigy's, left his Army team to go work for Consolidated-Vultee to go develop the original Atlas ICBM for the Air Force.   The Atlas was built and operated by Convair, which ultimately ended up absorbed into the Lockheed Martin of today.   The rivalry between the two groups was often quite bitter in the 60's (read "Stages to Saturn" for a few interesting anecdotes), but has been much less so as the Shuttle decades have gone by.   But it hasn't gone completely away.   The rivalry still simmers gently away just below the surface, even to this day.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/24/2008 03:39 am
Only one uses a common bulkhead. None use balloon tanks. All are heavier for an equal propellant mass.

Will,

   I am not familiar with the term "balloon tank".  Does that imply that a large portion of the structural strength comes from pressurizing the tanks to an unusually high PSI?  Or is it derived from some other characteristic of the design?

    Whatever the case, is there something about the "balloon tank" design that makes it inferior to non-balloon tanks?  Or is it a simple trade-off of strength vs. mass?

Thanks,
   Mark S.


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

While the balloon tank is typically lighter than non-pressurized tank designs,  it needs to be pressurized at all times to maintain full strength. This seems to be enough of a handicap in operational use that it never spread beyond the Atlas family, and the Atlas first stage no longer uses it. The Atlas Centaur upper stage is the sole survivor of this concept
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/24/2008 03:40 am
Dr Griffin is certainly NOT the only person who wants to accomplish these things.

Surely there isn't a messiah complex surrounding the guy?   I guess some recent press reports are trying to convince us that "only he can show us the path".   That's utter rubbish, though.

There are many other people out there who want a robust space exploration program capable of supporting Earth Monitoring, Robotic Solar System investigation, Robotic Extra-Solar System Investigation, ISS Science Utilization, Robotic & Human Lunar Exploration and Robotic, & eventually Human, Mars Exploration too.

Griffin doesn't personally support half of that -- yet he darn well ought to.

Plenty of the alternatives have the necessary experience in the political, financial and management fields which Griffin does not.

Truth be told, engineers should really stick to engineering in the same way accountants should stick to accounting.   An experienced Administration expert is what we really need to run a Federal agency like NASA.   Someone who knows how to balance a budget, schmooze politicians for more money and manage a $17bn/year agency.

The Administrator should then rely upon the agency's Chief Engineer for all of the engineering stuff -- and that's the sort of position Griffin should never have been promoted beyond, IMHO.

James Webb did the Administration for NASA and relied upon Werner von Braun's people to do the engineering.   That's the best combination NASA ever had.

Ross.

I understand your reasoning for going with some one else and I know there are others who could do the job, how ever the point I was making was that keeping Griffin could be a sign of good will towards NASA.  There are a lot of those apposed to Direct and if Griffin is brought on board it would help bring all the sides together.

Besides your points regarding engineers should stay engineers is wrong imho, that's exactly whats wrong with the car industry in America.  All of our Car company's are being run by CEO's who are not car guys, but business men and they've run a once proud industry into the ground the last two decades.  I guarantee you EV1 would never have been canceled if GM was run by a car engineer  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/24/2008 03:41 am
   I am not familiar with the term "balloon tank".  Does that imply that a large portion of the structural strength comes from pressurizing the tanks to an unusually high PSI?  Or is it derived from some other characteristic of the design?

Maybe I can take that.

Essentially you're right, although "unusually high PSI" isn't quite correct.

Instead of ribs, stringers, waffle panels or ring-frames used inside the tank walls to give it mechanical rigidity, the "balloon tank" is a thin-skinned tank which is pressurized (using nitrogen) shortly after manufacture to regular flight pressurization levels in order to force the structure into its most rigid configuration (think how rigid a can of Coke is when pressurized vs. one which has been opened).

Convair (now part of Lockheed) is the only company to have fully developed the process and put it into production.   It took them a while to get it right and they suffered a number of failures on the early Atlas ICBM's before they perfected it.   Centaur was the eventual Upper Stage evolution of the Atlas booster.


Quote
Whatever the case, is there something about the "balloon tank" design that makes it inferior to non-balloon tanks?  Or is it a simple trade-off of strength vs. mass?

It's quite a bit more complicated during processing because you have to monitor and top-up the pressure from the factory all the way to the pad, then all the way through processing and launch preparations to ensure the stage never deflates.   If it ever did lose pressure, the stage might (probably would) collapse and that's not good if you've got a billion dollar satellite or a crew sitting on top.

Its also pretty tricky keeping the tank pressurized correctly all the way through tanking and worse-still if/when the tank needs to be drained later.   You've got to get it right, or you'll have a bad day.

Convair did all of the difficult development work in the early days, and learned all the lessons the hard-way too, that they were able to make the whole process extremely reliable.   But the additional processing requirements do add extra costs.   That's why Lockheed changed to a non-balloon-tank design for their newer Centaur stages for Atlas-V, that and the properties of the newer Al-Li materials are better suited to it too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/24/2008 04:08 am
Besides your points regarding engineers should stay engineers is wrong imho, that's exactly whats wrong with the car industry in America.  All of our Car company's are being run by CEO's who are not car guys, but business men and they've run a once proud industry into the ground the last two decades.  I guarantee you EV1 would never have been canceled if GM was run by a car engineer  ;)

That only works to a point.   The boss of any organization has got to have good management skills.   They've got to have a solid grounding with the accounts.   They need to understand and know precisely how to raise capital when they need it.   And they need to be able to work politics successfully.   They also need to be able to listen and actually change things when their experts tell them.

For the engineers on the shop floor, engineering is *absolutely* a requirement.   For the mid-managers above them, and for those in charge of the engineering departments, having a good understanding of the engineering issues is also essential (though sadly, isn't always the case).

But the primary function of the people at the very top of an organization is not to do the engineering work nor to micro-manage it.   Their responsibility is to manage everyone else, keep the organization's accounts in excellent order, raise money when needed and deal with whatever politics the organization is involved in.

They would certainly be an awful lot more effective if they *also* understand exactly what their company actually does day-to-day, but an excellent administrator ought to be able to administer almost any organization successfully.   I would suggest that the bad management at the car companies isn't because they are bad engineers, but because they are bad *managers*.

On the flip-side, I would venture to say that most engineers, even the very best ones, are simply not very familiar with this level of politics, accounting nor people management.

Even the very best engineer in the world, if placed in charge of an organization without those relevant skills as well, is going to very swiftly get the whole organization into deep, deep trouble.   I believe this is precisely what has happened to NASA over the last 4 years.

Griffin has awesome academic smarts, there's no question about that at all.   His track record is actually absent a matching history of managing any high-level multi-billion dollar programs which have achieved success.   He doesn't have any to his name.

Since O'Keefe straightened NASA's budget out, the cost overruns are all back again and the agency is back in almost the same bad position it was in during the Goldin years, so Griffin's fiscal management capabilities are in question.   And his lack of political acumen has been fairly embarrassing for the whole agency on a number of occasions over the last four years (climate comments, ISS comments, Shuttle comments and the Ares-I project as a whole).

IMHO, it is a truly desperate day indeed if this country really can't find a better qualified person for the position of NASA's Administrator.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 12/24/2008 04:15 am
IMHO, it is a desperate day indeed if this country really can't find a better qualified person for the position of NASA's Administrator.

Ross.

Well I always felt that Colin Powell would make a good NASA administrator, however I suppose some work with the industry should be desired... also after what Bush did to him he might be jaded of public service.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/24/2008 04:20 am

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

While the balloon tank is typically lighter than non-pressurized tank designs,  it needs to be pressurized at all times to maintain full strength. This seems to be enough of a handicap in operational use that it never spread beyond the Atlas family, and the Atlas first stage no longer uses it. The Atlas Centaur upper stage is the sole survivor of this concept

Thanks Will and Ross for your explanations.  I can see where a balloon design might be tempting from an engineer's standpoint...  You could cut out a lot of the heavy reinforcement that is needed for a non-pressurized structure.  However from an operational standpoint I think any benefits would be outweighed by the complexity of keeping the tank pressurized at all times, even on the pad and in flight.

I would be very concerned if the JUS was actually a balloon design, given your explanations.  The J232 will have to be capable of carrying very heavy loads when lifting max payloads to orbit.  Unlike an ICBM upper stage that just has to carry a few piddly MIRVs plus guidance etc.

Thanks,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/24/2008 04:25 am
IMHO, it is a desperate day indeed if this country really can't find a better qualified person for the position of NASA's Administrator.

Ross.

Well I always felt that Colin Powell would make a good NASA administrator, however I suppose some work with the industry should be desired... also after what Bush did to him he might be jaded of public service.

What about Lori Garver?  She stood toe-to-toe with Dr. Griffin regarding the NASA transition questionaire, according to the recent Orlando Sentinel article.

She was also said to be a former NASA deputy administrator, if that helps.  I don't know anything about her other than what the article stated.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/24/2008 04:29 am
I would be very concerned if the JUS was actually a balloon design, given your explanations.

Purely to be 100% crystal clear to avoid any misunderstandings:-

The Jupiter Upper Stage is *NOT* a balloon tank design.   It is a self-supporting structure design.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 12/24/2008 05:20 am
Back to the discussion of depots in response to Chucks reply to me (which is too long to quote).  I am partly convinced.  :)  I did some further analysis, stated below:

So, we are to barter seats on space missions to nations in return for their stocking a propellant depot?

Hi - for me the real reason to go with propellent depots is that it removes schedule pressure from the launch line up. Fuel can be launched at leisure over a large period of time (the propellant depot can store cryogenic fuel for long periods if designed correctly) then the only schedule pressure comes when launching the crewed spacecraft itself in time to fuel up and meet the lunch window. A single fuel launch failure does not result in loss of mission.
Plus we are launching simple fuel tankers not whole rocket stages  so we save money on not having to pay for extra expendable engines.

So the initial advantages are operational rather than economic. As your spreadsheet shows it is possible to justify the depot economically by fuel for seat trading. Additional economic benefits arise by encouraging commercial enterprise to lower the cost of delivering the fuel via a COTS style program. Indeed, if they show that it is cheaper to launch the fuel using a big dumb booster then they can build the big dumb booster. The Direct rocket could not be that big dumb booster though due to the cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/24/2008 07:06 am
I would be very concerned if the JUS was actually a balloon design, given your explanations.

Purely to be 100% crystal clear to avoid any misunderstandings:-

The Jupiter Upper Stage is *NOT* a balloon tank design.   It is a self-supporting structure design.

Ross.

I think this issue with the EDS might be a serious issue.  That is where the good Doctor questioned you on your numbers.  I do understand that alot of stuff you cannot say on a forum or in your paper due to it being properiatary or ITAR issues.  In you rubuttal, maybe you cannot do an apples to apples comparsion, maybe the top level view is the most us laymen can see.  If Lockheed believes your figures then go with them.  I think that you have told the forum on numerious times that Lockheed believes that you can do even better than the figures that you are publicly putting out. 

I think its like you are designing a car, the engineers say, with this design say that you can get 55 mpg.  You are being conservative and putting out that you can get 40 mpg.  The best the other company is getting till they change thier design is 30 mpg.  People are asking how is it possible?  Is he pulling a fast one?  One of the question is, what would happen to the Ares V design, if they used the same EDS as Direct?  Or is the real problem, NASA wants 1 vicheal--Ares V to launch XX amount of cargo instead of willing to split in two?  So instead of developing a very large and a small rocket, you develop Direct which is like the meduim-large/large rocket? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/24/2008 07:17 am
I hope the rebuttel is coming along.   Even if it is finished, hold announcing it for a little bit-1 week, 2 weeks if not longer.

Timing is everything.  Really think--do you release it with the other big annoucment in mid Jan? How do you announce the rebuttal?  Do you do a Media release to AP, etc?  Do you wait till the new Admin. takes office?  All these questions and more will have an impact how well it is rechieved. 

Direct cannnot outspend NASA, but you can outthink them.  Get NASA reacting to Direct, instead of Direct reacting to NASA.  An example, you mentioned, that you needed a desktop model of Direct--can you do the model in CAD/CAM?  That way you can split it up, slice, dice it, any way that you want?  Can you update the large floor model?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/24/2008 10:54 am
I have only recently become aware of how different the JUS actually is. It has me quite worried. For a long time, I believed that DIRECT proposed simply slimming down Ares-V by maintaining 8.4m diameter and 4-seg SRBs, and removing a few RS68s. Now I see that it relies on something which NASA view as entirely different. I'm not trying to suggest that the JUS is tehcnically infeasible, but that it will be quite easy for NASA to call it overoptimistic and, at that, the proposal goes flat as a pancake.

In DIRECT 1.0 the regen RS68 was the achilles heel: technically it may have been possible, but NASA could easily say otherwise, and that was that. I fear that exactly the same thing will happen with the EDS on DIRECT 2.0
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/24/2008 11:21 am
Maybe I'm missing a point here but it strike me that the DIRECT team's approach is more sensible than that of NASA when it comes to the EDS.  Why start again from basic principles when a perfectly good and proven design already exists?

If I understand the situation, NASA is proposing to blow billions of dollars effectively re-inventing the wheel when a perfectly good basic design, the current generation Lockheed Centaur, already exists.  So far, this process appears only to have led to a lower-performance booster stage.

Oh, in the long run, someone is going to have to design something new.  However, right now, especially with the current economic climate and the incoming administration's many social spending goals, anything that can save a few billion dollars here or there should be seized with both hands and the "not invented here" syndrome should not be an issue.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/24/2008 12:07 pm
Will,
The "balloon tank" system was dropped by Centaur in 2002.   The older Titan-IV Centaur was one, and the Centaur II's and III's were all pressurized to keep their rigidity.   But the current generation of Centaur-V1 which is flying on the Atlas-V EELV are 'normal' self-supporting structures which don't need permanent pressurization to retain their structural rigidity.   .

Ross, that is just plain wrong.  The EELV Centaur is the Centaur III.  It is the exact same one that was used on Atlas III as part of risk reduction.    It (EELV Centaur aka Centaur III)  is a balloon tank
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/24/2008 01:50 pm
I often wonder if the reason NASA just doesn't want to use Centaur hasn't got something to do with the 40-year long "rivalry" between MSFC and the Centaur teams.   Their rivalry dates back to when Karel Bosart, one of Werner von Braun's prodigy's, left his Army team to go work for Consolidated-Vultee to go develop the original Atlas ICBM for the Air Force.   The Atlas was built and operated by Convair, which ultimately ended up absorbed into the Lockheed Martin of today.   The rivalry between the two groups was often quite bitter in the 60's (read "Stages to Saturn" for a few interesting anecdotes), but has been much less so as the Shuttle decades have gone by.   But it hasn't gone completely away.   The rivalry still simmers gently away just below the surface, even to this day.


Ross,

You need to get your facts straight or you will lose credibility.
Karel Bossart was Belgian and not part of Von Braun's group.

Bossart worked with Krafft Ehricke and he was the designer of the Centaur and exmember of von Braun's group
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 12/24/2008 01:52 pm
I have only recently become aware of how different the JUS actually is. It has me quite worried. For a long time, I believed that DIRECT proposed simply slimming down Ares-V by maintaining 8.4m diameter and 4-seg SRBs, and removing a few RS68s. Now I see that it relies on something which NASA view as entirely different. I'm not trying to suggest that the JUS is tehcnically infeasible, but that it will be quite easy for NASA to call it overoptimistic and, at that, the proposal goes flat as a pancake.

In DIRECT 1.0 the regen RS68 was the achilles heel: technically it may have been possible, but NASA could easily say otherwise, and that was that. I fear that exactly the same thing will happen with the EDS on DIRECT 2.0

In this case, the Jupiter Upper Stage could be designed and built by either of the current EELV manufacturers.  The fact that NASA views current industry standards as "overly optimistic" just points to the fact that they really don't know what they're doing when designing launch vehicles with today's technologies.  The current EELV manufacturers not only know how to design high energy upper stages, but they're actually flying them. 

How long has it been since NASA designed and flew a high energy upper stage?

It's my opinion that NASA ought to be out of the launch vehicle business completely.  That said, if they must stay in that business due to political constraints, then Direct 2.0 is certainly a better way to go than Ares I and Ares V.  The overall Jupiter launch vehicle family has more room to grow and more performance margin than the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicle family. 

And finally, for lunar missions, the 2 launch approach of one Jupiter design is better than the "1.5 launch" approach of Ares which is really two lauches of two completely different launch vehicles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/24/2008 02:13 pm
I would be very concerned if the JUS was actually a balloon design, given your explanations.

Purely to be 100% crystal clear to avoid any misunderstandings:-

The Jupiter Upper Stage is *NOT* a balloon tank design.   It is a self-supporting structure design.

Ross.

Ross,

    You've said all along that the JUS inherits it's high performance and low weight characteristics from the Centaur upper stage.  I am just a layman, but from all the extensive Google research I could do in the last 30 minutes, all references quote the balloon tank design for all Centaur upper stages.  Maybe the Centaur-V is something new, but I didn't see any online reference to that specific version.

    So it seems to me that in order for an upper stage to be Centaur-derived, it would have to be a balloon design.  Now I guess it would be possible to have a design that had all the other features of a Centaur, such as the common bulkhead and COLD technology, and leave out the balloon part of it.  But would such a design still have the same mass/fuel ratio that Steve P. has been asking about?

    I think the others are right, the JUS is the weak link in the plan.  Even if it's just a perceived weakness.  If your rebuttal doesn't fully document the JUS, and doesn't receive a fully vetted endorsement by the intended manufacturer, I can foresee NASA jumping on that for all it's worth.  I can hear the Ares people already: "Direct? Hah! They want to send our astronauts to space riding on a balloon! Those crazy Direct groupies just don't know what they're talking about..."

    Remember, you're not just working against Nature and basic physics.  No, you are facing an entrenched and determined opponent who has already occupied the high ground, who is given the benefit of the doubt at all times due to his incumbent position, and who will use all manner of FUD to smear you and cast aspersions on your credentials.  As with Direct 1.0 and the Regen RS-68, it only takes one perceived shortcoming to completely undermine the perceived value of your proposition.

    Whether any underdog plan such as Direct will ever be taken seriously depends much more on perception and buy-in from other insiders than it does on the pure mechanics of whether it could physically work or not.  People like to believe that they are rational beings who make important decisions based on logic and reason.  Unfortunately, that is hardly ever the case.  Even in a field as deeply rooted in basic science and physics as space exploration.

Thanks,
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 12/24/2008 05:44 pm
I've asked everyone to wait until mid-January on the issue of the Wide Body Centaur-derived upper stage for Jupiter.

You will be hearing directly from the horses mouth on this subject.   Better still, it won't have come through us.

Wait and see for yourselves.   I understand January 15th will be the date you should be looking for, +/- a day or so.

Have a very Merry Christmas everyone!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/24/2008 06:02 pm
Ross, your learning to be as big a tease as Chris. 

Now I have to mark Jan 15th on my calendar and wait for that.

Thanks for all the excellent information over the past year.

Merry Christmas to you and everyone that makes this forum so interesting.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/24/2008 06:14 pm
I've asked everyone to wait until mid-January on the issue of the Wide Body Centaur-derived upper stage for Jupiter.

You will be hearing directly from the horses mouth on this subject.   Better still, it won't have come through us.

Wait and see for yourselves.   I understand January 15th will be the date you should be looking for, +/- a day or so.

Have a very Merry Christmas everyone!

Ross.

Okay Ross!  Thanks for your patience with a newbie here.

And try to get them to make that big announcement on the 14th, if at all possible.  That date is both my birthday and the fifth anniversary of President Bush's big VSE speech.

Happy Holidays to Everyone!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/24/2008 06:18 pm
Okay Ross!  Thanks for your patience with a newbie here.

And try to get them to make that big announcement on the 14th, if at all possible.  That date is both my birthday and the fifth anniversary of President Bush's big VSE speech.

Happy Holidays to Everyone!
Mark S.

My birthday, too! Yeah, make it a birthday gift for both of us!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/24/2008 06:41 pm
The release date, and in fact, everything about this, is completely out of our control. We had no part in it and no influence over it. In fact we learned about it "after the fact". It is a completely 3rd party item, totally beyond the control of the DIRECT team. Mark the date: January 15th.

And not to belabor the point or to draw any similarities, because there aren't any, but NASA had absolutely no difficulty sending US astronauts into space on a balloon tank. The Atlas rocket that launched the Mercury astronauts was a balloon tank design; not just any old upper stage, but the entire blinking rocket. There isn't anything wrong with or inferior about balloon tank designs. Like all technologies, once understood and properly deployed, they're just fine.

I mentioned that not in reference to the JUS design in any way, but to put to rest the apparent labeling of balloon tank design as "inferior". It's not. It's just as sound as a brick wall and NASA trusted the lives of our astronauts to it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/24/2008 07:09 pm
I have only recently become aware of how different the JUS actually is. It has me quite worried. For a long time, I believed that DIRECT proposed simply slimming down Ares-V by maintaining 8.4m diameter and 4-seg SRBs, and removing a few RS68s. Now I see that it relies on something which NASA view as entirely different. I'm not trying to suggest that the JUS is tehcnically infeasible, but that it will be quite easy for NASA to call it overoptimistic and, at that, the proposal goes flat as a pancake.

In DIRECT 1.0 the regen RS68 was the achilles heel: technically it may have been possible, but NASA could easily say otherwise, and that was that. I fear that exactly the same thing will happen with the EDS on DIRECT 2.0

In this case, the Jupiter Upper Stage could be designed and built by either of the current EELV manufacturers.  The fact that NASA views current industry standards as "overly optimistic" just points to the fact that they really don't know what they're doing when designing launch vehicles with today's technologies.  The current EELV manufacturers not only know how to design high energy upper stages, but they're actually flying them. 


And when Boeing built and flew a new high energy upper stage, they decided not to use a common bulkhead. Not that they couldn't build one, but they didn't think it was cost effective.

Not that the Jupiter upper stage is necessarily unbuildable, but it is a more agressive design, accepting an approach that's more difficult and expensive to build to wring out more performance. This hinders an apples-to-apples comparison.

It's as though someone proposed an Atlas VI to compete with Delta IV, and insisted that the Atlas be made with aluminum-lithium tanks. Of course, this slants the comparison, since the Delta IV could be made with the same alloy as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/24/2008 07:11 pm
I've asked everyone to wait until mid-January on the issue of the Wide Body Centaur-derived upper stage for Jupiter.

You realize that is going to make everyone speculate like crazy about it until jan 15.

Dare we hope that ULA will going to go foward with a Wide Body Centaur-derived upperstage that can be flown on both Atlas and Delta IV and expanded to serve as a Direct upper? Let the irrational speculation begin ;) Merry Christmas ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/24/2008 07:22 pm
The release date, and in fact, everything about this, is completely out of our control. We had no part in it and no influence over it. In fact we learned about it "after the fact". It is a completely 3rd party item, totally beyond the control of the DIRECT team. Mark the date: January 15th.

And not to belabor the point or to draw any similarities, because there aren't any, but NASA had absolutely no difficulty sending US astronauts into space on a balloon tank. The Atlas rocket that launched the Mercury astronauts was a balloon tank design; not just any old upper stage, but the entire blinking rocket. There isn't anything wrong with or inferior about balloon tank designs. Like all technologies, once understood and properly deployed, they're just fine.

I mentioned that not in reference to the JUS design in any way, but to put to rest the apparent labeling of balloon tank design as "inferior". It's not. It's just as sound as a brick wall and NASA trusted the lives of our astronauts to it.

Thanks Chuck.  You guys are the experts, I'm just the guy cheering you on from the sidelines. 

And I'm not saying that a balloon tank is inferior, just that someone (apparently more knowledgeable than me) seems to take exception to it.  Whether it applies to JUS or not doesn't really matter at this point, since that is not verifiable right now for whatever reason.  I did state that I would be concerned if that turned out to be the case, but I guess I was out of line there since I don't know balloon tanks from a hill of beans.  Sorry.

But my main point was, is, and will remain, that the Direct proposal needs to be above reproach.  You can bet that many people will be slinging whatever FUD, mud, and slanted implications that they can dig up to protect Ares, and I'm not just talking about Dr. Griffin.  There must be many many engineers and operations people who have strong professional attachment to Ares, just for having gone through the pain of birthing these 'babies'.

Thanks again to the Direct team for their valiant efforts.  And to everyone who firmly believes in America's future in space, no matter what their stand in the current situation.

Cheers!
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/24/2008 09:55 pm
The original balloon tank design depended "entirely" on the internal nitrogen pressure for the strength of the pressure vessel. Without it the pressure vessel would collapse under its own weight. As time has passed, experience gained, technology evolved and materials and processes improved, internal nitrogen pressure became a component of the design, rather than "the" strength component as more and more of the structural strength was supplied by the vessel itself. Today's Centaur reflects this and the Wide Body Centaur using ICES technology in particular derives most of its strength from the structure, which is 0.4 thick friction stir-welded aluminum. The design of the JUS "begins" with the WBC and advances from there, using AL-LI alloy for its major strength material and adds the LM Cold Technology systems for long term cryo propellant handling. The term "balloon tank" as used to describe the original Centaurs  definitely no longer applies. It is a high technology high energy cryo upper stage based on the WBC/ICES designs, employing 2xJ-2X engines, with new materials and new processes, such as friction stir-welding of the barrels. It is solidly based on industry standards, and every part of the design is based on existing, flying hardware. NASA has no problem contracting ULA to fly its payloads on these stages, but that doesn't mean that they know how to build them; they don't. That knowledge has been invested in industry alone for the last 40 odd years, with no NASA in-house equivalent capability. Griffin has taken steps to rebuild that capability, but his designers do not have access to those four and a half decades of experience and the knowledge base. Neither are they using the design tools that they should be using to design these stages. One day, they will be able to do that themselves, and that is actually Dr Griffin's goal. But not for a long time. It is just not that easy to make up for 45 years of technological neglect and they have a very long way to go up the learning curve when it comes to this type of stage.

The NASA philosophy was apparently to take good designers, and give them the task of developing the upper stage, depending on their demonstrated design abilities, without the assistance of the existing knowledge base invested in industry. In other words, they were to start from scratch and see if they could do it themselves by ignoring the existing knowledge base. The DIRECT philosophy was to take a look around at what we already have and see if it would do the job "as is" or if it could be adapted reasonably easily to do the job. The WBC/ICES fit the latter very nicely and the people at the Atlas Advanced Systems Group were eager to help in any way they could. The result is the JUS which has performance numbers that the NASA designers simply do not know how to duplicate. How could they? They did not use the knowledge base that was created by designing, building and flying these kinds of stages for almost 50 years and they are using a design tool that has never produced a successful design. Like I said in an earlier post; Dr Griffin has handicapped his own design team.

NASA should have done what the DIRECT team did; go to industry and make use of the existing knowledge base, that has more than 45 years of successful demonstration of designing, building and flying these kinds of stages. With the kind of time constraints that the ESAS placed on the VSE implementation, this was no time to indulge in self-taught OJT.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/25/2008 02:01 am
You go Chuck.

Edit: I like the idea of a Centaur derived upper stage if it can work on the larger diameter with the power of the 2-J-2X's.  Weight is so critical on the EDS compared to the solids and even the core stages.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/25/2008 02:14 am
The original balloon tank design depended "entirely" on the internal nitrogen pressure for the strength of the pressure vessel. Without it the pressure vessel would collapse under its own weight. As time has passed, experience gained, technology evolved and materials and processes improved, internal nitrogen pressure became a component of the design, rather than "the" strength component as more and more of the structural strength was supplied by the vessel itself. Today's Centaur reflects this and the Wide Body Centaur using ICES technology in particular derives most of its strength from the structure, which is 0.4 thick friction stir-welded aluminum.

I don't think it is reasonable to use the present tense to refer to an unflown paper vehicle, or to use its theoretical performance to vindicate the Mad Rocket Science Skillz of your favorite design team.

Shouldn't we look at how recently they bent metal on new vehicles, and how they turned out?

Aside from tweaks and stretches of the venerable Centaur, what's the last time Lockheed-Martin bent metal on a new hydrogen propellant vehicle?

X-33, yes? How well did that turn out?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 12/25/2008 05:55 am
In the end, I like the concept of Jupiter and think it has merit as I have said before.  However, make no mistake about it but the landscape will change and it must.  Unfortunately this is the nature of this business and some may have to move and some who held a job doing a particular tech skill or clerical job may find themselves without a job.  You cannot just take the shuttle infrastructure, promise everyone a job and redistribute the contracts because then you have only saddled Constellation with the cost of Shuttle right from the start, which is a non-starter option.

I'm glad you made this point, as it needs to be hammered home.  If NASA insists on doing an in-house launcher, they should do it with the goal of making it as cost-effective as possible--not as another jobs program.  Having so much of NASA's budget more or less tied down with maintaining jobs is going to kill innovation.  Also, many of those people who have those jobs are nearing retirement.  Trying to bias an architecture in a way to keep as many of those jobs around as possible is just going to make the brain-drain issues that much worse when they retire, because keeping them around means you can't be hiring and training new generations....

It's so darned shortsighted it makes me sick. 

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 12/25/2008 06:04 am
I really don't know Jim, if the tanker is 20t fuel to LEO and my car needs 70t fuel for its mission where does the economy of the system go?

Sandrot,
The physics of the system are different, and they have a big impact on the economics as well.  It doesn't matter how big the tanker is compared to the tankee, it only matters what sizes end up being the most economical.  For instance, if you had good prox-ops tugs to handle the rendezvous, docking, and propellant transfer, it may well turn out that having a bunch of 1 ton RLV flights ends up being cheaper than a much smaller number of EELV flights, or an even smaller number of HLV flights.  Even if it takes 100 RLV flights to fill up the single lunar mission.

In my opinion, the right tanker size will likely be a bit smaller than the largest size that will permit an RLV to close its business case.  The typical number for that is something like 30-50 flights per year.  So, if the demand is 400 tons per year (say 4 lunar missions per year), I bet you the optimal size will be less than 8 tons.  Probably in the 2-4 ton range in fact.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 12/25/2008 06:15 am
I continue not to get the economy you all attach to propellant depots.

In the case of a mission that could easily be done without a depot, then yes, of course a depot doesn't make sense.  That should be obvious.  What depots do for you is enable options that aren't possible without them:

1-launching manned flights outside of LEO without requiring HLVs (or as big of HLVs).  This can allow you to spend money that would've been wasted on building and operating massive launchers instead on building actual in-space hardware, and just purchasing propellants.
2-reusing transfer stages and landers.  Right now one of the major costs of any lunar mission is the hardware cost of the landers/transfer stages.  If you can start reusing those, it can greatly cut back on costs.
3-much more capable landers.  It's possible to make much bigger landers that would be physically possible to launch in one or two HLV launches.

Also, for me one of the biggest points in the favor of propellant depots is that propellant can be subdivided into much smaller chunks than many other sorts of cargo.  For instance, trying to build a lunar lander out of chunks that could be launched on a 1 ton to LEO launcher would be insane.  But building a lunar lander that could be lifted on an EELV, and fueled up by a bunch of 1 ton LEO propellant launches can be made to work (especially if you use a depot to separate the tanker rendezvous/docking and the tankee rendezvous/docking events).  Since you can divide it up much finer, that make it easier to close the business case for RLVs or other high flight-rate, lower-launch cost options. 

Also propellant depots, especially commercial ones can buy propellant on the world market.  Tankers can and should be done cheaply, and the costs associated with a lost mission are miniscule compared to a splashed satellite launch.  That means that the depot can tap into much lower launch cost structures than a non-depot architecture.

~Jon
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/25/2008 10:29 am
Merry Christmas everyone. I've been busy and this is the first chance I've had to catch up.

Will, thanks for your post at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.3540 I'm not sure if you've read my previous posts, but I too was trying to point out the very low EDS stage mass for the given propellant mass. It's good to know that I'm not alone in this. In my opinion, I think this is a large risk factor, since the low mass value won't be finally proved until an actual EDS is built. I also think that any independent study will come to the same conclusion. This could result in Direct being dismissed, when there are many ways to solve the problem.

I think Direct 2.0 should be proposing an alternative solution that uses a more conservative and easier to make separate tank EDS, like that used in the Ares-V EDS, and using the extra payload mass from the CLV in some way. There are several ways to do this, LOX propellant transfer, high Earth orbit rendezvous (HEOR), and a larger LSAM which completes the TLI burn (dual-TLI). There are others as well, including A) optimising the current EDS into an Earth orbital stage (EOS) carrying a separate and smaller EDS stage, and B) the CLV carrying a separate stage for completing TLI and performing Lunar orbit insertion and part of Lunar descent (the crasher stage concept). The latter two ideas require the development of additional stages, which I think should be avoided if possible.

LOX propellant transfer is a new technology, HEOR exposes the crew to extra radiation, and dual-TLI requires a longer LSAM and an additional burn. My preference is dual-TLI as I think this has the least risk and has the advantage of having the greatest performance without an additional stage. The staging and extra burn have all been done before, so I think the risk from this is minimal. There is also the possible advantage of testing the engine before the critical Lunar orbit insertion.

To overcome the longer LSAM, I think toroidal tanks should be looked at. The current design has eight separate tanks, which is not at all mass or volume efficient. The bottom toroidal tank would contain LOX with the engine poking through the middle of the tank. The upper toroidal tank would contain the LH2, with the engine nozzle of the upper stage poking through the centre of the tank.  The Russian's have used toroidal tanks with storable propellants for years, although I think this would be a first for LH2/LOX propellants. I think the risk from that is minimal though, especially as the tanks would be separate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/25/2008 10:29 am
Ben the Space Brit wrote on 12/22/2008 05:47 PM

"You're forgetting that Jupiter-232 is intended to launch a lot less into LEO than the baseline Ares-V, about 50% less, IIRC."

The situation is more complicated than that. Ares-V only carries 45 t LSAM and 9 t payload fairing (PLF), 54 t through Max-Q. Jupiter-232 CLV launch carries the LSAM, 15 t PLF, 16 t launch escape system and 20 t Orion, 96 t alltogether through Max-Q, almost twice the mass. This generates greater loads, implying greater stress on the tanks, requiring greater tank pressure, implies greater tank mass. The biggest factor though is the maximum dynamic pressure. For Jupiter 232 its 32 kPa. Ares-V Max-Q is 30 kPa, less then Jupiter-232. The Jupiter-232 also carries a lot more propellant, up to 359 t, compared to 237 t for Ares-V. Thus overall, the Ares-V EDS will experience lighter loads and correspondingly smaller tank mass values.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/25/2008 10:30 am
clongton wrote on 12/22/2008 07:00 PM

"The Jupiter upper stage is solidly based on the existing design of the Centaur,..."

              Centaur          JUS
Diameter (m)  3.0              8.4
Bulkhead      Down             Up with sump
Material      Stainless Steel  Al-Li 2195
Structure     Balloon          Self Supporting

From my point of view, the JUS is so different from the Centaur, that there is very little in common. The diameter is nearly three times larger, the bulkhead design is completely different, as are the materials used! To argue that JUS is based on the Centaur is like North American arguing that the Saturn-V S-II (developed after the Centaur) is also based on Centaur technology. In my opinion, there is very little in common.

"The problem is not the Jupiter upper stage; it’s the inability of the inexperienced NASA designers to duplicate it using tools that have never produced a successful design."

That's right, NASA's engineers are being conservative. From my analysis, there's nothing wrong with NASA's numbers. I know that their stages can be built, as it lies within the current experience base. In my opinion, I think the JUS is venturing into unknown and expensive territory, as well as introducing unnecessary risk into their design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/25/2008 10:30 am
clongton wrote on 12/23/2008 12:48 PM

"So Spain enters into a contract with ULA to put half the lunar mission propellant in the depot on an Atlas, and Bosnia contracts with SpaceX to put the other half in the depot on a Falcon-9."

That is not how international space co-operation works. Spain or Bosnia will not pay SpaceX or ULA money to launch propellant. They will launch the propellant on their own rockets. Just like the US, they want their tax dollars to be spent in the country of origin, not in another country. In this case, they will pay Arianespace to launch the propellant, as they are European countries.

To launch 100 t of propellant using Ariane-V will cost about $1.9B (six launches of 16.7 t propellant each, $215M per launch plus $100M for the transfer vehicle). I don't think ESA would be interested in that, just to send one or two of their astronauts to the Moon. Much more likely that ESA provide Lunar station modules to NASA. NASA gets a free module and ESA gets an astronaut on the Moon. This is how ISS was built, and I think the likely model for any future Lunar cooperation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/25/2008 10:30 am
kraisee wrote on 12/24/2008 04:15 AM

"More recently, Boeing also proposed a common bulkhead on their Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage (ACES) design when KSC contracted for a new long-duration cryogenic storage Upper Stage for future launch vehicles."

That's news to me. The ACES paper (much better than the ICES paper in my opinion) makes no mention of a common bulkhead. Do you have a reference?

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Delta/The_Advanced_Cryogenic_Evolved_Stage_(ACES)_2006LeBar7454.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/25/2008 10:31 am
clongton wrote on 12/24/2008 10:55 PM

"That knowledge has been invested in industry alone for the last 40 odd years, with no NASA in-house equivalent capability."

As this paper shows, it is NASA who is paying for and developing this advanced technology. I see no evidence that NASA does not have the knowledge to develop advanced upper stages.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080013435_2008012894.pdf
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/25/2008 12:04 pm
I see no evidence that NASA does not have the knowledge to develop advanced upper stages.


The paper isn't proof.
List the  upper stages, much less the advanced ones, that NASA has developed in the last 40 years.   That is the evidence.  NASA contracts industry for the work, it doesn't have the inhouse talent anymore.

I am not Direct team member and more of an EELV person.  NASA doesn't have the experience.  Boeing is cleaning up the AIUS so that it can be produced, getting the performance out of it is another matter
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/25/2008 12:37 pm
clongton wrote on 12/22/2008 07:00 PM

"The Jupiter upper stage is solidly based on the existing design of the Centaur,..."

              Centaur          JUS
Diameter (m)  3.0              8.4
Bulkhead      Down             Up with sump
Material      Stainless Steel  Al-Li 2195
Structure     Balloon          Self Supporting

From my point of view, the JUS is so different from the Centaur, that there is very little in common. The diameter is nearly three times larger, the bulkhead design is completely different, as are the materials used! To argue that JUS is based on the Centaur is like North American arguing that the Saturn-V S-II (developed after the Centaur) is also based on Centaur technology. In my opinion, there is very little in common.

"The problem is not the Jupiter upper stage; it’s the inability of the inexperienced NASA designers to duplicate it using tools that have never produced a successful design."

That's right, NASA's engineers are being conservative. From my analysis, there's nothing wrong with NASA's numbers. I know that their stages can be built, as it lies within the current experience base. In my opinion, I think the JUS is venturing into unknown and expensive territory, as well as introducing unnecessary risk into their design.

When you base the design of a new vehicle, whether it's an automobile or a cryo upper stage, on an existing vehicle, that doesn't mean that you're copying the existing design, which appears to be your interpretation of my statement. It means that you take everything you know about what makes the existing design work, and apply that knowledge, together with materials and process advancements made in the interim, to come up with a "new" design, not an upgraded copy of the old. The JUS is solidly based on the Centaur/WBC in this way. It's entire heratige is Centaur.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/25/2008 01:00 pm
Is there an EDS backup option up DIRECT's sleeve? So that if/when NASA shoot down the numbers, you can fall back to something more robust. Even if that means accepting a performance hit.
In fact, IMHO, since the lunar mission requirements were essentially arbitary, there ought be nothing wrong with proposing a scaled down lunar mission if the cost is reduced appropriately. The whole point of DIRECT is about having a 'sweet spot' where we are tied into a certain performance level by the infrastructure and hardware that already exists. If that sweet spot can only support 3 men on the surface rather than four, but costs less than 75% as much, then what's the problem?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/25/2008 01:32 pm
Is there an EDS backup option up DIRECT's sleeve? So that if/when NASA shoot down the numbers, you can fall back to something more robust. Even if that means accepting a performance hit.
In fact, IMHO, since the lunar mission requirements were essentially arbitary, there ought be nothing wrong with proposing a scaled down lunar mission if the cost is reduced appropriately. The whole point of DIRECT is about having a 'sweet spot' where we are tied into a certain performance level by the infrastructure and hardware that already exists. If that sweet spot can only support 3 men on the surface rather than four, but costs less than 75% as much, then what's the problem?

January 15th
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/25/2008 03:57 pm
I am looking forward to Jan. 15th...

I have an idea...why do we not table any further conversation about the EDS until after Jan. 15th.  We can speculate all we want, but is it really helping matters?  Will the EDS numbers hold up, does Direct have a backup plan?  All these questions and more, do they really help the Direct team?  All it may do, is take their time to answer our questions.   

Let's give the Direct team the benifit of the doubt till then. :-) I would rather they spent their time working on the rubuttal and other things
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/25/2008 08:50 pm

That is not how international space co-operation works.

Currently that is true. It can always change...

Quote
Spain or Bosnia will not pay SpaceX or ULA money to launch propellant. They will launch the propellant on their own rockets. Just like the US, they want their tax dollars to be spent in the country of origin, not in another country. In this case, they will pay Arianespace to launch the propellant, as they are European countries.

Great!  The more the merrier.  That's the whole idea behind the depot.

Quote

To launch 100 t of propellant using Ariane-V will cost about $1.9B (six launches of 16.7 t propellant each, $215M per launch plus $100M for the transfer vehicle). I don't think ESA would be interested in that, just to send one or two of their astronauts to the Moon.


$2 billion "just to send one or two of the astronauts to the Moon" seems like a pretty good deal to me.  How much would it cost them to build their own launch infrastructure to the point that they would be ready to start launching their own manned lunar missions?

Quote

Much more likely that ESA provide Lunar station modules to NASA. NASA gets a free module and ESA gets an astronaut on the Moon.


Well, flexibility is the watchword. How about a little of both? A quarter of the propellant and a Lunar module would be great contributions to a Lunar mission.

Quote

This is how ISS was built, and I think the likely model for any future Lunar cooperation.


I'm looking forward to a new era in space.  Not just for America, but for all mankind.

Merry Christmas!
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/26/2008 02:14 am
Thanks for your reply Jim. You're right that NASA has not designed a new upper stage in 40 years. Do you know if there are any industry engineers with experience working at NASA?

NASA is giving a value of 13.4 t empty stage mass for 138.0 t propellant for the Ares-I upper stage. Do you know what values Boeing has come up with?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/26/2008 12:09 pm
Spain or Bosnia will not pay SpaceX or ULA money to launch propellant. They will launch the propellant on their own rockets.

Spain and Bosnia will not launch the propellant on their own rockets.You are reading too much into my "example" statement. But just to answer this objection, your response makes no sense. Neither nation has an eastern shoreline with enough open ocean to allow launch of any kind of "their own" rocket and nobody is going to give them permission to launch over the sovereign territory of another series of other smaller nations. If they want to get into the game, they will do like I said; put out a RFQ for propellant launch services and contract with someone else to do it in their name for a price. If companies like ULA and/or SpaceX are smart, they will bid for the contract, just like any company bids for contracts. That's exactly what we want to happen.

A propellant depot is a world-class enabler for anyone on earth that wants to get into human spaceflight. The DIRECT architecture makes this possible.

Just to be clear: DIRECT does not have to use a depot to do the complete ESAS lunar mission. Unlike Ares, we can perform the complete lunar global access - anytime return lunar mission profile that the ESAS called for without a depot. If we want to keep this as a strictly American effort, we can. We don't need the depot. But unlike Ares, DIRECT gives us the opportunity and the capability to open the VSE to all of mankind, which if you read the document, is its intent. ESAS took the VSE and "dumbed it down" to pretty much just us.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/26/2008 02:38 pm
Just to be clear: DIRECT does not have to use a depot to do the complete ESAS lunar mission

Why depot is discussed in this thread at all?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/26/2008 02:40 pm
Just to be clear: DIRECT does not have to use a depot to do the complete ESAS lunar mission

Why depot is discussed in this thread at all?

Because it is one of the major extended DIRECT architecture goals.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 12/26/2008 03:01 pm
Keep in mind that the maximum number of Jupiter launches per year is limited, (16 to 22, IIRC?), without incurring huge additional infrastructure costs.  Better to use them for the big payloads that can't be easily sub-divided. Propellant can be.

Also, drastically increasing the flight rate of smaller launchers, and encouraging the development of new, cheaper launchers, can only reduce the cost to orbit for everyone else.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/26/2008 04:12 pm
Because it is one of the major extended DIRECT architecture goals.

I thought you want to replace Ares-1 and Ares-V, not to decide on goals.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/26/2008 04:24 pm
Because it is one of the major extended DIRECT architecture goals.

I thought you want to replace Ares-1 and Ares-V, not to decide on goals.

DIRECT is an architecture that supplements/replaces ESAS. The Jupiter launch vehicle is part of that architecture and replaces the Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/26/2008 06:23 pm
Actually, this is an interesting discussion. How far, and in what depth, should DIRECT plan?

I can see an argument in favour of keeping things simple: a single, simple message "Build a single vehicle which can reuse existing facilities, to save lots of money, and use some of that money to fly it often enough to offset any performance losses."

However I can also see the argument in favour of a more expansive approach- e.g. trying to get the space science crowd onboard with the promise of cheap heavy lift.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 12/26/2008 07:03 pm
Chuck, Ross -

Did you ever use INTROS or a similar "NASA-approved" tool to size the J-232 EDS?  I would assume that the result would be heavier than a stage sized with the industry-provided tools you describe.  This would be an interesting comparison between the NASA- and industry-sized stages.  Also, did the system close with the heavier EDS?

F=ma
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 12/27/2008 01:15 am
Is there an EDS backup option up DIRECT's sleeve? So that if/when NASA shoot down the numbers, you can fall back to something more robust. Even if that means accepting a performance hit.
In fact, IMHO, since the lunar mission requirements were essentially arbitary, there ought be nothing wrong with proposing a scaled down lunar mission if the cost is reduced appropriately. The whole point of DIRECT is about having a 'sweet spot' where we are tied into a certain performance level by the infrastructure and hardware that already exists. If that sweet spot can only support 3 men on the surface rather than four, but costs less than 75% as much, then what's the problem?

They can stretch the first stage tank and use 5-seg SRBs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/27/2008 02:58 am
Actually, this is an interesting discussion. How far, and in what depth, should DIRECT plan?

I can see an argument in favour of keeping things simple: a single, simple message "Build a single vehicle which can reuse existing facilities, to save lots of money, and use some of that money to fly it often enough to offset any performance losses."

However I can also see the argument in favour of a more expansive approach- e.g. trying to get the space science crowd onboard with the promise of cheap heavy lift.

You have to remember that Direct is being addressed to differant audiances.  The Direct team has to be ready.  Direct will face techinical questions from NASA, but it has also got to answer the political questions eg workforce, cost, substainbility, how does it affect other stakeholders, etc.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 12/27/2008 10:40 am
Is there an EDS backup option up DIRECT's sleeve? So that if/when NASA shoot down the numbers, you can fall back to something more robust. Even if that means accepting a performance hit.
In fact, IMHO, since the lunar mission requirements were essentially arbitary, there ought be nothing wrong with proposing a scaled down lunar mission if the cost is reduced appropriately.

But part of the attraction of DIRECT is that it can launch the currently planned hardware items like Orion and Altair, where as the Ares 1 can't.

Getting rid of Ares 1 and Ares V will be difficult for NASA, even if it's a no-brainer to everyone else. Getting rid of Orion will be an even harder sell.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 12/27/2008 10:51 am
Keep in mind that the maximum number of Jupiter launches per year is limited, (16 to 22, IIRC?), without incurring huge additional infrastructure costs.  Better to use them for the big payloads that can't be easily sub-divided. Propellant can be.

Also, drastically increasing the flight rate of smaller launchers, and encouraging the development of new, cheaper launchers, can only reduce the cost to orbit for everyone else.

Do you have a reference which identifies the capacity constraints?

If NASA (Jupiter supply division) were a commercial organisation and someone (like NASA Exploration division) wanted to pay for 40 flights per year, could it be done? What might prevent it?

Increasing flight rates is the main argument for EELV (including Falcon) over DIRECTs. What would Spacex bid to deliver 300 tons per year to LEO over three years? What about 1,250 tons (a F9-H per week)? Or 9,000 tons (a daily F9-H launch).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/27/2008 01:28 pm
Is there an EDS backup option up DIRECT's sleeve? So that if/when NASA shoot down the numbers, you can fall back to something more robust. Even if that means accepting a performance hit.
In fact, IMHO, since the lunar mission requirements were essentially arbitary, there ought be nothing wrong with proposing a scaled down lunar mission if the cost is reduced appropriately.

But part of the attraction of DIRECT is that it can launch the currently planned hardware items like Orion and Altair, where as the Ares 1 can't.

Getting rid of Ares 1 and Ares V will be difficult for NASA, even if it's a no-brainer to everyone else. Getting rid of Orion will be an even harder sell.

No one wants to get rid of Orion.  In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of Ares-I is that its limited lift capacity has been adversely affecting development of Orion.  Switching launchers from Ares-I to Jupiter-120 will allow the Orion team to restore a lot of functionality that was dropped due to problems with Ares-I.  Little things like landing on land instead of in the ocean.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/27/2008 02:48 pm

No one wants to get rid of Orion.  In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of Ares-I is that its limited lift capacity has been adversely affecting development of Orion.  Switching launchers from Ares-I to Jupiter-120 will allow the Orion team to restore a lot of functionality that was dropped due to problems with Ares-I.  Little things like landing on land instead of in the ocean.

 Given that Orion is pretty much the way to go, one would think that this argument alone would be the one that would tip the scales, so that means that there is some other reason, one the general public is unaware of, one that has been held closely, and one that if it got out, would cause serious problems, there has to be some other reason why limiting Orion is being permitted, and why there is such a push to "stay the course."

Haven't we learned anything over the last 8 years? 20 years? 30 years? 50 years?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 12/27/2008 04:30 pm
Is it just me.. or does this SSME based Ares V with smaller tank and 5-seg sound more and more like some early "heavy" variants of DIRECT?

For all those DIRECT "nay-sayers"(Griffin's groupies?) on this board..

How many real design issues with Ares/Orion(many that have forced NASA to change design direction.. for example: Base Heating)..  were brought up on this board as issues(by the DIRECT team).. and solutions already incorporated into DIRECT.. well before the issues were fully addressed by NASA?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kneecaps on 12/27/2008 04:45 pm
Is it just me.. or does this SSME based Ares V with smaller tank and 5-seg sound more and more like some early "heavy" variants of DIRECT?

For all those DIRECT "nay-sayers"(Griffin's groupies?) on this board..

How many real design issues with Ares/Orion(many that have forced NASA to change design direction.. for example: Base Heating)..  were brought up on this board as issues(by the DIRECT team).. and solutions already incorporated into DIRECT.. well before the issues were fully addressed by NASA?

It is taking on a more Direct-esq feel. However, hold your horses, it's a trade study at the moment, not a new baseline!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 12/27/2008 05:05 pm
Is it just me.. or does this SSME based Ares V with smaller tank and 5-seg sound more and more like some early "heavy" variants of DIRECT?

For all those DIRECT "nay-sayers"(Griffin's groupies?) on this board..

How many real design issues with Ares/Orion(many that have forced NASA to change design direction.. for example: Base Heating)..  were brought up on this board as issues(by the DIRECT team).. and solutions already incorporated into DIRECT.. well before the issues were fully addressed by NASA?

It is taking on a more Direct-esq feel. However, hold your horses, it's a trade study at the moment, not a new baseline!

True enough.. although I can think of many other examples were DIRECT team addressed design issues in advance of NASA.

It was unclear from the article if they were also re-examining going back to 2 x J-2X for the Upper/EDS stage.  Seems that would definitely take some pressure off the massive Ares V "Core" and increase efficiency.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/27/2008 05:17 pm

No one wants to get rid of Orion.  In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of Ares-I is that its limited lift capacity has been adversely affecting development of Orion.  Switching launchers from Ares-I to Jupiter-120 will allow the Orion team to restore a lot of functionality that was dropped due to problems with Ares-I.  Little things like landing on land instead of in the ocean.

 Given that Orion is pretty much the way to go, one would think that this argument alone would be the one that would tip the scales, so that means that there is some other reason, one the general public is unaware of, one that has been held closely, and one that if it got out, would cause serious problems, there has to be some other reason why limiting Orion is being permitted, and why there is such a push to "stay the course."

Haven't we learned anything over the last 8 years? 20 years? 30 years? 50 years?

Yeah, stay the course.  That's the ticket.  I hear the new president-elect is a big backer of "stay-the-course" strategies.  :)

And no, I would say that NASA management has not learned a flippin thing about listening to their engineers.  Especially since Dr. Griffin is the uber-engineer, and can out-engineer any of his underlings.

There is one thing I have been wondering about since NASA has reverted all the way back to Apollo-style splash-downs.  Is NASA going to pay the US Navy to fish its astronauts out of the ocean after every mission?  If so, how much is that going to cost, and will it be added to the mission cost numbers?  If not, then how much will it cost to maintain a fleet of Orion recovery tugs?

Have the dangers of an ocean spash-down been added to the Ares-I LOC numbers?  All kinds of things can go wrong with an ocean splash-down, such as the capsule capsizing or sinking, or the flotation devices could malfunction.  Surely that would have an adverse affect on the safety ratings of the mission.  I can't imagine that there could be 2000 splash-downs without a serious event taking place at least once.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/27/2008 05:41 pm

Have the dangers of an ocean spash-down been added to the Ares-I LOC numbers?  All kinds of things can go wrong with an ocean splash-down, such as the capsule capsizing or sinking, or the flotation devices could malfunction.  Surely that would have an adverse affect on the safety ratings of the mission.  I can't imagine that there could be 2000 splash-downs without a serious event taking place at least once.

Mark S.

To the best of my knowledge, Ares-I LOM/LOC numbers do NOT include any spacecraft recovery events or milestones. IIRC, they are limited to the spacecraft launch. Someone please correct me if that is not right.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/27/2008 06:01 pm

Have the dangers of an ocean spash-down been added to the Ares-I LOC numbers?  All kinds of things can go wrong with an ocean splash-down, such as the capsule capsizing or sinking, or the flotation devices could malfunction.  Surely that would have an adverse affect on the safety ratings of the mission.  I can't imagine that there could be 2000 splash-downs without a serious event taking place at least once.

Mark S.

To the best of my knowledge, Ares-I LOM/LOC numbers do NOT include any spacecraft recovery events or milestones. IIRC, they are limited to the spacecraft launch. Someone please correct me if that is not right.

So, the Columbia accident should not count towards Shuttle LOC numbers, in that case.  Sure, the trigger event was during the launch, but they actually survived the launch, completed their science mission, and had left orbit.  Clearly, that line of logic does not hold up.

I would say that LOC/LOM numbers have to account for and include any possible loss while riding in, on, or around any NASA vehicle.  Once they are safely on board the Nimitz (or whatever), then NASA can be absolved of responsibility.

Didn't one of the Mercury capsules actually sink, and nearly take the astronaut down with it?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/27/2008 06:33 pm
Didn't one of the Mercury capsules actually sink, and nearly take the astronaut down with it?

Yep, the second manned Mercury/Redstone.  I don't think it was ever established whether the LOV was caused by a crew error (Grissom hitting the 'hatch eject' lever too early) or by an equipment malfuction.  As the Liberty Bell 7 is at the bottom of a fairly deep ocean, I can't see it ever being resolved.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/27/2008 06:35 pm

Have the dangers of an ocean spash-down been added to the Ares-I LOC numbers?  All kinds of things can go wrong with an ocean splash-down, such as the capsule capsizing or sinking, or the flotation devices could malfunction.  Surely that would have an adverse affect on the safety ratings of the mission.  I can't imagine that there could be 2000 splash-downs without a serious event taking place at least once.

Mark S.

To the best of my knowledge, Ares-I LOM/LOC numbers do NOT include any spacecraft recovery events or milestones. IIRC, they are limited to the spacecraft launch. Someone please correct me if that is not right.

So, the Columbia accident should not count towards Shuttle LOC numbers, in that case.  Sure, the trigger event was during the launch, but they actually survived the launch, completed their science mission, and had left orbit.  Clearly, that line of logic does not hold up.

I would say that LOC/LOM numbers have to account for and include any possible loss while riding in, on, or around any NASA vehicle.  Once they are safely on board the Nimitz (or whatever), then NASA can be absolved of responsibility.

Didn't one of the Mercury capsules actually sink, and nearly take the astronaut down with it?

Mark S.

Being fair, there is a very big difference between Launch Vehicle LOM/LOC numbers and Mission LOM/LOC numbers. While there are certain launch events that can have an affect on the Mission numbers, as in Columbia, typically the Launch Vehicle numbers do not include Mission numbers but are considered and quoted separately. Launching the spacecraft is the job of the launch vehicle. The mission after orbital insertion is generally not affected by the launch vehicle. That's why the mission numbers are quoted separately from the launch event.

The falacy in this particular case (Orion/Ares vs. Orion/Jupiter) is the current design of Orion has been severly compromised by the performance limitations of Ares-I, making the spacecraft much less safe than it would have been otherwise. It is not UN-safe, it is LESS-safe. That does NOT include resulting spacecraft performance shortfalls, only safety considerations; things like lacking mmod protection, reduced survival time in the water after splashdown, and single fault tolerant systems vs. dual fault tolerant.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/27/2008 06:39 pm
Didn't one of the Mercury capsules actually sink, and nearly take the astronaut down with it?

Yep, the second manned Mercury/Redstone.  I don't think it was ever established whether the LOV was caused by a crew error (Grissom hitting the 'hatch eject' lever too early) or by an equipment malfunction.  As the Liberty Bell 7 is at the bottom of a fairly deep ocean, I can't see it ever being resolved.

Liberty Bell 7 was raised from the ocean floor on July 20, 1999. It was then proven that the hatch was blown by an as-yet unresolved system malfunction, but they definitely demonstrated that Gus did NOT blow the hatch; it was caused by equipment malfunction. To the best of my knowledge, they have never specifically identified the root cause, but pilot interaction was eliminated. All his controls were still in the 'Locked Disable' position. Once activated, they cannot be put back. Gus did not do it.

Here's a link to the story: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/liberty_bell_000617.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 12/27/2008 06:40 pm
Didn't one of the Mercury capsules actually sink, and nearly take the astronaut down with it?

Yep, the second manned Mercury/Redstone.  I don't think it was ever established whether the LOV was caused by a crew error (Grissom hitting the 'hatch eject' lever too early) or by an equipment malfuction.  As the Liberty Bell 7 is at the bottom of a fairly deep ocean, I can't see it ever being resolved.

Never underestimate the ingenuity of the Kansas Cosmosphere.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/liberty_bell_000617.html

Edit: Chuck beat me to it...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 12/27/2008 06:45 pm

Have the dangers of an ocean spash-down been added to the Ares-I LOC numbers?  All kinds of things can go wrong with an ocean splash-down, such as the capsule capsizing or sinking, or the flotation devices could malfunction.  Surely that would have an adverse affect on the safety ratings of the mission.  I can't imagine that there could be 2000 splash-downs without a serious event taking place at least once.

Mark S.

To the best of my knowledge, Ares-I LOM/LOC numbers do NOT include any spacecraft recovery events or milestones. IIRC, they are limited to the spacecraft launch. Someone please correct me if that is not right.

So, the Columbia accident should not count towards Shuttle LOC numbers, in that case.

It unquestionably does count, because "Shuttle" is defined as the complete system: orbiter+ET+SRBs. The only controversy is which subsystem: ET or orbiter. The ET routinely violated debris requirements; the orbiter TPS was designed for the required debris environment rather than that actual debris environment.

Quote
Sure, the trigger event was during the launch, but they actually survived the launch, completed their science mission, and had left orbit.  Clearly, that line of logic does not hold up.

Strawman logic rarely holds up.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/27/2008 06:55 pm
The only controversy is which subsystem: ET or orbiter. The ET routinely violated debris requirements; the orbiter TPS was designed for the required debris environment rather than that actual debris environment.


As far as ET debris requirements, they were/are unreasonable (all LV's shed debris).  It comes down to the ET ET debris requirements crutching a bad selection of the orbiter TPS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Eerie on 12/27/2008 07:10 pm
So, how much could DIRECT lift if it used SSME?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/27/2008 07:46 pm
So, how much could DIRECT lift if it used SSME?

The team is not going there at this time.
Man-rated RS-68's are the MPP and we are sticking with that.

At some point in the future, we could always upgrade the system *if that is justified*, but for now we are not taking the bait. The lunar architecture we have developed is more than adequate for the job and actually accomplishes the full-bore ESAS lunar mission, which the Ares architecture can't do, for a fraction of the Ares cost, and several years sooner. If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

Just because NASA cannot make up its mind is no reason to abandon the perfectly robust solution, the RS-68 powered Jupiter-232.

 Simpler - Safer - Sooner
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/27/2008 09:22 pm

Have the dangers of an ocean spash-down been added to the Ares-I LOC numbers?  All kinds of things can go wrong with an ocean splash-down, such as the capsule capsizing or sinking, or the flotation devices could malfunction.  Surely that would have an adverse affect on the safety ratings of the mission.  I can't imagine that there could be 2000 splash-downs without a serious event taking place at least once.

Mark S.

To the best of my knowledge, Ares-I LOM/LOC numbers do NOT include any spacecraft recovery events or milestones. IIRC, they are limited to the spacecraft launch. Someone please correct me if that is not right.

So, the Columbia accident should not count towards Shuttle LOC numbers, in that case.  Sure, the trigger event was during the launch, but they actually survived the launch, completed their science mission, and had left orbit.  Clearly, that line of logic does not hold up.

I would say that LOC/LOM numbers have to account for and include any possible loss while riding in, on, or around any NASA vehicle.  Once they are safely on board the Nimitz (or whatever), then NASA can be absolved of responsibility.

Didn't one of the Mercury capsules actually sink, and nearly take the astronaut down with it?

Yes--one Mercury capsule did sink...

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/liberty_bell_000617.html

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/27/2008 10:23 pm

Quote
Sure, the trigger event was during the launch, but they actually survived the launch, completed their science mission, and had left orbit.  Clearly, that line of logic does not hold up.

Strawman logic rarely holds up.

I don't think it's a strawman argument to use hyperbole to expose the flawed logic of that proposition.  I am pointing out that the astronauts' lives are in NASA's hands until such time as they are safely off of any/all NASA vehicles, whether it's during countdown, ascent, mission on orbit, reentry, or recovery.  And that LOM/LOC probabilities need to take all aspects of the mission architecture into consideration.

If going from land landings to mid-ocean splash-downs increases the risk, then so be it.  That architectural regression needs to be accounted for.  And if mid-ocean splash-downs are somehow safer than land landings, then NASA should be happy to bump up their LOC ratings.

And what about all the money that will have to be spent to have the Navy tooling all over the Pacific chasing NASA reentry vehicles?  I haven't heard if that has been accounted for, either.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/27/2008 10:44 pm
LOM/LOC numbers for a launch vehicle do not include any risk factors beyond orbital insertion, because the launch vehicle is then out of the picture. It is inappropriate to tack mission risk onto the launch vehicle because the mission is not part of the launch.

Mission LOM/LOC numbers on the other hand, do include the risks associated with the launch vehicle, because the launch is part of the mission. I think that what is happening here is a failure to apply the appropriate risk factors to the conversation.

If you want to talk about what happens to the crew from lift off to splash-down, then those are mission numbers.

But if you want to talk about what happens to the crew from liftoff to orbital insertion, those are launch vehicle risk factors and do not include mission risks. The moment one begins to mix in mission risks of any kind, regardless of source, then launch vehicle LOM/LOC numbers are no longer appropriate and a disservice is being done to the launch vehicle when mission risks are attached to the launch vehicle.

This is long standing risk assessment practice and failure to keep the two items separate does nothing but muddy the waters and create a completely incorrect risk assessment picture for both the launch vehicle and the mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/27/2008 10:54 pm
LOM/LOC numbers for a launch vehicle do not include any risk factors beyond orbital insertion, because the launch vehicle is then out of the picture. It is inappropriate to tack mission risk onto the launch vehicle because the mission is not part of the launch.

Mission LOM/LOC numbers on the other hand, do include the risks associated with the launch vehicle, because the launch is part of the mission. I think that what is happening here is a failure to apply the appropriate risk factors to the conversation.

If you want to talk about what happens to the crew from lift off to splash-down, then those are mission numbers.

But if you want to talk about what happens to the crew from liftoff to orbital insertion, those are launch vehicle risk factors and do not include mission risks. The moment one begins to mix in mission risks of any kind, regardless of source, then launch vehicle LOM/LOC numbers are no longer appropriate and a disservice is being done to the launch vehicle when mission risks are attached to the launch vehicle.

This is long standing risk assessment practice and failure to keep the two items separate does nothing but muddy the waters and create a completely incorrect risk assessment picture for both the launch vehicle and the mission.

Okay Chuck, I can buy that.  And I understand the difference between mission LOC/LOM and launcher LOC/LOM.  So, are there any published LOC/LOM numbers for the standard Ares mission profile?  And are there any comparable numbers for DIRECT?

What I am trying to get at is that going from land landings to oceanic splash-downs is an architectural regression.  And that since that change was forced by Ares-I inadequacies, whether or not it happens during launch is immaterial.  "Staying the course" with Ares-I no-matter-what is increasing risk to the crews, and that needs to be pointed out.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/27/2008 11:10 pm
LOM/LOC numbers for a launch vehicle do not include any risk factors beyond orbital insertion, because the launch vehicle is then out of the picture. It is inappropriate to tack mission risk onto the launch vehicle because the mission is not part of the launch.

Mission LOM/LOC numbers on the other hand, do include the risks associated with the launch vehicle, because the launch is part of the mission. I think that what is happening here is a failure to apply the appropriate risk factors to the conversation.

If you want to talk about what happens to the crew from lift off to splash-down, then those are mission numbers.

But if you want to talk about what happens to the crew from liftoff to orbital insertion, those are launch vehicle risk factors and do not include mission risks. The moment one begins to mix in mission risks of any kind, regardless of source, then launch vehicle LOM/LOC numbers are no longer appropriate and a disservice is being done to the launch vehicle when mission risks are attached to the launch vehicle.

This is long standing risk assessment practice and failure to keep the two items separate does nothing but muddy the waters and create a completely incorrect risk assessment picture for both the launch vehicle and the mission.

Okay Chuck, I can buy that.  And I understand the difference between mission LOC/LOM and launcher LOC/LOM.  So, are there any published LOC/LOM numbers for the standard Ares mission profile?  And are there any comparable numbers for DIRECT?

What I am trying to get at is that going from land landings to oceanic splash-downs is an architectural regression.  And that since that change was forced by Ares-I inadequacies, whether or not it happens during launch is immaterial.  "Staying the course" with Ares-I no-matter-what is increasing risk to the crews, and that needs to be pointed out.

Mark S.

I don't think that there are any Ares Mission risk assessments, as opposed to launch risk assessments, available in the public domain. I know they exist, but I haven't seen them. In any case, they would be a floating, ever changing set of numbers because so much of the risk assessments of the Ares-I, which feeds the Mission assessment, are still not nailed down. I'll have to check with Ross and see if he has been given permission from the guys at Marshall to release the mission numbers, assuming he has them, which I don't know. Ross does not have any access what-so-ever to any ITAR data, and Dr Griffin has used the ITAR classification to hide just about everything he can about Ares. Extracting any of those numbers is difficult, and if they are so classified, it is illegal to release them to the public. But I'll see what I can find out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/27/2008 11:25 pm
Extracting any of those numbers is difficult, and if they are so classified, it is illegal to release them to the public. But I'll see what I can find out.

Can we at least agree that splash-downs are more dangerous than land landings?  Or is that not a given?  Clearly NASA thought that land landings were an improvement, otherwise they would not have included them in the initial Ares architecture.  Unless I am totally misreading the whole situation.

Thanks,
    Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/27/2008 11:26 pm
LOM/LOC numbers for a launch vehicle do not include any risk factors beyond orbital insertion, because the launch vehicle is then out of the picture. It is inappropriate to tack mission risk onto the launch vehicle because the mission is not part of the launch.


On the other hand, for the launch vehicle to do its job, it must deliver the payload to the required orbit in a fit state to perform the mission. Columbia counts as a launch failure, because the Columbia orbiter was delivered to the pad in a fit state to perform the mission, but was no longer so once delivered to orbit, even though the damage only became obvious later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/27/2008 11:32 pm
Extracting any of those numbers is difficult, and if they are so classified, it is illegal to release them to the public. But I'll see what I can find out.

Can we at least agree that splash-downs are more dangerous than land landings?  Or is that not a given?  Clearly NASA thought that land landings were an improvement, otherwise they would not have included them in the initial Ares architecture.  Unless I am totally misreading the whole situation.

Thanks,
    Mark S.

Mark - that is not necessarily a given. It totally depends on how the splashdown and/or the land return is implemented, and the available infrastructure to ensure crew safety. For example, if you design the spacecraft for land return and do not also make it able to splash down, then you put the crew at greater risk because most of an orbital track is over open ocean. Properly implemented, a splashdown is not less safe. But a land return has greater utility for the program, because not only is it more convenient, but it makes the vehicle potentially reusable.

With the proper recovery infrastructure in place, neither is safer than the other. But there are program advantages for each that the other lacks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/27/2008 11:44 pm
Extracting any of those numbers is difficult, and if they are so classified, it is illegal to release them to the public. But I'll see what I can find out.

Can we at least agree that splash-downs are more dangerous than land landings?  Or is that not a given?  Clearly NASA thought that land landings were an improvement, otherwise they would not have included them in the initial Ares architecture.  Unless I am totally misreading the whole situation.

Thanks,
    Mark S.

Mark - that is not necessarily a given. It totally depends on how the splashdown and/or the land return is implemented, and the available infrastructure to ensure crew safety. For example, if you design the spacecraft for land return and do not also make it able to splash down, then you put the crew at greater risk because most of an orbital track is over open ocean. Properly implemented, a splashdown is not less safe. But a land return has greater utility for the program, because it makes the vehicle potentially reusable.

With the proper recovery infrastructure in place, neither is safer than the other. But there are program advantages for each that the other lacks.

Okay Chuck.  I guess I was making too big of a deal about the splashdowns vs. land return.  I thought it had more to do with safety than cost and convenience.

Clearly any return vehicle would be better off if it could make a relatively safe splashdown, in case of emergency.  But if you can't hit a return window within at least a couple hundred miles of the recovery fleet, you might end up spending quite a bit of time waiting for pickup.  In which case, you really don't want to have to leave the vehicle in a hurry.  I would much rather spend the hours waiting to be picked up in a nice cozy capsule, than in a drafty, freezing, leak-prone rubber life raft.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 12/28/2008 12:13 am
Since two of the issues with Orion being discussed WRT water landings are survivability given high internal temperatures and survivability of a high sea-state, it seems there must be some risk to crew involved with sea landings that aren't issues with land landings.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 12/28/2008 12:25 am

Quote
Sure, the trigger event was during the launch, but they actually survived the launch, completed their science mission, and had left orbit.  Clearly, that line of logic does not hold up.

Strawman logic rarely holds up.

I don't think it's a strawman argument to use hyperbole to expose the flawed logic of that proposition.

As Chuck pointed out (better than I did), it's a flawed analogy.

Quote
  I am pointing out that the astronauts' lives are in NASA's hands until such time as they are safely off of any/all NASA vehicles, whether it's during countdown, ascent, mission on orbit, reentry, or recovery.  And that LOM/LOC probabilities need to take all aspects of the mission architecture into consideration.

Yes, and they are. The total mission LOM/LOC is composed of LOM/LOC contributions from each system.

The problem is, in ELV/capsule architectures, the spacecraft and the launcher are separate systems and each provides a portion of the total LOM/LOC risk. In most ELV/capsule systems, the LOM/LOC contributions from the spacecraft and the launcher are relatively uncoupled. So for the purpose of comparing different ELVs to carry a specific spacecraft (Orion, in this case), it is valid to compare the LOM/LOC contributions for the ELV alone, because the contribution from the spacecraft can assumed to be relatively constant.

The shuttle, on the other hand, is an integrated spacecraft/launcher system and so its LOM/LOC numbers cannot be split out so cleanly because the system is tightly coupled. Therefore it is not valid to use the shuttle as an analogy in this case, whether meant as hyperbole or not.

Quote
And what about all the money that will have to be spent to have the Navy tooling all over the Pacific chasing NASA reentry vehicles?  I haven't heard if that has been accounted for, either.

It wasn't accounted for in Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, either. At least, NASA certainly didn't pay for it, other than NASA personnel and GSE provided to the recovery forces.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rookie on 12/28/2008 04:55 am
Apologies for the dumb comment, but when NASA talks about reverting to water landings because of limitations of the Ares vehicle, have they considered the wartime commitments the USN now has? I could not find any quantitative data, but I'd venture that back in the 1960s/70s we had more aircraft carriers that were available for spacecraft recovery than we currently do.

And don't forget that you're not just talking flight decks but also the defensive ships/subs and support for them (oilers, etc.).


Thanks for your time and effort put forth to Direct. I've only read a little of the 240+ pages, but I'm hoping to catch up.






Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 12/28/2008 05:44 am
Apologies for the dumb comment, but when NASA talks about reverting to water landings because of limitations of the Ares vehicle, have they considered the wartime commitments the USN now has? I could not find any quantitative data, but I'd venture that back in the 1960s/70s we had more aircraft carriers that were available for spacecraft recovery than we currently do.


We had wartime commitments for carriers during Apollo as well, off of Vietnam.

Most of the Navy is not deployed at any one time.  (of 12 CSG's, only one in underway right now, the Theodore Roosevelt)

That said, one can only assume the cost of deploying a CSG for spacecraft recovery does away with any lingering concept of routine access to space.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lars_J on 12/28/2008 06:36 am
...That said, one can only assume the cost of deploying a CSG for spacecraft recovery does away with any lingering concept of routine access to space.

Only if your spacecraft design mandates water landings due to weight savings.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: rookie on 12/28/2008 07:11 am
Apologies for the dumb comment, but when NASA talks about reverting to water landings because of limitations of the Ares vehicle, have they considered the wartime commitments the USN now has? I could not find any quantitative data, but I'd venture that back in the 1960s/70s we had more aircraft carriers that were available for spacecraft recovery than we currently do.


We had wartime commitments for carriers during Apollo as well, off of Vietnam.

Most of the Navy is not deployed at any one time.  (of 12 CSG's, only one in underway right now, the Theodore Roosevelt)

That said, one can only assume the cost of deploying a CSG for spacecraft recovery does away with any lingering concept of routine access to space.


Yes, I should have qualified that, my apologies.

What I was trying to say is that do we have fewer carriers now (which are committed to the Gulf War, not to mention other problems.) than we did during Gemini/Apollo/Vietnam?

It looks like we have 11 "supercarriers", 3 Tarawa class amphibious assault ships, and 7 Wasp class amphibious assault ships. Would a water recovery of an Orion spacecraft require a supercarrier, or could it be done by one of the amphibious assault ships? Or even done by an amphibious transport dock (LPD) class of ship?

In any case, as you stated, when CSGs are required for spacecraft recovery space access cannot be considered routine.

Thank you for your time, and work on Direct Launch.



Rook
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/28/2008 12:02 pm
Apologies for the dumb comment, but when NASA talks about reverting to water landings because of limitations of the Ares vehicle, have they considered the wartime commitments the USN now has? I could not find any quantitative data, but I'd venture that back in the 1960s/70s we had more aircraft carriers that were available for spacecraft recovery than we currently do.


We had wartime commitments for carriers during Apollo as well, off of Vietnam.

Most of the Navy is not deployed at any one time.  (of 12 CSG's, only one in underway right now, the Theodore Roosevelt)

That said, one can only assume the cost of deploying a CSG for spacecraft recovery does away with any lingering concept of routine access to space.


Yes, I should have qualified that, my apologies.

What I was trying to say is that do we have fewer carriers now (which are committed to the Gulf War, not to mention other problems.) than we did during Gemini/Apollo/Vietnam?

It looks like we have 11 "supercarriers", 3 Tarawa class amphibious assault ships, and 7 Wasp class amphibious assault ships. Would a water recovery of an Orion spacecraft require a supercarrier, or could it be done by one of the amphibious assault ships? Or even done by an amphibious transport dock (LPD) class of ship?

In any case, as you stated, when CSGs are required for spacecraft recovery space access cannot be considered routine.

Thank you for your time, and work on Direct Launch.

Rook

I think those are good points, Rook.  And it looks like you've done at least a little bit of homework, unless you just happen to have US naval carrier group dispositions memorized...

In order for water recovery to be considered routine, NASA would have to deploy (or contract out) it's own fleet of Orion recovery vessels, similar to what is done now with the used SRB's after a Shuttle launch.  The big difference there, of course, is that lives are at stake, as well as much more expensive hardware.  Like I said earlier, I don't think NASA should get a free pass on spacecraft recovery.  You can't have the Navy chasing your capsules all over the Pacific without accounting for the cost and risks involved.

Once again, it is the Ares architecture that has not been well thought out.  DIRECT already has this base covered by sticking with land landings for the Orion.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 12/28/2008 12:11 pm
If the Navy uses the recovery as the basis for a training exercise, it may well be "free" to NASA.  Nearly any ship with a helicopter can be a recovery ship and it doesn;t have to be a whole Battle Group.  You can use CVN, LPD, LPH, LHA, and even Destroyers or Cruisers if you had to.  Singly or in groups.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 12/28/2008 12:31 pm

Once again, it is the Ares architecture that has not been well thought out.  DIRECT already has this base covered by sticking with land landings for the Orion.


There is only a minor difference Ares and Direct when it comes to end of mission recovery.  Orion is current planned to land in the Gulf of Mexico and will only require a few vessels for recovery (the Navy is not planned).  Land landing for Orion require few similar vehicles like a shuttle landing and a C-17 to return the capsule to KSC (the water landing vessel can take the capsule directly to KSC)

The rest of the landing scenarios mostly involve ocean landings and therefore are no different.  Both versions of the capsule have be able to support the crew in the ocean for 36 hours.  Launch aborts are the same.   Both cover the northern Atlantic and would require the same support.  Additionally, EAFB is not accessible on every orbit.  Daylight landing opportunities there are only available 1-2 orbits per day, much like the shuttle.  Which means in a true orbital emergency, water landings are more likely

So, in all, the choice of land vs ocean is not a real factor in launch vehicle selection
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 12/28/2008 01:23 pm
Ross?  Chuck? 


Chuck, Ross -

Did you ever use INTROS or a similar "NASA-approved" tool to size the J-232 EDS?  I would assume that the result would be heavier than a stage sized with the industry-provided tools you describe.  This would be an interesting comparison between the NASA- and industry-sized stages.  Also, did the system close with the heavier EDS?

F=ma
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/28/2008 10:10 pm

Once again, it is the Ares architecture that has not been well thought out.  DIRECT already has this base covered by sticking with land landings for the Orion.


There is only a minor difference Ares and Direct when it comes to end of mission recovery.  Orion is current planned to land in the Gulf of Mexico and will only require a few vessels for recovery (the Navy is not planned).  Land landing for Orion require few similar vehicles like a shuttle landing and a C-17 to return the capsule to KSC (the water landing vessel can take the capsule directly to KSC)

The rest of the landing scenarios mostly involve ocean landings and therefore are no different.  Both versions of the capsule have be able to support the crew in the ocean for 36 hours.  Launch aborts are the same.   Both cover the northern Atlantic and would require the same support.  Additionally, EAFB is not accessible on every orbit.  Daylight landing opportunities there are only available 1-2 orbits per day, much like the shuttle.  Which means in a true orbital emergency, water landings are more likely

So, in all, the choice of land vs ocean is not a real factor in launch vehicle selection

I see that SpaceX seems to be currently expecting to use ocean landing for Dragon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/28/2008 10:14 pm
This is only a guess, but I suspect that ocean 'landing' (aka 'splash-down') is somewhat less technically challenging to get right compared to finding some way to make a hard landing on dry land.  This is probably why NASA chose it for all their earlier vehicles and, similarly, why Space-X have chosen it for Dragon - cheaper and easier from several perspectives.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 12/29/2008 12:09 am
This is only a guess, but I suspect that ocean 'landing' (aka 'splash-down') is somewhat less technically challenging to get right compared to finding some way to make a hard landing on dry land.  This is probably why NASA chose it for all their earlier vehicles and, similarly, why Space-X have chosen it for Dragon - cheaper and easier from several perspectives.

I don't know, the splashdown can crack the vessel (that happened during early Apollo tests) and drown your astronauts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/29/2008 10:27 am
I have a question that has probably already been answered somewhere, but I couldn't find it.  Or at least, not a discussion of the details and trade-offs involved.

Wouldn't DIRECT get better lunar performance by using both Jupiter upper stages to send the CEV and LSAM individually to L2 or low lunar orbit?  I don't have the programs to calculate the masses and burns involved, but it seems to me that if a single JUS has enough kick to get both CEV and LSAM to LLO, then it seems that a JUS+CEV and JUS+LSAM should also work.  The g loads might be kind of high, though.

If the numbers work out, this would seem to have the following benefits:  1) There might also be enough fuel left over to have the JUS perform the lunar orbit insertion burns, too.  That would leave more fuel on the LSAM to increase the landable mass. 2) There would be no complicated extraction/redocking maneuver in LEO to mate the CEV+LSAM with the JUS. 3a) The CEV could ride in normal heads-up position on the JUS. Or alternatively 3b) The LSAM would not have to be precariously balanced on the nose of the CEV during high-gee TLI burn. 4) The LSAM could be pre-positioned in LLO and remotely checked out before launching the CEV.  5) Maximize the use of the expensive JUS since we have to launch two of them anyways.

Thanks,
   Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/29/2008 11:28 am
Apologies for the dumb comment, but when NASA talks about reverting to water landings because of limitations of the Ares vehicle, have they considered the wartime commitments the USN now has? I could not find any quantitative data, but I'd venture that back in the 1960s/70s we had more aircraft carriers that were available for spacecraft recovery than we currently do.

And don't forget that you're not just talking flight decks but also the defensive ships/subs and support for them (oilers, etc.).


Thanks for your time and effort put forth to Direct. I've only read a little of the 240+ pages, but I'm hoping to catch up.








As far as I can see, you don't actually need a large warship to recover a space capsule. A small cargo ship with a nice onboard crane would do the job. Maybe a small military vessel with a helicopter for safety's sake?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 12/29/2008 12:03 pm
I don't recall any discussion relative to cross range capability with Orion.  I was wondering if there was any discussion as to how that would factor in with recovery forces in a return from the ISS orbital inclination.  I know shuttle's cross range capability allows for greater flexibility in orbital return choices.

With Orion, wouldn't there need to be considerably more ships deployed to cover contingencies?  With the exception of Apollo 7 and 9, all the returns could be determined fairly precisely, and even the Apollo earth orbit returns were from a 28 degree orbital inclination, which lessens the cross range need.

Is Skylab a good analogy?  Wasn't the orbital inclination closer to the ISS orbit?  Were recovery forces deployed to more locations to accomodate orbital return?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 12/29/2008 12:22 pm
I don't recall any discussion relative to cross range capability with Orion.  I was wondering if there was any discussion as to how that would factor in with recovery forces in a return from the ISS orbital inclination.  I know shuttle's cross range capability allows for greater flexibility in orbital return choices.

With Orion, wouldn't there need to be considerably more ships deployed to cover contingencies?  With the exception of Apollo 7 and 9, all the returns could be determined fairly precisely, and even the Apollo earth orbit returns were from a 28 degree orbital inclination, which lessens the cross range need.

Is Skylab a good analogy?  Wasn't the orbital inclination closer to the ISS orbit?  Were recovery forces deployed to more locations to accomodate orbital return?

I also wonder about reentry azimuth plans, coming back from ISS. Assuming they shoot for ascending leg reentry, a short landing is basically in the Andes, and long landing is in a densely inhabited part of the US. Descending leg is across the US on the same California to Texas path as Columbia. I have a sudden image of Orion parachuting down at the Press Site...!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: brihath on 12/29/2008 12:34 pm
I don't recall any discussion relative to cross range capability with Orion.  I was wondering if there was any discussion as to how that would factor in with recovery forces in a return from the ISS orbital inclination.  I know shuttle's cross range capability allows for greater flexibility in orbital return choices.

With Orion, wouldn't there need to be considerably more ships deployed to cover contingencies?  With the exception of Apollo 7 and 9, all the returns could be determined fairly precisely, and even the Apollo earth orbit returns were from a 28 degree orbital inclination, which lessens the cross range need.

Is Skylab a good analogy?  Wasn't the orbital inclination closer to the ISS orbit?  Were recovery forces deployed to more locations to accomodate orbital return?

I also wonder about reentry azimuth plans, coming back from ISS. Assuming they shoot for ascending leg reentry, a short landing is basically in the Andes, and long landing is in a densely inhabited part of the US. Descending leg is across the US on the same California to Texas path as Columbia. I have a sudden image of Orion parachuting down at the Press Site...!

I haven't found the figures for Apollo yet, but shuttle, with a hypersonic L/D of 1.1 had a cross range capability of 1465 Km.  Gemini, on the other hand, with an L/D of .2 had a cross range capability of 52 Km.  That info comes from a book on spacecraft design authored by Mike Griffin.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Xentry on 12/29/2008 02:03 pm
I don't recall any discussion relative to cross range capability with Orion.  I was wondering if there was any discussion as to how that would factor in with recovery forces in a return from the ISS orbital inclination.  I know shuttle's cross range capability allows for greater flexibility in orbital return choices.

With Orion, wouldn't there need to be considerably more ships deployed to cover contingencies?  With the exception of Apollo 7 and 9, all the returns could be determined fairly precisely, and even the Apollo earth orbit returns were from a 28 degree orbital inclination, which lessens the cross range need.

Is Skylab a good analogy?  Wasn't the orbital inclination closer to the ISS orbit?  Were recovery forces deployed to more locations to accomodate orbital return?

I also wonder about reentry azimuth plans, coming back from ISS. Assuming they shoot for ascending leg reentry, a short landing is basically in the Andes, and long landing is in a densely inhabited part of the US. Descending leg is across the US on the same California to Texas path as Columbia. I have a sudden image of Orion parachuting down at the Press Site...!

I haven't found the figures for Apollo yet, but shuttle, with a hypersonic L/D of 1.1 had a cross range capability of 1465 Km.  Gemini, on the other hand, with an L/D of .2 had a cross range capability of 52 Km.  That info comes from a book on spacecraft design authored by Mike Griffin.

Apollo had a L/D of approximately 0.35 with angle-of-attack of about 30deg, I believe that Orion will be somewhere in this range too. Assuming these numbers are right, for the direct re-entry cross range will probably be limited to a few hundred kilometers. So most of the time (and orbits) landing will not be possible. That is also the case with Soyuz whenever the Shuttle is not attached to the ISS.
In case a skip-entry option is available for the lunar return (apollo entry guidance also covered skip-entry cases in which the performance was pretty weak, but there are new predictive guidance algorithms which seem quite promising), then one could expect to substantially increase both crossrange and downrange capabilities, perhaps to an extent that the requirement of anytime return from the Moon, with a precision in the range of a few kilometers, could be achievable.

AFAIK at the moment both the direct and skip-entry options are being considered for Orion. So, I wouldn't worry much about this issue.

BTW if you can obtain it, there is an interesting recent paper about this named "A Comparison of Two Orion Skip Entry Guidance Algorithms". Unfortunately only the first page is available at the AIAA site.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/29/2008 02:55 pm
So if all "Ares is doomed, and they're liable to take NASA down with it" posts belong in the Direct thread, does that imply that all "DIRECT will never fly" posts belong in an Ares thread?  I don't get it.

I ask this because Chris gave me a shot across the bow regarding such a post in the "Ares-V Return to SSME" thread this morning.  I think that the Ares-V team considering a switch back to SSME really is a warning flag and a sign of extreme problems.  Why else would they even consider such a drastic change at this late date?

Thanks,
    Mark S.

BTW, Chris, what happened to the smileys?  I don't even see the icons when posting, much less in the actual messages.  Or am I doing it wrong?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/29/2008 03:40 pm
So if all "Ares is doomed, and they're liable to take NASA down with it" posts belong in the Direct thread, does that imply that all "DIRECT will never fly" posts belong in an Ares thread?  I don't get it.

I ask this because Chris gave me a shot across the bow regarding such a post in the "Ares-V Return to SSME" thread this morning.  ...
Thanks,
    Mark S.

BTW, Chris, what happened to the smileys?  I don't even see the icons when posting, much less in the actual messages.  Or am I doing it wrong?

Mark;
It’s actually one of the things I like about NSF; the strict housekeeping enforcement.
If you get a chance, take a look at the huge number of threads, including L2 and you will notice that there are hundreds. The only way to keep each thread viable is to strictly enforce the off-topic rules. Otherwise it would just be a massive he-said-she-said mess.

That being said, you are allowed to make off topic comments, provided the comment is strictly within the context of the thread. For example, I have made comments about the RS-68 usage in the SSME thread based on some things we learned while working DIRECT. I can repeat those things, but I need to bring it back to the SSME topic to show how what I said from DIRECT applies to the SSME topic. That makes my DIRECT comment a SSME Topic-specific remark. That’s the rule. I can say (almost) anything I want to, so long as it actually applies to the topic at hand. But we need to be careful when doing that because it’s really easy to get a side-thread started which ends up taking the whole thing off topic.

And making opinionated remarks about someone else's motives, unless it is repeatable specific first hand knowledge, is always forbidden.

I’ve been guilty myself of going off topic and the moderators have fired across my bow as well. So I try to not stray and when I find a side thread developing, I usually try to say something before the moderators have to step in, because (thankfully) they will. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/29/2008 03:51 pm

And making opinionated remarks about someone else's motives, unless it is repeatable specific first hand knowledge, is always forbidden.

I’ve been guilty myself of going off topic and the moderators have fired across my bow as well. So I try to not stray and when I find a side thread developing, I usually try to say something before the moderators have to step in, because (thankfully) they will. 


Chuck,

OMG, you mean I have to actually exercise self-restraint?  The horrors!

Thanks for the pointers, that clears up a lot.  Now, where can I find that "Ares is doomed" thread...   :)

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: RedSky on 12/30/2008 12:03 am
Direct 2.0 is mentioned specifically in this New York Times article (on pg 2).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/30/2008 01:30 am
Direct 2.0 is mentioned specifically in this New York Times article (on pg 2).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1



Mentioned is the word.  What was it 2 sentances in how many pages? 

I think the Direct team needs to step up the marketing.  Sometimes it is not the best product that wins (see Sony vs. Beta), but the one people see and hear positive things about.  I understand there are alot of things happening behind close doors, but abit of the plan needs to be press release--eg rebuttals countering and if needed attacking NASA's plans.

If the Direct team wants to play a defensive propogranda war, Direct will lose.  Direct is trying to change the status quo of NASA's plans.  Ares/Constellation will win unless NASA is really forced to answer those tough questions. 

I do not want it to be 2018, and we are stuck with 1/2 flights to moon.  Saying I told you so, will not help matters--it will be $15billion+, and 8 years too late.     
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/30/2008 02:15 am


[/quote] 

I think the Direct team needs to step up the marketing.  Sometimes it is not the best product that wins (see Sony vs. Beta), but the one people see and hear positive things about.  I understand there are alot of things happening behind close doors, but abit of the plan needs to be press release--eg rebuttals countering and if needed attacking NASA's plans.

I do not want it to be 2018, and we are stuck with 1/2 flights to moon.  Saying I told you so, will not help matters--it will be $15billion+, and 8 years too late.     
[/quote]

Want I'm more afraid of is NASA get's split and Congress doesn't trust either side so it reduces funding and getting out of LEO becomes nothing more than a dream.

I'm a Direct convert but one thing this shouldn't be looked as or thought of as is wagging war.

If Direct isn't chosen Ares is suitable 2nd choice imho and it's definitely better than the Shuttle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dbhyslop on 12/30/2008 02:23 am

I think the Direct team needs to step up the marketing.  Sometimes it is not the best product that wins (see Sony vs. Beta), but the one people see and hear positive things about.  I understand there are alot of things happening behind close doors, but abit of the plan needs to be press release--eg rebuttals countering and if needed attacking NASA's plans.

No marketing can be better than poor marketing.  If the NYT article seems dismissive, it may have something to do with the comment campaign waged on Direct's behalf earlier this year.  Content providers read their comments and they get very offended if they think they're being used to push an agenda.  Case in point: every online media outlet was deluged with Ron Paul comment campaigns this cycle--I think all would agree it proved counterproductive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/30/2008 03:17 am
I do not want it to be 2018, and we are stuck with 1/2 flights to moon.  Saying I told you so, will not help matters--it will be $15billion+, and 8 years too late.     

I'm with you there, Hip.  That is exactly my biggest worry.  Sure, if NASA is allowed to throw enough of our money at it, they will eventually be able to make Ares I+V fly.  But at what cost, in dollars, time, credibility, and lost opportunity?  Comparing the Ares manifest through 2020 with the proposed Direct manifest makes me a little sick to my stomach.

What I don't understand is why NYT gave the article the title "The Fight Over NASA's Future", then failed almost completely to build on the premise or investigate the opposition's position.  Sure there was a bare mention of Direct, but no explanation other than "shuttle derived", no neato graphics like for Ares, and no link to the Direct website.

Then to top it off, they conclude their DIRECT "coverage" with this paragraph:

Quote
But that concept has gained few followers, and in April, Richard Gilbrech, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration systems at the time, testified before the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that “we can’t justify, based on laws of physics, the performance” claimed by the plan’s proponents.

Does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?  This is the largest obstacle that Direct has to overcome: every single time an outsider wants an opinion DIRECT, they go to some mouthpiece from NASA!  It is a mind-boggling phenomenon, but everything that NASA says is taken at face value, even when they are bad-mouthing their own opposition!

On the other hand, I feel like jumping up and down just for the fact that DIRECT was mentioned BY NAME IN THE NEW YORK TIMES!  Talk about a publicity coup.  If only they had provided a link and suggested that those interested could find out more for themselves at the DIRECT web site.

Oh well.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/30/2008 03:52 am


 

I think the Direct team needs to step up the marketing.  Sometimes it is not the best product that wins (see Sony vs. Beta), but the one people see and hear positive things about.  I understand there are alot of things happening behind close doors, but abit of the plan needs to be press release--eg rebuttals countering and if needed attacking NASA's plans.

I do not want it to be 2018, and we are stuck with 1/2 flights to moon.  Saying I told you so, will not help matters--it will be $15billion+, and 8 years too late.     
[/quote]

Want I'm more afraid of is NASA get's split and Congress doesn't trust either side so it reduces funding and getting out of LEO becomes nothing more than a dream.

I'm a Direct convert but one thing this shouldn't be looked as or thought of as is wagging war.

If Direct isn't chosen Ares is suitable 2nd choice imho and it's definitely better than the Shuttle.
[/quote]

I think that it could be worse than shuttle...Ares will be be llike Apollo--2020--Congress cancels Ares since it has only flown 4-6 times and taken 1/2 of NASA's budget.  Then what are we left with?  Waiting another 8-10 years for a replacement.  Ask yourself--are we better off today than we were at the end of the 60's--50 years later?  We have gone no-where--I do want to see another cycle llike the last.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 12/30/2008 04:09 am
    My take on the situation is they either switch to Direct or switch to EELVs/COTS vehicles/ and Shuttle II.
The latter would require completely redesigning the ESAS architecture and switching to a system like ELA.

CxP becoming a repeat of Apollo ie too expensive to maintain is a very real possibility.

Plus personally I don't want a repeat of Apollo we did that already. I want something that will pickup where Apollo left off learning from it's mistakes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JMSC on 12/30/2008 04:11 am
Quote
Does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?  This is the largest obstacle that Direct has to overcome: every single time an outsider wants an opinion DIRECT, they go to some mouthpiece from NASA!  It is a mind-boggling phenomenon, but everything that NASA says is taken at face value, even when they are bad-mouthing their own opposition!

I think if anything the article shows how successful Griffin's scorched earth campaign has been.  Sure Ares isn't a very good option, but it's the only option.  If you don't support Ares then the only option we'll have is to fly unsafe Shuttles until kingdom come, or worse trust the future of manned flight to unproven military rockets or a bunch of model rocket enthusiasts.  Overall, I think the DIRECT message has been pretty successful given the current environment.

In order for DIRECT or another alternative to succeed two things need to happen.  1) Obama should tell Griffen that yes he just might go with an unsafe alternative such as EELV and Griffen's resignation would be appreciated as he has already promised if US Astronauts were ever going to be launched on an EELV.  This would at least allow a reasonable debate to occur inside and outside of NASA on the future direction for the VSE; and 2) As Ross and Chuck have pointed out an independent review of all reasonable options by a qualified independent body composed of experts with impeachable credentials needs to take place.  I feel fairly confident that if those two things happen a DIRECT like architecture would be selected. 

PS  The pro-Ares arguments kind of remind of the current Microsoft Mojave commercials, which essentially say, "Windows Vista, it doesn't suck nearly as bad as you think, so get behind it and purchase a copy because you don't have an alternative!"

- John
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 12/30/2008 04:20 am
Quote
Does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?  This is the largest obstacle that Direct has to overcome: every single time an outsider wants an opinion DIRECT, they go to some mouthpiece from NASA!  It is a mind-boggling phenomenon, but everything that NASA says is taken at face value, even when they are bad-mouthing their own opposition!

I think if anything the article shows how successful Griffin's scorched earth campaign has been.  Sure Ares isn't a very good option, but it's the only option.  If you don't support Ares then the only option we'll have is to fly unsafe Shuttles until kingdom come, or worse trust the future of manned flight to unproven military rockets or a bunch of model rocket enthusiasts.  Overall, I think the DIRECT message has been pretty successful given the current environment.

In order for DIRECT or another alternative to succeed two things need to happen.  1) Obama should tell Griffen that yes he just might go with an unsafe alternative such as EELV and Griffen's resignation would be appreciated as he has already promised if US Astronauts were ever going to be launched on an EELV.  This would at least allow a reasonable debate to occur inside and outside of NASA on the future direction for the VSE; and 2) As Ross and Chuck have pointed out an independent review of all reasonable options by a qualified independent body composed of experts with impeachable credentials needs to take place.  I feel fairly confident that if those two things happen a DIRECT like architecture would be selected. 

PS  The pro-Ares arguments kind of remind of the current Microsoft Mojave commercials, which essentially say, "Windows Vista, it doesn't suck nearly as bad as you think, so get behind it and purchase a copy because you don't have an alternative!"

- John

The EELVs have a good track record and all the failures during Spacex's rocket tests were relatively benign and easy to escape.

Calling the EELVs unsafe is out of line because all evidence points to the opposite.

As for safety the irony is an all new shuttle with COBRA engines in place of SSMEs might be safer then Ares I.

On the Microsoft Mojave commercials you do have alternatives several flavors of linux and OSX plus several other lesser known OSes.

Actually the Microsoft Mojave commercials are a very good analogy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JMSC on 12/30/2008 04:43 am
Quote

The EELVs have a good track record and all the failures during Spacex's rocket tests were relatively benign and easy to escape.

Calling the EELVs unsafe is out of line because all evidence points to the opposite.

As for safety the irony is an all new shuttle with COBRA engines in place of SSMEs might be safer then Ares I.

On the Microsoft Mojave commercials you do have alternatives several flavors of linux and OSX plus several other lesser known OSes.

Actually the Microsoft Mojave commercials are a very good analogy.

Actually, I was referring to a statement Dr Griffen made earlier, I can't remember the exact citation, but he did say he would resign before he allowed US astronauts to fly on an EELV derived launch system as he considered it unsafe.  I personally have nothing against the Delta IV, Atlas V or Falcon 9 and think any of them have the potential to make a very good manned launch system.  I am particularly fond of the idea of using a Delta IV heavy to launch Orion :)

- John
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/30/2008 04:48 am
I sort of think we're missing the point here...

If all that the NYT has to say is that DIRECT is lousy, not physically possible, and not a viable alternative based on ____________, then we all need to email the author of that article and tell him that he wrote a lousy article! Then we need to email the editor and say that we find it distressing that the best, most widely read newspaper in the United States is writing biased and inaccurate articles. Show them with REAL documentation, that what was published merely regurgitated a false and dishonest sound byte quote, promulgated by NASA, for no other purpose than to discredit their opposition. Then we need to go on to ask why the NYT can't spread good information, why it's writers don't fact-check and follow up with first-hand sources, and what they intend to do about it.

I did exactly that, and expect that I'll get a response. May not be the one I want, but  at least I wrote and told them they printed a lie, and didn't check to see if it was a lie or not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 12/30/2008 04:51 am
I support the idea of using of an upgraded Delta IV-H as a test vehicle for Orion.
If they can get 27T out of Delta then they can go strait to test flying the full lunar configuration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 12/30/2008 11:14 am
I don't think Direct will be implemented. Instead I think that we will see a switch from Ares-1 to Delta-IV, shuttle extension followed by early Ares-V launches. Exactly what form the Ares-V takes is unknown. Maybe the ultra-light Direct upper stage coupled with 5-segment SRB's and a 8.4m core will be enough.
NASA would still need a funding boost in order to pull forward the lunar program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/30/2008 04:08 pm
So, any response or thoughts from the DIRECT team on the NYT article?  I know it's not technical, but it is publicity.  Brief, minimal, and uninformative publicity, but still.

I was excited to see the article, but disappointed that it actually turned out to be mostly just a NASA PR vehicle.  With all of the graphics and other documents on the DIRECT web site, the NYT should have been able to at least include a shadow profile of the various alternatives and not focus so exclusively on Ares.

They didn't even mention that "Jupiter" is a much cooler name than "Ares".  :(

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/30/2008 04:35 pm
So, any response or thoughts from the DIRECT team on the NYT article?  I now it's not technical, but it is publicity.  Brief, minimal, and uninformative publicity, but still.

Maybe they don't think it is necessary.  It is possible that the 1/15/09 announcement is going to be a showstopper.  At the very least, I think that LM might be announcing a DIRECT-esque Centaur-derived AVUS proposal that will prove all of the DIRECT numbers for the J-232 US.

Optimistic best-case scenario? ULA announces a team-up with DIRECT and will be developing the J-120 and J-232 cargo versions as a medium and heavy CaLV for commercial and scientific launches to directly compete with the Ares-V (competitive bids for probe launches against NASA's in-house team).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: GraphGuy on 12/30/2008 05:29 pm
I sort of think we're missing the point here...

If all that the NYT has to say is that DIRECT is lousy, not physically possible, and not a viable alternative based on ____________, then we all need to email the author of that article and tell him that he wrote a lousy article! Then we need to email the editor and say that we find it distressing that the best, most widely read newspaper in the United States is writing biased and inaccurate articles. Show them with REAL documentation, that what was published merely regurgitated a false and dishonest sound byte quote, promulgated by NASA, for no other purpose than to discredit their opposition. Then we need to go on to ask why the NYT can't spread good information, why it's writers don't fact-check and follow up with first-hand sources, and what they intend to do about it.

I did exactly that, and expect that I'll get a response. May not be the one I want, but  at least I wrote and told them they printed a lie, and didn't check to see if it was a lie or not.

Bear in mind that the article is likely written by someone who has no understanding of aeronautical engineering.  I read the article and found it to be a content free puff piece that was heavy on buzzwords, etc.

I find it interesting that the Obama team would be interested in closing the GAP and wondering if they can throw money at the problem.  Ideally they would pick the best architecture and throw money at that design.  Ideally the best architecture would close its own gap ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/30/2008 05:45 pm

I find it interesting that the Obama team would be interested in closing the GAP and wondering if they can throw money at the problem.  Ideally they would pick the best architecture and throw money at that design.  Ideally the best architecture would close its own gap

The Obama team is considering the gap from two perspectives:
(1) a national security issue. Depending on the Russians too much.
(2) a potential major unemployemt problem at a time when the economy must create jobs, not be allowed to loose them - from ANY sector of the economy. If they can keep a sizable percentage of the space industry employed at their curent workplace, that's several thousand jobs they don't have to replace.

It makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: GraphGuy on 12/30/2008 06:09 pm

I find it interesting that the Obama team would be interested in closing the GAP and wondering if they can throw money at the problem.  Ideally they would pick the best architecture and throw money at that design.  Ideally the best architecture would close its own gap

The Obama team is considering the gap from two perspectives:
(1) a national security issue. Depending on the Russians too much.
(2) a potential major unemployemt problem at a time when the economy must create jobs, not be allowed to loose them - from ANY sector of the economy. If they can keep a sizable percentage of the space industry employed at their curent workplace, that's several thousand jobs they don't have to replace.

It makes perfect sense.

Oh I agree that closing the gap makes sense, just that the "throw money at the gap" approach isn't ideal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/30/2008 06:51 pm

I find it interesting that the Obama team would be interested in closing the GAP and wondering if they can throw money at the problem.  Ideally they would pick the best architecture and throw money at that design.  Ideally the best architecture would close its own gap

The Obama team is considering the gap from two perspectives:
(1) a national security issue. Depending on the Russians too much.
(2) a potential major unemployment problem at a time when the economy must create jobs, not be allowed to loose them - from ANY sector of the economy. If they can keep a sizable percentage of the space industry employed at their current workplace, that's several thousand jobs they don't have to replace.

It makes perfect sense.

Oh I agree that closing the gap makes sense, just that the "throw money at the gap" approach isn't ideal.

They are not. That's why, in my opinion, that Dr Griffin didn't like some of the questions the Transition team were asking. The perception was that they were preparing to recommend spending money, but it wasn't necessarily going to be for Ares. It could be on something else instead of Ares. That didn't sit well with him. The new President is going to be looking for the best bang for the buck that will maximize the gap reduction for both the reasons I mentioned above. Of course what the good Dr apparently failed to appreciate is that the new President needs all the options, not just the ones that the Administrator likes best. Who knows? Perhaps the new President would choose Ares to be over-funded. If he did, it would be a validation of Dr Griffin's approach. But President Obama's not going to choose based on the Administrator's opinion alone. That's why all the questions. Money will be spent. On what is yet to be determined.

You are correct that it is not an ideal solution, but we are not in ideal times, and half of the answer is to spend federal dollars, lots of them. The other half of the answer is to spend those federal dollars constructively. There's enough available to pull the economy back up, but not enough to squander. Choices need to be made before checks are cut. But make no mistake - checks will be cut, as will the gap.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: GraphGuy on 12/30/2008 07:26 pm
But make no mistake - checks will be cut, as will the gap.

I sincerely hope so, on both accounts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/30/2008 07:35 pm
How much sooner could a Delta IV heavy be human rated and ready to fly Orion?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/30/2008 08:28 pm
Man rating Delta IV would also man rate the RS-68 which would make that engine nearly impossible to not use on Ares V (or Direct derivative if that comes about). 

Takes the J-2X out of the critical path and puts the existing RS-68 in.  Keep J-2X perking along so its ready when needed.

Fly ISS, fly STS, get Orion up, manrate Delta 4 and start Ares V.  This is a big laundry list.

I would bet that the Delta IV would get launched from LC39B.  NASA would want control and to protect their work force at KSC.  A new pad would likely be required at LC37 so might as well spend the money on the KSC side of the swamp.

As someone mentioned above, these are not ideal solutions, but these are not ideal times, to say the least.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/30/2008 08:47 pm
How much sooner could a Delta IV heavy be human rated and ready to fly Orion?


 The difference between the Jupiter and both EELV's is that the EELV's both need to man-rate TWO engines, one each for the 1st and 2nd stages, while Jupiter only needs to man-rate one and can be pressed into service sooner than either EELV.
 
 But the long pole isn't the rocket; it's Orion. Atlas-V, Delta-IV and Jupiter-120 can all be ready to fly Orion by sometime in 2012. But Orion won't be ready for another year afterward.
 
 So for any of the three alternate choices, Orion won't fly before 2013. The difference is that if it's on an EELV, they still need to develop ANOTHER heavy lift rocket to enable the lunar program. If it's on the Jupiter, the heavy lift core will already be on the pad, just waiting for the upper stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 12/30/2008 09:42 pm
Optimistic best-case scenario? ULA announces a team-up with DIRECT and will be developing the J-120 and J-232 cargo versions as a medium and heavy CaLV for commercial and scientific launches to directly compete with the Ares-V (competitive bids for probe launches against NASA's in-house team).


Unfortunately, I think this would be a non-starter because it doesn't save any NASA jobs.

Also, would ULA be allowed to use the ET as the basis for their tank?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 12/30/2008 10:30 pm
How much sooner could a Delta IV heavy be human rated and ready to fly Orion?


 The difference between the Jupiter and both EELV's is that the EELV's both need to man-rate TWO engines, one each for the 1st and 2nd stages, while Jupiter only needs to man-rate one and can be pressed into service sooner than either EELV.
 
 But the long pole isn't the rocket; it's Orion. Atlas-V, Delta-IV and Jupiter-120 can all be ready to fly Orion by sometime in 2012. But Orion won't be ready for another year afterward.
 
 So for any of the three alternate choices, Orion won't fly before 2013. The difference is that if it's on an EELV, they still need to develop ANOTHER heavy lift rocket to enable the lunar program. If it's on the Jupiter, the heavy lift core will already be on the pad, just waiting for the upper stage.

If Nasa threw more money at orion could it be  ready earlier one wonders? At the very least the early production capability could be increased so we could have multiple flights  in 2013 & 2014 rather than just one in each year.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/30/2008 11:06 pm
How much sooner could a Delta IV heavy be human rated and ready to fly Orion?


 The difference between the Jupiter and both EELV's is that the EELV's both need to man-rate TWO engines, one each for the 1st and 2nd stages, while Jupiter only needs to man-rate one and can be pressed into service sooner than either EELV.
 
 But the long pole isn't the rocket; it's Orion. Atlas-V, Delta-IV and Jupiter-120 can all be ready to fly Orion by sometime in 2012. But Orion won't be ready for another year afterward.
 
 So for any of the three alternate choices, Orion won't fly before 2013. The difference is that if it's on an EELV, they still need to develop ANOTHER heavy lift rocket to enable the lunar program. If it's on the Jupiter, the heavy lift core will already be on the pad, just waiting for the upper stage.

If Nasa threw more money at orion could it be  ready earlier one wonders? At the very least the early production capability could be increased so we could have multiple flights  in 2013 & 2014 rather than just one in each year.

No. Too many design decisions have been made that forced the design down a specific path. Testing and analysis now just takes time and is generally unaffected by money. The state it is in now simply cannot absorb much additional cash; it's like trying to put more water in a bucket that's already full. Any design change at this point will not speed up anything - in fact it will slow things down by forcing a repeat of things already done, only on a different design. No, Orion is going to be what it is on track to be today, and 2013 is just about as quick as it can be ready to fly. More money may speed it up by 2-3 months tops, no more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/31/2008 01:03 am
clongton, good explanation and information.

Having the booster ready 1 year early would at least mean that Orion would have a ride when it was ready and not have to wait.

I also agree with your summary that if EELV is used then there are a few more steps that Jupiter doesn't require.  The single biggest being the need for a whole new large booster.  That, mainitaining workforce continuity and the EELV engine man rating are reasons why I like the DIRECT concept alot. 

It's not a perfect vehicle either but there are so many aspects that make good management sense.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 12/31/2008 01:35 am
One other thing that has occurred to me, and if I'm wrong, Chuck, Ross, Mark or one of those guys who know all the science and numbers and what's going on can correct me.

Since Orion has been downsized for weight, removing some of those pesky old safety features, would it not then allow re-introduction of some, if not most, if not all of them if an LV were able to lift it? Is this not reason alone, crew safety (in light of the NASA report on Columbia released today) to implement a booster system that is really a *system* that follows the mandate of law to reuse as much STS infrastructure and engineering as possible?

Keeping all of those things in mind, why would the Obama Transition Team not want to check more deeply into a system that not only follows the law, and also can carry the safer Orion?

Why is this not mentioned more?

Its one of the things I pointed out in my letter to the NYT, but I have not, as yet, heard back from them.

I think that the grass-roots effort to promote DIRECT ought to restate the safety issues with Orion, the compliance with the law, the jobs saved and economic stimulus, and the much reduced gap that will be the result of this LV system.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/31/2008 03:38 am
One other thing that has occurred to me, and if I'm wrong, Chuck, Ross, Mark or one of those guys who know all the science and numbers and what's going on can correct me.

Since Orion has been downsized for weight, removing some of those pesky old safety features, would it not then allow re-introduction of some, if not most, if not all of them if an LV were able to lift it? Is this not reason alone, crew safety (in light of the NASA report on Columbia released today) to implement a booster system that is really a *system* that follows the mandate of law to reuse as much STS infrastructure and engineering as possible?

Keeping all of those things in mind, why would the Obama Transition Team not want to check more deeply into a system that not only follows the law, and also can carry the safer Orion?

Why is this not mentioned more?

Its one of the things I pointed out in my letter to the NYT, but I have not, as yet, heard back from them.

I think that the grass-roots effort to promote DIRECT ought to restate the safety issues with Orion, the compliance with the law, the jobs saved and economic stimulus, and the much reduced gap that will be the result of this LV system.



Lancer,

    Thanks for including me (I think) in with the smart guys, but I'm just a space fan in general and DIRECT fan in particular.  I take that as a great compliment, but I'm not associated with DIRECT at all.  Just to be clear.

    I strongly agree that we need to find a way to leverage all aspects of the DIRECT proposal both for better public awareness and industry acceptance.  I know that Ross and Chuck have gone to extremes to avoid antagonizing anyone, and they are much better at sticking to facts, logic, and reason than I am.  I tend to get wrapped up in the heat of the moment.

    The problem with asserting that DIRECT complies more closely to the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 than Ares is that no one in power seems to care.  Yes, the law was written in one particular and explicit way, but they are leaving it up to the Rocket Scientist In Charge on how best to implement their law.  Of course what they see as a discretionary variation, we see as a blatant bait and switch routine.  You and I know that there is no way any objective person could compare Ares and Jupiter and conclude that Ares is a closer derivative of STS than Jupiter.  But they just do not care.

    The powers that be also give the incumbent administrator the benefit of the doubt in controversial situations.  That is understandable up to a point.  But when there are so many voices raising serious concerns about the current direction; when people are afraid to speak out for fear of getting fired; and when the recent history of NASA is "Management Ignoring and Overriding their Engineers when it Matters the Most"; I think we should be able to convince a new Administration that an objective evaluation of all current options, including EELV, DIRECT, and ARES (at the least), would be a prudent and wise decision.

    The two points of yours that those in power will at least pay lip service to are safety and budget concerns.  I believe that DIRECT has the advantage over ARES in both areas, for all the reasons that the DIRECT team has enumerated.  The trick is to get their attention by letting them know that their decisions and lack of oversight are putting our astronauts, and the space program as a whole, at risk.  I don't know how to do that without sounding alarmist or antagonistic.  But it needs to happen.  I don't think they will be moved by any other considerations.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/31/2008 06:32 pm
Wow, this thread has been really quiet this week.  I guess everyone is just waiting for the days to pass....

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Interwebs, I continue my thankless task of promoting DIRECT when possible.  Yesterday, Slashdot had a discussion on the recent NYT "NASA Fight Club" article.  Someone (not me) posted a pro-DIRECT reference, who was then accused of drinking DIRECT "cool-aid".  So I put my two cents in right here (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1076357&cid=26273445).

So, if anyone has time to review my effort and give me feedback I would appreciate it.  I know most of you here are hard core space techies, but I was trying to be informative and persuasive without alienating the general audience.

So would you say I sounded:

1) informative? 
2) persuasive? 
3) relatively accurate? 
4) too shrill? 
5) tin-foil hatter? 
6) correct level of detail? 
7) anything else?

Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/31/2008 06:38 pm
Wow, this thread has been really quiet this week.  I guess everyone is just waiting for the days to pass....

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Interwebs, I continue my thankless task of promoting DIRECT when possible.  Yesterday, Slashdot had a discussion on the recent NYT "NASA Fight Club" article.  Someone (not me) posted a pro-DIRECT reference, who was then accused of drinking DIRECT "cool-aid".  So I put my two cents in right here (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1076357&cid=26273445).

So, if anyone has time to review my effort and give me feedback I would appreciate it.  I know most of you here are hard core space techies, but I was trying to be informative and persuasive without alienating the general audience.

So would you say I sounded:

1) informative? 
2) persuasive? 
3) relatively accurate? 
4) too shrill? 
5) tin-foil hatter? 
6) correct level of detail? 
7) anything else?

Thanks


Mark
I think it was just right.
Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/31/2008 07:22 pm

Mark
I think it was just right.
Thanks


Thanks Chuck!  That means a lot, coming from a DIRECT team member.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/31/2008 08:26 pm
Quote
Mark
I think it was just right.
Thanks

You know I'm a Direct convert, looking at the two designs now I don't see how you couldn't go with Direct.

How ever a lot of time has passed since that decision had to be made and one thing I do agree with Dr. Griffin is that you can't keep stopping every year and try to redesign the rocket or you'll end up with nothing.  That to me is my biggest fear.

Second the whole idea that Direct is safer is misplaced imho, as Direct refers to safer in regards to the Orion capsule.  Orion will never fly if it's unsafe and Ares 1 was chosen because it was the safest launch vehicle they could produce which is something  I think needs to be recognized. 

Third how realistic is the Direct time table?  If I was presented with the choices of Direct or Ares come Jan 20th I would be skeptical that Direct would be able to live up to it's promise.  I've read the time lines presented and they seem to be very generous.  I could be wrong or this information could already be ready for people more important than I but perhaps highlighting how Directs major technical hurdles will be over come and how are they much different that Ares (in regards to how Ares 1 problems can't be over come but Direct can be), every rocket has it's hurdles right?

Finally how well can all the restructuring of the contracts go?  That's got to be a major concern since you're going to be asking out side sources to stop building what NASA told them to, and build a whole new design.  How much money and time will be lost there?  What happens if one of the contractors doesn't want to go along?  We could end up with a big cow pie if things turn south.

Those are just a few concerns that come to mind from some one not inside NASA and don't feel the need to respond as I don't want to waste your time as I'm sure you're busy.  I'm just expressing my internal conflict   :o

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/31/2008 09:08 pm
 
  You know I'm a Direct convert, looking at the two designs now I don't see how you couldn't go with Direct.
  An awful lot of people agree with you.
 
 
Quote
How ever a lot of time has passed since that decision had to be made and one thing I do agree with Dr. Griffin is that you can't keep stopping every year and try to redesign the rocket or you'll end up with nothing.  That to me is my biggest fear.
  Dr Griffin is right in that once a decision is made, you press forward with it. Otherwise nothing gets done. However, if you study the history of how NASA projects are run, there are decision points all along the way that must get a pass or the program is either terminated or replaced. Throughout all of NASA's history this has been followed, and many a NASA project has been cut because at these decision points they couldn't pass the grade. This time is different however. There have been several points in this program where Ares-I couldn't pass the decision node. But instead of doing the right thing and changing the program, the decision standards were actually lowered to the point that the LV passed. NASA then happily announced to the world that the Ares project has passed yet another milestone. I don't think it's a stretch to call this hypocrisy. This has led many to believe, rightly or wrongly, that Dr Griffin's goal was not to implement the VSE, but to build and fly the Ares rocket which he designed before he was the Administrator, back in his Planetary society days. The clamor to change the program is a cry from people who know what's happening on the inside to return to a sane launch vehicle program so that we can get on with the VSE. What the fear is, and it is very real, is that when Ares goes down as many believe it will, it will take the entire VSE, and possibly the American manned spaceflight program, with it.
 
 
Quote
Second the whole idea that Direct is safer is misplaced imho, as Direct refers to safer in regards to the Orion capsule.  Orion will never fly if it's unsafe and Ares 1 was chosen because it was the safest launch vehicle they could produce which is something  I think needs to be recognized.
  No, DIRECT refers to safer in terms of the launch vehicle. By every measure that matters, the Jupiter-120 is a safer launch vehicle than the Ares-I. For example it doesn't have to execute an engine start at high altitude - there is no extra staging event as there is on Ares-I. Also, the Jupiter-120 uses two main engines and can actually experience an engine out event at 45 seconds after launch and still achieve orbit. Such an experience on the Ares would trigger an immediate abort. The Jupiter-120 uses the 4-segment SRB that NASA has been flying for 30 years and has literally tons of heritage data on. We know how that system works, while the Ares-I uses a totally new SRB with no history and no heritage. It only "looks" like the old SRB. There are many other examples, but the bottom line is that the Jupiter-120 "launch vehicle" is safer than the Ares-I "launch vehicle".
 
 
Quote
Third how realistic is the Direct time table?  If I was presented with the choices of Direct or Ares come Jan 20th I would be skeptical that Direct would be able to live up to it's promise.  I've read the time lines presented and they seem to be very generous.  I could be wrong or this information could already be ready for people more important than I but perhaps highlighting how Directs major technical hurdles will be over come and how are they much different that Ares (in regards to how Ares 1 problems can't be over come but Direct can be), every rocket has it's hurdles right?
  Yes, every rocket has its hurdles. But the timelines we have presented have been put together by the people at MSFC who do the scheduling of projects. It's NASA personnel that are saying we can do this. We are only relaying their conclusions. They give us the data and we make the presentation graphs. The schedule we have presented is actually not aggressive at all. Remember, we really don't loose any significant time by switching to DIRECT because most of what has been done for Ares-I has direct application to the Jupiter-120. In addition, the Jupiter is based solidly on the NLS which, unlike the Ares-I, actually got well past the point of a REAL PDR before the Congress dropped funding because of fiscal conflicts.
 
 
Quote
Finally how well can all the restructuring of the contracts go?  That's got to be a major concern since you're going to be asking out side sources to stop building what NASA told them to, and build a whole new design.  How much money and time will be lost there?  What happens if one of the contractors doesn't want to go along?  We could end up with a big cow pie if things turn south.
  The contract proposals we have put on the table reflect what all the current Ares contract holders have said makes sense to them and they would be willing to do. Remember, these are only "proposals", and reflect the thinking of the current Ares contractors, not just us. But they make good sense and give all the current players an approximately equal share as they get with the contracts that are in place now. But the proposals are not "pie in the sky". They are based on what the current players have told us is workable. The current contract holders have told us that they believe what we have presented, with their participation, is easily doable. Having said all that, the legal aspects of the contract changes are not within our range of expertise and will need to be properly negotiated and executed by the parties involved.
 
 
Quote
Those are just a few concerns that come to mind from some one not inside NASA and don't feel the need to respond as I don't want to waste your time as I'm sure you're busy.  I'm just expressing my internal conflict.
  Responding to genuine questions is not a bother to us. It's actually something we like to do. Sometimes it's me, sometimes it's Ross, and sometimes it's other members of the team using their Forum names.  But never stop asking. Please continue to bring your concerns up and we will address them as best as we can.
 
  Thank you for taking the time to formulate and ask your questions.
 
  Regards
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 12/31/2008 09:16 pm
I continue to believe one of the strong political arguments for Direct arises from the ample throw weight margins of J-120 versus either EELV or Ares 1.

The ability to simply add 1000 kg to the spacecraft (for example) to solve an unexpected problem rather than engineer the be-jeebers out of it would seem highly beneficial to both shortening "the Gap" and getting the Orion design completed at a lower cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/31/2008 09:53 pm
Quote
The clamor to change the program is a cry from people who know what's happening on the inside to return to a sane launch vehicle program so that we can get on with the VSE. What the fear is, and it is very real, is that when Ares goes down as many believe it will, it will take the entire VSE, and possibly the American manned spaceflight program, with it.

Yes that is my biggest fear, one in which I'm willing to see Ares go forward in order to preserve.  As much as Direct is better over Ares, Ares is better than nothing and is quite capable of fulfilling VSE. 

And odd question but if Direct is shot down in the coming months (which I hope it's not) would the Direct team be willing to swallow the bullet and press ahead and try to make Ares as successful as possible in order to preserve American spaceflight?
 
Quote
  Yes, every rocket has its hurdles. But the timelines we have presented have been put together by the people at MSFC who do the scheduling of projects. It's NASA personnel that are saying we can do this. We are only relaying their conclusions.

Very reassuring, that's got to be a major strong point for the Direct case when presenting it to the powers that be.  Would Direct be willing to keep Dr. Griffin on board if he was willing in order to prevent a major political shake up with in the agency?  Stability will be key in seeing the program move forward with VSE.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 12/31/2008 10:21 pm
 
  You know I'm a Direct convert, looking at the two designs now I don't see how you couldn't go with Direct.
  An awful lot of people agree with you.
 
 
Quote
How ever a lot of time has passed since that decision had to be made and one thing I do agree with Dr. Griffin is that you can't keep stopping every year and try to redesign the rocket or you'll end up with nothing.  That to me is my biggest fear.
  Dr Griffin is right in that once a decision is made, you press forward with it. Otherwise nothing gets done. However, if you study the history of how NASA projects are run, there are decision points all along the way that must get a pass or the program is either terminated or replaced. Throughout all of NASA's history this has been followed, and many a NASA project has been cut because at these decision points they couldn't pass the grade. This time is different however. There have been several points in this program where Ares-I couldn't pass the decision node. But instead of doing the right thing and changing the program, the decision standards were actually lowered to the point that the LV passed. NASA then happily announced to the world that the Ares project has passed yet another milestone. I don't think it's a stretch to call this hypocrisy. This has led many to believe, rightly or wrongly, that Dr Griffin's goal was not to implement the VSE, but to build and fly the Ares rocket which he designed before he was the Administrator, back in his Planetary society days. The clamor to change the program is a cry from people who know what's happening on the inside to return to a sane launch vehicle program so that we can get on with the VSE. What the fear is, and it is very real, is that when Ares goes down as many believe it will, it will take the entire VSE, and possibly the American manned spaceflight program, with it.
 
 
Quote
Second the whole idea that Direct is safer is misplaced imho, as Direct refers to safer in regards to the Orion capsule.  Orion will never fly if it's unsafe and Ares 1 was chosen because it was the safest launch vehicle they could produce which is something  I think needs to be recognized.
  No, DIRECT refers to safer in terms of the launch vehicle. By every measure that matters, the Jupiter-120 is a safer launch vehicle than the Ares-I. For example it doesn't have to execute an engine start at high altitude - there is no extra staging event as there is on Ares-I. Also, the Jupiter-120 uses two main engines and can actually experience an engine out event at 45 seconds after launch and still achieve orbit. Such an experience on the Ares would trigger an immediate abort. The Jupiter-120 uses the 4-segment SRB that NASA has been flying for 30 years and has literally tons of heritage data on. We know how that system works, while the Ares-I uses a totally new SRB with no history and no heritage. It only "looks" like the old SRB. There are many other examples, but the bottom line is that the Jupiter-120 "launch vehicle" is safer than the Ares-I "launch vehicle".
 
 

And this is the the sort of unbalanced advocacy that costs Direct credibility.

If adding a segment to an existing booster is a "totally new design" then what do you call a totally new design?

Jupiter 120  has three staging events, 2*SRB plus 1* Orion. Ares I has two.

Ares I removes a whole set of falure modes, like an SRB failure damaging the ET, or one SRB failing and sending the stack into a spin. Not so Jupiter 120.

Jupiter 120 has new load paths, new propulsion system, new Oxygen tank, new flight dynamics.

Engine out helps of you have a manufacturing defect in a particular engine. If you have a design or system problem, not so much.

Assume for sake of argument that Jupiter 120 is about as safe as Ares 1. Once Direct goes to the moon, you are no longer using Jupiter 120. You are using Jupiter 232, with an air start upper stage, and a more complex vehicle overall than Ares I.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 12/31/2008 11:54 pm

And this is the the sort of unbalanced advocacy that costs Direct credibility.

If adding a segment to an existing booster is a "totally new design" then what do you call a totally new design?

Jupiter 120  has three staging events, 2*SRB plus 1* Orion. Ares I has two.

Ares I removes a whole set of falure modes, like an SRB failure damaging the ET, or one SRB failing and sending the stack into a spin. Not so Jupiter 120.

Jupiter 120 has new load paths, new propulsion system, new Oxygen tank, new flight dynamics.

Engine out helps of you have a manufacturing defect in a particular engine. If you have a design or system problem, not so much.

Assume for sake of argument that Jupiter 120 is about as safe as Ares 1. Once Direct goes to the moon, you are no longer using Jupiter 120. You are using Jupiter 232, with an air start upper stage, and a more complex vehicle overall than Ares I.


Will,

    Unbalanced advocacy?  I thought that advocates always presented their positions in the best possible light.  Short of lying or fabricating the numbers, that is.  Have Ares advocates gone to any lengths to play up the pluses and minuses of Jupiter vs Ares?  Or isn't it always "we can't under the laws of physics prove their numbers" or "dual-launch EOR of identical vehicles is vastly overdesigned for ISS logistics", or some other such evasive wording or testimony.

    The new Ares-I five-segment SRB must be treated as a whole new design because: 1) The added segment changes the behavior and characteristics of the combustion chamber, and 2) The propellant's internal shape has also been changed, and 3) The nozzle and TVC have been modifed, and 4) NASA has never used an SRB as the sole first stage of a manned vehicle.  None of those concerns apply to J-120, since it uses the standard Space Shuttle SRB, in the standard Space Shuttle configuration.

    Ares-I has a whole new set of failure modes, like SRB thrust oscillation, residual thrust that could cause a collision after staging, second stage ignition failure modes, and probably more that I don't know about.

    Ares-I has a new booster stage, a totally new upper stage, new load paths, new J2-X engine, new avionics, new flight dynamics.  How is this an advantage for Ares-I over J-120?

     Having no engine-out capability at all doesn't help you in any circumstance.  If you have a design or system problem, it's even worse.

    When J-232 starts flying, we will already have four years of flight experience with J-120.  Safety of J-232 will still be within ESAS designated margins for manned launchers.

Have a happy new year!

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/01/2009 01:51 am

And this is the the sort of unbalanced advocacy that costs Direct credibility.

If adding a segment to an existing booster is a "totally new design" then what do you call a totally new design?

Jupiter 120  has three staging events, 2*SRB plus 1* Orion. Ares I has two.

Ares I removes a whole set of falure modes, like an SRB failure damaging the ET, or one SRB failing and sending the stack into a spin. Not so Jupiter 120.

Jupiter 120 has new load paths, new propulsion system, new Oxygen tank, new flight dynamics.

Engine out helps of you have a manufacturing defect in a particular engine. If you have a design or system problem, not so much.

Assume for sake of argument that Jupiter 120 is about as safe as Ares 1. Once Direct goes to the moon, you are no longer using Jupiter 120. You are using Jupiter 232, with an air start upper stage, and a more complex vehicle overall than Ares I.


Will,

    Unbalanced advocacy?  I thought that advocates always presented their positions in the best possible light.  Short of lying or fabricating the numbers, that is.  Have Ares advocates gone to any lengths to play up the pluses and minuses of Jupiter vs Ares?  Or isn't it always "we can't under the laws of physics prove their numbers" or "dual-launch EOR of identical vehicles is vastly overdesigned for ISS logistics", or some other such evasive wording or testimony.

    The new Ares-I five-segment SRB must be treated as a whole new design because: 1) The added segment changes the behavior and characteristics of the combustion chamber, and 2) The propellant's internal shape has also been changed, and 3) The nozzle and TVC have been modifed, and 4) NASA has never used an SRB as the sole first stage of a manned vehicle.  None of those concerns apply to J-120, since it uses the standard Space Shuttle SRB, in the standard Space Shuttle configuration.

    Ares-I has a whole new set of failure modes, like SRB thrust oscillation, residual thrust that could cause a collision after staging, second stage ignition failure modes, and probably more that I don't know about.

    Ares-I has a new booster stage, a totally new upper stage, new load paths, new J2-X engine, new avionics, new flight dynamics.  How is this an advantage for Ares-I over J-120?

     Having no engine-out capability at all doesn't help you in any circumstance.  If you have a design or system problem, it's even worse.

    When J-232 starts flying, we will already have four years of flight experience with J-120.  Safety of J-232 will still be within ESAS designated margins for manned launchers.

Have a happy new year!

Mark S.

Please tone it down...

I think Mark is trying to say, if we look at the safety numbers of Ares I vs Direct 120, using the same criteria that Direct 120 would come ahead of the Ares I. 

If you want to stack the deck in anyone's favor, sure one vicheal can be made to look safer.  But with a fair scale, I feel Direct 120 comes out on top of Ares I. 

Remember, Direct can also carry a heavier cupsule with all the saftey features left in, that Ares cannot carry.  Even if we used the same capsule, I think that Direct would come out on top.  Direct can carry up to 20 tons of additional shielding that Ares cannot carry. 

If you were going into battle , would you rather be in the Hummve (Ares) or in an M1A1 tank  (Direct 120)t hat can carry that extra shielding.

If you want to compare Ares V with Direct 232, I still think that I would go with Direct. Ares V might be able to carry all that weight, but remember now new five segment SRBs, etc.  Direct is pretty much flying like the shuttle today expect for a capsule ontop of the tank and not the shuttle on the side.    I would really like to see the currant LOM numbers  for Ares V.  I would be very suprised if it is lower than Direct. 

At the end of the day, Direct would be flying 8+ missions/year, Ares V 2-4 missions/year.  The more you fly, the safer you can make the rocket.  There will be failures in Direct, like any other rocket, but I would trust more a rocket that has flies 8+ times a year, than one that  we will be luckly will fly 4+/years. 


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/01/2009 02:05 am
Quote
The clamor to change the program is a cry from people who know what's happening on the inside to return to a sane launch vehicle program so that we can get on with the VSE. What the fear is, and it is very real, is that when Ares goes down as many believe it will, it will take the entire VSE, and possibly the American manned spaceflight program, with it.

Yes that is my biggest fear, one in which I'm willing to see Ares go forward in order to preserve.  As much as Direct is better over Ares, Ares is better than nothing and is quite capable of fulfilling VSE. 

And odd question but if Direct is shot down in the coming months (which I hope it's not) would the Direct team be willing to swallow the bullet and press ahead and try to make Ares as successful as possible in order to preserve American spaceflight?
 
Quote
  Yes, every rocket has its hurdles. But the timelines we have presented have been put together by the people at MSFC who do the scheduling of projects. It's NASA personnel that are saying we can do this. We are only relaying their conclusions.

Very reassuring, that's got to be a major strong point for the Direct case when presenting it to the powers that be.  Would Direct be willing to keep Dr. Griffin on board if he was willing in order to prevent a major political shake up with in the agency?  Stability will be key in seeing the program move forward with VSE.
 

Ares is better than nothing I agree.  Looking at Ares longterm though, even now I can see that Ares is a dead end.  NASA has great engineers and they do what you tell them to do.  But Ares's cost is going to cost NASA everything 8-10 years down the line.  Ares is already doing that with the science budget and it will only get worse.  Why was Apollo cancelled?  Yes, we got to the moon first, but also because of Apollos high cost.   

It is like asking your parents (Congress) to help buy two $100,000 cars and you make $30,000.  Yes--you can do it on pay as you go.  But guess what--you have very little money for anything else that you may wish to do.   You cannot fund that trip abroad (or visit that NEO) since there is no money.  But that is not the end of it, the cost to maintain thoses cars.  These cars need expensive upkeep and engineers, you need a new garage, new roads, they only take 91 fuel, etc  Now you are broke and can only afford to drive them once or twice a year.    So now you have very little, while your nieghbor who brought that smaller ford pickup, can do all those things.  But guess what, when you go crying back to your parents (congress) for more money, they will say NOPE!  You wasted all that money beforehand, tough luck.  That is NASA's future, which I do not want.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/01/2009 02:48 am

And this is the the sort of unbalanced advocacy that costs Direct credibility.

If adding a segment to an existing booster is a "totally new design" then what do you call a totally new design?

Jupiter 120  has three staging events, 2*SRB plus 1* Orion. Ares I has two.

Ares I removes a whole set of falure modes, like an SRB failure damaging the ET, or one SRB failing and sending the stack into a spin. Not so Jupiter 120.

Jupiter 120 has new load paths, new propulsion system, new Oxygen tank, new flight dynamics.

Engine out helps of you have a manufacturing defect in a particular engine. If you have a design or system problem, not so much.

Assume for sake of argument that Jupiter 120 is about as safe as Ares 1. Once Direct goes to the moon, you are no longer using Jupiter 120. You are using Jupiter 232, with an air start upper stage, and a more complex vehicle overall than Ares I.


Will,

    Unbalanced advocacy?  I thought that advocates always presented their positions in the best possible light.  Short of lying or fabricating the numbers, that is.  Have Ares advocates gone to any lengths to play up the pluses and minuses of Jupiter vs Ares?  Or isn't it always "we can't under the laws of physics prove their numbers" or "dual-launch EOR of identical vehicles is vastly overdesigned for ISS logistics", or some other such evasive wording or testimony.

    The new Ares-I five-segment SRB must be treated as a whole new design because: 1) The added segment changes the behavior and characteristics of the combustion chamber, and 2) The propellant's internal shape has also been changed, and 3) The nozzle and TVC have been modifed, and 4) NASA has never used an SRB as the sole first stage of a manned vehicle.  None of those concerns apply to J-120, since it uses the standard Space Shuttle SRB, in the standard Space Shuttle configuration.

 

Tripe. Jupiter 120 has different load paths, different liquid engines, in a different location, with entirely different flight dynamics. It isn't the standard Shuttle configuration by any stretch of the imagination.

While I heartily disagree with your conclusions, I wish you a happy New Year. We both want to get more humans off Earth. We can argue about the way forward, but agree on the destination.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/01/2009 02:52 am
While I heartily disagree with your conclusions, I wish you a happy New Year. We both want to get more humans off Earth. We can argue about the way forward, but agree on the destination.

Ditto that, Will.

Cheers!

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JMSC on 01/01/2009 02:53 am
I think Will brings up some fair points.  You do have to run a balanced analysis concerning all aspects of mission safety.  On a simple Pro/Con list I would give the Jupiter 120 the nod for crew safety vs Ares I.  But as Will points out the J-232 does introduce an upper stage that will (according to safety estimates done by the DIRECT team) make it slightly less safe in terms of LOC than the Ares I.  Against this you have the balance the nearly $20 billion extra it would take to develop Ares I and V, the schedule lag of several years, the greater chance of a loss of mission due to the complexity of Ares V, and the lower total performance of using one 25 ton and 150 ton launcher per mission vs using two 100 ton class launchers for a DIRECT lunar mission.

Getting back too crew safety on a J-120 vs Ares I, I would say it is no competition between the two.  On Ares I side it does have simplicity going for it (2 engines vs 4 engines for the J-120) but that’s about its only real advantage.  The Jupiter uses 2-flight proven engines (existing shuttle SRM and RS-68).  The motors for ARES I are completely unproven (5-segment solids with a new PBAN mixture [essentially a new motor] and an unproven J-2X upper stage engine).  You also have an air startable engine (J-2X) vs a hold verify all engines are running and then launch procedure for Jupiter-120.  In addition thanks to the Jupiter being a rather pleasant looking squat shape it experiences much smaller dynamic loading than the stick like Ares I.  Jupiter can also carry an Orion with all safety features included vs the stripped down version being worked on for Ares.  It is also impossible to fully calculate the advantage of using a minimally modified shuttle stack, which has 123 flights and only one failure to its credit making the shuttle stack the most reliable launch vehicle developed by man.  Jupiter’s use of the robust RS-68 and the elimination of the side mounted orbiter should only make an already very reliable system even more reliable.  There are many more safety advantages that the J-120 has over Ares I that are probably too numerous to list (such as the fact the Orion is separated by more than 10 meters from the fuel whereas in Ares I, Orion sits right on top of the hydrogen tank).  All in all even without doing a detailed LOC analysis the J-120 looks to be far superior to ARES I in terms of crew safety.

- John
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/01/2009 02:55 am
Tripe. Jupiter 120 has different load paths, different liquid engines, in a different location, with entirely different flight dynamics. It isn't the standard Shuttle configuration by any stretch of the imagination.

Incorrect.  I am an EELV advocate but you are wrong. 

NLS inline aka Direct is a simple modification of the shuttle configuration and would not have any show stoppers
As for flight dynamics, they would be more benign
As for load paths, they are more straight forward and easier to analyze
Different engines don't matter since they are existing 

and the advantages of Direct ground ops is huge
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/01/2009 03:39 am
I think Will brings up some fair points.  You do have to run a balanced analysis concerning all aspects of mission safety.
- John

Oh, I agree John.  I think everyone on the DIRECT team has been asking for an objective analysis and comparison of the currently available launch proposals since the beginning.  I wasn't around back then, but I have gone back and read the NSF threads, TSR articles, AIAA papers, etc.

And as soon as DIRECT 1.0 was first put forward, almost three years ago now, the answer they got was "no, we're too far down the road to start changing plans now."  Of course, that was when the Ares project was barely out of the gates, very much still a "paper rocket".

Now we are three years down the road, and many of the sunny predictions that the Ares project made have fallen flat, and many of the dire predictions that the DIRECT team made have come true.

One (other) thing that bothers me about Ares is when these issues are brought up, they are always just brushed aside by saying "All rockets have problems", and "Designing rockets is really hard", etc.  First, those answers seem flippant and condescending.  Second, this is not 1957 and we are not supposed to be figuring these things out as we go along.  What happened to all that "50 Years of NASA" experience?  Shouldn't we know at least a little bit about rocket design by now?

By my way of thinking, we have almost thirty years (out of fifty!) flying the Shuttle.  Yes, there were two horrible accidents, and we finally realized that the side-mount Shuttle can never be safe.  But that does not mean we have to abandon thirty years of experience, training, and data.  Ares does not leverage these resources, it is something new for the sake of being something new.

DIRECT went to extreme lengths to leverage every single aspect of the Shuttle heritage that they possibly could.  DIRECT listened to outside criticism and incorporated the necessary changes to make the project better.  DIRECT has had a three year gestation period of fine tuning and incremental improvements. 

DIRECT is fighting an uphill battle and only asks for an objective review.  Ares is projected as the only game in town, "it's my way or the highway".  Which project seems like it has something to hide?

Only time will tell.  Let us all hope that 2009 turns out better than 2008 for everyone!

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 03:56 am
Compare Jupiter-120 to Ares-I
Compare Jupiter-232 to Ares-V, not Ares-I

By the time we fly Jupiter-232 we will have YEARS of flight history of the Jupiter-120, which *IS* the first stage of the Jupiter-232.

What you are actually comparing is the Jupiter UPPER STAGE (the only new item) to the ENTIRE BRAND NEW ARES-V ROCKET!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/01/2009 05:33 am
Well it is 2009 here (NJ)...let's hope this is the year of Jupiter. Good luck in the new year fellas.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 01/01/2009 05:44 am
Generally, almost all the discussions of which system is better, EELVs, Ares or Jupiter tend to circle around performance. Jupiter 120 can outlift Ares I, Ares V can out lift J 232, one can lift what NASA wants and the other can't. In my opinion, this is all a side show.

The key is money. How much capacity do we get for for the least amount of bucks spent. EELVs are both pretty much built and and will be really cheap to implement on a "per launch" basis, but neither of them throw enough to orbit to build a deep space exploration program on. Ares I & V lift an immense amount, but cost an equally immense amount (maybe two). An amount I just don't think the US taxpayer will be willing to pay, no matter how many jobs it saves. Jupiter looks like it will do the job, but even if it can't, it also looks like the only launch system that can be afforded for the near & mid future. Even if Jupiter means 3-man crews & 35-ton LSAMs, it looks like it can be afforded and does most of what anybody could possibly want.

I believe that Ross Chuck & the team are right and Jupiter can do the entire job, but even if it can't, even if they are terribly wrong, for something like 1/2 the price you get a h*ll of a lot more than 50% of the Ares program. _That_ is the key and that is where and why Direct should win.

Remember, there is nothing graven in stone that says a lunar program must have crews of a particular size or missions of a particular length. NASA has picked those numbers for, I do believe, quite good and justifiable reasons, but they are not law. What is graven in stone is that the US taxpayer has to be willing to pay for it. I simply don't believe they will be willing to pay for Ares.

Jupiter, they just might.

Paul

(BTW, happy New Year everyone!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/01/2009 09:54 am
    Unbalanced advocacy?  I thought that advocates always presented their positions in the best possible light.  Short of lying or fabricating the numbers, that is.


Saying "my idea is better than yours, so there" and hiding any downsides is not going to persuade anyone not already "converted". Unfortunately, that's how most internet discussions end up when the mudslinging starts.

Showing that you understand the strengths of the opposing view and the weaknesses of your own, and yet that your idea is ultimately superior is the only way to persuade the critics.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/01/2009 10:10 am
    The new Ares-I five-segment SRB must be treated as a whole new design because: 1) The added segment changes the behavior and characteristics of the combustion chamber, and 2) The propellant's internal shape has also been changed, and 3) The nozzle and TVC have been modifed, and 4) NASA has never used an SRB as the sole first stage of a manned vehicle.  None of those concerns apply to J-120, since it uses the standard Space Shuttle SRB, in the standard Space Shuttle configuration.


Hasn't a propellent change from PBAN to HTPB also been baselined? Would Direct also have to consider using this in light of the concerns re Perchlorate pollution?

How big a job is the SRB upgrade compared to the programmes to uprate RS-68 to 108%, uprate J2 to J2x, and man-rate both engines?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/01/2009 10:18 am
Tripe. Jupiter 120 has different load paths, different liquid engines, in a different location, with entirely different flight dynamics. It isn't the standard Shuttle configuration by any stretch of the imagination.


These are issues which will need to be resolved for Ares V, too. Of course, Direct needs to resolve them much sooner, but it does start from something much closer to existing flight hardware (well, the old LWT, at least).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/01/2009 11:02 am
the elimination of the side mounted orbiter should only make an already very reliable system even more reliable.

Jupiter & Ares both go this way, so should avoid another Columbia-style failure mode.


Quote
It is also impossible to fully calculate the advantage of using a minimally modified shuttle stack, which has 123 flights and only one failure to its credit making the shuttle stack the most reliable launch vehicle developed by man.

And yet, J230 and Ares V are still susceptible to a Challenger-style failure (accepting all the upgrades and improved procedures since then).

Given that the stresses on an Ares I SRB are higher than those in a Shuttle/Jupiter stack (stresses from stick bending modes, presumably higher pressures from more segments and different propellent, longer burns), is an O-ring failure any more likely?

What effect would an O-ring failure have on Ares I?

Initially, one would presume a slight loss of thrust and some yaw. If the flight were allowed to proceed (ie LAS not activated), could the SRB burn safely through to staging (about 150s, IIRC), and the vehicle still stage and continue safely to orbit? Could O-ring failure lead to catastrophic failure of the whole SRB? Could yaw of the SRB cause Falcon-1-flight-3 style destruction of the upper stage engine?

Jupiter would obviously have to abort in this circumstance - would Ares I have to?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/01/2009 11:29 am
What effect would an O-ring failure have on Ares I?

I think that the loss of thrust during core burn would be a show-stopper.  Ares-I's performance is marginal under ideal circumstances, so it is unlikely that the Orion would be able to reach orbit given this failure.  Additionally, the off-axis thrust from the O-Ring failure would certainly push the vehicle seriously off-trajectory, probably far beyond the ability of the AIUS to recover, once again mandating an abort.

Jupiter would obviously have to abort in this circumstance - would Ares I have to?

I'd say definately yes.  This is a drawback of having a single-engine core - there is less margin for failure in the design.

This is not a concern without precedent.  IIRC, one of the test Apollos, Apollo 4, I think, lost several F1s and J2s during first and second stage burns but managed to stagger up to orbit using its other engines for longer.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 12:39 pm
Hasn't a propellant change from PBAN to HTPB also been baselined? Would Direct also have to consider using this in light of the concerns re Perchlorate pollution?
DIRECT plans no changes to the current STS 4-segment SRB. One of the many strengths of the DIRECT architecture and the Jupiter launch vehicle design is the re-use of existing components and infrastructure with no unnecessary changes. The reason for NASA doing the change was to try to improve  the T/W performance of the Ares-I 1st stage. Such a change for the Jupiter simply isn't needed.

There are lots of things that can be done to the Jupiter launch vehicle to make it much better, to improve its IMLEO performance by SIGNIFICANT amounts. But frankly we don't need to spend the money right now that would be needed to implement those. We can accomplish the mission with the hardware as-is, and that's a major strength of this design. It's also a fundamental tenant of the design intent; "don't change it if it isn't necessary". Once Jupiter is actually flying, NASA can decide if it wants to pursue any of those growth options.

Making a launch vehicle better in terms of performance, just because you can, is never ever a good reason to do it. That's just a waste of money that could be better used in other areas of the program, which extends far beyond the launch vehicle. Spending money to improve the performance of the launch vehicle should only be done when there is a justifiable need for the improvement, not before.

I'd recommend that the next Administrator, the one who oversees the deployment of Jupiter, create a comprehensive To-Do list of things that will make the Jupiter better. There are many things that can be on that list and then in time, as any of them actually make sense to do, funding can be sought to implement them. But right now none of them are actually needed to accomplish Job #1, which is to get Jupiter into the air.

Given that the stresses on an Ares I SRB are higher than those in a Shuttle/Jupiter stack (stresses from stick bending modes, presumably higher pressures from more segments and different propellant, longer burns), is an O-ring failure any more likely? Jupiter would obviously have to abort in this circumstance - would Ares I have to?
This situation would cause an immediate abort in either launch vehicle.

The Challenger O-ring failure was a known design flaw in the SRB for some time before the flight. It was specifically related to the way temperature affected the integrity of the joints. That flaw has now been completely eliminated and is therefore no longer a likely source of a launch anomaly on either the Ares-I or the Jupiter-120/232.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/01/2009 01:57 pm
Hasn't a propellant change from PBAN to HTPB also been baselined? Would Direct also have to consider using this in light of the concerns re Perchlorate pollution?
DIRECT plans no changes to the current STS 4-segment SRB. One of the many strengths of the DIRECT architecture and the Jupiter launch vehicle design is the re-use of existing components and infrastructure with no unnecessary changes. The reason for NASA doing the change was to try to improve  the T/W performance of the Ares-I 1st stage. Such a change for the Jupiter simply isn't needed.

There are lots of things that can be done to the Jupiter launch vehicle to make it much better, to improve its IMLEO performance by SIGNIFICANT amounts. But frankly we don't need to spend the money right now that would be needed to implement those. We can accomplish the mission with the hardware as-is, and that's a major strength of this design. It's also a fundamental tenant of the design intent; "don't change it if it isn't necessary". Once Jupiter is actually flying, NASA can decide if it wants to pursue any of those growth options.

Making a launch vehicle better in terms of performance, just because you can, is never ever a good reason to do it. That's just a waste of money that could be better used in other areas of the program, which extends far beyond the launch vehicle. Spending money to improve the performance of the launch vehicle should only be done when there is a justifiable need for the improvement, not before.

I'd recommend that the next Administrator, the one who oversees the deployment of Jupiter, create a comprehensive To-Do list of things that will make the Jupiter better. There are many things that can be on that list and then in time, as any of them actually make sense to do, funding can be sought to implement them. But right now none of them are actually needed to accomplish Job #1, which is to get Jupiter into the air.


Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to point out in the closing paragraphs of my last post.

Quote
DIRECT went to extreme lengths to leverage every single aspect of the Shuttle heritage that they possibly could.  DIRECT listened to outside criticism and incorporated the necessary changes to make the project better.  DIRECT has had a three year gestation period of fine tuning and incremental improvements.

Even when DIRECT could have made many more improvements to the Shuttle heritage, such as 5-seg SRB with new propellant, they restrained themselves from making unnecessary changes.  This keeps costs down, increases commonality with Shuttle experience base, and  leaves room for improvements and performance tweaks in the future. 

The most important thing is to start flying with what we have.  To use a car analogy, let's get our car out of the transmission shop first. We can worry about the headers and chrome wheels later.

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 02:09 pm
It's January 1, 2009 and 9:40 a.m. here in southern New England, where the temperature outside is a balmy 7 degrees F and there is a brand new 5" snow blanket on the ground. But It's nice and warm and cozy here inside, where I have a nice cup of steamy hot tea sitting on the table beside my laptop as I type.

As I think back over the past almost three years that the DIRECT team has been together, I am first and foremost extremely grateful to each and every one of you here on this forum for the things you have provided by way of insight and critique. Some of you are supporters of our efforts and some of you are not but that doesn't matter. Every single one of you have said things that made us stop and think, and in some cases change our design approach. We began this effort knowing that there was far more that we didn't know and needed to than what we knew if this was going to have any chance of creating a workable design. Knowing the character of the members of this forum and its creator, Chris, together with his and his moderators commitment to excellence and fairness, and the professionalism of the people who participate here, we made the right decision to come here to NSF for that assistance.

We were amazed at how quickly the team assembled around the MSFC NLS-based fundamental concept and the level of professionalism from all areas of launch vehicle design, at MSFC, Houston, JPL, Ames, Glen, Langley, HQ in DC, KSC and MAF, that wanted to participate. In addition we quickly discovered that there were many, many other professional designers, engineers and professionals from other industries who could and did contribute in exceptionally meaningful ways. Then the icing on the cake was the large number of dedicated individuals who's main contribution was a passion for NASA to do the right thing and to ensure as smooth as possible a transition from STS to VSE. Your enthusiasm was literally at times the wind beneath our wings that kept this going. All of you said things and asked questions and offered suggestions that fundamentally created the Jupiter launch system. The Jupiter, while it began as a variation of the MSFC NLS, is fundamentally the product of all of you and I couldn't be more amazed at what you all have done. We stand in awe of all of you.

Whether this design, or something like it, becomes the baseline launch approach for the VSE under the new administration or not, I want to take this opportunity to offer each of you, on behalf of all of us, our most sincere "thank you" and to wish every one of you the best possible New Year that can be had for you and all those that you care about. Thank you.

Happy New Year everybody.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/01/2009 02:51 pm
Compare Jupiter-120 to Ares-I
Compare Jupiter-232 to Ares-V, not Ares-I

By the time we fly Jupiter-232 we will have YEARS of flight history of the Jupiter-120, which *IS* the first stage of the Jupiter-232.

What you are actually comparing is the Jupiter UPPER STAGE (the only new item) to the ENTIRE BRAND NEW ARES-V ROCKET!


There you go again. Falcon 1 was an entire brand new rocket. Jupiter 232 and Ares V, if built, will both be new vehicles with considerable heritage hardware.

Adding a segment to an existing booster has been done before. Building a hydrogen stage with the mass fraction claimed for the Jupiter 232 EDS has not.

Jupiter 120 is less like the Shuttle than Delta III was like Delta II, and Delta III did not inherit the reliability of Delta II.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/01/2009 02:59 pm
Jupiter 232 and Ares V, if built, will both be new vehicles with considerable heritage hardware.

The only heritage hardware on Ares-V is the foam and the RS-68s.  J-232 has the SRBs and much of the tank as well.

Saying a 5-seg is not a new engine is just crazy.  Essentially everything about it is new.  Mark said it above:

"The new Ares-I five-segment SRB must be treated as a whole new design because: 1) The added segment changes the behavior and characteristics of the combustion chamber, and 2) The propellant's internal shape has also been changed, and 3) The nozzle and TVC have been modifed, and 4) NASA has never used an SRB as the sole first stage of a manned vehicle.  None of those concerns apply to J-120, since it uses the standard Space Shuttle SRB, in the standard Space Shuttle configuration."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/01/2009 03:00 pm
Compare Jupiter-120 to Ares-I
Compare Jupiter-232 to Ares-V, not Ares-I

By the time we fly Jupiter-232 we will have YEARS of flight history of the Jupiter-120, which *IS* the first stage of the Jupiter-232.

What you are actually comparing is the Jupiter UPPER STAGE (the only new item) to the ENTIRE BRAND NEW ARES-V ROCKET!


Quick question about the relationship of LOC/LOM numbers to the true risks of loss (what you might call "reality").

Am I right that these are the rates of failure of mature machines, ie the compounded-up failure rates of the various critical components and their backups. Issues such as glitches in new software and materials miscalculations are excluded?

I would presume the true risk of loss of the first vehicle of a substantially new design would be very high (wild guess, 1 in 10?) Thinking of the first four Falcon-1 flights, for example.

Is it possible to quantify the relative newness of an Ares I vs a J120, and how this might affect the true risk of the first few flights of the two designs?

I can't help thinking that software would be the riskiest part of both machines, but this may just be my prejudice since that's just a field I know a little about.

cheers, Martin

[Edit: oops, J120 not J130!]
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 03:02 pm
Compare Jupiter-120 to Ares-I
Compare Jupiter-232 to Ares-V, not Ares-I

By the time we fly Jupiter-232 we will have YEARS of flight history of the Jupiter-120, which *IS* the first stage of the Jupiter-232.

What you are actually comparing is the Jupiter UPPER STAGE (the only new item) to the ENTIRE BRAND NEW ARES-V ROCKET!


There you go again. Falcon 1 was an entire brand new rocket.
I fail to see any relevance of the Falcon 1 in this comparison.

Quote
Jupiter 232 and Ares V, if built, will both be new vehicles with considerable heritage hardware.
Ares-V now shares nothing in common with Ares-I, while the Jupiter-120 IS the Jupiter-232 core stage. The only difference is the new upper stage added to the Jupiter-120 core.

Quote
Adding a segment to an existing booster has been done before.
In a liquid engine, you can add all the propellant you want and it doesn't change the engine. In a solid motor, the propellant *IS* the motor, so changing the amount of it fundamentally changes the motor itself. Adding a solid segment totally changes the burn characteristics of the motor. It's the nature of all solid motors. That makes it a totally new rocket than what is being used for Ares-I. This supports what I said above: Ares-I and Ares-V no longer share anything in common.

Quote
Building a hydrogen stage with the mass fraction claimed for the Jupiter 232 EDS has not.
Yes it has; it's called Centaur and has been flying for 40 years. The JUS is designed using the same tools and processes that designed the Centaurs, that's why the mass fractions are similar.

Quote
Jupiter 120 is less like the Shuttle than Delta III was like Delta II, and Delta III did not inherit the reliability of Delta II.
The Jupiter isn't anything like the Shuttle at all. It is very much like the STS launch stack however. That's an important distinction to make. The Jupiter *deletes* the Shuttle. What's left is the STS stack, which is the Jupiter core, minus the new thrust structure and engines, which the Ares-V also needs. Because the stack is fundamentally the same as the STS, and the SRB's actually are unchanged, the Jupiter core actually does inherit a great deal of the STS stack's reliability.

Delta II and III are completely different vehicles, while the Jupiter configuration IS the STS minus the orbiter. This is according to Dr Mike Griffin himself. It is how he described the Ares-V, which shares the same fundamental configuration as the Jupiter-232.

Will, is there anything else I can clear up for you?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/01/2009 04:19 pm
I had a thought regarding the analysis some of you guys were doing with INTROS.

Since the Jupiter US is using centaur designs, perhaps you should do an analysis of Atlas V with it using the same methodology you were using to analysze the Jupiter US and see if the numbers add up.  If they do not add up then it would be clear the analysis is invalid.

Atlas V is flying and its performance is known.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JMSC on 01/01/2009 04:29 pm
Quote from: clongton link=topic=12379.msg349493#msg349493

Building a hydrogen stage with the mass fraction claimed for the Jupiter 232 EDS has not.

Yes it has; it's called Centaur and has been flying for 40 years. The JUS is designed using the same tools and processes that designed the Centaurs, that's why the mass fractions are similar.

I also think it is interesting that NASA also seems to have bought off on the JUS concept for the ARES I also.  The ARES I upper stage is a self supporting AL-LI isogrid design, with a common tank bulkhead (a la centaur) and a single J-2X engine.  To my untrained eye it looks pretty much like an elongated JUS.

I am willing to make a SWAG here and suggest that the Jan 15 suprise that will erase all doubts about the JUS mass fraction are actually hard ARES I Upper Stage numbers.  After all if NASA believe their own ARES I upper stage can achieve a mass fraction similiar to Jupiter Upper Stage, why shouldn't they believe the DIRECT numbers.  Especially, since the Jupiter upper stage will experience a lot few bending loads and other stresses given its relatively squat design and more benign flight environment.  NASA seems so certain of the ARES I upper stage performance that they were willing to give Boeing a $1.125 billion contract to develop it.

- John
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 01/01/2009 04:32 pm

 Even if Jupiter means 3-man crews & 35-ton LSAMs, it looks like it can be afforded and does most of what anybody could possibly want.


A 3 astronauts moon mission with a 35 mT LSAM could probably be accomplished using a J-120 and a J-232. Such a DIRECT "Light" architecture would be simpler, safer and cheaper than the nominal 2 x J-232 DIRECT architecture for 4 astronauts.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/01/2009 05:10 pm
Compare Jupiter-120 to Ares-I
Compare Jupiter-232 to Ares-V, not Ares-I

By the time we fly Jupiter-232 we will have YEARS of flight history of the Jupiter-120, which *IS* the first stage of the Jupiter-232.

What you are actually comparing is the Jupiter UPPER STAGE (the only new item) to the ENTIRE BRAND NEW ARES-V ROCKET!


Chuck, going back to Will's original post,  I believe his comparison of Ares-I with J-232 is correct, in the context of crew safety:

Quote

Once Direct goes to the moon, you are no longer using Jupiter 120. You are using Jupiter 232, with an air start upper stage, and a more complex vehicle overall than Ares I.


In this context of the J-232 being the CLV for the DIRECT lunar missions, it is appropriate to compare PLOC of Ares-I against the PLOC of J-232.  So I think the bottom line remains, is the J-232 safe enough for use as a CLV in the dual J-232 lunar mission scenario.  From what I have seen the answer is yes, but others might not agree. 

How safe is safe enough?  ESAS says the minimum PLOC should be 1 in 1000.  Ares-I and J-232 both claim PLOC around 1 in 1250.  (Interestingly, the PLOC for J-120 is only 1:1400, significantly better than Ares-I.)  I would have to guess that Will does not subscribe to DIRECT's PLOC numbers, otherwise this would not be an issue for him.

Even if the PLOC numbers could somehow be calculated with 100% accuracy, the minimum acceptable PLOC for any CLV is a judgement call, an opinion, not something that can be computed.  I don't think it can be resolved in these forums.

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/01/2009 05:45 pm
Good Morning,

I am trying to work on a Direct Frequently Asked Questions.  Here are my workings on the first 10 pages.  I will try summarize 10 pages of the thread a day.  Yes, there are spelling and grammer mistakes, etc give me a little time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 01/01/2009 05:50 pm
DigitalMan - 

This is a great question.  If you want valid answers from your sizing tools, it's critical to calibrate them against hardware - and to do so both early and often!

F=ma


I had a thought regarding the analysis some of you guys were doing with INTROS.

Since the Jupiter US is using centaur designs, perhaps you should do an analysis of Atlas V with it using the same methodology you were using to analysze the Jupiter US and see if the numbers add up.  If they do not add up then it would be clear the analysis is invalid.

Atlas V is flying and its performance is known.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 05:57 pm

Chuck, going back to Will's original post,  I believe his comparison of Ares-I with J-232 is correct, in the context of crew safety:

Quote

Once Direct goes to the moon, you are no longer using Jupiter 120. You are using Jupiter 232, with an air start upper stage, and a more complex vehicle overall than Ares I.


In this context of the J-232 being the CLV for the DIRECT lunar missions, it is appropriate to compare PLOC of Ares-I against the PLOC of J-232.  So I think the bottom line remains, is the J-232 safe enough for use as a CLV in the dual J-232 lunar mission scenario.  From what I have seen the answer is yes, but others might not agree. 

How safe is safe enough?  ESAS says the minimum PLOC should be 1 in 1000.  Ares-I and J-232 both claim PLOC around 1 in 1250.  (Interestingly, the PLOC for J-120 is only 1:1400, significantly better than Ares-I.)  I would have to guess that Will does not subscribe to DIRECT's PLOC numbers, otherwise this would not be an issue for him.

Even if the PLOC numbers could somehow be calculated with 100% accuracy, the minimum acceptable PLOC for any CLV is a judgement call, an opinion, not something that can be computed.  I don't think it can be resolved in these forums.

Mark S.

Hmmmm ... fair enough

Here's a recent LOC/LOM chart that was recently presented which goes toward the question. As you can see from the chart, the Ares-I theoretical LOC numbers are slightly above 1:1200 and the Jupiter-232 are slightly below 1:1200. Bear in mind that the Ares numbers are entirely theoretical while the Jupiter's numbers are based in part on existing, flying hardware.

Will, does this address your question adequately?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Fequalsma on 01/01/2009 05:59 pm
Chuck -

Can you comment on my question below?

Thanks,
F=ma
_________________________

Quote from: Fequalsma on 12/26/2008 08:03 PM
Chuck, Ross -

Did you ever use INTROS or a similar "NASA-approved" tool to size the J-232 EDS?  I would assume that the result would be heavier than a stage sized with the industry-provided tools you describe.  This would be an interesting comparison between the NASA- and industry-sized stages.  Also, did the system close with the heavier EDS?

F=ma
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 06:03 pm
Chuck -

Can you comment on my repost below?

F=ma


Quote from: Fequalsma on 12/26/2008 08:03 PM
Chuck, Ross -

Did you ever use INTROS or a similar "NASA-approved" tool to size the J-232 EDS?  I would assume that the result would be heavier than a stage sized with the industry-provided tools you describe.  This would be an interesting comparison between the NASA- and industry-sized stages.  Also, did the system close with the heavier EDS?

F=ma

We personally did not use INTROS but afaik the guys at MSFC did. I do not know what their results were, only that they validated our numbers from LM.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 01/01/2009 06:07 pm
How safe is safe enough?  ESAS says the minimum PLOC should be 1 in 1000.  Ares-I and J-232 both claim PLOC around 1 in 1250.  (Interestingly, the PLOC for J-120 is only 1:1400, significantly better than Ares-I.)  I would have to guess that Will does not subscribe to DIRECT's PLOC numbers, otherwise this would not be an issue for him.

Even if the PLOC numbers could somehow be calculated with 100% accuracy, the minimum acceptable PLOC for any CLV is a judgement call, an opinion, not something that can be computed.  I don't think it can be resolved in these forums.

Mark S.

The PLOC numbers for Ares I are not much more than a SWAG, as it's a new vehicle, new rockets, new stresses etc.

Sure they've used advanced models but their estimate is no more accurate than SpaceX PLOM estimates for Falcon. The advanced models don't factor what NASA don't know.

J120 and J232 are using more existing components with enough in flight experience that the PLOM number might bear some semblance to reality.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 06:12 pm
Good Morning,

I am trying to work on a Direct Frequently Asked Questions.  Here are my workings on the first 10 pages.  I will try summarize 10 pages of the thread a day.  Yes, there are spelling and grammer mistakes, etc give me a little time.

HIP, that looks like a really great start. What you have taken on will prove to be invaluable, but it is a massive undertaking and will be slow going. 10 pages a day, depending on context, can be taxing. But make no mistake - what you're doing is appreciated very, very much.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/01/2009 06:15 pm

Hmmmm ... fair enough

Here's a recent LOC/LOM chart that was recently presented which goes toward the question. As you can see from the chart, the Ares-I theoretical LOC numbers are slightly above 1:1200 and the Jupiter-232 are slightly below 1:1200. Bear in mind that the Ares numbers are entirely theoretical while the Jupiter's numbers are based in part on existing, flying hardware.

Will, does this address your question adequately?


Thanks for the followup, Chuck.  Hopefully, Will will check in and reply too.

I see that the current DIRECT PLOC numbers are a little lower that the source I used, which was the "DIRECT_Presentation_080703.pps" PowerPoint show, slide number 21.  Has anything changed in the hardware since that presentation, or is the variance just due to refinements in the methodology?

Finally, that's a ginormous chart you posted.  Any chance of scaling future charts down to, say, 1280x1024 or so?  It might help cut down on Chris's bandwidth bill...  :)

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/01/2009 06:24 pm

Chuck, going back to Will's original post,  I believe his comparison of Ares-I with J-232 is correct, in the context of crew safety:

Quote

Once Direct goes to the moon, you are no longer using Jupiter 120. You are using Jupiter 232, with an air start upper stage, and a more complex vehicle overall than Ares I.


In this context of the J-232 being the CLV for the DIRECT lunar missions, it is appropriate to compare PLOC of Ares-I against the PLOC of J-232.  So I think the bottom line remains, is the J-232 safe enough for use as a CLV in the dual J-232 lunar mission scenario.  From what I have seen the answer is yes, but others might not agree. 

How safe is safe enough?  ESAS says the minimum PLOC should be 1 in 1000.  Ares-I and J-232 both claim PLOC around 1 in 1250.  (Interestingly, the PLOC for J-120 is only 1:1400, significantly better than Ares-I.)  I would have to guess that Will does not subscribe to DIRECT's PLOC numbers, otherwise this would not be an issue for him.

Even if the PLOC numbers could somehow be calculated with 100% accuracy, the minimum acceptable PLOC for any CLV is a judgement call, an opinion, not something that can be computed.  I don't think it can be resolved in these forums.

Mark S.

Hmmmm ... fair enough

Here's a recent LOC/LOM chart that was recently presented which goes toward the question. As you can see from the chart, the Ares-I theoretical LOC numbers are slightly above 1:1200 and the Jupiter-232 are slightly below 1:1200. Bear in mind that the Ares numbers are entirely theoretical while the Jupiter's numbers are based in part on existing, flying hardware.

Will, does this address your question adequately?


I'm curious why the STS LOC and LOM numbers are the same. Seems like there are any number of scenarios where you can have LOM without LOC for STS: RTLS, TAL, AOA for example.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 06:25 pm

Thanks for the followup, Chuck.  Hopefully, Will will check in and reply too.

I see that the current DIRECT PLOC numbers are a little lower that the source I used, which was the "DIRECT_Presentation_080703.pps" PowerPoint show, slide number 21.  Has anything changed in the hardware since that presentation, or is the variance just due to refinements in the methodology?

Finally, that's a ginormous chart you posted.  Any chance of scaling future charts down to, say, 1280x1024 or so?  It might help cut down on Chris's bandwidth bill...  :)

Mark S.

Those kinds of numbers are a constantly moving target and usually reflect a snapshot in time. The differences from the source represents a refinement in both flight hardware sinse then and pencil sharpening by the risk analysis guys.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 06:38 pm
I'm curious why the STS LOC and LOM numbers are the same. Seems like there are any number of scenarios where you can have LOM without LOC for STS: RTLS, TAL, AOA for example.

Yes, there are those various abort scenarios where LOM does not result in LOC but the risk analysis guys tell that that when you factor in all the various factors, the numbers actually come out very close to each other. Go figure. The only thing I can think of is that it's related to the unique configuration of the STS system. I can't explain that because I'm not a risk analysis guy, I'm a structural guy.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Now, bear in mind that we do not calculate these risk assessment numbers ourselves. All the LOC/LOM numbers we quote are being produced by the same departments that are producing the Ares LOC/LOM numbers. That should put to rest any concern about "our" numbers. One cannot believe the Ares numbers and dismiss ours, because they have the same source.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/01/2009 06:46 pm
I'm curious why the STS LOC and LOM numbers are the same. Seems like there are any number of scenarios where you can have LOM without LOC for STS: RTLS, TAL, AOA for example.

Yes, there are those various abort scenarios where LOM does not result in LOC but the risk analysis guys tell that that when you factor in all the various factors, the numbers actually come out very close to each other. Go figure. The only thing I can think of is that it's related to the unique configuration of the STS system. I can't explain that because I'm not a risk analysis guy, I'm a structural guy.

Could it also be that there are also scenarios with LOC but not LOM, such as in STS-107 where the mission was basically completed but the crew didn't return safely?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/01/2009 06:52 pm
Those kinds of numbers are a constantly moving target and usually reflect a snapshot in time. The differences from the source represent a refinement in both flight hardware sinse then and pencil sharpening by the risk analysis guys.

Okay, that's kind of what I suspected.  So now the issue boils down to whether the difference in PLOC is great enough to justify the way the Ares proponents summarily dismiss Jupiter on safety concerns.  Right now it looks like Ares-I has about a 100 point lead on J-232, 1250 vs 1150.

But, if crew safety is the utmost concern, and is allowed to override all other considerations, shouldn't everyone be in favor of the J-120, which seems to have the best PLOC of all?  Here we have a 150 point difference, 1400 for J-120 vs. 1250 for Ares-I, which is greater than the difference between Ares-I and J-232.

Also, the J-120 will be used for the great majority of crewed missions, with LEO and ISS trips outnumbering Lunar and Mars missions by a very wide margin.  I believe this ratio would continue on into the future, past the 2020 timelines that I have seen, just because LEO is closer and we will not always be heading out on interplanetary missions.

So yes, we might have to accept a little higher launch risk for Lunar/Mars/NEO missions.  But given the nature of those missions, I think launch risks would be much lower that cumulative mission risks.

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/01/2009 06:53 pm
I'm curious why the STS LOC and LOM numbers are the same. Seems like there are any number of scenarios where you can have LOM without LOC for STS: RTLS, TAL, AOA for example.

Yes, there are those various abort scenarios where LOM does not result in LOC but the risk analysis guys tell that that when you factor in all the various factors, the numbers actually come out very close to each other. Go figure. The only thing I can think of is that it's related to the unique configuration of the STS system. I can't explain that because I'm not a risk analysis guy, I'm a structural guy.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Now, bear in mind that we do not calculate these risk assessment numbers ourselves. All the LOC/LOM numbers we quote are being produced by the same departments that are producing the Ares LOC/LOM numbers. That should put to rest any concern about "our" numbers. One cannot believe the Ares numbers and dismiss ours, because they have the same source.

You're right, it could be because the two numbers were calculated independently. It's been about 20 years since the last time I did any statistical analysis, and then it was just pharmaceutical stuff using SAS. It's turned into a lost art for me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/01/2009 08:09 pm
Okay, that's kind of what I suspected.  So now the issue boils down to whether the difference in PLOC is great enough to justify the way the Ares proponents summarily dismiss Jupiter on safety concerns.  Right now it looks like Ares-I has about a 100 point lead on J-232, 1250 vs 1150.

But, if crew safety is the utmost concern, and is allowed to override all other considerations, shouldn't everyone be in favor of the J-120, which seems to have the best PLOC of all?  Here we have a 150 point difference, 1400 for J-120 vs. 1250 for Ares-I, which is greater than the difference between Ares-I and J-232.


If you are going down that path take into account that the Ares I is a sounding rocket.

The Launch Vehicle to circular orbit is Ares I lower stage, Ares I upper stage and Orion's service module.  Leaving the SM out of the calculation does tend to flatter the Ares I.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/01/2009 08:22 pm

Chuck, going back to Will's original post,  I believe his comparison of Ares-I with J-232 is correct, in the context of crew safety:

Quote

Once Direct goes to the moon, you are no longer using Jupiter 120. You are using Jupiter 232, with an air start upper stage, and a more complex vehicle overall than Ares I.


In this context of the J-232 being the CLV for the DIRECT lunar missions, it is appropriate to compare PLOC of Ares-I against the PLOC of J-232.  So I think the bottom line remains, is the J-232 safe enough for use as a CLV in the dual J-232 lunar mission scenario.  From what I have seen the answer is yes, but others might not agree. 

How safe is safe enough?  ESAS says the minimum PLOC should be 1 in 1000.  Ares-I and J-232 both claim PLOC around 1 in 1250.  (Interestingly, the PLOC for J-120 is only 1:1400, significantly better than Ares-I.)  I would have to guess that Will does not subscribe to DIRECT's PLOC numbers, otherwise this would not be an issue for him.

Even if the PLOC numbers could somehow be calculated with 100% accuracy, the minimum acceptable PLOC for any CLV is a judgement call, an opinion, not something that can be computed.  I don't think it can be resolved in these forums.

Mark S.

Hmmmm ... fair enough

Here's a recent LOC/LOM chart that was recently presented which goes toward the question. As you can see from the chart, the Ares-I theoretical LOC numbers are slightly above 1:1200 and the Jupiter-232 are slightly below 1:1200. Bear in mind that the Ares numbers are entirely theoretical while the Jupiter's numbers are based in part on existing, flying hardware.

Will, does this address your question adequately?


No. What would help a great deal is a breakout, like those shown in the ESAS report, showing how much of the mission loss is assumed to come from US propulsion, etc. As it is, the estimates are too much of a black box.

Don't take this personally. I don't have a lot of faith in the specific numbers in the ESAS report either, although I do think the broad conclusion that Ares V will have a significantly worse LOM and LOC rate than Ares I very likely.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/01/2009 08:25 pm
If you are going down that path take into account that the Ares I is a sounding rocket.

The Launch Vehicle to circular orbit is Ares I lower stage, Ares I upper stage and Orion's service module.  Leaving the SM out of the calculation does tend to flatter the Ares I.

Thanks.  It is not the path that I want to take.  I am trying to turn the Ares proponents' own logic back on them.  I don't think any astronaut would turn down a launch on the J-232 based on the minimal differences in theoretical PLOC numbers.

I have heard a couple of times now that the Ares-I SM will actually act as a third stage during launch.  To me, that means it will light right after the second stage is dropped.  Isn't the SM engine there just for orbit circularization (apogee burn), orbital manuevering, and de-orbit burn?  Is this fact listed in any official NASA documentation?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/01/2009 08:31 pm
  Is this fact listed in any official NASA documentation?


the fact that orbit Ares I puts orion into has a negative perigee
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JMSC on 01/01/2009 08:54 pm

Now, bear in mind that we do not calculate these risk assessment numbers ourselves. All the LOC/LOM numbers we quote are being produced by the same departments that are producing the Ares LOC/LOM numbers. That should put to rest any concern about "our" numbers. One cannot believe the Ares numbers and dismiss ours, because they have the same source.

Chuck, just a quick question on NASA's official position on PLOC.  Everytime I have heard a NASA representative discuss the issue it goes something like, we have this ESAS Report which proves ARES has the lowest PLOC of any launch vehicle out there, so end of story on crew safety. ESAS estimated a 5 segment J-2S powered PLOC at 1:1,918 for Ares I, my question is has NASA officially acknowledged the newer numbers you quote from the MSFC team?  Or do they officially still use the ESAS numbers?  One problem with debating numbers is that as administrator Dr Griffen does have considerable leeway to accept or not accept revised analysis giving him considerable power to set the tone of the debate.  Just curious about this one?

- John
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/01/2009 08:55 pm
  Is this fact listed in any official NASA documentation?


the fact that orbit Ares I puts orion into has a negative perigee

Does Ares-I need an SM burn before apogee?  Negative perigee is not optimal, but if RSRB+AIUS can get Orion to the nominal apogee by themselves, then the SM apogee burn to circularize the orbit should not be considered a third stage.

Not that I'm any big fan of Ares-I, or anything.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: alexterrell on 01/01/2009 09:21 pm
I'm curious why the STS LOC and LOM numbers are the same. Seems like there are any number of scenarios where you can have LOM without LOC for STS: RTLS, TAL, AOA for example.

Yes, there are those various abort scenarios where LOM does not result in LOC but the risk analysis guys tell that that when you factor in all the various factors, the numbers actually come out very close to each other. Go figure. The only thing I can think of is that it's related to the unique configuration of the STS system. I can't explain that because I'm not a risk analysis guy, I'm a structural guy.


Could you envision a situation where LOC does not lead to LOM?

Poisoning from electrical fire or perhaps excessive vibrations from a SRB?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 09:22 pm
  Is this fact listed in any official NASA documentation?


the fact that orbit Ares I puts orion into has a negative perigee

Does Ares-I need an SM burn before apogee?  Negative perigee is not optimal, but if RSRB+AIUS can get Orion to the nominal apogee by themselves, then the SM apogee burn to circularize the orbit should not be considered a third stage.

Not that I'm any big fan of Ares-I, or anything.


1) Orion's 1st burn completes the ascent to the suborbital insertion point because Ares-I can't get it that high or that fast.
2) Orion's 2nd burn raise the perigee up from (-)11km beneath the earth's surface
3) Orion's 3rd burn circularizes the orbit

Riding on the Ares, the Orion cannot be injected into orbit by the power of the launch vehicle itself. Orion's SM engine must burn to complete the ascent, effectively functioning as a launch vehicle 3rd stage. It serves a dual purpose; it is the spacecraft engine and it is Ares's 3rd stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 01/01/2009 09:23 pm
  Is this fact listed in any official NASA documentation?


the fact that orbit Ares I puts orion into has a negative perigee

That is a necessary but not sufficient criteria. It only proves the necessity of an SM circ burn at apogee. That is not considered a third stage when performed with other launch vehicles (e.g. shuttle OMS is not considered a third stage for direct insertion missions, where only the OMS-2 burn at apogee is required).

The necessary *and sufficient* criteria is that the Ares I US cutoff conditions result in an *apogee* below orbital height as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 09:26 pm
I'm curious why the STS LOC and LOM numbers are the same. Seems like there are any number of scenarios where you can have LOM without LOC for STS: RTLS, TAL, AOA for example.

Yes, there are those various abort scenarios where LOM does not result in LOC but the risk analysis guys tell that that when you factor in all the various factors, the numbers actually come out very close to each other. Go figure. The only thing I can think of is that it's related to the unique configuration of the STS system. I can't explain that because I'm not a risk analysis guy, I'm a structural guy.


Could you envision a situation where LOC does not lead to LOM?

Poisoning from electrical fire or perhaps excessive vibrations from a SRB?

Any LOC during re-entry after completing the mission, like Columbia, is a LOC without a LOM.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 01/01/2009 09:26 pm
Good Morning,

I am trying to work on a Direct Frequently Asked Questions.  Here are my workings on the first 10 pages.  I will try summarize 10 pages of the thread a day.  Yes, there are spelling and grammer mistakes, etc give me a little time.
That's coming along rather nicely! The only issue I have that jumped out straight away was use of informal language such as "I am", "we are" etc. It needs to be less chatty and more formal. I think using very formal language is the way to go or the faq may lose credebility.
The data presented though seems to be correct on first pass so nice job!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/01/2009 09:30 pm
2) Orion's 2nd burn raise the perigee up from (-)11km beneath the earth's surface
3) Orion's 3rd burn circularizes the orbit

So I guess that's a "yes" with regards to the pre-apogee burn.

For points two and three, I guess I need to see a picture, because I thought that "circularizing the orbit" implies raising the perigee to at least minimal orbital height.  Do you mean that it does apogee burns on both the first and second orbits?  I.e. two circularizations?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 09:32 pm

Will, does this address your question adequately?

No. What would help a great deal is a breakout, like those shown in the ESAS report, showing how much of the mission loss is assumed to come from US propulsion, etc. As it is, the estimates are too much of a black box.

Don't take this personally. I don't have a lot of faith in the specific numbers in the ESAS report either, although I do think the broad conclusion that Ares V will have a significantly worse LOM and LOC rate than Ares I very likely.

Sorry Will, I can't give you what I don't have. Like I said, we don't do these numbers ourselves; they come from Marshall. If I had the breakout you wanted I would supply it. All I can certify is that all the numbers, Ares and Jupiter, are coming from the departments that are producing the official NASA numbers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 09:36 pm
2) Orion's 2nd burn raise the perigee up from (-)11km beneath the earth's surface
3) Orion's 3rd burn circularizes the orbit

I guess I need to see a picture, because I thought that "circularizing the orbit" implies raising the perigee to at least minimal orbital height.  Do you mean that it does apogee burns on both the first and second orbits?  I.e. two circularizations?

Yes.
The first burn completes the ascent to orbit, with a negative perigee. The second burn gets the perigee up out of the ground. The third burn circularizes to the required orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/01/2009 11:24 pm
A little more on the LOC numbers, just to show a little of how the ratios are arrived at once the fundamental LOM numbers are determined:

Keep in mind that these LOC numbers are based on a per crew launch basis.  Since at most half of the Jupiter launches will have a crew and the other half won't, the odds of the failure occurring on a crewed flight is right off the bat only half of all the launches.  Therefore even if the Jupiter had, just as an example, a 1:50 LOM, the fact that we fly only one launch system means that the potential LOC event by definition can only occur when there is a crew aboard say half the time or a 1:100 potential crew loss event.  Add a 1:10 chance that the abort system also fails arrives at an actual LOC of 1:1000 Jupiter launches (not to confused with just Jupiter Crew Launches). 
 
Basically take the basic Jupiter LOM number and divide it by the ratio of crewed to non-crewed flights then apply the probability of a successful abort.
 
BTW this rational also explains why an EELV will be much safer than the Ares-1 as well. The simple fact is that the unmanned launches test the entire system (people, processes, and hardware) of the EELV's and the Jupiter many times before each crew flies, making the crewed flights only a small percentage of total flights.  The failures of Apollo-1, Challenger and Columbia were all failures brought about by all three: people, processes and hardware, not just hardware. This sharing of crewed and uncrewed flights on the same launch vehicle is what makes it inherently safer than Ares-I, which is 100% crewed flights. 

There's a lot more to it than that but you begin to see the outlines.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/02/2009 12:52 am
  Is this fact listed in any official NASA documentation?


the fact that orbit Ares I puts orion into has a negative perigee

Does Ares-I need an SM burn before apogee?  Negative perigee is not optimal, but if RSRB+AIUS can get Orion to the nominal apogee by themselves, then the SM apogee burn to circularize the orbit should not be considered a third stage.

Not that I'm any big fan of Ares-I, or anything.


That is exactly what a 3rd stage is
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/02/2009 12:55 am

That is a necessary but not sufficient criteria. It only proves the necessity of an SM circ burn at apogee. That is not considered a third stage when performed with other launch vehicles (e.g. shuttle OMS is not considered a third stage for direct insertion missions, where only the OMS-2 burn at apogee is required).


Yes, that is considered a 3rd stage.  Any burn from engines or motors than have yet to fire to allow orbital insertion is another stage.

Shuttle OMS engines are a 3rd stage
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/02/2009 01:36 am
Without the very long 1st SM engine burn Orion cannot achieve orbit. This is very different from the examples cited.

Those are *choices* that are made to terminate the main engine firing prior to orbital insertion to allow for atmospheric disposal of the stage. The point is that it wasn't necessary. Those stages could continue to burn a while longer and put the spacecraft into orbit by itself, but then the stage would need to be de-orbited for disposal. Instead they terminate the burn early to get rid of the stage mass by atmospheric disposal, and allow the spacecraft to perform the orbital insertion. It's a CHOICE. Notice I said "orbital insertion". It's the job of the launch vehicle to get the spacecraft to the point that all it has to do is the orbital insertion burn.

That is not the situation with Orion/Ares. There is no choice. The Ares-I launch vehicle IS NOT CAPABLE of getting Orion to that point. It falls way short by a lot in terms of deltaV and altitude. Orion does not have the choice that Shuttle has, for example. The upper stage is not capable of getting Orion to the orbital insertion point - nowhere near. It uses every ounce of propellant it has and burns out, with its tanks completely dry, and is still way short of orbital velocity and altitude. The only way for Orion to get into orbit is to finish the ascent to orbit itself, so it fires its SM engine to complete the ascent that Ares was not able to do. It burns and gets itself to the orbital insertion point that the launch vehicle couldn't do. It has to get itself to the point where *another* SM engine burn half an orbit later can be classed as an orbital insertion burn. That is a launch vehicle function. Therefore Orion's SM engine is functioning as a launch vehicle stage. It is the Ares-I third stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 01/02/2009 01:37 am
A little more on the LOC numbers, just to show a little of how the ratios are arrived at once the fundamental LOM numbers are determined:

Keep in mind that these LOC numbers are based on a per crew launch basis.  Since at most half of the Jupiter launches will have a crew and the other half won't, the odds of the failure occurring on a crewed flight is right off the bat only half of all the launches.  Therefore even if the Jupiter had, just as an example, a 1:50 LOM, the fact that we fly only one launch system means that the potential LOC event by definition can only occur when there is a crew aboard say half the time or a 1:100 potential crew loss event.  Add a 1:10 chance that the abort system also fails arrives at an actual LOC of 1:1000 Jupiter launches (not to confused with just Jupiter Crew Launches). 
 
Basically take the basic Jupiter LOM number and divide it by the ratio of crewed to non-crewed flights then apply the probability of a successful abort.
 
BTW this rational also explains why an EELV will be much safer than the Ares-1 as well. The simple fact is that the unmanned launches test the entire system (people, processes, and hardware) of the EELV's and the Jupiter many times before each crew flies, making the crewed flights only a small percentage of total flights.  The failures of Apollo-1, Challenger and Columbia were all failures brought about by all three: people, processes and hardware, not just hardware. This sharing of crewed and uncrewed flights on the same launch vehicle is what makes it inherently safer than Ares-I, which is 100% crewed flights. 

There's a lot more to it than that but you begin to see the outlines.

This is also why I feel Dragon could be considered a much safer vehicle then the Ares I launched Orion.
The Merlin engine used on Falcon would be thoroughly tested by unmanned flights on F9 and F1 before it carries a crew while the J2X would have little flight history by the time it carries a crew.
Yes I know the J2X will be extensively ground tested but some bugs don't surface until you have a flight.
The same thing can be said of Direct since the RS-68 is well tested on the Delta IV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/02/2009 04:57 am
Quark,
We have been unable to obtain a copy of the final report.

What we understand is that a team was formed by someone at HQ to study the issue as a backup in case Ares-I's TO problems killed that plan outright.

This was all late last year, about a month or so after our AIAA paper came out. That paper got noticed so DIRECT was included - just to see the results. Nobody expected it to do well. The study was essentially completed within 4 of the 8 weeks allocated and all that remained was to write the report up all neat & tidy, but DIRECT really surprised the team assessing it.

We were contacted by the evaluators because the performance evaluations for the DIRECT option came out *higher* that our claims said they would. They were concerned that there might have been some sort of technical discrepancy somewhere which they had not accounted for and wanted to check their numbers against ours. When we explained we had 10% additional arbitrary performance margins over and above the regular GR&A allocations, that brought all their performance numbers all into line correctly. They were quite happy we had extra margins!

They then told us that of all the options which had been analyzed, ours was the only one to get all our criteria "in-the-green". The next closest was the Advanced Atlas Phase-2/3 option, but it failed the workforce retention requirements. Ares essentially scored the worst of all the options. We got a summary from them of all the results and what you see in our presentation is the exact information as it was given to us, just put into a pretty table by Philip.

We were told that now they had the performance discrepancy question resolved, the results of the study were going to be transmitted to HQ later that day or the following one, and the report would follow when it was typed up correctly.

We never heard from them again and attempts to contact the team members after that met with dead phone lines.

A few weeks ago we finally heard from one of the team who did this study and found out that two days after transmitting the result to HQ, the team was disbanded and the team all became persona-non-grata. Thus the paper was never completed. We don't have to try very hard to figure out why the group was so conveniently disbanded when they didn't say what management wanted them to say. But the results were still transmitted to HQ so they are in the records somewhere. We have spoken briefly with some of the people involved in the analysis since, but they do not want to risk their jobs again having already had a bad experience with management. We are still working to get hold of the original transmission which went to HQ and there are Congressional staffers also chasing it too. If we ever get it - and can release it - we will.


A rumor along a similar thread which we heard recently was that there was a similar analysis done by a different group at MSFC too, somewhere in "4487 & 4600, EV & ES". Word is that the results turned out the same. Who exactly did those, and for whom, we still aren't sure though and we've never heard from those people directly.

Ross.

Did you ever find the report?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/02/2009 05:16 am
Is the announcement on 1/15 dealing with WBC for Atlas V?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/02/2009 05:28 am
BogoMIPS,
You are dead on the mark there.

But we do have a few rather cool individuals who can be brought to bear when the time *is* right. That time is not quite yet though.

Ross.

New President, when will the time be right?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/02/2009 05:29 am
Happy New year. 

Has anyone recently read this thread from start to finish?  I am reading it doing the FAQ. In some places, the thread and replies that people have put up, have really been pretty mean and hurtful.  I am saying it as it is. 

Some of us want NASA to change to Direct from Ares.  This year, let's try and change the tone.  Try and not personally attack particular people--I know I do not know what is in someones head.  List the facts and your thoughts.  There is usually at least 2 ways of saying the same thing.  Let's try and take the high road this year.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/02/2009 01:11 pm
Here's a recent LOC/LOM chart that was recently presented which goes toward the question. As you can see from the chart, the Ares-I theoretical LOC numbers are slightly above 1:1200 and the Jupiter-232 are slightly below 1:1200. Bear in mind that the Ares numbers are entirely theoretical while the Jupiter's numbers are based in part on existing, flying hardware.

Attachment:-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12379.0;attach=110799



I'm surprised to see how low the PLOM numbers are for Ares V (about 80:1?) - worse even than the Shuttle. No wonder they don't want to put a crew on top of that stack!

I guess the implications of a launch failure would be purely monetary, though - the Ares I launch would simply be scrubbed with no risk to the crew. (This is presuming that the crew would be safely in a bunker somewhere until the Ares V was safely out of the way. If not, how far would Ares-1 launch pad be from the Ares-5 launch pad?).


I'm trying to understand why the PLOM numbers are so different from J232, which has a similar config - two stages + 2xSRB, tank with multiple RS-68, upper stage with variants of J-2.

I'm guessing the SRB's would be rated about the same, despite the design changes.

I guess there are six RS-68 which could fail in the first stage, and conversely that there is no redundency with only one J-2x on the upper stage.

Is there any difference in the numbers for the variants of J-2x on the different vehicles? Anything else I've missed?

cheers, Martin

PS are NASA still calling it Ares-V even though they've added a sixth engine?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/02/2009 01:15 pm
2) Orion's 2nd burn raise the perigee up from (-)11km beneath the earth's surface
3) Orion's 3rd burn circularizes the orbit

I guess I need to see a picture, because I thought that "circularizing the orbit" implies raising the perigee to at least minimal orbital height.  Do you mean that it does apogee burns on both the first and second orbits?  I.e. two circularizations?

Yes.
The first burn completes the ascent to orbit, with a negative perigee. The second burn gets the perigee up out of the ground. The third burn circularizes to the required orbit.


So before the first burn it also has a negative Apogee?

If the SM engine fails to ignite for the first burn, I presume it would be able to re-enter safely. Where would it come down?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: apollo-fan on 01/02/2009 01:47 pm
Well, happy new year to you also! Thank you for your positive comment it stopped me from responding to of the odd comments...... As everyone here I'm a huge fan of the space program. I have been so frustrated at seeing such exciting programs drag on waste money and ultimately fail, be canceled or be trimmed, down crippling them. I include programs such as the Venture Star, Orbital Space Plane, cutbacks to the ISS and the original Space Shuttle itself. The Space Shuttle has turned out to be a horribly expensive compromised design. I wonder where we would be today if we had kept developing the Saturn V. We obviously need a replacement after the Shuttle. So, ok the Orion may be a good option. But I understand why the Apollo program was cut way back when due to the budget. And I realize that NASA (after Apollo 11) has never been anything more than a marginalized bureaucracy forced to push through dangerous and badly planned programs due to constantly changing politics (BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN) and budget cuts. But with all of the issues this country will have to deal with now, is there really a NEED to go back to the Moon NOW. And to go to Mars NOW? Don't get me wrong I would LOVE it and any GREAT program and exploration NASA could do. It just seems that aside from needing a new spacecraft and the possible concern of programs like China's; a Moon landing is not something we have to do NOW, the whole proposal just seemed like a "rah rah feel good" political move. (after initially cutting NASA's funds for ISS and the Obital Space Plane.
I can not thank you enough though to champion a seemingly sensible and exciting alternative at a time when NASA seems to be heading right down the same old ill-conceived practices. The Orion has weight problems, can't land on dry land, the Aries is encountering many design problems and the costs go up, the capabilities are lowered and the dates get pushed back. Where have I heard this before? I fear that we will end up with yet another expensive, unnecessarily dangerous program that won't deliver on the specs initially promised. DIRECT looks and sounds great! What are the modifications needed for the External tank? Would the modifications be massive? Can it give support as the "center" component of the stack? What are your opinions of the rumors that Obama might what to see if the DOD Altas and Delta could be used instead of Ares to share costs and development? I have read that the launch escape system for the Apollo had really been calculated to not be able to respond and detach in time during a launch failure. Will the new Orion escape system have the same issues? Thanks for listening to all my thoughts! (if any of you read it all) Thanks Again for DIRECT!!!!!!       
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/02/2009 03:03 pm
So before the first burn it also has a negative Apogee?

If the SM engine fails to ignite for the first burn, I presume it would be able to re-enter safely. Where would it come down?

cheers, Martin

There are Back up thrusters
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/02/2009 03:31 pm

I guess the implications of a launch failure would be purely monetary, though - the Ares I launch would simply be scrubbed with no risk to the crew. (This is presuming that the crew would be safely in a bunker somewhere until the Ares V was safely out of the way. If not, how far would Ares-1 launch pad be from the Ares-5 launch pad?).

The crew would be waiting in orbit already. Ares-I is supposed to launch first, so as to avoid pressure to launch (one of the causes of the Challenger disaster).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/02/2009 03:38 pm
Well, happy new year to you also! Thank you for your positive comment it stopped me from responding to of the odd comments......

Hey Apollo Fan!  I will take a shot at answering some of your questions, hopefully they will not be too far off the mark.  (I am not a member of the DIRECT project, just a fan.)  Chuck or Ross can chime in if I mess things up too badly...

Quote
I have been so frustrated at seeing such exciting programs drag on waste money and ultimately fail, be canceled or be trimmed, down crippling them. I include programs such as the Venture Star, Orbital Space Plane, cutbacks to the ISS and the original Space Shuttle itself.

I think everyone here shares your frustration.  The DIRECT proposal, if implemented, should address your concerns.

Quote
But with all of the issues this country will have to deal with now, is there really a NEED to go back to the Moon NOW. And to go to Mars NOW?

Those are the mandates given to NASA by both President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, and the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.  Those are the goals, and ESAS / Ares are NASA's current answer.  We cannot address the stated goals, at this time that is the policy.  Personally, I hope that policy remains under President Obama.  What DIRECT is trying to do is to make a course correction for NASA, away from the expensive, late, and under-performing Ares program, and substitute the Jupiter vehicle and launch architecture.  This will save time, money, jobs, and has a much better chance of actually working.

Quote
The Orion has weight problems, can't land on dry land, the Aries is encountering many design problems and the costs go up, the capabilities are lowered and the dates get pushed back.

These are the problems with Ares that DIRECT has been predicting for the past three years.  Another problem is that Ares is so expensive that we will not be able to afford very many flights.  Every launch will be a massive undertaking and expense, it will not be a regular, routine event.  DIRECT will allow us to launch frequently, by keeping development costs in line.  The development money is redirected towards operations and more flights, which will get us into space more often, and will build up our operational experience and confidence in the system.

Quote
What are the modifications needed for the External tank? Would the modifications be massive? Can it give support as the "center" component of the stack?

The Jupiter core will be fabricated on the same production line and machinery as the current STS external tank.  The walls will be machined differently, mainly to add thickness for additional strength.  The streamlined LOX tank will be replaced with a more cylindrical shape.  None of these changes are massive, and they will be sufficient to support weight of the Jupiter-232 stack, and actually over-designed for the initial Jupiter-120.

Quote
What are your opinions of the rumors that Obama might what to see if the DOD Altas and Delta could be used instead of Ares to share costs and development?

As incoming president, the Obama administration has the right and obligation to evaluate all current federal programs, and make whatever changes that they think will best benefit the country.  For space access that means he should be looking at EELV, DIRECT, and Ares.  I hope he will choose DIRECT, because that plan has both immediate and long term benefits over the alternatives.

Quote
I have read that the launch escape system for the Apollo had really been calculated to not be able to respond and detach in time during a launch failure. Will the new Orion escape system have the same issues?

I would say no, any LAS issues should be fully rectified.  However, the LAS for DIRECT would have a more benign profile, because it will not have to outrun a solid rocket booster running at full tilt.  During a Jupiter abort, the liquid engines could be throttled back or just shut down, which would slow the rest of the stack down while the LAS pulls the Orion away from the core.

Quote
Thanks Again for DIRECT!!!!!!

I second that motion!  DIRECT has endured a lot of mud slinging for the past three years, which is really undeserved.  They are doing a lot of hard work for exactly <ZIP> compensation.

Cheers!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/02/2009 03:58 pm
So before the first burn it also has a negative Apogee?

If the SM engine fails to ignite for the first burn, I presume it would be able to re-enter safely. Where would it come down?

This is a guess but, I would suppose that the pre SM Burn 1 Orion would come down not so far from the AIUS - somewhere in the Indian Ocean perhaps? It would certainly be a hair-raising ride and quite possibly a rather steep entry angle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/02/2009 04:02 pm

Will, does this address your question adequately?

No. What would help a great deal is a breakout, like those shown in the ESAS report, showing how much of the mission loss is assumed to come from US propulsion, etc. As it is, the estimates are too much of a black box.

Don't take this personally. I don't have a lot of faith in the specific numbers in the ESAS report either, although I do think the broad conclusion that Ares V will have a significantly worse LOM and LOC rate than Ares I very likely.

Sorry Will, I can't give you what I don't have. Like I said, we don't do these numbers ourselves; they come from Marshall. If I had the breakout you wanted I would supply it. All I can certify is that all the numbers, Ares and Jupiter, are coming from the departments that are producing the official NASA numbers.

More precisely, your numbers come from one or more anonymous people who work in the departments and do the estimate for you in their spare time, providing the estimate in a form that's impossible for you to critique or explain.

Problem 1: Vehicle 16 in the ESAS report is essentially equivalent to Ares 1, and is given a 1/433 chance of LOM. You drop it to 1/350. Why?

Problem 2: If you look at the ESAS estimates, you can derive the following failure rates: roughly .14% for the air started SSME or J2 and .15% for the ground started SSME. Reverse engineering the estimate for the RS-68 powered Ares V and Jupiter 232 put the RS-68 in the same ballpark, around .14%. Separation failures are .02%. 4 segment SRB is .03%, 5 is .04%. Liquid propulsion failures dominate the LOM causes for Both the CLV and CaLV.

Eyeballing from the chart, the LOM failure rate you give for Ares 1 is .29% (vs .23% from ESAS), Ares V 1%. Jupiter 120 is .45% and Jupiter 232 .59%.

You add three engines, two of them air started, and a staging event and LOM only increases by .14%?. That doesn't make sense.

.59% is what I'd expect just from adding the third RS-68 to the core. I would expect the upper stage to add another .3% on top of that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/02/2009 04:15 pm
Compare Jupiter-120 to Ares-I
Compare Jupiter-232 to Ares-V, not Ares-I

By the time we fly Jupiter-232 we will have YEARS of flight history of the Jupiter-120, which *IS* the first stage of the Jupiter-232.

What you are actually comparing is the Jupiter UPPER STAGE (the only new item) to the ENTIRE BRAND NEW ARES-V ROCKET!


There you go again. Falcon 1 was an entire brand new rocket.
I fail to see any relevance of the Falcon 1 in this comparison.

Quote
Jupiter 232 and Ares V, if built, will both be new vehicles with considerable heritage hardware.
Ares-V now shares nothing in common with Ares-I, while the Jupiter-120 IS the Jupiter-232 core stage. The only difference is the new upper stage added to the Jupiter-120 core.

Quote
Adding a segment to an existing booster has been done before.
In a liquid engine, you can add all the propellant you want and it doesn't change the engine. In a solid motor, the propellant *IS* the motor, so changing the amount of it fundamentally changes the motor itself. Adding a solid segment totally changes the burn characteristics of the motor. It's the nature of all solid motors. That makes it a totally new rocket than what is being used for Ares-I. This supports what I said above: Ares-I and Ares-V no longer share anything in common.

Quote
Building a hydrogen stage with the mass fraction claimed for the Jupiter 232 EDS has not.
Yes it has; it's called Centaur and has been flying for 40 years. The JUS is designed using the same tools and processes that designed the Centaurs, that's why the mass fractions are similar.



You cannot use the balloon tank Centaur to validate a non balloon tank design. And in any case, minus the engines the Jupiter 232 upper stage has an even more favorable mass fraction than Centaur.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/02/2009 04:21 pm
Here's a recent LOC/LOM chart that was recently presented which goes toward the question. As you can see from the chart, the Ares-I theoretical LOC numbers are slightly above 1:1200 and the Jupiter-232 are slightly below 1:1200. Bear in mind that the Ares numbers are entirely theoretical while the Jupiter's numbers are based in part on existing, flying hardware.

Attachment:-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12379.0;attach=110799



I'm surprised to see how low the PLOM numbers are for Ares V (about 80:1?) - worse even than the Shuttle. No wonder they don't want to put a crew on top of that stack!

I guess the implications of a launch failure would be purely monetary, though - the Ares I launch would simply be scrubbed with no risk to the crew. (This is presuming that the crew would be safely in a bunker somewhere until the Ares V was safely out of the way. If not, how far would Ares-1 launch pad be from the Ares-5 launch pad?).


I'm trying to understand why the PLOM numbers are so different from J232, which has a similar config - two stages + 2xSRB, tank with multiple RS-68, upper stage with variants of J-2.

I'm guessing the SRB's would be rated about the same, despite the design changes.

I guess there are six RS-68 which could fail in the first stage, and conversely that there is no redundency with only one J-2x on the upper stage.

Is there any difference in the numbers for the variants of J-2x on the different vehicles? Anything else I've missed?

cheers, Martin

PS are NASA still calling it Ares-V even though they've added a sixth engine?

But guess what?  NASA is manrating the Ares V.  So what does that tell you?  NASA plans to put a crew on it. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/02/2009 04:24 pm
More precisely, your numbers come from one or more anonymous people who work in the departments and do the estimate for you in their spare time, providing the estimate in a form that's impossible for you to critique or explain.

Will, I think you speak for many in this forum who are frustrated by the "secret cabal" aspect of the DIRECT proposal.  I have called for the DIRECT team to open up, but apparently peoples' careers have already been adversely affected for not toeing the company line.  Unless and until Dr. Griffin is replaced, and NASA management's hostility to alternatives is shelved, the DIRECT team will not risk their careers by coming out in the open.   That is their call and I can respect their position.

That being said, the anonymity is certainly detrimental to DIRECT's credibility.

What DIRECT has been asking for, and what will clear up these doubts and uncertainty for good, would be an independent, objective evaluation of DIRECT, EELV, and Ares by a trusted third party.  Who that third party would be is up for grabs, I have no idea.  Maybe a committee of industry, academic, and non-NASA space engineers.  Certainly they should be chosen in a manner to eliminate conflict of interest, "good-ole-boy" networks, etc.  Of course the space industry is so small, intertwined, and consolidated at this point that such a committee may be impossible to form.

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: apollo-fan on 01/02/2009 04:47 pm
Mark,
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond! The trends and approaches and attitudes of the ARES development feels so much like the problems and mistakes they made during the Shuttle development. As much as I would love to see us back on the Moon and going beyond, I just question these policies that force the dysfunctional NASA management to rush down the wrong path just to fulfill and arbitrary political triumph that has nothing to do with with what would be the best long term path for the program to follow. One tiny example in my mind is the Orbital Space Plane. My recollection is that it was almost fully developed and very simple. That could be serving the ISS now. We could have considered various existing launch vehicles for it. Then in the meantime taken time to properly develop the next generation spacecraft and more importantly finally development a real long term heavy lift launch vehicle! It amazes me that such brilliant people can make such foolish mistakes time after time. NASA needs a change of management. And perhaps with a new administration and Obama's consideration of using DOD launch vehicles would open the door to fully considering ALL good alternatives like DIRECT!
Thanks
Bill       
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/02/2009 04:59 pm
More precisely, your numbers come from one or more anonymous people who work in the departments and do the estimate for you in their spare time, providing the estimate in a form that's impossible for you to critique or explain.

Will, I think you speak for many in this forum who are frustrated by the "secret cabal" aspect of the DIRECT proposal.  I have called for the DIRECT team to open up, but apparently peoples' careers have already been adversely affected for not toeing the company line.  Unless and until Dr. Griffin is replaced, and NASA management's hostility to alternatives is shelved, the DIRECT team will not risk their careers by coming out in the open.   That is their call and I can respect their position.

That being said, the anonymity is certainly detrimental to DIRECT's credibility.

What DIRECT has been asking for, and what will clear up these doubts and uncertainty for good, would be an independent, objective evaluation of DIRECT, EELV, and Ares by a trusted third party.  Who that third party would be is up for grabs, I have no idea.  Maybe a committee of industry, academic, and non-NASA space engineers.  Certainly they should be chosen in a manner to eliminate conflict of interest, "good-ole-boy" networks, etc.  Of course the space industry is so small, intertwined, and consolidated at this point that such a committee may be impossible to form.

Mark S.



For a third party, I think Ross mentioned the RAND Corporation.  I think maybe the GAO/CBO should be able to get a few people to evaluate Direct, EELV, and any other proposals.  Remember TeamVision did their study, and looked at thousands of combinations, and guess what rocket they picked?  One last thing, why not get the report from NASA that they did last year that has never seen the public light of day--I wonder what vicheals they looked up.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jkumpire on 01/02/2009 05:01 pm

Will, I think you speak for many in this forum who are frustrated by the "secret cabal" aspect of the DIRECT proposal.  I have called for the DIRECT team to open up, but apparently peoples' careers have already been adversely affected for not toeing the company line.  Unless and until Dr. Griffin is replaced, and NASA management's hostility to alternatives is shelved, the DIRECT team will not risk their careers by coming out in the open.   That is their call and I can respect their position.

That being said, the anonymity is certainly detrimental to DIRECT's credibility.

What DIRECT has been asking for, and what will clear up these doubts and uncertainty for good, would be an independent, objective evaluation of DIRECT, EELV, and Ares by a trusted third party.  Who that third party would be is up for grabs, I have no idea.  Maybe a committee of industry, academic, and non-NASA space engineers.  Certainly they should be chosen in a manner to eliminate conflict of interest, "good-ole-boy" networks, etc.  Of course the space industry is so small, intertwined, and consolidated at this point that such a committee may be impossible to form.

Mark S.

Mark,

However, there are multiple problems with what you propose:

1. Who is the trusted third party? How do you determine who that person is or group of people are?
2. How do you insulate any review from the type of political pressures you say has been put on NASA folks who don't agree with Ares?
3. Ultimately, there is another whole issue here. That issue is simply there are a lot of people in NASA who must believe that Ares is the way to go. For every unknown or resigned anti-Ares person, there is a large group of people who are working to make Ares work, and who think Ares is the solution. Are you saying that sometime this year, NASA can just be told to junk the current program and replace it with whole different direction?
4. Please name another NASA program where there was hardware being built, solid plans being acted upon, and then the whole program is ended, and a new program started from a little more than scratch?  This isn't MOL we are talking about.

In short, NASA has to be the people who the call for better or worse. The call has been made IMO.   
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/02/2009 05:12 pm
More precisely, your numbers come from one or more anonymous people who work in the departments and do the estimate for you in their spare time, providing the estimate in a form that's impossible for you to critique or explain.

Will, I think you speak for many in this forum who are frustrated by the "secret cabal" aspect of the DIRECT proposal.  I have called for the DIRECT team to open up, but apparently peoples' careers have already been adversely affected for not toeing the company line.  Unless and until Dr. Griffin is replaced, and NASA management's hostility to alternatives is shelved, the DIRECT team will not risk their careers by coming out in the open.   That is their call and I can respect their position.


I can understand their reasons. All the more reason to be more open about how they got the conclusions they did. Showing the failure probability contributed by different elements in the Jupiter 232 LOM estimate won't compromise their anonymity. It's not like they haven't already done the work
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/02/2009 05:13 pm

4. Please name another NASA program where there was hardware being built, solid plans being acted upon, and then the whole program is ended, and a new program started from a little more than scratch?  This isn't MOL we are talking about.


x-33, x-34, ICM, propulsion module, ASRM, FWC SRB,

The landscape is littered with canceled NASA projects
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/02/2009 05:14 pm

In short, NASA has to be the people who the call for better or worse. The call has been made IMO.   
 

NASA didn't make the call.  Only a few people did and they had agendas
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/02/2009 05:16 pm
Are you saying that sometime this year, NASA can just be told to junk the current program and replace it with whole different direction?


Odds are that this will happen but not necessarily in Direct's favor
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/02/2009 06:21 pm
Something struck me here as odd here...

3. Ultimately, there is another whole issue here. That issue is simply there are a lot of people in NASA who must believe that Ares is the way to go.

That would seem to be quite possible, but how can you verify that? And would that support be because they believe in Ares, or do they not believe Direct is possible? or are they thinking "OMG Obama's already threatened to gut NASA once this year and if they have to cancel Aries they'll frickin dismantle NASA entirely!"

... or are they just thinking "I just work here and I'll do what I'm told" while watching the world economy melt down around their ears?

... and so...

For every unknown or resigned anti-Ares person, there is a large group of people who are working to make Ares work, and who think Ares is the solution.

... but how many? And how strong is that support?

We cannot disregard the workplace effect of Obama's original threat to gut NASA to fund other programs, even though his advisers seem to have yanked up his chain short in that regard. Obama's not-well-thought-out idea  undoubtedly touched off a primal fear among NASA employees... "Dear Bast not again!..."

So if the employees were given full information on the competing options, and were reassured that canceling Ares would not result in NASA facilities being converted into elementary schools and if they also felt free to speak without fear of reprisals... what might they say?
 
Here where's some honest polling would come in handy... but the current environment would seem to preclude such polling...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/02/2009 07:09 pm
Something struck me here as odd here...

3. Ultimately, there is another whole issue here. That issue is simply there are a lot of people in NASA who must believe that Ares is the way to go.

That would seem to be quite possible, but how can you verify that? And would that support be because they believe in Ares, or do they not believe Direct is possible? or are they thinking "OMG Obama's already threatened to gut NASA once this year and if they have to cancel Aries they'll frickin dismantle NASA entirely!"

... or are they just thinking "I just work here and I'll do what I'm told" while watching the world economy melt down around their ears?

... and so...

For every unknown or resigned anti-Ares person, there is a large group of people who are working to make Ares work, and who think Ares is the solution.

... but how many? And how strong is that support?

We cannot disregard the workplace effect of Obama's original threat to gut NASA to fund other programs, even though his advisers seem to have yanked up his chain short in that regard. Obama's not-well-thought-out idea  undoubtedly touched off a primal fear among NASA employees... "Dear Bast not again!..."

So if the employees were given full information on the competing options, and were reassured that canceling Ares would not result in NASA facilities being converted into elementary schools and if they also felt free to speak without fear of reprisals... what might they say?
 
Here where's some honest polling would come in handy... but the current environment would seem to preclude such polling...


I'm sure a lot of you are closer to NASA and the various NASA centers and contract workers than I am.  I am just repeating what has been posted in these threads and others.  I'm just a lonely space fan from half way across the country, who came into this whole Ares vs DIRECT debate only a few months ago.

So I can't speak directly to what the engineers, line managers, and the rank-and-file space workers feel about Ares or DIRECT.  I don't even work in the space industry at all.  What I can say is that I agree 100% with President Bush's VSE.  It is time to venture back out into the solar system!  We have spent more than enough time, money, and lives going in circles.

I can also say that DIRECT looks to me like the safest, best thought out, most thoroughly planned, most forward looking, most affordable, most immediate, most flexible, and most scalable space launch architecture ever.  And that's when I'm having doubts about the whole thing.  Most days, I like it even more.

So for the Ares and EELV proponents, I say bring it on.  Let's have an all out, knock down, drag out, no holds barred space architecture showdown.  Bring on the launch manifests, the plans for work schedules, job retention, contractor allocation, space center involvement.  Show us your time to first flight, the scale out plans, Lunar, Mars, and NEO mission profiles, the works.  And don't forget to include your infrastructure modifications, manufacturing capabilities and capacities, and all that other back-end stuff that doesn't always get, um, thoroughly discussed.  The DIRECT team has gone to amazing lengths to provide all of this and more.  Have you?

It's easy to say you doubt DIRECT's numbers, but at least they have put in the effort, and they have been as honest and as open as they can be (without getting fired by hostile superiors).  Let's see the same level of effort and commitment to the cause that DIRECT has shown.

I say no more of this top-down, delivered from the mountain, my way or the highway space architecture planning.  America deserves the best, we are paying dearly for it.  And if nothing else, we at least will get a nice show out of it!

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/02/2009 07:10 pm
Sorry I haven't been around much, I've had my head down working hard on getting the Rebuttal typed up.

But I thought I'd share an interesting new option I just heard about today from one of our guys at MSFC.   They've been going back over and updating some of our previous options and it looks like there is a very workable architecture using the Jupiter-231 Heavy configuration (non-stretched tank) which closes all of CxP's performance requirements.

Its still very early days, but I was told it was okay to mention it publicly, so I am doing so :)

It would potentially remove any questions about the LIDS connection, it would improve some of the safety numbers of the big Jupiter configuration and it would also reduce the cost per launch by a little bit too, but the trade is that it would remove the capability to perform engine-out which would reduce the LOM/LOC again.   Precise figures are still being worked on those though.

This would also be an option which ATK could really get behind too, especially so if Ares-I is canceled in the next few months.   If Ares-I goes they're going to have to get behind another SDLV option or lose that entire side of their business.

We're going to be looking at it.

Happy New Year to you all!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/02/2009 07:12 pm

3. Ultimately, there is another whole issue here. That issue is simply there are a lot of people in NASA who must believe that Ares is the way to go. For every unknown or resigned anti-Ares person, there is a large group of people who are working to make Ares work ...

Let me be perfectly clear here.
Every single person assigned to work Ares is working their butt off and doing their absolute level best to make Ares-I work; EVERY SINGLE ONE - WITHOUT EXCEPTION!!! There are NO persons on any of the teams who are not giving their level best - 110%. Whether Ares is their personal preferred solution or not, there is no one who is working the project at cross purposes with any alternative design.

These are all professionals and they hold themselves and their peers to extraordinarily high standards. If Ares ultimately does not fly it will NOT be due to any lack of effort or enthusiasm by any person on the project. Those people are quite simply the the best there is. When they come thru the door at the beginning of their shift, their one and only thought is the project and how best to do their part to make the project succeed. There are NO pro and con camps.

What some of them do on their own time is a different matter, but make no mistake - while they are on the job, they are absolutely on - the - job!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/02/2009 07:18 pm
.... it looks like there is a very workable architecture using the Jupiter-231 Heavy configuration (non-stretched tank) which closes all of CxP's performance requirements.

Doesn't the Dual J-232 launch Lunar profile already close all of the CxP performance requirements?  If not, then where does it fall short?

I thought we wouldn't need to look at the 5-seg and other performance enhancements until we were much further down the road.

And I just gave an impassioned post about how well planned out and scalable DIRECT is!

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/02/2009 07:21 pm
why not get the report from NASA that they did last year that has never seen the public light of day--I wonder what vicheals they looked up.

That report was never completed.

It was an 8-week study operated out of HQ, but involved all the centers.   They were a little over 4 weeks in when they had the results ready.

They contacted me, and I spent nearly two whole afternoon's on the phone discussing the technical details with them because they were surprised our system hit all the buttons so well and wanted to confirm things with us.   Of particular note they wanted to know why their own launch performance figures were coming out 12% *HIGHER* than our claims said.   Our additional 10% margins accounted for most of that difference and brought us to within 2% difference, which was considered acceptable.

They proceeded to send a preliminary set of findings up to HQ shortly after confirming things with us.   They had been requested to send their provisional findings up ASAP as this was early after the TO problem arose and NASA wanted to know what other options might be viable.

Having transmitted the findings in an informal manner (simple e-mail), they proceeded to write the report up.   The team was completely disbanded 3 days after transmitting the results to HQ.   The order for the team to be broken up came from somewhere at HQ.

The only member of the team writing the report whom we have managed to get back in contact with since then, was transferred, permanently, to a different NASA center as part of the disbanding of the group.   He had to move his whole family across the country because of it.

He has not attempted to contact any of the other members of his team and is scared sh*tless of further retribution because of this.

He has not even tried to get hold of the partially completed report for us, and all we have is the final table of results which he gave us even before the group was disbanded.   We have published that table both here and in a quite a few of our online presentations now (see our website).


This case demonstrates *precisely* why our engineers don't want their identities revealed.
Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/02/2009 07:21 pm

4. Please name another NASA program where there was hardware being built, solid plans being acted upon, and then the whole program is ended, and a new program started from a little more than scratch?  This isn't MOL we are talking about.


x-33, x-34, ICM, propulsion module, ASRM, FWC SRB,

The landscape is littered with canceled NASA projects

Don't forget Apollo.  Sure it flew but it was essentially a full cancellation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/02/2009 07:24 pm
.... it looks like there is a very workable architecture using the Jupiter-231 Heavy configuration (non-stretched tank) which closes all of CxP's performance requirements.

Doesn't the Dual J-232 launch Lunar profile already close all of the CxP performance requirements?  If not, then where does it fall short?

I thought we wouldn't need to look at the 5-seg and other performance enhancements until we were much further down the road.

And I just gave an impassioned post about how well planned out and scalable DIRECT is!

Mark S.

Mark,

We are always looking at different options, and this was one the guys at Marshall had been looking into for us.

Yes, the current dual J-232 profile does close everything, and apparently so does this option, the Jupiter-231H (we need to look closer). It uses the 5-seg SRB and a single J-2X on the JUS. It's just another option that can be used if we actually got to the point where Ares-I were canceled but ATK had completed, or nearly completed, the new SRB. If the new booster were actually available, there really wouldn't be anything to be gained by not using it. It's just an option; one of many of this very scalable system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/02/2009 07:32 pm

Mark,

We are always looking at different options, and this was one the guys at Marshall had been looking into for us.

Yes, the current dual J-232 profile does close everything, so does this option, apparently, the Jupiter-231H (we need to look closer). It uses the 5-seg SRB and a single J-2X on the JUS. It's just another option that can be used if we actually got to the point where Ares-I were cancelled but ATK had completed, or nearly completed, the new SRB.

Well, when you say "close the performance requirements", that implies that the performance requirements are still not completely met.  As opposed to "we are looking at another option that will also fulfill the CxP requirements, but has different performance characteristics."

I think it's great that all options are being continually re-evaluated and refined.  That shows a great level of commitment from the DIRECT team members.

As I recall, one of NASA's criticisms of the JUS with two J2-X engines concerned the high gee forces that would be encountered during TLI.  Is this J-231H an attempt to address that concern, or are there other issues that it would address? (Edit: that is the LIDS issue, right?)

Thanks,
Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/02/2009 07:49 pm

Well, when you say "close the performance requirements", that implies that the performance requirements are still not completely met.  As opposed to "we are looking at another option that will also fulfill the CxP requirements, but has different performance characteristics."

No, every option we have publicly presented closes the performance requirements for the same lunar mission NASA is targeting, even though the Ares option itself still can't do it. This is just another approach available to NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/02/2009 07:55 pm
What is interesting to me about this preliminary report on the J-231H is this: One of the things that made some of NASA's critics of the Jupiters particularly upset was the apparent technical problems of operating a twin/multi-engine EDS for the LOI.  If this report is verified, then it has been shown that there is a workable DIRECT archetecture option to carry out LOI in accord with their alleged 'safer, simpler' criteria.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/02/2009 08:17 pm
Sorry I haven't been around much, I've had my head down working hard on getting the Rebuttal typed up.

Hi Ross.

I think I can speak for everyone on this thread when I say "Hurray!".

Not to mention "Hurry!".  :)

Thanks for all your hard work.
Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/02/2009 09:19 pm
Are you saying that sometime this year, NASA can just be told to junk the current program and replace it with whole different direction?


Odds are that this will happen but not necessarily in Direct's favor

Jim what do you think will happen? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/02/2009 09:26 pm
why not get the report from NASA that they did last year that has never seen the public light of day--I wonder what vicheals they looked up.

That report was never completed.

It was an 8-week study operated out of HQ, but involved all the centers.   They were a little over 4 weeks in when they had the results ready.

They contacted me, and I spent nearly two whole afternoon's on the phone discussing the technical details with them because they were surprised our system hit all the buttons so well and wanted to confirm things with us.   Of particular note they wanted to know why their own launch performance figures were coming out 12% *HIGHER* than our claims said.   Our additional 10% margins accounted for most of that difference and brought us to within 2% difference, which was considered acceptable.

They proceeded to send a preliminary set of findings up to HQ shortly after confirming things with us.   They had been requested to send their provisional findings up ASAP as this was early after the TO problem arose and NASA wanted to know what other options might be viable.

Having transmitted the findings in an informal manner (simple e-mail), they proceeded to write the report up.   The team was completely disbanded 3 days after transmitting the results to HQ.   The order for the team to be broken up came from somewhere at HQ.

The only member of the team writing the report whom we have managed to get back in contact with since then, was transferred, permanently, to a different NASA center as part of the disbanding of the group.   He had to move his whole family across the country because of it.

He has not attempted to contact any of the other members of his team and is scared sh*tless of further retribution because of this.

He has not even tried to get hold of the partially completed report for us, and all we have is the final table of results which he gave us even before the group was disbanded.   We have published that table both here and in a quite a few of our online presentations now (see our website).


This case demonstrates *precisely* why our engineers don't want their identities revealed.
Ross.

Afternoon Ross,

Where on your website is the table/results?  I just looked and I am not certain what I am looking for.  Also, will you include the table/results in the rebuttal statement? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/02/2009 09:28 pm

Well, when you say "close the performance requirements", that implies that the performance requirements are still not completely met.  As opposed to "we are looking at another option that will also fulfill the CxP requirements, but has different performance characteristics."

No, every option we have publicly presented closes the performance requirements for the same lunar mission NASA is targeting, even though the Ares option itself still can't do it. This is just another approach available to NASA.

An interesting thing to do in the rebuttal is to state, the currant Ares plan as of XX/XX/2008 cannot meet their own requirements!!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/02/2009 10:01 pm
The biggest fear has to be if Ares gets canned then VSE will get canned with it and I think that's a very real possibility.

I beleive as well that Ares supporters are being grossly underestimated with in NASA.

If with in the next few months Obama stays with Ares, could we see a uniting of forces in order to see VSE fulfilled?  We can't have a large rift like this for ever  :-\
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/02/2009 10:06 pm

I beleive as well that Ares supporters are being grossly underestimated with in NASA.


Based on what?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/02/2009 10:08 pm
He has not even tried to get hold of the partially completed report for us, and all we have is the final table of results which he gave us even before the group was disbanded.   We have published that table both here and in a quite a few of our online presentations now (see our website).

This case demonstrates *precisely* why our engineers don't want their identities revealed.
Ross.

Afternoon Ross,

Where on your website is the table/results?  I just looked and I am not certain what I am looking for.  Also, will you include the table/results in the rebuttal statement? 

If I may be so bold, I believe this is the relevant chart:

(source:  DIRECT_Presentation_080703.pps, slide 18)

(The scary thing is, I knew it was slide 18 before looking it up.)

Mark S.

Edit: fixed the picture


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/02/2009 10:18 pm
The biggest fear has to be if Ares gets canned then VSE will get canned with it and I think that's a very real possibility.

I beleive as well that Ares supporters are being grossly underestimated with in NASA.

If with in the next few months Obama stays with Ares, could we see a uniting of forces in order to see VSE fulfilled?  We can't have a large rift like this for ever  :-\

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the new administration would stick with Ares-V if Ares-I is canceled?  That option has been bandied about, with EELV taking the place of Ares-I.   If so, how could such a move be justified?   If Ares-I is dropped, then all of the development costs of the J2-X and the insulating foam (the extent of commonality between Ares I and V) would be added to Ares-V.  Wouldn't that make Ares-V something like a $25 billion development?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/02/2009 10:23 pm
The biggest fear has to be if Ares gets canned then VSE will get canned with it and I think that's a very real possibility.

I beleive as well that Ares supporters are being grossly underestimated with in NASA.

If with in the next few months Obama stays with Ares, could we see a uniting of forces in order to see VSE fulfilled?  We can't have a large rift like this for ever  :-\

Here is why there is the "rift" you speak of. There are those who believe that if Ares goes forward, it will eventually spell the end of the VSE altogether. They believe that in today's economic climate, if Ares-I does eventually fly, there will be no money left to build the Ares-V, and we will be stuck once again in LEO, this time with a launch capability that takes us backwards by more than 40 years. Our children and grandchildren will come to see the movies of the REAL Apollo missions as very bad science fiction films made decades before they were born. That is why they are such staunch advocates for one of the alternatives. They believe that the Ares program is a train wreck heading for the cliff. They believe that unless Ares is replaced before it takes the entire VSE over the cliff edge, that the American manned space capability, once the absolute envy of the entire world, will quickly become second or even third rate, surpassed by China, India and the ESA. Russia is resurging, and will soon get its "sea legs" in space again and rapidly surpass an American program that is limited to 20-25mT lift capacity. All when we COULD have continued to actually LEAD HUMANITY into the solar system with a launch system that only the United States, and the United States alone, is capable of fielding. Dr Griffin has visions of that launch vehicle being the Ares-V, but there are many, many people that believe the Ares-V will never come into being. It has a champaign price tag in a beer economy and they are desperately trying to get the rose colored glasses off the NASA leadership before it is too late.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/02/2009 10:39 pm
The biggest fear has to be if Ares gets canned then VSE will get canned with it and I think that's a very real possibility.

Given NASA's history and Obama's initial statements in regards to NASA that would seem to be a very reasonable concern for NASA workers.

Quote from: Khadgars
I beleive as well that Ares supporters are being grossly underestimated with in NASA.

If with in the next few months Obama stays with Ares, could we see a uniting of forces in order to see VSE fulfilled?  We can't have a large rift like this for ever  :-\

You seem to assume that there is conflict between people working solely on Ares and those who also devote some of their own time to Direct.

Well, as we forum commenters just got schooled by Chuck on that very matter I'll just quote him in full...


Let me be perfectly clear here.
Every single person assigned to work Ares is working their butt off and doing their absolute level best to make Ares-I work; EVERY SINGLE ONE - WITHOUT EXCEPTION!!! There are NO persons on any of the teams who are not giving their level best - 110%. Whether Ares is their personal preferred solution or not, there is no one who is working the project at cross purposes with any alternative design.

These are all professionals and they hold themselves and their peers to extraordinarily high standards. If Ares ultimately does not fly it will NOT be due to any lack of effort or enthusiasm by any person on the project. Those people are quite simply the the best there is. When they come thru the door at the beginning of their shift, their one and only thought is the project and how best to do their part to make the project succeed. There are NO pro and con camps.

What some of them do on their own time is a different matter, but make no mistake - while they are on the job, they are absolutely on - the - job!

That would seem to answer your concern...
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/02/2009 10:53 pm
Quote
Here is why there is the "rift" you speak of. There are those who believe that if Ares goes forward, it will eventually spell the end of the VSE altogether. They believe that in today's economic climate, if Ares-I does eventually fly, there will be no money left to build the Ares-V, and we will be stuck once again in LEO

I can understand that point of view but there is no real way to predict that and is a worse case scenario.  If such an event occurred Direct would be equally impacted.

EELV advocates still require the use of Ares V, so basically the only way to save America's space program is Direct?  I'm a Direct fan and I applaud all of your hard work but I don't believe that for a second.

Going to the moon or beyond will be expensive no matter which method is used.

Quote
That would seem to answer your concern...

It does indeed, makes the work done my Direct all that more impressive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 01/02/2009 11:06 pm
The biggest fear has to be if Ares gets canned then VSE will get canned with it and I think that's a very real possibility.

I beleive as well that Ares supporters are being grossly underestimated with in NASA.

If with in the next few months Obama stays with Ares, could we see a uniting of forces in order to see VSE fulfilled?  We can't have a large rift like this for ever  :-\

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the new administration would stick with Ares-V if Ares-I is canceled?  That option has been bandied about, with EELV taking the place of Ares-I.   If so, how could such a move be justified?   If Ares-I is dropped, then all of the development costs of the J2-X and the insulating foam (the extent of commonality between Ares I and V) would be added to Ares-V.  Wouldn't that make Ares-V something like a $25 billion development?

Mark S.


The clues are in the type of questions the Transition Team have been asking and it all points to an EELV CLV and a SDLV CaLV which could be Ares V as much as it could be DIRECT. Cost is not the issue but time to Initial Operation is which is why they are leaning to EELV first and worrying about the 'Moon Rocket' later. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 01/02/2009 11:23 pm
The biggest fear has to be if Ares gets canned then VSE will get canned with it and I think that's a very real possibility.

I beleive as well that Ares supporters are being grossly underestimated with in NASA.

If with in the next few months Obama stays with Ares, could we see a uniting of forces in order to see VSE fulfilled?  We can't have a large rift like this for ever  :-\

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the new administration would stick with Ares-V if Ares-I is canceled?  That option has been bandied about, with EELV taking the place of Ares-I.   If so, how could such a move be justified?   If Ares-I is dropped, then all of the development costs of the J2-X and the insulating foam (the extent of commonality between Ares I and V) would be added to Ares-V.  Wouldn't that make Ares-V something like a $25 billion development?

Mark S.

Well, if some of the DeltaIVH human rating/pad ugrading/vehicle upgrading costs can be met by DOD rather than NASA then that helps NASA move forward it's plans to build ares-v (human rated). The shuttle will be extended two years  (with no new missions added ) followed directly after by the first Ares V test launches (dummy upper stage for first one). This implies that The Ares V will need to be compatible with current shuttle infrastructure. So 8.4 m core plus two solids (whatever length). Hopefully the cost sharing of the DeltaIVH will allow NASA to accelerate development of J2X engine. We will likely see mission scenario's that use either DeltaIVH + ARESV  OR 2xARESV launches. We will also see Mars put back on the agenda for circa 2024 unless the new president want to make a splash by bringing it forward to 2016-2018 (would need additional funding of course).
I see a planned extension of COTS to the moon for lunar base cargo supply. I see 6 month lunar surface stays for Astronauts meaning 2 missions per year. We will have only a minimal lunar base but international collaboration will result in a larger facility.

The Direct effort will have succeeded in the sense that existing shuttle infrastructure and hardware will be retained (The AREV will likely resemble the J232 or J231H) thus reducing costs. A bonus will occur due to cost sharing with DOD (DOD developed the rockets even though they are commercial vehicles so further development is not ruled out.).
Jobs will be protected in the Shuttle area (orbiter jobs will be phased out with retraining occuring on other aspects of the program).

2009 - selection of DeltaIVH as CLV, ARESV to be compatible with current launch infrastructure & human rated
2010- 2011/2012 extended shuttle operations
2011/2012- DELTAIVH (human rated) test launches with uncrewed Orion
2012- AresV test launch with dummy upper stage
2012/2013 - First crewed orion mission, first full ARESV launch
2013/2014- Ares V with Altair lunar lander & EDS tested in orbit
2014/2015 - first lunar mission
2015/2016 - additonal lunar missions
2015-2016 - Asteroid mission to test MARS/lunar habitat technologies (1x AresV + 1x DELTAIVH)
2016/2017 - lunar base module landed - 2 lunar mission per year thereafter - base grows via international cooperation. Commercial observatory landed - government buys time on it.
2017/2018- other mars crew vehicles tested in orbit (aresv launch). MAV & ISPP planet sent to mars. LUNAR COTS begins.
2018-2020- mars mission 1 launched.

Overall - have 1 mars mission every 2 years (3-6 aresv launches + 1x DELTAIVH)
ISS in initially serviced by orion (x4) but switch made to COTS for crew,cargo and lifeboat services to reduce costs.
Lunar missions - 2 per year +cots resupply+internationcontribution. (2xARESV + 2x DELTAIVH+2 orion)
Lunar Base components launched every two years (1x ARESV)

Thus every year need around 6 Ares V + 7 DEltaIVH + 7 ORION.
The beuty of it all is that the development cost of a MARS mission is reduced  because the launch vehicle development is shared with Lunar/asteroid missions as are the habitat technology costs.
Additional funding will be required for the mars components but putting it on the agenda forces common development efforts.

Nathan.





Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/02/2009 11:29 pm
Marsavian & Nathan
Don't dismiss the Atlas-V, which you seem to have done.
It is every bit as capable as the Delta-IV. It's only drawback is that the RD-180 engine doesn't do anything for the CaLV, which will likely be the RS-68. But there's 2 ways to look at that:
1. Different engines mean no cost sharing between CLV and CaLV -or-
2. Different engines means the CLV/CaLV eggs are not all in one basket.

Something to think about.
BTW, Dr Griffin has said that of the 2, he prefers the Atlas. That's his opinion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 01/02/2009 11:36 pm
I don't think anyone at NASA will be listening to Griffin very shortly, he had his chance with safe,simple,soon and failed. The other clue in all these reports is 'existing' rocket, Delta IV Heavy exists and Atlas V Heavy doesn't. I don't think Obama will think too deeply about this and will just go for the path of least resistance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 01/02/2009 11:40 pm
Marsavian & Nathan
Don't dismiss the Atlas-V, which you seem to have done.
It is every bit as capable as the Delta-IV. It's only drawback is that the RD-180 engine doesn't do anything for the CaLV, which will likely be the RS-68. But there's 2 ways to look at that:
1. Different engines mean no cost sharing between CLV and CaLV -or-
2. Different engines means the CLV/CaLV eggs are not all in one basket.

Something to think about.
BTW, Dr Griffin has said that of the 2, he prefers the Atlas. That's his opinion.
My actual preference would be a falcon9 heavy to save costs further - however that is premature since it doesn't exist yet. I chose DeltaIVH as it is already flying. The atlas variant required hasn't flown yet from what I can see. In reality - any vehicle that can do the job is ok and Orion should be designed to launch on multiple launchers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/02/2009 11:42 pm
IF they go to an EELV CLV and IF it's the Delta-IV, the Delta has NO ADVANTAGE over the Jupiter-120 as far as launching Orion. Both the human rated Delta-IV and the Jupiter-120 will be ready to fly a good year before Orion can be ready for it's first test flight. The long lead item is Orion, and that can't be speeded up by more than 2, maybe 3 months at the most, which has no affect on the launch vehicle choice.

So if the choice is going to be made based on getting Orion into the air, it's a wash. They might as well choose what's best for the overall program - Jupiter-120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jkumpire on 01/02/2009 11:50 pm

4. Please name another NASA program where there was hardware being built, solid plans being acted upon, and then the whole program is ended, and a new program started from a little more than scratch?  This isn't MOL we are talking about.


x-33, x-34, ICM, propulsion module, ASRM, FWC SRB,

The landscape is littered with canceled NASA projects

Jim,

Far be it from to disagree with you, but I think you understand that Ares is is several orders of magnitude above all the programs you named here, even X-33, and x-34, both of which should not have been ended IMO.

I will be happy to accept your belief that EELV is the better alternative than Ares or Direct, but again, you don't and I don't make the funding or hardware decisions, or have the responsibility of making the call.   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 01/02/2009 11:55 pm
IF they go to an EELV CLV and IF it's the Delta-IV, the Delta has NO ADVANTAGE over the Jupiter-120 as far as launching Orion. Both the human rated Delta-IV and the Jupiter-120 will be ready to fly a good year before Orion can be ready for it's first test flight. The long lead item is Orion, and that can't be speeded up by more than 2, maybe 3 months at the most, which has no affect on the launch vehicle choice.

So if the choice is going to be made based on getting Orion into the air, it's a wash. They might as well choose what's best for the overall program - Jupiter-120.

Wonder if there would be any cost per launch difference? Wouldn't Delta-IV be able to launch test versions of orion well ahead of jupiter 120? ie: to test heat shields, launch escape scenarios etc. I pefer the jupiter 120 because of the excess capabilty on launch  and understand that the cehicle is essentially being developed when developing the j232,but there has to be some advantages of using DeltaIVH over jupiter 120, specifically in creating opportunities for orion testing.

Oh - and if DOD pays for the human rating and pad upgrades and vehicle opperations then that is a clear advantage for NASA
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jkumpire on 01/02/2009 11:56 pm

In short, NASA has to be the people who the call for better or worse. The call has been made IMO.   
 

NASA didn't make the call.  Only a few people did and they had agendas

Jim,

Sadly this is just as much speculation as everyone else has  speculated as to why Ares was chosen. While you are obviously closer to the situation than many of us are, there seems to be this rock-ribbed belief that it is only a biased and unfair (or place your stronger term in here) Politburo or Star Chamber running the show at NASA HQ.

IN the Democratic leadership in Illionis, there is much evidence to prove this is true, but not as NASA, at least IMO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jkumpire on 01/03/2009 12:01 am

4. Please name another NASA program where there was hardware being built, solid plans being acted upon, and then the whole program is ended, and a new program started from a little more than scratch?  This isn't MOL we are talking about.


x-33, x-34, ICM, propulsion module, ASRM, FWC SRB,

The landscape is littered with canceled NASA projects

Don't forget Apollo.  Sure it flew but it was essentially a full cancellation.

Kind, sir,

I like the advocacy, but please don't take it too far. Apollo was ended, not canceled, as a completed program and one of the great achievements of human civilization. It reached the goals set by the people who had the job of setting those goals, even though there are lots of evil people in my view who destroyed what Apollo started.
But Killing Ares now is not the same as what happened to Apollo.

Well, back to lurking for me, than you for your time today men.   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 01/03/2009 12:22 am
IF they go to an EELV CLV and IF it's the Delta-IV, the Delta has NO ADVANTAGE over the Jupiter-120 as far as launching Orion. Both the human rated Delta-IV and the Jupiter-120 will be ready to fly a good year before Orion can be ready for it's first test flight. The long lead item is Orion, and that can't be speeded up by more than 2, maybe 3 months at the most, which has no affect on the launch vehicle choice.

So if the choice is going to be made based on getting Orion into the air, it's a wash. They might as well choose what's best for the overall program - Jupiter-120.

Wonder if there would be any cost per launch difference? Wouldn't Delta-IV be able to launch test versions of orion well ahead of jupiter 120? ie: to test heat shields, launch escape scenarios etc. I pefer the jupiter 120 because of the excess capabilty on launch  and understand that the cehicle is essentially being developed when developing the j232,but there has to be some advantages of using DeltaIVH over jupiter 120, specifically in creating opportunities for orion testing.

Oh - and if DOD pays for the human rating and pad upgrades and vehicle opperations then that is a clear advantage for NASA


Delta IV Heavy is cheaper than J-120 per flight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/03/2009 12:35 am
.... it looks like there is a very workable architecture using the Jupiter-231 Heavy configuration (non-stretched tank) which closes all of CxP's performance requirements.

Doesn't the Dual J-232 launch Lunar profile already close all of the CxP performance requirements?  If not, then where does it fall short?

I thought we wouldn't need to look at the 5-seg and other performance enhancements until we were much further down the road.

And I just gave an impassioned post about how well planned out and scalable DIRECT is!

Mark S.

Mark,

We are always looking at different options, and this was one the guys at Marshall had been looking into for us.

Yes, the current dual J-232 profile does close everything, and apparently so does this option, the Jupiter-231H (we need to look closer). It uses the 5-seg SRB and a single J-2X on the JUS. It's just another option that can be used if we actually got to the point where Ares-I were canceled but ATK had completed, or nearly completed, the new SRB. If the new booster were actually available, there really wouldn't be anything to be gained by not using it. It's just an option; one of many of this very scalable system.


So this is basically an Ares V, but without the tank stretch or diameter change, with three RS-68 instead of six, and the WBC-derived "magic sauce" tanking on the upper stage. SRB, RS-68 & J-2 all to same spec as Ares V.

Should we just call it Ares III, then?

The LOM figures look pretty bad for Ares V. Are they any better for Ares III?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/03/2009 12:38 am
Delta IV Heavy is cheaper than J-120 per flight.

Okay, but given that... will the Delta's throw weight to LEO allow Orion to be completed as originally planned?

Last I heard the Orion team was having to cut things like the Orion's ability to touch down on land in order to meet the Ares-1's dwindling payload capacity... will going to the D-IV Heavy enable them to avoid cuts like that?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/03/2009 12:44 am
So before the first burn it also has a negative Apogee?

If the SM engine fails to ignite for the first burn, I presume it would be able to re-enter safely. Where would it come down?

cheers, Martin

There are Back up thrusters


When I first read this I thought you meant sufficient to get both apogee & perigee at safe heights, then later perform a de-orbit burn.

Now I think about it, I presume the thrusters would just provide sufficient delta-V to be able to choose your abort landing spot and the re-entry profile.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/03/2009 12:44 am
Delta IV Heavy is cheaper than J-120 per flight.

Okay, but given that... will the Delta's throw weight to LEO allow Orion to be completed as originally planned?

Last I heard the Orion team was having to cut things like the Orion's ability to touch down on land in order to meet the Ares-1's dwindling payload capacity... will going to the D-IV Heavy enable them to avoid cuts like that?


Delta-IV & Atlas-VH will still limit Orion's growth.
Jupiter-120 removes all the excessive mass restrictions.
However, Orion's design has progressed so far along that it may not be possible to put that stuff back; it would delay Orion's first flight.

One might, however, consider this as an ISS version, and progress later to a Block-2 spacecraft with everything put back. But that's an option only for the Jupiter. Both EELV's will be close to maxed out lifting Orion as it is. Like I said above, the Jupiter is better for the overall program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 01/03/2009 02:04 am

But I thought I'd share an interesting new option I just heard about today from one of our guys at MSFC.   They've been going back over and updating some of our previous options and it looks like there is a very workable architecture using the Jupiter-231 Heavy configuration (non-stretched tank) which closes all of CxP's performance requirements.


Ross, if the J-231H is adopted, for sake of commonality do you intend to use the 5 segments SRB for the J-120 rocket too? Such a rocket (J-120H) would have a significant payload capacity increase compared to the J-120. In fact, a J-110H would probably be sufficient for ORION to ISS missions.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/03/2009 02:21 am
Should we just call it Ares III, then?

cheers, Martin

Yeah, I think the DIRECT team already tried that in a couple of their presentations and/or papers, in an effort to minimize the NIH factor with any potential NASA audience members.  The J-120 was listed as Ares-II, and the J-232 was Ares-III.  Unfortunately, I don't think it had any positive effect.

At this point, I think we should just stick with the Jupiter naming convention.  Give credit where credit is due, the DIRECT team deserves it.

Most people know that Jupiter is a big planet, but they have no clue that Ares is actually the Greek word for Mars.  If they even try to guess, they typically think it is a sign of the zodiac.

Plus, Jupiter just sounds cooler than Ares.   :D

Mark S.

Edit: Clarify what 'people' know.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 01/03/2009 03:05 am

Yeah, I think the DIRECT team already tried that in a couple of their presentations and/or papers, in an effort to minimize the NIH factor with any potential NASA audience members.  The J-120 was listed as Ares-II, and the J-232 was Ares-III.  Unfortunately, I don't think it had any positive effect.

At this point, I think we should just stick with the Jupiter naming convention.  Give credit where credit is due, the DIRECT team deserves it.

Most people know that Jupiter is a big planet, but they have no clue that Ares is actually the Greek word for Mars.  If they even try to guess, they typically think it is a sign of the zodiac.

Plus, Jupiter just sounds cooler than Ares.   :D

Mark S.

Edit: Clarify what 'people' know.


Jupiter has a very solid foundation in what was called at one point NLS and evolved into Magnum, etc concept vehicles.  It appears to me that this team has done no detailed design of the vehicle.  I once asked Ross how the vehicle was powered, since the orbiter fuel cells power the shuttle stack, and he was not able to tell me and said he would get back to me in the thread.  I don't believe he ever has.  So why I believe give credit where it is due, lets not look at this proposal with blinders either. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/03/2009 03:57 am

Yeah, I think the DIRECT team already tried that in a couple of their presentations and/or papers, in an effort to minimize the NIH factor with any potential NASA audience members.  The J-120 was listed as Ares-II, and the J-232 was Ares-III.  Unfortunately, I don't think it had any positive effect.

At this point, I think we should just stick with the Jupiter naming convention.  Give credit where credit is due, the DIRECT team deserves it.

Most people know that Jupiter is a big planet, but they have no clue that Ares is actually the Greek word for Mars.  If they even try to guess, they typically think it is a sign of the zodiac.

Plus, Jupiter just sounds cooler than Ares.   :D

Mark S.

Edit: Clarify what 'people' know.


Jupiter has a very solid foundation in what was called at one point NLS and evolved into Magnum, etc concept vehicles.  It appears to me that this team has done no detailed design of the vehicle.  I once asked Ross how the vehicle was powered, since the orbiter fuel cells power the shuttle stack, and he was not able to tell me and said he would get back to me in the thread.  I don't believe he ever has.  So why I believe give credit where it is due, lets not look at this proposal with blinders either. 

OV, first of all, I would point out that no matter how detailed the DIRECT proposal is, it is still at the proposal stage and not an actual set of blueprints (or final CAD designs).  Even though many of the DIRECT team members may actually work for NASA or NASA contractors, they are still doing this on their own time and on the down-low.  You can only expect so much detail with those kinds of limitations.  I'm sure that once the straight-jacket has come off and the NASA engineers are actually given free rein to do a detailed design and analysis, you will get your answer on how the spacecraft is to be powered, and much more to boot.

Second, I didn't mean to imply that DIRECT came up with their entire plan from scratch.  They always said they based their work on the original NLS design.  What they have done is taken that proposal, recognized its value, modified it for today's circumstances, and gone to great lengths to champion the updated proposal as a way to get NASA back on track.

I haven't read the original NLS proposal myself.  Did it include a common shared core with single and dual stage versions?  Did it include the use of lower-cost expendable liquid fuel engines, or just the SSME?  Was it intended as a replacement for the shuttle, for manned and unmanned launches, or just a heavy cargo lifter?  Did it include a detailed lunar architecture plan, or was it just for LEO?

If the NLS proposal did include all those details, plus many more that DIRECT has proposed, then perhaps you would be justified in saying that the DIRECT team deserves no credit.  But even then, if DIRECT were doing nothing but purely plagiarizing the NLS proposal, then I would still say they deserve credit for sticking to their guns in the face of determined opposition.  No one else was doing what DIRECT has done, not even the EELV proponents (sorry, Jim) who have been very vocal in this and other threads.

So, yeah, even in those circumstances, I would say that the DIRECT team deserves the naming rights to what they have so steadfastly defended.

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/03/2009 04:09 am
I once asked Ross how the vehicle was powered, since the orbiter fuel cells power the shuttle stack, and he was not able to tell me and said he would get back to me in the thread.  I don't believe he ever has. 

I thought there was mention of batteries a while back.  Just out of curiosity, how will Ares I / V be powered? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 01/03/2009 04:35 am

Yeah, I think the DIRECT team already tried that in a couple of their presentations and/or papers, in an effort to minimize the NIH factor with any potential NASA audience members.  The J-120 was listed as Ares-II, and the J-232 was Ares-III.  Unfortunately, I don't think it had any positive effect.

At this point, I think we should just stick with the Jupiter naming convention.  Give credit where credit is due, the DIRECT team deserves it.

Most people know that Jupiter is a big planet, but they have no clue that Ares is actually the Greek word for Mars.  If they even try to guess, they typically think it is a sign of the zodiac.

Plus, Jupiter just sounds cooler than Ares.   :D

Mark S.

Edit: Clarify what 'people' know.


Jupiter has a very solid foundation in what was called at one point NLS and evolved into Magnum, etc concept vehicles.  It appears to me that this team has done no detailed design of the vehicle.  I once asked Ross how the vehicle was powered, since the orbiter fuel cells power the shuttle stack, and he was not able to tell me and said he would get back to me in the thread.  I don't believe he ever has.  So why I believe give credit where it is due, lets not look at this proposal with blinders either. 

OV, first of all, I would point out that no matter how detailed the DIRECT proposal is, it is still at the proposal stage and not an actual set of blueprints (or final CAD designs).  Even though many of the DIRECT team members may actually work for NASA or NASA contractors, they are still doing this on their own time and on the down-low.  You can only expect so much detail with those kinds of limitations.  I'm sure that once the straight-jacket has come off and the NASA engineers are actually given free rein to do a detailed design and analysis, you will get your answer on how the spacecraft is to be powered, and much more to boot.

Second, I didn't mean to imply that DIRECT came up with their entire plan from scratch.  They always said they based their work on the original NLS design.  What they have done is taken that proposal, recognized its value, modified it for today's circumstances, and gone to great lengths to champion the updated proposal as a way to get NASA back on track.

I haven't read the original NLS proposal myself.  Did it include a common shared core with single and dual stage versions?  Did it include the use of lower-cost expendable liquid fuel engines, or just the SSME?  Was it intended as a replacement for the shuttle, for manned and unmanned launches, or just a heavy cargo lifter?  Did it include a detailed lunar architecture plan, or was it just for LEO?

If the NLS proposal did include all those details, plus many more that DIRECT has proposed, then perhaps you would be justified in saying that the DIRECT team deserves no credit.  But even then, if DIRECT were doing nothing but purely plagiarizing the NLS proposal, then I would still say they deserve credit for sticking to their guns in the face of determined opposition.  No one else was doing what DIRECT has done, not even the EELV proponents (sorry, Jim) who have been very vocal in this and other threads.

So, yeah, even in those circumstances, I would say that the DIRECT team deserves the naming rights to what they have so steadfastly defended.

Mark S.



Mark, I apologize for saying anything of fact or that the detailed design is where the rubber meets the road.  I clearly understand this is a "proposal".  If ever built by various contractors with NASA oversight, which is something you must think I have no experience in, it is quite possible it will not be THE Jupiter that is in THIS proposal and therefore subject to whatever someone with the actual authority wants to call it.  Please go back to the constant cheerleading and ignore my previous post. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/03/2009 04:56 am
Should we just call it Ares III, then?

cheers, Martin

Yeah, I think the DIRECT team already tried that in a couple of their presentations and/or papers, in an effort to minimize the NIH factor with any potential NASA audience members.  The J-120 was listed as Ares-II, and the J-232 was Ares-III.  Unfortunately, I don't think it had any positive effect.

Sorry, this was me being flippant.

My point was that the first stage of J231h is basically a cut-down Ares-V first stage.

Similarities:-
same 5-seg SRB (not shuttle 4-seg as per J120 / J232)
same 108% RS-68 variant (just 3 instead of 6, and not 106% as per early DIRECT, but I think this has been baselined for a while, anyway)

Basically, it is an Ares-V first stage, just using a Shuttle-dimensioned tank (no stretch, not widened), and the concomitant reduction in number of engines.



We're still talking about a DIRECT/WBC-style upper stage, but with the Ares-V engine config (one J-2x) rather than two J-2xd (as per J120 / J232).

This avoids the LIDS stress issue.



Now obviously it puts 108% RS-68, J-2x & 5-seg SRB all in the critical path, but how soon could you put up the "-x" test flight, with 4-seg SRB's & non-man-rated engines (eg 102% RS-68 and whatever J-2 can be scavenged from somewhere).

Now that the SpaceX / Orbital contracts are in place for ISS resupply, the urgency of the project seems to come down to whether it saves the NASA jobs.

If you must go on to produce an Ares-V vehicle, at least you've now done most of the work. The J261sh is "just" a matter of stretching / widening the tank, adding three more engines and 6-seg SRB's (for the super-heavy designation).



Quote
At this point, I think we should just stick with the Jupiter naming convention.  Give credit where credit is due, the DIRECT team deserves it.

...

Plus, Jupiter just sounds cooler than Ares.   :D

Yeah, it does, doesn't it.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/03/2009 10:48 am
Vaguely on topic... did you ever wonder what this usually intelligent, usually articulate, albeit often technically detailed discussion would look like through the eyes of a raving neocon?

I think I've stumbled across the answer to that not-so-important question... 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aOvrNO0OJ41g (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aOvrNO0OJ41g)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/03/2009 11:38 am

Yeah, I think the DIRECT team already tried that in a couple of their presentations and/or papers, in an effort to minimize the NIH factor with any potential NASA audience members.  The J-120 was listed as Ares-II, and the J-232 was Ares-III.  Unfortunately, I don't think it had any positive effect.

At this point, I think we should just stick with the Jupiter naming convention.  Give credit where credit is due, the DIRECT team deserves it.

Most people know that Jupiter is a big planet, but they have no clue that Ares is actually the Greek word for Mars.  If they even try to guess, they typically think it is a sign of the zodiac.

Plus, Jupiter just sounds cooler than Ares.   :D

Mark S.

Edit: Clarify what 'people' know.


Jupiter has a very solid foundation in what was called at one point NLS and evolved into Magnum, etc concept vehicles.  It appears to me that this team has done no detailed design of the vehicle.  I once asked Ross how the vehicle was powered, since the orbiter fuel cells power the shuttle stack, and he was not able to tell me and said he would get back to me in the thread.  I don't believe he ever has.  So why I believe give credit where it is due, lets not look at this proposal with blinders either. 

OV-
We answered that question a long time ago.
While on the pad it remains on shore power until terminal countdown, then switches to internal batteries for the launch and flight.

That's how we have approached it, but of course the official design teams will make their own choices.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/03/2009 03:05 pm
Mark, I apologize for saying anything of fact or that the detailed design is where the rubber meets the road.  I clearly understand this is a "proposal".  If ever built by various contractors with NASA oversight, which is something you must think I have no experience in, it is quite possible it will not be THE Jupiter that is in THIS proposal and therefore subject to whatever someone with the actual authority wants to call it.  Please go back to the constant cheerleading and ignore my previous post. 

OV,  sorry if I get carried away sometimes.  I know I come across as a bit of a cheerleader.  I'm sure you have much more in-depth knowledge and experience with NASA than I do, since I have none, and have never claimed any.

So go on with your technical questions, I'm sure Chuck and Ross will answer to whatever level of detail they can.  And have a little consideration for the cheerleaders.  For some of us, it's all we can do.

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/03/2009 04:44 pm
So go on with your technical questions, I'm sure Chuck and Ross will answer to whatever level of detail they can.  And have a little consideration for the cheerleaders.  For some of us, it's all we can do.

Mark S.

Okay, now that I'm done feeling sorry for myself, does anyone have the relevant information regarding NLS?  Looks like OV won't be answering any of my actual questions.

I will see what I can dig up regarding NLS so I can compare it against DIRECT.  If anyone knows where I can find the details on NLS, please feel free to send it my direction.

Thanks,
Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/03/2009 07:35 pm
So go on with your technical questions, I'm sure Chuck and Ross will answer to whatever level of detail they can.  And have a little consideration for the cheerleaders.  For some of us, it's all we can do.

Mark S.

Okay, now that I'm done feeling sorry for myself, does anyone have the relevant information regarding NLS?  Looks like OV won't be answering any of my actual questions.

I will see what I can dig up regarding NLS so I can compare it against DIRECT.  If anyone knows where I can find the details on NLS, please feel free to send it my direction.

Thanks,
Mark S.



here are some links that I have found regarding the National Launch system/ALS/NLS

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/als.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/als.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/~ohttp://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1988/8826/8826.PDFta/disk2/1988/8826/882611.PDF
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1988/8826/882605.PDF
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/03/2009 07:37 pm
This should keep you going for a while Mark...

BTW, the last ~quarter of the first document has a very interesting review of how it is possible to implement the Core Stage manufacturing using ET tooling at Michoud, although be aware that this was for LWT, not SLWT so things have changed in some areas since this document was put together.


Cycle 0(CY1991) NLS trade studies and analyses report. Book 1: Structures and core vehicle : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930007493
(This section has a detailed review of how the Michoud Assembly Facility could produce Shuttle ET's and NLS Core Stages together on the same production line)

Cycle O (CY 1991) NLS trade studies and analyses, book 2. Part 1: Avionics and systems : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930013987

Cycle O(CY1991) NLS trade studies and analyses report. Book 2, part 2: Propulsion : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930014526

National Launch System cycle 1 loads and models data book : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19920020972

NLS cycle 1 and NLS 2 base heating technical notes. Appendix 3: Preliminary cycle 1 NLS base heating environments. Cycle 1 NLS base heating environments. NLS 2 650K STME base heating environments : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930012823

The National Launch System Advanced Development Program A brief overview : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19940007104 (Order)

National launch system overview with focus on cargo transfer vehicle : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19930013047 (Order)

Overview of National Launch System with emphasis on cargo transfer vehicle : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)


National Launch System KSC facilities and operations : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Flame trench analysis of NLS vehicles : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19940018776 (Order)

NLS propulsion - Government view : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

National Launch System Space Transportation Main Engine : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Single element injector testing for STME injector technology : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

NLS propulsion design considerations : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Cryogenic propellant prestart conditioning for NLS : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)


National Launch System comparative economic analysis : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

NLS Advanced Development - Launch operations : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Trajectory optimization for a National Launch System vehicle : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Guidance and dispersion studies of National Launch System ascent trajectories : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

NLS Flight Simulation Laboratory (FSL) documentation : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19950018019

A shadowgraph study of the National Launch System's 1 12 stage vehicle configuration and Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle configuration : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19950005297

Aerodynamic characteristics of the National Launch System (NLS) 1 12 stage launch vehicle : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19940033066 (Order)

Ascent Flight Aerodynamic Characteristics of the National Launch System 1 12-Stage Launch Vehicle: NLS-2 : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19970002923

NLS base heating CFD analysis : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19950017012 (Order)


Other Related Reading:
Project Columbiad: Mission to the Moon. Book 1: Executive Summary. Volume 1: Mission trade studies and requirements. Volume 2: Subsystem trade studies and selection : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930009044

Project Columbiad Reestablishment of human presence on the Moon : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19940021194 (Order)

First Lunar Outpost Earth to orbit concepts and issues : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=order&oaiID=19920024075 (Order)

Cargo transfer vehicle - An element of the National Launch System : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Evaluation of the national launch system as a booster for the HL-20 : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=orderingtips (Order)

Advanced Transportation System Studies Technical Area 2 (TA-2) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Development Contract : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19970016354

Advanced transportation system study: Manned launch vehicle concepts for two way transportation system payloads to LEO : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19940028594

Advanced transportation system study: Manned launch vehicle concepts for two way transportation system payloads to LEO. Program cost estimates document : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19940030406

Aerodynamic flight control to increase payload capability of future launch vehicles : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19940011059

Design verification test matrix development for the STME thrust chamber assembly : http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930018062

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/03/2009 07:42 pm
So go on with your technical questions, I'm sure Chuck and Ross will answer to whatever level of detail they can.  And have a little consideration for the cheerleaders.  For some of us, it's all we can do.

Mark S.

Okay, now that I'm done feeling sorry for myself, does anyone have the relevant information regarding NLS?  Looks like OV won't be answering any of my actual questions.

I will see what I can dig up regarding NLS so I can compare it against DIRECT.  If anyone knows where I can find the details on NLS, please feel free to send it my direction.

Thanks,
Mark S.



here are some links that I have found regarding the National Launch system/ALS/NLS

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/als.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/als.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/~ohttp://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1988/8826/8826.PDFta/disk2/1988/8826/882611.PDF
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1988/8826/882605.PDF
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_2/DATA/1989/8927.PDF
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/03/2009 07:45 pm
I once asked Ross how the vehicle was powered, since the orbiter fuel cells power the shuttle stack, and he was not able to tell me and said he would get back to me in the thread.  I don't believe he ever has.  So why I believe give credit where it is due, lets not look at this proposal with blinders either. 

OV-106,
I did answer your power question within a few days, as soon as I was able to confirm it with the design guys:   A ton of batteries provides all the electrical power.

Please feel free to go back through the thread and you'll see my followup there for all to see.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/03/2009 07:52 pm
Now obviously it puts 108% RS-68, J-2x & 5-seg SRB all in the critical path, but how soon could you put up the "-x" test flight, with 4-seg SRB's & non-man-rated engines (eg 102% RS-68 and whatever J-2 can be scavenged from somewhere).

Can I just clarify that for a second...

Those items are *NOT* in the critical path to getting Orion flying.

The Jupiter-120 would still use 4-segs, 102% RS-68 (HR) and no Upper Stage.   That system could be ready to fly an Orion crew in late 2012.

In this (still very hypothetical) scenario, the J-232 would follow-up that with upgraded SRB's, upgraded RS-68 and the J-2X Upper Stage around 2017/2018.


The LIDS issue is a driver for this option, but so too is the political aspect of bringing ATK's massive lobbying power on-board after Ares-I is canceled.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/03/2009 08:00 pm
Should we just call it Ares III, then?

cheers, Martin

Yeah, I think the DIRECT team already tried that in a couple of their presentations and/or papers, in an effort to minimize the NIH factor with any potential NASA audience members.  The J-120 was listed as Ares-II, and the J-232 was Ares-III.  Unfortunately, I don't think it had any positive effect.

Sorry, this was me being flippant.

My point was that the first stage of J231h is basically a cut-down Ares-V first stage.

Similarities:-
same 5-seg SRB (not shuttle 4-seg as per J120 / J232)
same 108% RS-68 variant (just 3 instead of 6, and not 106% as per early DIRECT, but I think this has been baselined for a while, anyway)

Basically, it is an Ares-V first stage, just using a Shuttle-dimensioned tank (no stretch, not widened), and the concomitant reduction in number of engines.



We're still talking about a DIRECT/WBC-style upper stage, but with the Ares-V engine config (one J-2x) rather than two J-2xd (as per J120 / J232).

This avoids the LIDS stress issue.



Now obviously it puts 108% RS-68, J-2x & 5-seg SRB all in the critical path, but how soon could you put up the "-x" test flight, with 4-seg SRB's & non-man-rated engines (eg 102% RS-68 and whatever J-2 can be scavenged from somewhere).

Now that the SpaceX / Orbital contracts are in place for ISS resupply, the urgency of the project seems to come down to whether it saves the NASA jobs.

If you must go on to produce an Ares-V vehicle, at least you've now done most of the work. The J261sh is "just" a matter of stretching / widening the tank, adding three more engines and 6-seg SRB's (for the super-heavy designation).



Quote
At this point, I think we should just stick with the Jupiter naming convention.  Give credit where credit is due, the DIRECT team deserves it.

...

Plus, Jupiter just sounds cooler than Ares.   :D

Yeah, it does, doesn't it.

cheers, Martin

The spacex/Orbital only deals with cargo.  There are several issues still to be decided:



MANNED ACCESS TO ISS
1.  What/will there be a COTS-D?
2.  How will the US get to ISS?  EELV, Direct, COTS-D. 
3.  Will the space shuttle not retire in 2010?
4.  What is the impact of the any of the above with Russia.

MOON

1.  Does the US still want to aim for the moon?
2.  What launcher does the US want to use to get to the moon?  Ares, EELV, Direct? 
3.  If the US selects a launcher, what if any impact does it have on manned access to ISS?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/03/2009 08:10 pm
This is what I think will happen this year:

1.  Ares I is cancelled---Cancelled by Q2.
2.  COTS-D takes Ares I place.  This is won by SpaceX and a EELV.-- Q4
     4 flights/annually to ISS.
3.  Moon--Ares V is transformed into a Direct J232------------------  Q4
4.  Space Shuttle is run for 2 extra year till 2012.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 01/03/2009 09:40 pm
Now obviously it puts 108% RS-68, J-2x & 5-seg SRB all in the critical path, but how soon could you put up the "-x" test flight, with 4-seg SRB's & non-man-rated engines (eg 102% RS-68 and whatever J-2 can be scavenged from somewhere).

Can I just clarify that for a second...

Those items are *NOT* in the critical path to getting Orion flying.

The Jupiter-120 would still use 4-segs, 102% RS-68 (HR) and no Upper Stage.   That system could be ready to fly an Orion crew in late 2012.

In this (still very hypothetical) scenario, the J-232 would follow-up that with upgraded SRB's, upgraded RS-68 and the J-2X Upper Stage around 2017/2018.


The LIDS issue is a driver for this option, but so too is the political aspect of bringing ATK's massive lobbying power on-board after Ares-I is canceled.

Ross.
What's the mass to orbit for the 5seg+1J2X J232 versus the 4seg + 2J2x J232? Any improvement?
If the twin engine upper stage was used with the 5 seg booster is there any further benefit?

The new version would be cheaper to run as we are only throwing away 1 J2x rather than 2.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/04/2009 02:16 am
Vaguely on topic... did you ever wonder what this usually intelligent, usually articulate, albeit often technically detailed discussion would look like through the eyes of a raving neocon?

I think I've stumbled across the answer to that not-so-important question... 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aOvrNO0OJ41g (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aOvrNO0OJ41g)


Says there that Griffin believes the Chinese can put a man on the moon before the US. If he truly believes that is so, then I can't understand why he continues to flog the Ares horse. If I were Griffin, I would ask myself how the Chinese are doing it:
1. 2-man crew (big saving right there)
2. Dual 50-tonne launchers - half the development time and cost of one big one, basically

That number 2 should make him think. Especially since he is developing 2 rockets, 1 of which is unnecessary and 1 of which is twice the size necessary.

If there was a credible Chinese threat, I wonder what Dr. Griffin would really do. The Russians are much closer to landing on the moon than anyone else.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/04/2009 02:24 am
This is what I think will happen this year:

1.  Ares I is cancelled---Cancelled by Q2.
2.  COTS-D takes Ares I place.  This is won by SpaceX and a EELV.-- Q4
     4 flights/annually to ISS.
3.  Moon--Ares V is transformed into a Direct J232------------------  Q4
4.  Space Shuttle is run for 2 extra year till 2012.

1.  Looking more likely as transition comes closer, but still wouldn't bet on it.
2.  No way.  NASA will not roll the dice on SpaceX with only 1 flight of a small rocket under their belt.  EELV could fly Orion, but it wouldn't be turned over to ULA to run.
3. Ares V may change but if something like ARES is selected it will likely change in someway.
4. Probably some kind of shuttle extension.  Hopefully its adding as few flights as possible and stretching the existing manifest.  Flying shuttle more is not a good long term solution and just sucks up money.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/04/2009 03:37 am
Vaguely on topic... did you ever wonder what this usually intelligent, usually articulate, albeit often technically detailed discussion would look like through the eyes of a raving neocon?

I think I've stumbled across the answer to that not-so-important question... 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aOvrNO0OJ41g (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aOvrNO0OJ41g)

Says there that Griffin believes the Chinese can put a man on the moon before the US. If he truly believes that is so, then I can't understand why he continues to flog the Ares horse. If I were Griffin, I would ask myself how the Chinese are doing it:

I'd think the more important question to ask is why the Chinese are doing it that particular way. Thus you avoid conflating Chinese goals and concomitant methods with Ares goals and methods.

Quote from: Lampyridae
1. 2-man crew (big saving right there)

Flag and footprints... and thus totally at odds with the VSE and thus the opposite of the Ares design parameters. The idea is to develop a sustainable exploration architecture and you can't economically do that lofting two people at a time.

Quote from: Lampyridae
2. Dual 50-tonne launchers - half the development time and cost of one big one, basically

Perhaps two 50mT launchers might economically compete with one 100mT launcher but that doesn't seem to be  guaranteed. But "half the development time and cost of one big one" would seem to be pure handwaving sans comparable estimates on R&D, production and flight rates.

Quote from: Lampyridae
That number 2 should make him think. Especially since he is developing 2 rockets, 1 of which is unnecessary and 1 of which is twice the size necessary.

And that would all depend on the answers to the caveats I listed above.

Quote from: Lampyridae
If there was a credible Chinese threat, I wonder what Dr. Griffin would really do. The Russians are much closer to landing on the moon than anyone else.

What got me about the article was how the possibility of NASA considering buying modified commercial EELV's somehow became the neocon wet dream of militarizing NASA... "Can the brave Orion crews launch in time to stop the inexorable hordes of Manchurian soyuz clones before they overrun the Moon? Tune in next week!"

The Chinese (or other nations) should not have access to space that the U.S lacks... but that's just common sense in our own self-interest.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/04/2009 04:28 am
Quote
Quote from: Lampyridae
2. Dual 50-tonne launchers - half the development time and cost of one big one, basically

Perhaps two 50mT launchers might economically compete with one 100mT launcher but that doesn't seem to be  guaranteed. But "half the development time and cost of one big one" would seem to be pure handwaving sans comparable estimates on R&D, production and flight rates.


50-tonne launcher is the J-120 (or equivalent).  Which is basically half of the J-232 (no upper stage).  The development cost estimates for the J-120 and J-232 have been published in this thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/04/2009 05:06 am

50-tonne launcher is the J-120 (or equivalent).  Which is basically half of the J-232 (no upper stage).  The development cost estimates for the J-120 and J-232 have been published in this thread.

Yes (actually J-232 with no upper stage and minus one first stage engine), but are there any comparable numbers for the proposed Chinese UR-700M derivative? (if that's still what they're using)

The numbers posted for Direct have it beating Ares hands down but the Chinese numbers a vaporous at best. Perhaps I should have emphasized that more.

Edit: fixed UR-700M typo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/04/2009 10:17 am
Now obviously it puts 108% RS-68, J-2x & 5-seg SRB all in the critical path, but how soon could you put up the "-x" test flight, with 4-seg SRB's & non-man-rated engines (eg 102% RS-68 and whatever J-2 can be scavenged from somewhere).

Can I just clarify that for a second...

Those items are *NOT* in the critical path to getting Orion flying.

The Jupiter-120 would still use 4-segs, 102% RS-68 (HR) and no Upper Stage.   That system could be ready to fly an Orion crew in late 2012.

In this (still very hypothetical) scenario, the J-232 would follow-up that with upgraded SRB's, upgraded RS-68 and the J-2X Upper Stage around 2017/2018.


The LIDS issue is a driver for this option, but so too is the political aspect of bringing ATK's massive lobbying power on-board after Ares-I is canceled.


If SpaceX (COTS-D) or ULA end up doing crewed ISS flights as well as cargo, is J-120 going to get built at all? What other role does it have? (Maybe loft ISS components like AMS?)

If there's no J-120, then J-232 or J-231h have to be built without their planned predecessors, thus the comments about critical path in the build of J-231h (which we were discussing, not J-232). Also seems to leave an unacceptable gap in employment, which I know is a big problem.

I presumed that the excited announcement re the J-231h config was that it would allow NASA to save face, ie "we're not cancelling Ares-I & Ares-V, just merging them and scaling it back to Ares-III. See, we're being sensible, can we still go to the moon, please?".

As I see it at the moment, if Ares is deemed a failure, that will create a massive loss of confidence in NASA. I'm not at all sanguine that Obama would trust NASA to spend another boat-load of money starting a new DIRECT programme without some such face-saving as above.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/04/2009 01:09 pm
Just for clarification, there are no 100mT launchers here.
The Jupiter-232 is a 110mT launcher.
The Ares-V is a (supposedly) 135mT launcher.
Using the term "100 ton launcher" to describe the Ares-V is inaccurate and "can" incorrectly point to the Jupiter-232, which is not part of the comparison.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/04/2009 04:45 pm

The team is not going there at this time.
Man-rated RS-68's are the MPP and we are sticking with that.

At some point in the future, we could always upgrade the system *if that is justified*, but for now we are not taking the bait.

I'm very relieved to hear that: we're not going there. Thanks for that clear update.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/04/2009 04:53 pm
Now obviously it puts 108% RS-68, J-2x & 5-seg SRB all in the critical path, but how soon could you put up the "-x" test flight, with 4-seg SRB's & non-man-rated engines (eg 102% RS-68 and whatever J-2 can be scavenged from somewhere).

Can I just clarify that for a second...

Those items are *NOT* in the critical path to getting Orion flying.

The Jupiter-120 would still use 4-segs, 102% RS-68 (HR) and no Upper Stage.   That system could be ready to fly an Orion crew in late 2012.

In this (still very hypothetical) scenario, the J-232 would follow-up that with upgraded SRB's, upgraded RS-68 and the J-2X Upper Stage around 2017/2018.


The LIDS issue is a driver for this option, but so too is the political aspect of bringing ATK's massive lobbying power on-board after Ares-I is canceled.


If SpaceX (COTS-D) or ULA end up doing crewed ISS flights as well as cargo, is J-120 going to get built at all? What other role does it have? (Maybe loft ISS components like AMS?)

If there's no J-120, then J-232 or J-231h have to be built without their planned predecessors, thus the comments about critical path in the build of J-231h (which we were discussing, not J-232). Also seems to leave an unacceptable gap in employment, which I know is a big problem.

I presumed that the excited announcement re the J-231h config was that it would allow NASA to save face, ie "we're not cancelling Ares-I & Ares-V, just merging them and scaling it back to Ares-III. See, we're being sensible, can we still go to the moon, please?".

As I see it at the moment, if Ares is deemed a failure, that will create a massive loss of confidence in NASA. I'm not at all sanguine that Obama would trust NASA to spend another boat-load of money starting a new DIRECT programme without some such face-saving as above.

cheers, Martin

If the decision were made to do J-232, there'd be no point in the EELV/Orion option, because you automatically get J-120 as you proceed along the path to J-232. And COTS-D for ISS is a side show so long as VSE itself is not cancelled (in which case, the competion is between COTS-D and EELV/Orion). I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/04/2009 05:11 pm
Now obviously it puts 108% RS-68, J-2x & 5-seg SRB all in the critical path, but how soon could you put up the "-x" test flight, with 4-seg SRB's & non-man-rated engines (eg 102% RS-68 and whatever J-2 can be scavenged from somewhere).

Can I just clarify that for a second...

Those items are *NOT* in the critical path to getting Orion flying.

The Jupiter-120 would still use 4-segs, 102% RS-68 (HR) and no Upper Stage.   That system could be ready to fly an Orion crew in late 2012.

In this (still very hypothetical) scenario, the J-232 would follow-up that with upgraded SRB's, upgraded RS-68 and the J-2X Upper Stage around 2017/2018.


The LIDS issue is a driver for this option, but so too is the political aspect of bringing ATK's massive lobbying power on-board after Ares-I is canceled.


If SpaceX (COTS-D) or ULA end up doing crewed ISS flights as well as cargo, is J-120 going to get built at all? What other role does it have? (Maybe loft ISS components like AMS?)

If there's no J-120, then J-232 or J-231h have to be built without their planned predecessors, thus the comments about critical path in the build of J-231h (which we were discussing, not J-232). Also seems to leave an unacceptable gap in employment, which I know is a big problem.

I presumed that the excited announcement re the J-231h config was that it would allow NASA to save face, ie "we're not cancelling Ares-I & Ares-V, just merging them and scaling it back to Ares-III. See, we're being sensible, can we still go to the moon, please?".

As I see it at the moment, if Ares is deemed a failure, that will create a massive loss of confidence in NASA. I'm not at all sanguine that Obama would trust NASA to spend another boat-load of money starting a new DIRECT programme without some such face-saving as above.

cheers, Martin

If the decision were made to do J-232, there'd be no point in the EELV/Orion option, because you automatically get J-120 as you proceed along the path to J-232. And COTS-D for ISS is a side show so long as VSE itself is not cancelled (in which case, the competion is between COTS-D and EELV/Orion). I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Actually, man-rating the Delta-IV would be an extremely useful thing to do.
1. It lets us test-fly the man-rated RS-68 a little sooner.
2. It provides cost-sharing with the DoD for the engine program.
3. It provides an alternative LEO manned launch capability.
4. It provides manned access to LEO/ISS destinations allowing Jupiter to focus on lunar, NEO and Martian goals.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/04/2009 06:17 pm

{snip}
One might, however, consider this as an ISS version, and progress later to a Block-2 spacecraft with everything put back. But that's an option only for the Jupiter. Both EELV's will be close to maxed out lifting Orion as it is. Like I said above, the Jupiter is better for the overall program.

That's my hope, and something that should be BOLD in the executive summary of the rebuttal. ISS Orion block-1, lunar Orion block-2 with water/land landing capability, triple/quad redundancy, toilet...

Orion block-1 on Jupiter also allows for cargo potential to ISS.

It is really tough sifting throuh 1-week of old posts. wow. Happy new year everyone!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/04/2009 06:33 pm
That's my hope, and something that should be BOLD in the executive summary of the rebuttal. ISS Orion block-1, lunar Orion block-2 with water/land landing capability, triple/quad redundancy, toilet...

No - no toilet. Remember what Orion is - a taxi that goes to a destination. When's the last time you grabbed a cab and found a toilet inside?  :) No, any missions that don't reach their destination in relatively short order, like ISS, will have a mission module along that will contain, among other things, the toilet. For lunar missions, the mission module will be the LSAM. For Mars missions, the mission module will be the MTV. Etc, etc.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/04/2009 07:47 pm
Here is Phillip's updated FAQ through the first 50 pages of the Direct thread 2.0.  Yes--I still have over 200 pages to go and then edited, and adding other sections.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/04/2009 07:51 pm
That's my hope, and something that should be BOLD in the executive summary of the rebuttal. ISS Orion block-1, lunar Orion block-2 with water/land landing capability, triple/quad redundancy, toilet...

No - no toilet. Remember what Orion is - a taxi that goes to a destination. When's the last time you grabbed a cab and found a toilet inside?  :) No, any missions that don't reach their destination in relatively short order, like ISS, will have a mission module along that will contain, among other things, the toilet. For lunar missions, the mission module will be the LSAM. For Mars missions, the mission module will be the MTV. Etc, etc.



I'm trying to understand what you're saying with my poor statement:

ISS Orion block-1, as currently baselined.
Lunar Orion block-2: with features I presented, including a toilet.

I excluded Mars Orion since I know there isn't space. I'm thinking Greyhound bus, not taxi cab, as a better analogy: typically fixed destinations & routes.

Lunar module should have the toilet I suppose, but I was always hoping for a two-module lunar design with airlock/toilet/provisions section that got left behind at lunar site.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/04/2009 08:03 pm
That's my hope, and something that should be BOLD in the executive summary of the rebuttal. ISS Orion block-1, lunar Orion block-2 with water/land landing capability, triple/quad redundancy, toilet...

No - no toilet. Remember what Orion is - a taxi that goes to a destination. When's the last time you grabbed a cab and found a toilet inside?  :) No, any missions that don't reach their destination in relatively short order, like ISS, will have a mission module along that will contain, among other things, the toilet. For lunar missions, the mission module will be the LSAM. For Mars missions, the mission module will be the MTV. Etc, etc.



I'm trying to understand what you're saying with my poor statement:

ISS Orion block-1, as currently baselined.
Lunar Orion block-2: with features I presented, including a toilet.

I excluded Mars Orion since I know there isn't space. I'm thinking Greyhound bus, not taxi cab, as a better analogy: typically fixed destinations & routes.

Lunar module should have the toilet I suppose, but I was always hoping for a two-module lunar design with airlock/toilet/provisions section that got left behind at lunar site.

I was good-naturedly poking fun at a toilet in a cab  :)
For Orion, think taxi cab, not greyhound bus. That's what it has become - thank you Ares-I.
All the amenities of "home" will be in the greyhound bus (LSAM) not the taxi (Orion)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/04/2009 08:59 pm
Here is Phillip's updated FAQ through the first 50 pages of the Direct thread 2.0.  Yes--I still have over 200 pages to go and then edited, and adding other sections.

A few minor errors in there, I will see if I can get time to do some corrections.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tnphysics on 01/04/2009 09:23 pm
If DIRECT was chosen, how long would it take to put the missing safety features back in Orion? non-safety features?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/04/2009 09:28 pm
If DIRECT was chosen, how long would it take to put the missing safety features back in Orion? non-safety features?

If we want to reduce the gap to something manageable from both an economic and security standpoint, we can't put much of anything back at this time. Orion is too far into the design to make those kinds of changes without setting the program back by several months at a minimum. All it would do for Orion, at least initially, is take away the pressure of sticking with such restrictive mass targets so they can get on with getting the spacecraft into the air.

Once Orion/Jupiter is flying, then we can think about a Block-II design which does what you suggest.

Edit: Since Orion is the long pole in the schedule, we can't afford to do anything unnecessary at this time. If we make any changes, it must be with a view to speeding up the deployment, not potentially slowing it down. Like I said, e=we can revisit that later.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ballew on 01/04/2009 09:59 pm
If DIRECT was chosen, how long would it take to put the missing safety features back in Orion? non-safety features?

Anybody have a link to an article or list that describes exactly which safety and non-safety features have been removed from the Orion design due to Ares I's under-performance?

I thought I remembered somebody stating that at this point in Orion's development, there wouldn't be much of a delay to put the deleted features back in because much of the design work had already been completed on those features and that the project has not progressed that much since the features were removed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/05/2009 12:05 am
Quote
If we want to reduce the gap to something manageable from both an economic and security standpoint, we can't put much of anything back at this time. Orion is too far into the design to make those kinds of changes

hmmm doesn't that remove one of the advantages of going with Direct?  I often hear from Direct and Direct supporters that one the reasons Ares is so bad is because of all the changes that have to be done to Orion in order to allow it to fly, yet if Direct is chosen the exact same Orion will be atop the Jupiter-120
I fail to see how this argument can be continued to be made even though it was to no fault of the Jupiter-120 because the end result is the same Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 01/05/2009 12:21 am

I thought I remembered somebody stating that at this point in Orion's development, there wouldn't be much of a delay to put the deleted features back in because much of the design work had already been completed on those features and that the project has not progressed that much since the features were removed.


I also remember seeing a post from Ross in the last few months to that effect, but have not been able to find it.  Something bout the original design being ready for PDR, and they could just run that design through PDR and start moving ahead with it.  I have no idea if this is or was feasible, but i remember seeing it said here.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/05/2009 12:42 am
Quote
If we want to reduce the gap to something manageable from both an economic and security standpoint, we can't put much of anything back at this time. Orion is too far into the design to make those kinds of changes

hmmm doesn't that remove one of the advantages of going with Direct?  I often hear from Direct and Direct supporters that one the reasons Ares is so bad is because of all the changes that have to be done to Orion in order to allow it to fly, yet if Direct is chosen the exact same Orion will be atop the Jupiter-120
I fail to see how this argument can be continued to be made even though it was to no fault of the Jupiter-120 because the end result is the same Orion.


End-of-Shuttle sets a deadline, and Ares-I cannot fill that gap.

There will be a gap (unless the final Shuttle flights are re-scheduled), but it will be much smaller if there is a launch vehicle ready when Orion is ready. J-120 could be that vehicle.

When it comes time to go back to the moon, the all-singing, all-dancing Orion should be there to support that.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/05/2009 12:52 am
hmmm doesn't that remove one of the advantages of going with Direct?  I often hear from Direct and Direct supporters that one the reasons Ares is so bad is because of all the changes that have to be done to Orion in order to allow it to fly, yet if Direct is chosen the exact same Orion will be atop the Jupiter-120
I fail to see how this argument can be continued to be made even though it was to no fault of the Jupiter-120 because the end result is the same Orion.

The possibility of reversing the  Orion design cuts in time for J-120 would seem to have changed recently.

If so are we going to be stuck with not-so-good design decisions incurred because of previous bad design decisions because someone(s) couldn't admit their errors in time?

In which case the Direct argument re: Orion would seem to evolve to "You won't have to make any more such cuts and we can outgrow the bad decisions with a second-gen (Block II) Orion."
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/05/2009 01:55 am
With the development of any vehicle, automobile, ship, aircraft, spacecraft, it is always a product of design/build development and schedule. The closer you get to the scheduled complete milestone, the less wiggle room you have to make design changes and still make the schedule.

In the case of Orion, much time has past that cannot be regained. In the mean time, Orion's basic design has been finalized. We've past the point where we can go back to the pre-ZBV and re-insert everything that was placed in the parking lot, and still make the scheduled deployment. At this point there are still some things we can do, but not many; not if we're going to make the scheduled deployment. Heck, restarting the software design that runs everything would be a nightmare, let alone the additional hardware. Systems Integration is a truly massive undertaking.

So we are faced with a choice.

1. Press forward with the current design. Consider it to be a Block-I design to achieve a RTF ASAP. Plan to create a Block-II design after it's flying that will restore all the abandoned capabilities. Depending on funding, we should be flying the Block-II spacecraft before the Jupiter-232 comes online, when it will be needed.

OR

2. Stop work on the current design and revert to the design pre-ZBV. Start over again from that point. This results in a much improved spacecraft, very similar to what was envisioned at the beginning of the design process, but will move the scheduled deploy date to the right by as much as 12-16 months. The advantage of this is that we begin service with a top shelf spacecraft, but it increases the manned spaceflight gap by well over a year. This could result in a lot of additional job-loss at KSC and MAF.

Is it worth the trade? Like I said, there are still some things we can re-insert that will greatly improve it, but the schedule looms large, and there's too much to put back and still make the schedule.

Now let's be clear about this. Orion, as currently configured, is not a bad spacecraft. It's still better than anything we've ever flown before. So flying THIS configuration is not a step backwards from where we've been before; just a step back from where we *could* have been. And that is correctable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: beb on 01/05/2009 03:11 am

I was good-naturedly poking fun at a toilet in a cab  :)
For Orion, think taxi cab, not greyhound bus. That's what it has become - thank you Ares-I.
All the amenities of "home" will be in the greyhound bus (LSAM) not the taxi (Orion)

Three days to the ISS does not sound like any taxi ride I've ever taken. An Orion without a toilet, even for ISS "taxi" is unacceptable.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: RedSky on 01/05/2009 03:38 am
Three days to the ISS does not sound like any taxi ride I've ever taken. An Orion without a toilet, even for ISS "taxi" is unacceptable.

Hey, that's spaceflight. Get used to it. What do you think they did on Apollo?  Even in super cramped Gemini for 14 days!  Not having facilities doesn't seem to bother paying $20 million tourists on a 3-day Soyuz taxi to ISS.  It should bother professional astronauts even less.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/05/2009 03:41 am

Now let's be clear about this. Orion, as currently configured, is not a bad spacecraft. It's still better than anything we've ever flown before. So flying THIS configuration is not a step backwards from where we've been before; just a step back from where we *could* have been. And that is correctable.

I see. So my phrase "going to be stuck with not-so-good design decisions" might be misconstrued as  an unfair slam at Orion rather than the intended commentary on the "Aries Effect".

But there seems to be no denying that Orion's design has been adversely impacted by Ares-1's problems and so I probably should clarify that my comment re: "previous bad design decisions because someone(s) couldn't admit their errors in time" was in reference to the Ares-1's ever-increasing negative development margins :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/05/2009 03:47 am

Hey, that's spaceflight. Get used to it. What do you think they did on Apollo?  Even in super cramped Gemini for 14 days!  Not having facilities doesn't seem to bother paying $20 million tourists on a 3-day Soyuz taxi to ISS.  It should bother professional astronauts even less.

Soyuz has a toilet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/05/2009 04:05 am
What has me worried--we are going down the same path of Columbia.  We can see the protential for trouble down the line and nothing is being done.

NASA is compromising safety and other issues very early in the game. This is aproject just screaming to be re-evaluated.

Five to ten years out, we are going to have another accident that might have been prevented--I told you so, will not cut it. And then how much will it cost to fix?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/05/2009 04:18 am
What has me worried--we are going down the same path of Columbia.  We can see the protential for trouble down the line and nothing is being done.

NASA is compromising safety and other issues very early in the game. This is aproject just screaming to be re-evaluated.

Five to ten years out, we are going to have another accident that might have been prevented--I told you so, will not cut it. And then how much will it cost to fix?

Agreed. What is even more alarming is that the environment that contributed to Columbia is once again present. This is the environment where engineers with hard data are saying something won't work, and they are being told by paper pushers to a) shut up and get back to work, or b) collect your things and kindly leave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/05/2009 04:37 am

It's like being told by the car dealer (NASA), we are going to take out your ABS brakes--you should not need them since they weigh too much.  You may drive for years and NEVER need them.  But are you willing to take that chance in that you live in ND?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/05/2009 06:37 am
Again, I'm sorry I haven't been around much recently, I've been incredibly busy and just haven't had five minutes to get on the forum most days.

The question of adding back the discarded hardware affecting the Orion schedule is (like most of these things) very complicated up-close, but from a higher-level perspective of the plan of implementation it isn't so bad :)

1) Shelve the work on the (606F or 607 Entrance?) Composite pressurized structure currently being worked (keep that work on-file though, we can consider returning to it as a "Block" upgrade at some point later if we find we ever need to).

2) Dust-off the older (606E ?) design from a few months ago which was only about 1 month away from PDR.   Realign the working teams and press-on to PDR with that design, unchanged, as was originally planned.   3-4 months should be sufficient to realign the project and get that design ready for the PDR.   Orion could then theoretically be through it's PDR by April and the program then has a really solid foundation with which to continue.

3) Then the way you integrate the 'missing' parts back in, is you arrange for a Delta-PDR to occur in about 9 months time.   That is where the re-integration all of the 'missing' features will occur.

All of the designs which were dumped in the "parking lot" during the Zero Base Vehicle (ZBV) effort, such as Land Landing hardware, 3rd and 4th layers of MMOD shielding, rad protection, dual redundant valves on pressure vessels etc can be reintegrated there along with whatever useful discarded systems which have had to be ditched since then such as drinking water supplies, >15 minute post-landing battery life and the toilet.   A D-PDR is the place to bring it all back together.


Our latest Jupiter configurations are indicating we close all CxP's Lunar performance targets by a significant amount (~6,600kg clear above and beyond all the regular margins specified by CxP's Ground Rules & Assumptions).

Round 1 of the ZBV effort removed a total of 956.5lb (433.9kg) of hardware from Orion's CM and SM.   Round 2 of the ZBV effort removed a total of 1,059lb (480.4kg) of hardware from Orion's CM and SM.

I haven't got the paperwork in front of me, but I seem to recall that Orion is somewhere around 1-2,000lb over its Lunar mass allocation for launching upon Ares-I (please correct me if I'm wrong).   If that's right, we could add every ZBV system back and go build the current Orion design for a penalty of less than 2mT.   That would still leave over 4mT of surplus performance clearance over and above the full GR&A's and the full managers reserves.

We certainly have the performance to put every bit of discarded ZBV mass back into the design again and lift the current design on a Lunar mission.   The Orion Project would no longer need to cut that extra mass at all and no longer having to chase that target would *massively* improve the Orion's development schedule at this point.


I would suggest that we plan to re-integrate everything we can which doesn't significantly affect the IOC December 2012 date in the initial Block-I Orion design.   Then push back anything else which will affect rollout schedule significantly to a Block-Ib or Block-II upgrade later.   Which specific systems fit in each of those categories will have to be determined by the Orion Project, but my understanding is that many of the systems were already fairly mature designs at the time they were discarded, so it is likely a lot of the systems could still make it back in by the time of the Delta-PDR.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/05/2009 07:04 am
What's the mass to orbit for the 5seg+1J2X J232 versus the 4seg + 2J2x J232? Any improvement?
If the twin engine upper stage was used with the 5 seg booster is there any further benefit?

The latest figures fresh out of our guys at MSFC say there's roughly an 8mT difference in performance between the latest (Series 36) Jupiter-231 and the Jupiter-232.   103.5mT vs. 111.5mT respectively to 130x130nmi, 29.0deg insertion for the CaLV Lunar EDS configuration.

Adding the 5-seg booster "Heavy" upgrade to either configuration increases performance by roughly 7mT.


As a brief aside; I got numbers from the Marshall guys (they've been very busy for us over the holiday period!) indicating that the Standard (I'm not talking about the Heavy here) variant of the J-231 actually closes too, by about 2.4mT thru TLI (as opposed to 6.6mT for J-232).   We've got to get that double-checked still, but if we can validate it, it would make for a very interesting solution.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/05/2009 07:38 am
Okay... routing the LAS path around the capsule could enable Orion to free up mass and volume used for structural support with the Jupiter picking up the loads, but how?  Route the loads through or around the BPC to the Jupiter US? Perhaps MLAS-like?  Would that be another cheap'n'good use of Jupiter's margins?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/05/2009 08:42 am
Okay... routing the LAS path around the capsule could enable Orion to free up mass and volume used for structural support with the Jupiter picking up the loads, but how?  Route the loads through or around the BPC to the Jupiter US? Perhaps MLAS-like?

"How" is indeed the question.

Right now the ~7mT of LAS mass accelerating at ~2.5g, plus the high 1,000psf max-Q aero-loads on the LAS & BPC and, of course, the SRB TO loads, are all transmitted down into the CM structure thru a "truss" structure located inside the BPC.

All those loads, plus those created by the ~9mT CM, are then transmitted down into the SM structure which is itself supported by an adapter underneath.

So the whole Orion spacecraft is currently in the load-path for Ares-I (FYI, a similar arrangement would also be required for any EELV too, although the load and vibration environments would be less harsh than on the Ares).


On Jupiter (see attached diagram), the wider part of the SM is supported by an adapter ring at the top of the Payload Fairing.   All the loads are transmitted down through the PLF structure, not the SM.   The SM essentially 'hangs' there supported from above.   Its structure will be in tension instead of compression, but an early analysis shows that shouldn't be a problem for that structure in this environment.

The trick then, is re-designing the interface around the LAS > CM connection.   It needs to be sturdy enough to guarantee yanking the CM off the top of the vehicle in a 15-20g abort, but ideally it needs to transmit its compressive loads into the BPC, not the CM, during the ascent.   It's an engineering challenge to design it right, but there are a variety of ways to do it.

The aim is ultimately to make the entire Orion Capsule an encapsulated payload and not a structural element.

At this stage we only have a preliminary design and very early analysis results.   While nothing has yet reared its ugly head yet, an awful lot more work still needs to be done to make sure.   Our team is getting pretty close to the limits of what we can achieve without funding in this regard, but the results are looking very promising.


Quote
Would that be another cheap'n'good use of Jupiter's margins?

There primary advantages of Jupiter is that the Orion Project would suddenly find itself no longer tightly constrained by the mass allocation limits constrained by the launch vehicle's performance envelope.   Jupiter-120 is capable of lifting almost double the total mass of an Orion spacecraft, so there are essentially no constraints.

The design team could stop wasting time and money on further mass reduction activities and really concentrate on getting the vehicle into production as soon as possible.

Removing the mass constraints for the first Block-I Orion would significantly simplify and accelerate all of the activities between PDR and CDR.

By removing the mass allocation concerns for a Block-I ISS Orion, the project would find that it is actually fairly close to a workable design almost ready for production now.   Getting that design through PDR and onward to the CDR could be greatly expedited.

Any further mass reduction activities could be spun-off into the Block-II variant to follow later.   The Block-II version isn't actually needed until the Lunar Phase of the program, which is an additional five years down the line, so the program has time to implement improvements -- especially beneficial given there would be valuable flight-data coming back once the Orion's start flying to ISS.

Overall it would have the effect of significantly reducing development costs and really speeding up the development schedule.

Combine that reduction in development work with a significant portion of the Ares-V's development money redirected into speeding Orion up, and it should be fairly obvious how it is possible to cut years out the Orion's development schedule and help "close the gap" after Shuttle.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/05/2009 09:25 am
Here is Phillip's updated FAQ through the first 50 pages of the Direct thread 2.0.  Yes--I still have over 200 pages to go and then edited, and adding other sections.

I've only had a very brief chance to look this over but that is an awesome start!

Thank-you so much for compiling all of this for us!   You are creating what might well become an extremely valuable repository of information there.   That's quite a Christmas Present for us! :)


And thanks also to Kaputnik if he can help with any amendments too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 01/05/2009 10:58 am
What's the mass to orbit for the 5seg+1J2X J232 versus the 4seg + 2J2x J232? Any improvement?
If the twin engine upper stage was used with the 5 seg booster is there any further benefit?

The latest figures fresh out of our guys at MSFC say there's roughly an 8mT difference in performance between the latest (Series 36) Jupiter-231 and the Jupiter-232.   103.5mT vs. 111.5mT respectively to 130x130nmi, 29.0deg insertion for the CaLV Lunar EDS configuration.

Adding the 5-seg booster "Heavy" upgrade to either configuration increases performance by roughly 7mT.


As a brief aside; I got numbers from the Marshall guys (they've been very busy for us over the holiday period!) indicating that the Standard (I'm not talking about the Heavy here) variant of the J-231 actually closes too, by about 2.4mT thru TLI (as opposed to 6.6mT for J-232).   We've got to get that double-checked still, but if we can validate it, it would make for a very interesting solution.

Ross.

I guess the question then is how massive can the Orion craft grow to for the J232 or J231, J231H to be still able to launch it and the LSAM to the moon?

Also - which Orion variant (&mass) is being used to calculate whether a system closes or not?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/05/2009 11:24 am
I guess the question then is how massive can the Orion craft grow to for the J232 or J231, J231H to be still able to launch it and the LSAM to the moon?

Well, the J-232 has a launch to LEO payload limit of about 110mt, IIRC, and the Altair lander is about 49mt.  There is a trade off of payload weight to propellent but I imagine that it would be possible to sneak the Lunar Orion up to about 30mt or thereabouts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/05/2009 12:17 pm
There is a simple rule to keep in mind:

Every pound Orion uses is one less pound the Altair Lander can have.

So staying strict about Orion's mass is still very important.

But this is not about growing Orion just for the sakes of it.   This is about putting back some, or all, of the deleted safety equipment which the project has been forced to remove in order to squeeze the Orion spacecraft on top of the Ares-I.

Returning the safety equipment and some of the basic functionality (toilet) of Orion still wouldn't make it mass any more than 22.5mT absolute maximum as it goes through TLI (20,185kg is the current CxP requirement).

We have sufficient surplus performance to comfortably cover that degree of growth and still allow the Altair to grow by about 4mT more too -- and that would result in almost 2mT more payload (science packages) which could be landed on the Lunar surface on every mission.

While things can always change, at this particular time this option seems to make quite a lot of sense.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 01/05/2009 04:59 pm
Right now the ~7mT of LAS mass accelerating at ~2.5g, plus the high 1,000psf max-Q aero-loads on the LAS & BPC and, of course, the SRB TO loads, are all transmitted down into the CM structure thru a "truss" structure located inside the BPC.

All those loads, plus those created by the ~9mT CM, are then transmitted down into the SM structure which is itself supported by an adapter underneath.

Ross,
    The truss structure (LA2 model - 606?) was deleted in favor of a composite cone (LC4 model - 606C).  The Encapsulated Service Module (ESM) Panels carry around 50% of the loads from Orion to the Upper Stage (it's really more like 60/40, but I don't remember which one is the 60%).  The bottom of the panels are rigid and get cut with a linear shape charge (LSC), the top of each panel has 2 bolted connections.  These connections transmit the load from the panel into the top of the SM, and directly into the load path into the bottom of the Orion.

Although I don't know exactly how the LAS is connected to the Orion, it makes sense to me to assume that your PLF essentially act as ESM panels (with the exception that it take all the load).  Although it makes sense to put the aerodynamic loads from the LAS into the PLF, you don't want a failure mode where the LAS fires, but the attachment to the PLF does not.  You still need the connection from the Orion to the SM, so you would be adding an additional connection outside - which is more complex.  Certainly there is a tradeoff between structural efficiency and escape system redundancy, but you would need to find that out.

Also, know that designing the Orion/SM seems to have been a learning experience for LM - especially in the use of tuning the load path.  As such it's not as simple as "lets go back to an earlier design", since they have learned new things about how to design the structure.  But as with almost everything that has been done lately, if it was needed to be done all over again, it takes much less time - cause you know how to do it now.

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cgrunska on 01/05/2009 07:04 pm
I'm new to reading about all this alternative spacecraft, however it has captivated me. I've been reading up on Direct for a few weeks now, using the main site, this site, the pdfs and such.

I guess my main reason for posting now is to ask if anyone in favor of Direct has let their congressperson/senators know? Have you written a letter with a link or the few page PDF printed out and mailed to their offices to let them know that yes, their is a better alternative out there than the Ares? I've sent a letter to President-elect Obama's email for ideas, my two senators and my house congressman. Wether they'll be looked at, i don't know. I also most likely did not write my letter as elogently as some of you may have, hitting on topics such as job loss, additional funding, time delays and so on.

Anyway, just putting this down to ask that if you haven't yet, to petition to the people making decisions often times without a clue to an alternative, so we may see a better alternative than Ares fly.

Now is the time where we hinder ourselves for 20 more years, or embark on a great space program.

I believe Direct's website has a link to find your individual congressman.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 01/05/2009 08:48 pm
What's the mass to orbit for the 5seg+1J2X J232 versus the 4seg + 2J2x J232? Any improvement?
If the twin engine upper stage was used with the 5 seg booster is there any further benefit?

The latest figures fresh out of our guys at MSFC say there's roughly an 8mT difference in performance between the latest (Series 36) Jupiter-231 and the Jupiter-232.   103.5mT vs. 111.5mT respectively to 130x130nmi, 29.0deg insertion for the CaLV Lunar EDS configuration.

Adding the 5-seg booster "Heavy" upgrade to either configuration increases performance by roughly 7mT.


When comparing performance of the J-232 and J-231H rockets, what is important (in addition to closing the manned moon mission with two flights) is to maximize the one flight unmanned cargo mission.  On that point, I suspect that the J-231H with its lighter EDS would have a better TLI payload capacity than the J-232.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/05/2009 10:28 pm
jarmund,
By 'truss', I was actually referring to the 12 struts shown between the CM and the Abort Motor Adapter Assembly as I've highlighted on the attached September 606E configuration.   I thought this was still current, or has it changed very recently?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/05/2009 10:34 pm
When comparing performance of the J-232 and J-231H rockets, what is important (in addition to closing the manned moon mission with two flights) is to maximize the one flight unmanned cargo mission.  On that point, I suspect that the J-231H with its lighter EDS would have a better TLI payload capacity than the J-232.

It's one of those win-some, lose-some things :)

In this precise example, the smaller capacity (~276mT) single engine EDS for J-231 masses about 8mT less than the larger (~348mT) twin-engine EDS for J-232.

But the smaller vehicle lifts about 8mT less propellant to LEO too, so there is ultimately less fuel for the TLI burn.

Overall, the larger stage produces slightly better results in this specific comparison - sending roughly 4mT greater payload mass thru TLI.   That isn't to say that's always going to be the case.   Bigger is not always going to be better.   There are no hard-and-fast rules, but in this particular comparison that's how it ends up.


As part of the recent wave of info from our MSFC team, they've highlighted another J-232 configuration using a slightly smaller capacity EDS which seems to hit an interesting TLI performance sweet-spot too.   We're doing more investigation, but just between me and you (and everyone else watching!) I have a feeling our baseline might be altering soon.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 01/05/2009 11:09 pm
Another interesting option possible if the J-231H is adopted but the 4 segments SRB is also kept operational for the J-120 is to use two different rockets for the manned moon mission: A J-231H for the EDS and a smaller J-221 for the CEV and LSAM flight. 

The J-232 with its 110 mT LEO payload is overkill for the CEV + LSAM flight (about 75mT) and I suspect that a J-221 would be capable to do this job. A J-231H + J-221 manned moon mission would be safer (J-221 having less engines and therefore better LOC number) and cheaper (no need to man-rate the 5 segment SRB) than a 2 x J-231H manned moon mission.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lars_J on 01/05/2009 11:45 pm
Aren't you all worried about feature creep? The more you tweak the 'simple' J-232 the more it starts to sounds like Ares V redux.

5 segment SRBS, what's next? Stretched core, increased core diameter, more RS-68's, then switch to SSME? ;)

Sure it may not be able to support the moon missions as they are currently planned, but then maybe the moon missions need to be rethought and done with a slightly less capable launcher. Because I don't see this administration/congress approving a massive Ares V or J-232-SuperUltra-H that will only fly a few times.

The beauty of Direct (IMO) is that is closely STS derived. Don't try to 'out-Ares V' the Ares V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/06/2009 01:14 am
Dumb question: why is the increase in payload of the J120 from that of the shuttle small compared to the mass of the orbiter? Is a lot of the mass of the orbiter necessary just to make sure it isn't pulled to pieces during launch?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/06/2009 01:18 am
Aren't you all worried about feature creep? The more you tweak the 'simple' J-232 the more it starts to sounds like Ares V redux.
.........
The beauty of Direct (IMO) is that is closely STS derived. Don't try to 'out-Ares V' the Ares V.

Yeah, you should have seen the discussions a few weeks ago when they were talking about adding the upper stages of the various EELV's into the mix.

In this case, though, they are trying to address one of the criticisms that NASA had against DIRECT, the dual J2-X engine Jupiter Upper Stage.  The Ares-V Upper Stage / EDS has a single J2-X for about the same TLI load.  There was concern expressed about the loads on the docking mechanism (LIDS) between the CEV and LSAM, due to double the acceleration as for AVUS.  Also concerns about possible off-center loads on the LIDS if there was an engine-out condition on the Jupiter EDS during the TLI burn.

If it was me, I would just strengthen the LIDS.  That's one thing you don't want to be too lightweight.

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/06/2009 01:26 am
I've been quite paranoid about "feature creep" Lars.

I am convinced that feature creep is underlying reason why we ended up with the vast Ares-V in the first place.   IMHO, it started with adding the 5-segs and a somewhat reasonable barrel-stretch to the Core of the LV-27.3 in ESAS.   The gradual creep has ultimately resulted in replacing the entire manufacturing and launch infrastructure to support a vastly different new core with almost twice the originally planned capacity and no real commonality to Ares-I except the J-2X engine.


Both the J-231 and J-232 close CxP performance targets without needing any larger boosters or barrel stretches.   The Jupiter systems don't actually need their additional performance.

The principle reason to even consider them is purely political.   ATK is keeping very tight with the Ares system because they are have a nice large development contract.   Continuing the 5-seg development for the Lunar phase of the program isn't a bad lever to "buy" ATK's support and also that of their political support.

Of course, if Ares-I gets canceled the options for ATK grow real simple because an EELV architecture kills their SRB business stone cold dead -- and DIRECT offers one of the only alternatives which would keep that side of their company operational.

If Ares-I is canceled I believe it would be wise for ATK to consider shifting their support over to DIRECT.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/06/2009 01:30 am
{snip}
Of course, if Ares-I gets canceled the options for ATK grow real simple because an EELV architecture kills their SRB business stone cold dead -- and DIRECT offers one of the only alternatives which would keep that side of their company operational.

If Ares-I is canceled it would be wise for ATK to consider shifting their support to DIRECT.

Ross.

If only for that very reason, I feel some form of the Jupiter launch system will prevail. That's something to feel good about. Ah, politics...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/06/2009 01:37 am
Dumb question: why is the increase in payload of the J120 from that of the shuttle small compared to the mass of the orbiter? Is a lot of the mass of the orbiter necessary just to make sure it isn't pulled to pieces during launch?

Well, you start with the 23-some-odd tonnage of the CEV plus the service module.  Add in the 10-meter long payload fairing, new interstage and payload mount, a bigger LOX pipe, thicker and heavier main tank walls, a new thrust structure under the main tank with extra mass to handle a third engine that isn't there, and two less efficient RS-68 engines.  It all adds up.

Still, compared to what Ares-I can loft (if they're lucky), it's a pretty good deal.

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/06/2009 01:59 am
Hi Mark,

Wikipedia gives the following numbers:

J120 payload 41,121 kg
Shuttle payload 24,400 kg
Orbiter mass 68,586.6 kg

Some of your items I understand, but not all of them. Rearranging your points a bit:

Quote
Well, you start with the 23-some-odd tonnage of the CEV plus the service module. 

Are you saying the J120 has a payload of 41,121 kg on top of the CEV?

Quote
a bigger LOX pipe, thicker and heavier main tank walls,

Why are those necessary? In anticipation of the J232, or do you need these even if you only want to launch 41,121 kg?

Quote
Add in the 10-meter long payload fairing, new interstage and payload mount,

This I understand.

Quote
a new thrust structure under the main tank with extra mass to handle a third engine that isn't there, and two less efficient RS-68 engines.  It all adds up.

And this too.

Thanks!

Martijn
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/06/2009 02:10 am
Dumb question: why is the increase in payload of the J120 from that of the shuttle small compared to the mass of the orbiter? Is a lot of the mass of the orbiter necessary just to make sure it isn't pulled to pieces during launch?

There are no dumb questions when you're trying to learn new things :)

Jupiter doesn't have to replicate many of the Orbiter's functions.   It doesn't need the wings, the landing gear, the thermal tiles or the thermal blankets, it doesn't need the payload bay, the payload bay doors or the RCS system.   Even the crew compartment and all the life-support systems are just part of the payload for Jupiter now.

But there are a lot of parts in the Orbiter which need to be replicated; primarily the Main Propulsion System (MPS) elements of the STS stack.   The engines, the big and heavy thrust structure which transmits their power into the rest of the rocket's structure, some of the fuel and oxidized pipework, avionics, pressurization systems, electrical power generation systems -- all those systems (more correctly; 'equivalent' systems) have to be included in the Jupiter Core now.

So on Jupiter, the External Tank 'grows' from about 26 tons into a 72 ton stage, but now includes equivalents of all those important bits of hardware which used to reside inside the Orbiter.


The Shuttle lifts right around 141 metric tons of total mass to orbit.   That roughly 26 tons of ET, 99 tons of Orbiter and about 16 tons of payload.

Jupiter-120, using slightly less fuel-efficient (but much cheaper) RS-68 engines will lift about 122 tons in total, which consists 72 tons of Stage, 5 tons of Payload Fairing and 45 tons of Useful Payload.

Yes, it's not quite as efficient as STS, but its a lot cheaper and the total payload capacity is over double that of Shuttle's, so it's a pretty good trade.


J-120 could actually be made slightly more efficient if desired.   It is currently designed to support the mass of a heavy Upper Stage and heavy payload on top, plus has all the fittings and equipment to support a third main engine underneath.   The configuration is highly optimized for the Lunar mission configurations.   Just the same hardware is utilized here in a 'cut down' manner for this particular configuration to produce a reasonably priced launcher for supporting ISS years before the J-2X can be made ready.

Even though J-120 is not the most optimal configuration from a performance perspective, it is certainly sufficient for supporting ISS and any other LEO tasks.   And it is the cheapest logical option on the path which ultimately leads to the Jupiter-232 Exploration-class booster to follow later.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/06/2009 02:15 am
Hi Mark,

Wikipedia gives the following numbers:

J120 payload 41,121 kg
Shuttle payload 24,400 kg
Orbiter mass 68,586.6 kg

Some of your items I understand, but not all of them. Rearranging your points a bit:

Quote
Well, you start with the 23-some-odd tonnage of the CEV plus the service module. 

Are you saying the J120 has a payload of 41,121 kg on top of the CEV?


Egads, don't quote me on numbers, I'm just a cheerleader here.  I was just trying to point out that payload is not the same thing as how much total mass is lofted.  I'm sure the DIRECT guys could give you the exact numbers, but in general, the J-120 should have less raw capacity than Shuttle because of the heavier structures and the less efficient engines.

Quote
Quote
a bigger LOX pipe, thicker and heavier main tank walls,

Why are those necessary? In anticipation of the J232, or do you need these even if you only want to launch 41,121 kg?


Exactly that reason.  The J-120 is simply the J-232 without the upper stage, and with one less RS-68 engine. (Well, the J-232 will actually have the upgraded RS-68B, but I digress...)  That maintains a high level of commonality between the two, unlike certain other launchers in the works...

Quote
Quote
Add in the 10-meter long payload fairing, new interstage and payload mount,

This I understand.

Quote
a new thrust structure under the main tank with extra mass to handle a third engine that isn't there, and two less efficient RS-68 engines.  It all adds up.

And this too.

Thanks!

Martijn

Whoops, I see Ross got an answer in there before me.

Cheers!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/06/2009 02:21 am

Whoops, I see Ross got an answer in there before me.

Cheers!
Mark S.


All of that, plus the Shuttle is currently flying a highly optimized third generation ET.  Whereas DIRECT has over-engineered the J-120 both for its eventual evolution into the J-232, and because it is a new vehicle and it is better to be safe than sorry.

After the J-120 has had sufficient flight history to correctly model the loads, they will probably be able to tweak the Jupiter core the same way they did the Shuttle stack over the past 30 years.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/06/2009 02:36 am
Hi Ross,

Thanks for the detailed reply.

The Shuttle lifts right around 141 metric tons of total mass to orbit.   That roughly 26 tons of ET, 99 tons of Orbiter and about 16 tons of payload.

Jupiter-120, using slightly less fuel-efficient (but much cheaper) RS-68 engines will lift about 122 tons in total, which consists 72 tons of Stage, 5 tons of Payload Fairing and 45 tons of Useful Payload.

I notice these numbers differ from those on Wikipedia. Should they be changed there?

Quote
Yes, it's not quite as efficient as STS, but its a lot cheaper and the total payload capacity is over double that of Shuttle's, so it's a pretty good trade.


J-120 could actually be made slightly more efficient if desired.   It is currently designed to support the mass of a heavy Upper Stage and heavy payload on top, plus has all the fittings and equipment to support a third main engine underneath.   The configuration is highly optimized for the Lunar mission configurations.   Just the same hardware is utilized here in a 'cut down' manner for this particular configuration to produce a reasonably priced launcher for supporting ISS years before the J-2X can be made ready.

Ah, I suspected something like that.

Quote
Even though J-120 is not the most optimal configuration from a performance perspective, it is certainly sufficient for supporting ISS and any other LEO tasks.   And it is the cheapest logical option on the path which ultimately leads to the Jupiter-232 Exploration-class booster to follow later.

So, could the new administration order NASA to develop a more streamlined version of the J120, with a bigger payload, maybe 60 mT (but less commonality with J232)? That would still be a big improvement on the Shuttle and would probably be cheaper (initially, and maybe permanently  if they later decided not to build the J232 after all). In other words: here's some money to build a bigger rocket (60 mT), but we're not buying you another, even bigger one.

Not to rain on your parade, but to this layperson it sounds like something the new administration might want to hear.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/06/2009 02:46 am

So, could the new administration order NASA to develop a more streamlined version of the J120, with a bigger payload, maybe 60 mT (but less commonality with J232)? That would still be a big improvement on the Shuttle and would probably be cheaper (initially, and maybe permanently  if they later decided not to build the J232 after all). In other words: here's some money to build a bigger rocket (60 mT), but we're not buying you another, even bigger one.

They certainly could, but the DIRECT team wouldn't recommend it. Over the course of these past three years we have learned the hard lesson that bigger is not always better, even when it's possible. The commonality between the 120 and the 232 is worth its weight in gold and that would be lost with the modification you suggest. Being able to take the common core off the assembly line and outfit it as either a 120 or a 232, and even change it after the fact if need be is what makes the Jupiter so versitile and special; one rocket, 2 configurations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/06/2009 03:19 am
Quote from: mmeijeri
In other words: here's some money to build a bigger rocket (60 mT), but we're not buying you another, even bigger one.
They certainly could, but the DIRECT team wouldn't recommend it...

Well yeah, I'd think so... as what mmeijeri seems to be describing is the usage of a bigger J-120 as a lever for the cancellation of VSE and yet another American generation's imprisonment in LEO.

And there are people out there raised on the meme that "space is wasted" who are very eager to cut their own throats in this manner.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/06/2009 03:27 am
Let me try to clarify.

Hi Mark,

Wikipedia gives the following numbers:

J120 payload 41,121 kg
Shuttle payload 24,400 kg
Orbiter mass 68,586.6 kg

That 24,400kg figure for the Shuttle is the payload figure to 100x100nmi, 28.5deg -- essentially the lowest stable orbit the Shuttle might ever go to.

For ISS you're aiming for a more difficult orbit.   220x220nmi, 51.6deg is the nominal target people usually quote for ISS.   To there, Shuttle's payload capacity drops to around 16,400kg.

For an apples-to-apples comparison, the latest Jupiter-120 (102% RS-68, Crew+Cargo config) can insert 40,000kg to circular 220x220nmi, 51.6deg.   And it can actually launch about 52,900kg to 100x100nmi, 28.5deg in Cargo-only config.


Quote
Some of your items I understand, but not all of them. Rearranging your points a bit:

Quote
Well, you start with the 23-some-odd tonnage of the CEV plus the service module. 

Are you saying the J120 has a payload of 41,121 kg on top of the CEV?

J-120 can lift about 40,000kg to an ISS-c of which about 9,000kg is the Orion CM and between 8,000 to 12,800kg would be the SM (half fueled vs. fully fueled and a full fuel load should never be required for LEO operations, only for Lunar TEI).

So assuming a half-filled Orion, Jupiter could launch it, along with roughly 23,200kg of additional payload to the ISS-compatible orbit.


Quote
Quote
a bigger LOX pipe, thicker and heavier main tank walls,

Why are those necessary? In anticipation of the J232, or do you need these even if you only want to launch 41,121 kg?

Yes, in anticipation of the J-232.   The Core needs to be a Common design between the two boosters.

The difference is you choose to add about $5m to the cost of each J-120 launch (2 per year = $10m penalty each year) verses the extra costs of developing a second, different, Core Stage.

Developing and operating a second configuration would add about $5bn to the total development costs and about $500m to the yearly operations costs too.   By 2020 that would account for almost a complete year of NASA's budget in wasted budget which doesn't need to be wasted.

It isn't a tough sell IMHO.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/06/2009 03:44 am
Quote
They certainly could, but the DIRECT team wouldn't recommend it. Over the course of these past three years we have learned the hard lesson that bigger is not always better, even when it's possible. The commonality between the 120 and the 232 is worth its weight in gold and that would be lost with the modification you suggest. Being able to take the common core off the assembly line and outfit it as either a 120 or a 232, and even change it after the fact if need be is what makes the Jupiter so versitile and special; one rocket, 2 configurations.

I understand that the versatility is very valuable, but it does come at a price. Wouldn't it be both cheaper and - more importantly - quicker to develop a streamlined version first? You could always improve on the design later. Of course that would be more expensive (in both time and money) in the long run, but you have to balance that against the value of having an option, instead of committing to a decision now.

It might be a lot easier to sell: it's cheaper, far more powerful and has more commonality with the shuttle. Especially if you fix the crazy colour scheme ;-) Of course, the drawback (or an added advantage, depending on your point of view) would be that it makes it more likely that a J232 would never be built.

So, I'm wondering: How quickly could a streamlined J120 be developed if the order were given on Jan 20? How much would that cost? What would its payload be? How much time and money would it cost to upgrade to the current "non-streamlined" design? How much would it cost to upgrade that to the J232?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/06/2009 03:59 am
Quote
Well yeah, I'd think so... as what mmeijeri seems to be describing is the usage of a bigger J-120 as a lever for the cancellation of VSE and yet another American generation's imprisonment in LEO.

I think it's more accurate to say another generation's "imprisonment" on the Earth's surface, reduced to paying a lot of taxpayer's dollars to watch Apollo on steroids on TV, instead of investing in things that will help establish a true space economy, not dependent on government handouts.

Look, I like big rockets as much as the next guy - especially if someone else is paying for them. But I'd rather see money spent on research and on building infrastructure: lower cost to LEO, on orbit assembly, orbital fuel depots, orbital transfer vehicles, a solar electric lunar tug, ISRU, export of lunar oxygen, Lagrange gateway stations etc.

I believe the way forward is to do what is necessary to enable space tourism, because I think it will bring in the money needed to do the things all of here want.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/06/2009 05:09 am
So, I'm wondering: How quickly could a streamlined J120 be developed if the order were given on Jan 20?

There really isn't a great deal of difference.   The major items, qualifying the RS-68, re-developing the tankage and intertank areas, creating new avionics, modifying the infrastructure elements that need modifying and testing everything are broadly-speaking, equal for either a Jupiter-120-optimized version or a Jupiter-232-optimized version.   Both are going to take an almost identical amount of time and money to design, qualify and get in the air.   Both are going to utilize almost identical manufacturing facilities and both are going to require the same facilities at KSC and JSC to operate too.

There are no real savings anywhere, in terms of time or money for getting Phase 1 ISS missions underway.   There are the obvious specific additional costs for getting the Jupiter-232 operational later, of course, but we aren't considering those in this particular "Jupiter-120 is all we get" Phase 1 context.

The only area where you make any savings in Phase 1 is in the area of testing the design on the computer near the start of the effort.   On one path you just design it to handle one sort of flight environment, on the other path you design it to handle two.   While that requires extra engineering simulations to be run, that really doesn't incur much in the way of major cost or time penalties to the development program.

Even the real-world testing wouldn't be delayed.   The initial testing would entirely focus on qualifying just the 2-engine Jupiter-120 configuration.   Only after the Jupiter-120 testing is fully completed would the field testing move on to the Jupiter-232.   That work doesn't impose any delays on getting Orion into the air.


Either way though, it isn't the Jupiter that is the delaying factor.   Jupiter-120 will be ready 6-9 months before Orion possibly can be -- even assuming some pretty major cash injections into its program to speed it up.   We will be waiting for Orion, irrelevant of whichever option we pursue for J-120, so the operational date is not really affected either way.


Quote
How much would that cost? What would its payload be? How much time and money would it cost to upgrade to the current "non-streamlined" design? How much would it cost to upgrade that to the J232?

You are actually talking about a very similar development cost for either the Jupiter-120-optimized Core as for the Jupiter-232-optimized Core.

The payload difference would be, at best, about 5mT improvement, from 52,900kg maximum to about 58,000kg.

If you had the Jupiter-120-optimized Core and then wanted to redevelop it into a new Jupiter-232 Core, you would be talking about a $3bn to $5bn effort and it would take about 5 years.


Of course, if we ever found ourselves with only the Jupiter-120 and the J-2X/EDS were canceled there are still plenty of other options:

1) Using a human-rated EELV Upper Stage, a 3-launch solution is quite doable for Lunar missions.

2) If we can develop a Depot architecture, the Jupiter-120 has just about the right amount of performance to lift a CEV and a *dry* LSAM in one launch.

There are a few other emergency fall-back positions too in case of such a political decision, but I think the real question would ultimately be whether the LSAM ever gets funding at all in that scenario -- and without a lander we ain't goin' no-where, no-how.


In short, it is possible to optimize the initial design for Jupiter-120's configuration, but it really isn't an efficient way to proceed and doesn't really buy you any significant advantages and it would set back the exploration program significantly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/06/2009 12:34 pm
Quote
They certainly could, but the DIRECT team wouldn't recommend it. Over the course of these past three years we have learned the hard lesson that bigger is not always better, even when it's possible. The commonality between the 120 and the 232 is worth its weight in gold and that would be lost with the modification you suggest. Being able to take the common core off the assembly line and outfit it as either a 120 or a 232, and even change it after the fact if need be is what makes the Jupiter so versitile and special; one rocket, 2 configurations.

I understand that the versatility is very valuable, but it does come at a price. Wouldn't it be both cheaper and - more importantly - quicker to develop a streamlined version first? You could always improve on the design later. Of course that would be more expensive (in both time and money) in the long run, but you have to balance that against the value of having an option, instead of committing to a decision now.

It might be a lot easier to sell: it's cheaper, far more powerful and has more commonality with the shuttle. Especially if you fix the crazy colour scheme ;-) Of course, the drawback (or an added advantage, depending on your point of view) would be that it makes it more likely that a J232 would never be built.

So, I'm wondering: How quickly could a streamlined J120 be developed if the order were given on Jan 20? How much would that cost? What would its payload be? How much time and money would it cost to upgrade to the current "non-streamlined" design? How much would it cost to upgrade that to the J232?

Looking at the Jupiter-120 and the Jupiter-232 as two different launch vehicles is a very common misunderstanding of the fundamental philosophy of DIRECT. Basically, we are NOT designing the Jupiter-120. What we are designing is the Jupiter-232. The Jupiter common core main stage is designed to handle all the stresses and environments that the Jupiter-232 must navigate. The Jupiter-120 actually is the Jupiter-232, minus the upper stage and with the center RS-68 engine removed. It's like building an automobile engine and then either bolting on the supercharger or not, depending on if the car will be on the street or the track. It's the same engine, used with or without the supercharger. That's why we do NOT want to optimize the Jupiter-120 because it fundamentally changes the equation. The Jupiter-120 would then actually be a different launch vehicle, and while it would still share some things in common with the 232 it would start needing things like separate manufacturing cells, separate tooling, separate assembly lines, and those are the kinds of things that drive up costs. America does not need to micromanage its launch system in that way. There is not enough performance to be gained in the 120 to justify that. Remember, once commercial space begins flying crews to the ISS, the Jupiter will generally only be spending enough time in LEO to facilitate a docking and then send the spacecraft out to the moon or solar system. Thje Jupiter-120 may not fly very much. Do we really want to spend the money to optimize a vehicle that will be underutilized?

The Jupiter-120 should not be viewed, mentally, as a different rocket than the Jupiter-232. The Jupiter launch vehicle (notice that there is no designation) should be viewed as a single launch vehicle, which is used in one of two configurations. The Jupiter-120 should be viewed as the smaller of two launch configurations and the Jupiter-232 is the larger of the two configurations.

Optimizing the Jupiter-120 destroys the fundamental advantage of DIRECT.
--------------------
Chuck Longton
Fixtures Chargeman
860-433-8082
--------------------
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 01/06/2009 02:57 pm
jarmund,
By 'truss', I was actually referring to the 12 struts shown between the CM and the Abort Motor Adapter Assembly as I've highlighted on the attached September 606E configuration.   I thought this was still current, or has it changed very recently?

Ross.

Perhaps if I paid more attention to what you wrote...  Looking back, I was talking about the "adapter" underneath the SM.  But my other points are still valid.  If Direct has the margin, and time/money is you biggest concern, you would keep the most recent load path into the Orion.  Redesigning the LAS to connect to your PLF would take some effort.  But realize too though, that the shape of the LAS would change due to the aerodynamics with the Jupiter, so maybe it would go back to the early design (unshrouded).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: GraphGuy on 01/06/2009 05:37 pm
Quote
They certainly could, but the DIRECT team wouldn't recommend it. Over the course of these past three years we have learned the hard lesson that bigger is not always better, even when it's possible. The commonality between the 120 and the 232 is worth its weight in gold and that would be lost with the modification you suggest. Being able to take the common core off the assembly line and outfit it as either a 120 or a 232, and even change it after the fact if need be is what makes the Jupiter so versitile and special; one rocket, 2 configurations.

I understand that the versatility is very valuable, but it does come at a price. Wouldn't it be both cheaper and - more importantly - quicker to develop a streamlined version first? You could always improve on the design later. Of course that would be more expensive (in both time and money) in the long run, but you have to balance that against the value of having an option, instead of committing to a decision now.

It might be a lot easier to sell: it's cheaper, far more powerful and has more commonality with the shuttle. Especially if you fix the crazy colour scheme ;-) Of course, the drawback (or an added advantage, depending on your point of view) would be that it makes it more likely that a J232 would never be built.

So, I'm wondering: How quickly could a streamlined J120 be developed if the order were given on Jan 20? How much would that cost? What would its payload be? How much time and money would it cost to upgrade to the current "non-streamlined" design? How much would it cost to upgrade that to the J232?

Looking at the Jupiter-120 and the Jupiter-232 as two different launch vehicles is a very common misunderstanding of the fundamental philosophy of DIRECT. Basically, we are NOT designing the Jupiter-120. What we are designing is the Jupiter-232. The Jupiter common core main stage is designed to handle all the stresses and environments that the Jupiter-232 must navigate. The Jupiter-120 actually is the Jupiter-232, minus the upper stage and with the center RS-68 engine removed. It's like building an automobile engine and then either bolting on the supercharger or not, depending on if the car will be on the street or the track. It's the same engine, used with or without the supercharger. That's why we do NOT want to optimize the Jupiter-120 because it fundamentally changes the equation. The Jupiter-120 would then actually be a different launch vehicle, and while it would still share some things in common with the 232 it would start needing things like separate manufacturing cells, separate tooling, separate assembly lines, and those are the kinds of things that drive up costs. America does not need to micromanage its launch system in that way. There is not enough performance to be gained in the 120 to justify that. Remember, once commercial space begins flying crews to the ISS, the Jupiter will generally only be spending enough time in LEO to facilitate a docking and then send the spacecraft out to the moon or solar system. Thje Jupiter-120 may not fly very much. Do we really want to spend the money to optimize a vehicle that will be underutilized?

The Jupiter-120 should not be viewed, mentally, as a different rocket than the Jupiter-232. The Jupiter launch vehicle (notice that there is no designation) should be viewed as a single launch vehicle, which is used in one of two configurations. The Jupiter-120 should be viewed as the smaller of two launch configurations and the Jupiter-232 is the larger of the two configurations.

Optimizing the Jupiter-120 destroys the fundamental advantage of DIRECT.
--------------------
Chuck Longton
Fixtures Chargeman
860-433-8082
--------------------


Another way to say this is that there is no need to optimize the Jupiter 120 because it has enough payload margin to deliver a CEV to ISS with room for cargo.

The J120 core is the same as a J232 core, except for the regen engine.  This is a huge plus for DIRECT IMHO as the core you build to get the CEV to ISS really is reused when you want to go to the moon and it leverages the initial (CEV to ISS) investment better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: tankmodeler on 01/06/2009 06:17 pm
I understand that the versatility is very valuable, but it does come at a price. Wouldn't it be both cheaper and - more importantly - quicker to develop a streamlined version first?
No. It would cost about the same and take about the same amount of time as the current J120 concept (within reason).

Quote
You could always improve on the design later. Of course that would be more expensive (in both time and money) in the long run, but you have to balance that against the value of having an option, instead of committing to a decision now.
The question is, what do you do with 60 tonnes in orbit that 40 tonnes isn't going to do for you? Why cut off your nose to spite your face?
Quote
It might be a lot easier to sell: it's cheaper, far more powerful and has more commonality with the shuttle.
It won't be cheaper to "sell" because no-one has a use for 60 tonnes of anything in orbit other than the national space agencies (and only a one or two of them). No-one will buy it. If you are selling payload in 2-10 ton chunks, customers are going to want the launcher for themselves for various programmatic & business reasons. 60 tonne commercial launches are a looooong way off.

Quote
Of course, the drawback (or an added advantage, depending on your point of view) would be that it makes it more likely that a J232 would never be built.
That is a massive disadvantage

Quote
How quickly could a streamlined J120 be developed if the order were given on Jan 20? How much would that cost?
About the same time, and cost to develop and build as the current J-120. You have to understand the differences in the design are not great and the development time & money required are not terribly different. An "optimised" J-120 wouldn't look terribly different on the outside from a "normal" J-120. It's not like you're adding a new stage or changing engines. That's where the money & time would be.

Quote
What would its payload be?
Rather irrelevant because there's no commercial need for the 40 tonnes that a J-120 offers right now much less anything more. Not only that, but there's no likelihood that such a humongeous commercial payload will be needed anytime in the near or even mid future.

Quote
How much time and money would it cost to upgrade to the current "non-streamlined" design? How much would it cost to upgrade that to the J232?
It wouldn't be an "upgrade" it would be a new booster, so it would cost the same as the J-120 again for the lower stage plus the cost of the EDS. Not dissimilar, in fact to the current Ares I/Ares V budgetary black hole and for the same reasons. It's two different boosters and needs two complete development programs to achieve.

This is a phenominally bad idea. Sorry, dude, but it is.

Paul
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/06/2009 08:43 pm
Hi Ross,

Thanks for taking the time for another detailed reply.

Quote
You are actually talking about a very similar development cost for either the Jupiter-120-optimized Core as for the Jupiter-232-optimized Core.

I see.

Quote
The payload difference would be, at best, about 5mT improvement, from 52,900kg maximum to about 58,000kg.

Being the layperson I am, I'm surprised to hear that. Earlier you said the mass of the orbiter is about 99 mT, a lot more than the 69 mT I found on Wikipedia, so I'm even more surprised to hear that more of that mass cannot be "salvaged". Is there a comparative mass breakdown online somewhere?

Quote
If you had the Jupiter-120-optimized Core and then wanted to redevelop it into a new Jupiter-232 Core, you would be talking about a $3bn to $5bn effort and it would take about 5 years.

That's a lot of money... But I thought you said most of the major items were the same. Why would it take so much more money to make the changes necessary for J-232?

Quote
2) If we can develop a Depot architecture, the Jupiter-120 has just about the right amount of performance to lift a CEV and a *dry* LSAM in one launch.

I'd love to see that. And, hypothetically, with so much money freed up by not building J-232, there might be a lot more money to do it.

Quote
There are a few other emergency fall-back positions too in case of such a political decision, but I think the real question would ultimately be whether the LSAM ever gets funding at all in that scenario -- and without a lander we ain't goin' no-where, no-how.

You'd have to take a route similiar to the one ESA is planning to take. You'd have a far bigger budget and a technological headstart, including what is still a very heavy LV. It should be lot faster than what ESA is doing...

Quote
In short, it is possible to optimize the initial design for Jupiter-120's configuration, but it really isn't an efficient way to proceed and doesn't really buy you any significant advantages and it would set back the exploration program significantly.

Now that I know there wouldn't be time or cost benefits in starting with a J-120 optimised version, I agree it isn't efficient to do that. IF you still intend to build the J-232, that is. If you don't, you set back the exploration program in the sense that it's going to take longer before we see the sorts of things on TV that we'd all love to see. But it would mean a lot of interesting technology could be developed that would speed up the build up of economic activity in space. And that's what I'd really want to see.

Martijn
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/06/2009 09:15 pm
Hey Paul,

It seems you like to call a spade a spade, and I like that.

Quote
The question is, what do you do with 60 tonnes in orbit that 40 tonnes isn't going to do for you? Why cut off your nose to spite your face?

Well, I'm not a fan of huge launchers to begin with. OK, I lied, of course I am, who doesn't like big rockets? It's just that they are so damn expensive. But since the US is going to build a huge launcher anyway, they might as well build the least expensive one they can and it looks as if that might be J-120. And if they're going to do that, they might as well add another 5 mT of payload capacity. It wouldn't cost more I'm told and you never know when that 5 mT might come in handy :-)

Quote
Rather irrelevant because there's no commercial need for the 40 tonnes that a J-120 offers right now much less anything more. Not only that, but there's no likelihood that such a humongeous commercial payload will be needed anytime in the near or even mid future.

I think the only reason to do it is because you want to go to the moon. Now that's going to be more difficult than with a J-232, but it's still a lot easier than with an Ariane 5, which ESA is planning to do.

Maybe they could revive the old wet workshop idea. If you have so much lifting power and so much mass at nearly orbital velocity, you might as well use it for something. To make it cheaper to design, just build it like a tank. That will eat into your remaining payload, but with so much lifting capacity you can afford that. Attach it to the ISS, add lots of radiation shielding, solar panels, ion thrusters. Pack a lot of extra sandwiches and take the slow boat to the moon. With so much space there'd be room for an indoor basketball court, centrigual jacuzzi's etc :-)

Quote
This is a phenominally bad idea. Sorry, dude, but it is.

It certainly is if you intend to build the J-232. But if you don't, and want to go down the route of orbital assembly you might as well have the extra 5 mT Ross mentioned.

Martijn
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/06/2009 09:22 pm
… IF you still intend to build the J-232, that is. …
Martijn

Hi Martijn
As I have indicated above, we are not actually building the Jupiter-120. We are building the Jupiter-232. That's the goal. That's what the DIRECT launch vehicle is all about; the Jupiter-232. We don’t add stuff to the Jupiter-120 to get a Jupiter-232. No. Taking stuff off the Jupiter-232 gives us a new configuration, the Jupiter-120. The difference may seem to be a play on words but it’s not. It makes a very big difference. It is absolutely fundamental to understanding just what DIRECT is and what it is not.

We started from the fundamental premise that we’re going to the moon, and have provided a launch vehicle to do that which complies with the dictates of the 2005 Space Authorization and Appropriations Acts. So we designed the Jupiter-232 to do that. But that launch vehicle needs the J-2X engine which won’t be available for many years. So the question became, “What can we do with this incomplete launch vehicle in the mean time to close the manned spaceflight gap”? The answer is to fly it without the J-2X powered upper stage. But 3xRS-68 is too powerful for that if we are going to put a crew on it so we delete the center engine. The result is the Jupiter-120 (1 stage, 2 engines, no upper stage) and it just happens to be an almost perfect one-for-one replacement of the Space Shuttle capabilities.

It’s important to understand that we did not design the Jupiter-120; we designed the Jupiter-232. That’s the goal. So it’s not a question of  “ IF you still intend to build the J-232”. We *are* building the J-232. But while we wait for the J-2X, we fly without it, and that’s called a J-120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/06/2009 09:57 pm
Quote
Well yeah, I'd think so... as what mmeijeri seems to be describing is the usage of a bigger J-120 as a lever for the cancellation of VSE and yet another American generation's imprisonment in LEO.

I think it's more accurate to say another generation's "imprisonment" on the Earth's surface, reduced to paying a lot of taxpayer's dollars to watch Apollo on steroids on TV, instead of investing in things that will help establish a true space economy, not dependent on government handouts.

Look, I like big rockets as much as the next guy - especially if someone else is paying for them. But I'd rather see money spent on research and on building infrastructure: lower cost to LEO, on orbit assembly, orbital fuel depots, orbital transfer vehicles, a solar electric lunar tug, ISRU, export of lunar oxygen, Lagrange gateway stations etc.

I believe the way forward is to do what is necessary to enable space tourism, because I think it will bring in the money needed to do the things all of here want.

I just have to disagree.  We've been stuck in LEO for 30 years, no country has figured out a "cheap" way into space.  It just doesn't exist.

SpaceX and Orbital are well on their way to reducing cost for LEO, why have the government waste it's time there.  NASA is meant for big events and VSE is BIG.

If we did what you wanted nothing new would be created.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/06/2009 10:53 pm
One other point re optimising the core for J-23x.

It has been said that the early J-120's will have core tanking which is over-engineered, even for the J-23x. It's heavier than it might be, but the development process is shorter & cheaper and that is the overriding concern. It still delivers twice what it "needs" to to ISS, which allows early versions of Orion to be overweight. Again, this allows the Orion engineers to concentrate on functionality rather than shaving grammes - do the simpler or over-engineered version for the first flights, trim that fat once experience is gathered.

I do software development, and I'd be scared er "whitless" if I had to develop something that must work first time, without a full test first, and would kill it's users if any one of a thousand things went wrong. I could either build massive redundancy into the system, or spend years testing every component in excruciating detail before letting it go out of the lab.

We don't have years to spare, and yet Ares-I has such low lift capability that Orion's designers have been forced again and again to go back and strip out more and more backup and safety features just to keep the programme alive. Lockheed Martin actually complained to NASA that they should just stop cutting their weight allowance (those steadily worsening lift limitations of Ares-I) and let them get on with the design, already.

There's an analogy here with the big US car manufacturers. If they're selling a million vehicles a year, then $1,000 per vehicle would have let them spend $1 billion per year researching ways to make their vehicles more efficient. Turns out, that's what people want when oil is $150 per barrel.

NASA is the other way around - they only want say 20 J-120's, spread over several years. $5 billion of additional, unnecessary R&D means the vehicles cost $250 million more each. You'd rather spend a bit more on the fuel and just pocket the $249 million saving on every flight (I'm exaggerating wildly here for effect). With any luck, NASA gets to spend these savings doing something more interesting (more & earlier flights to the moon, Mars S&R lofted on J-120, etc). Being pessimistic, NASA gets to achieve it's current schedule for less money, instead of having to abandon the moon altogether because budgets have gone down.



Once there are a few J-120 flights under the belt, the "common" core may be redesigned to lighten it as much as is feasible while still leaving it strong enough for J-23x.

If some remarkable not-currently-anticipated requirement came along for a SLWT J-210, this would be the time to do it.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/07/2009 01:43 am
I just have to disagree.  We've been stuck in LEO for 30 years, no country has figured out a "cheap" way into space.  It just doesn't exist.

What Khadgars says is not opinion but fact.  There is no easy and cheap way to accelerate something to 5 miles per second (7 for the Moon).

It's hard, very hard.  If there was a magic bullet or some ingenius strategy that will reduce costs by an order of magnitude.

There are things that could be done if there were very high flight rates or very long term items like Lunar Oxygen or space elevator.  But those are at best decades in the future.  I'm 35 and I don't expect to seem them in practice ever, perhaps when I am old old old.

If there was an easy way some other country with less money would have done it already.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 01:52 am
Perhaps if I paid more attention to what you wrote...  Looking back, I was talking about the "adapter" underneath the SM.  But my other points are still valid.  If Direct has the margin, and time/money is you biggest concern, you would keep the most recent load path into the Orion.  Redesigning the LAS to connect to your PLF would take some effort.  But realize too though, that the shape of the LAS would change due to the aerodynamics with the Jupiter, so maybe it would go back to the early design (unshrouded).

IMHO, the best approach right now is to minimize further changes at this point in order to reduce the schedule impacts and not extend the "gap" after Shuttle any further.

If the Orion Project can set aside the latest round of massive structural changes all being imposed by Ares-I, they can get the current design (606E?) heading into PDR quite swiftly.   Then they plan one major delta-PDR to merge-in a single round of modifications.   Then push to CDR.

Weight allocation for the ISS-spec Block-I Orion is not a real concern for Jupiter-120.   So given the current situation, the priority needs to be getting the Block-I in the air ASAP.

Once we have the first generation Orion flying, we then incorporate a round of "mass optimizations" into the design as part of a general Block-II upgrade to be implemented something like 3 years later -- which would still be two years ahead of the Lunar effort, so we would have the chance to put some real miles on the new design.

That's a better approach.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/07/2009 01:53 am
Here are some Letter-sized leaflet designs based on the four different Postcard designs which we will be handing out at Port Canaveral tomorrow morning.

We strongly encourage you to print copies for yourselves and stick them up at work/home to get attention - especially if you work in the program!

And if you know anyone who might like to know something about DIRECT, please pass one (or more) of these along.

Ross.

Have you tried opening the first PDF recently?  It may be damaged...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 01:56 am
Have you tried opening the first PDF recently?  It may be damaged...

Just worked for me.   Try clearing out your browser cache and re-loading it.

Here are the links again...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12379.0;attach=84526
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12379.0;attach=84527
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12379.0;attach=84528
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12379.0;attach=84529

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/07/2009 01:59 am
PaulL,
Our performance numbers for a Jupiter-231 configuration are a fair bit below that.   We're losing over 12mT to LEO compared to the regular Jupiter-232 - even for an optimized configuration.

And as you've already seen for yourself, a full J-2X doesn't buy back much more than a ton of that at best.

You do end up with a lighter EDS burnout mass, but it's still not sufficient to make up for the short-fall and doesn't 'close' the performance target of 75,085kg thru TLI - you end up losing about 7mT payload mass in total.

So we're sticking with 2x Jupiter-232.   It also reduces development & operational costs significantly by sticking with the single variant too - and you also get more flight experience with each piece of hardware too.

Ross.

Ross, is this going to change with the new numbers that you may have?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 02:00 am
Griffin Is Leaving NASA.   It was just announced elsewhere on the site this evening.

The #1 hurdle in the way of DIRECT being seriously considered has just been removed.

Ladies and gentlemen, lets just take a second to remember to keep this discussion civil.   Okay?

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 02:05 am
PaulL,
Our performance numbers for a Jupiter-231 configuration are a fair bit below that.   We're losing over 12mT to LEO compared to the regular Jupiter-232 - even for an optimized configuration.

And as you've already seen for yourself, a full J-2X doesn't buy back much more than a ton of that at best.

You do end up with a lighter EDS burnout mass, but it's still not sufficient to make up for the short-fall and doesn't 'close' the performance target of 75,085kg thru TLI - you end up losing about 7mT payload mass in total.

So we're sticking with 2x Jupiter-232.   It also reduces development & operational costs significantly by sticking with the single variant too - and you also get more flight experience with each piece of hardware too.

Ross.

Ross, is this going to change with the new numbers that you may have?

Both the 2x Jupiter-231 and the 2x Jupiter-232 architectures each appear to close successfully with our latest analysis results.

The baseline has not changed YET, but we are investigating it.   If/when anything changes I will make sure to let you know.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 02:22 am
It certainly is if you intend to build the Jupiter-232. But if you don't, and want to go down the route of orbital assembly you might as well have the extra 5 mT Ross mentioned.

There might actually be room for a little compromise even.

Theoretically if you build the Jupiter-232 Core and decided to shelve the US and only use it as a 2-engine version for a number of years, you could reconfigure the same assembly line just a little bit to leave out all of the supporting hardware for that third engine, to leave that mass in the factory and never fit it to the stage at all.   The design would still be capable of it, but the production line doesn't install it.

That would potentially buy-back maybe two or three of those five tons of extra performance, but would also still 100% protect the infrastructure needed to support the Jupiter-232 at some later time.

Its an option, but it must be decided pretty early in the development program to be effective because you need to plan for doing that in the early design phase.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lars_J on 01/07/2009 03:02 am
A question:

Would an SRB-less J-120 or 'J-131' be able to lift any payload, or is there not enough thrust at launch? If so, how much?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/07/2009 03:26 am
it hardly seems worth it to me...  I'm all for orbital assembly, in that I don't think we're going to mars without it, but it seems to me the Jupiter-232/231 would be the best building block.

The diagrams you posted a while back show a pretty encouraging potential schedule of missions that are possible.  I would hate to see that hampered because of a reduced capability.  That sort of activity would provide more 'results' for people to see coming out of NASA.  I'm always saddened when I talk to someone and they talk of NASA being a waste with so many other things to focus on.  It ususally isn't very difficult to open their eyes to the need for space exploration, but it would be better if it wasn't necessary.

There might actually be room for a little compromise even.

Theoretically if you build the Jupiter-232 Core and decided to shelve the US and only use it as a 2-engine version for a number of years, you could reconfigure the same assembly line just a little bit to leave out all of the supporting hardware for that third engine, to leave that mass in the factory and never fit it to the stage at all.   The design would still be capable of it, but the production line doesn't install it.

That would potentially buy-back maybe two or three of those five tons of extra performance, but would also still 100% protect the infrastructure needed to support the Jupiter-232 at some later time.

Its an option, but it must be decided pretty early in the development program to be effective because you need to plan for doing that in the early design phase.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 03:50 am
Lars,
Each RS-68 has roughly 656,000lb thrust at sea level.   Three of those would therefore produce about 1.96 million pounds of thrust.

The fully fueled Core Stage on its own tips the scales at around 1.78m pounds.

So the stage would only have a thrust:weight ratio of about 1.1 : 1.   That's really low.   You would make extremely slow progress in the early stages of the flight, and that would result in running out of fuel long before ever reaching orbital velocity.   

You might be able to get something to work with an Upper Stage, but performance wouldn't be all that spectacular.   My best estimate is with a Delta-IV Heavy US on top, you *might* get about 28mT, maybe 29mT of lift performance.

Don't forget that the External Tank's size was deliberately designed to make optimal use of boosters to get it off and running.   Being so closely related to ET, Jupiter is equally optimized to use them too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 04:01 am
That sort of activity would provide more 'results' for people to see coming out of NASA.  I'm always saddened when I talk to someone and they talk of NASA being a waste with so many other things to focus on.  It ususally isn't very difficult to open their eyes to the need for space exploration, but it would be better if it wasn't necessary.

BINGO!!!

That is the real key right there.   That is precisely what we are working towards.

It's not just about creating a low cost system.   Its about creating a low cost system which can deliver the performance to allow you to do a *lot* with it every single year.

The idea of routinely having just 2 crew missions to the Moon every year is just plain ridiculous.   Nobody in their right mind is ever going to be able to justify the billions expended every year to support just 8 astronauts each year.   Remember that NASA's plans currently call for the redirection of ISS funding into CxP in order to pay for the Lunar phase, so we will be losing those missions too.

This would do nothing but set the scene perfectly for "Apollo-Redux":   Cancellation after just 6 successful missions.


John Marburger was dead-on the money when he called for a "sustainable" program.


With that same budget, DIRECT could launch half-a-dozen crew missions to the Moon every year, plus continue funding ISS with two crew-rotations every year and one or two other crew missions every year.   Not to mention also being able to afford extra funding for Science, Aeronautics and R&D once again.

That would be 44 astronauts per year.   12 astronauts to ISS, 24 to the Lunar surface (half would be foreign partners), 4 more to an NEO and 4 more to do something like repairing Hubble or upgrading ISS.

And the commercial businesses would all get a major boost by competing for hundreds of tons of Propellant delivery services every year, resulting in the cost for all other space activities going down significantly too; space tourism, DoD launches, NOAA Climate Monitoring and even benefiting NASA probe missions too.

That's the sort of capability which DIRECT could afford to do with the same money as Ares' baseline budget plans.   That would be a program which would produce far more results.   It would be a program worth spending such sums upon.   It would be achieving things which the US could really take a lot of pride in.   And above all, it would be sustainable.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/07/2009 05:30 am
Quote
That's the sort of capability which DIRECT could afford to do with the same money as Ares' baseline budget plans.   

Ross.

Question Ross, you've made some incredible claims regarding the reduced cost of DIRECT which is one of the reasons I favor that design.  How ever do your numbers include the money received from COTS for resupplying propellant depots and other outside money to achieve that kind of success?

Seems fairly generous  8)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/07/2009 05:46 am
Quote
That's the sort of capability which DIRECT could afford to do with the same money as Ares' baseline budget plans.   That would be a program which would produce far more results.   It would be a program worth spending such sums upon.   It would be achieving things which the US could really take a lot of pride in.   And above all, it would be sustainable.

All laudable goals, which I'd love to see and for which you would need a lot of money. But why do you need J-232 for that?

I'd rather see the already huge J-120, let alone the J-232, move hardware and especially infrastructure into LEO than propellant. Why not take the money you're planning to spend on J-232 and develop a solar electric tug that will shuttle back and forth between LLO and GEO? It will take months to get there, but who cares, the moon isn't going anywhere. You could move much more hardware to LLO and the lunar surface. I think it would be better to aim for lots of power in lunar orbit and on the surface. A lunox plant as soon as possible, either in orbit or on the surface. Export of lunox and perhaps silicon to LEO to reduce costs of chemical propulsion.

That, it seems to me, would lead to lasting progress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: VoodooForce on 01/07/2009 06:00 am
Try run that past a typically stereo typed bean counter with budget reins in hand and see how much funding comes of it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 06:02 am
Question Ross, you've made some incredible claims regarding the reduced cost of DIRECT which is one of the reasons I favor that design.  How ever do your numbers include the money received from COTS for resupplying propellant depots and other outside money to achieve that kind of success?

Lets compare:

Development Non-Recurring Costs:
$14.5 billion - Ares-I
$  9.5 billion - Jupiter-120
Saving:   ~$5 billion

$15.0 billion - Ares-V
$  4.0 billion - Jupiter EDS
Saving:   ~$11 billion


Operations Recurring Annual Costs:
$1.0 billion - Ares-I + $130 million each
$4.1 billion - Ares-V + $490 million each

$1.1 billion - Jupiter-120 + $140 million each
$0.9 billion - Jupiter EDS + $250 million each Jupiter-232

Baseline mission Costs (2 ISS Crew, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo):
$7.6 billion per year - 4x Ares-I + 4x Ares-V
$4.3 billion per year - 2x Jupiter-120 + 8x Jupiter-232

Saving:   ~$3.3 billion per year

Orion & Altair costs are not included.


That's the baseline mission capability completely covered using just NASA funds.

Those savings leave you with cash to pay for a lot of different things, including the development of a Depot.   At that point, you stop using the Jupiter's to lift the fuel (at $250m per shot) and instead you turn to the domestic commercial market (ULA, Space-X, Orbital, everyone else) and issue yearly contracts for propellant launch services.

Other countries would, ultimately, take-over the costs to lift all the fuel.   And US companies like ULA and Space-X would compete for a about half of that business on the open market too - the half of the market I'm talking about equates to about 30 Atlas-V 551 loads every year, perhaps more.

If the Foreign partners ultimately pay for all the fuel deliveries, NASA would be saving about $2bn in total each year.   That money then gets used to build a few extra Orion's and Altair's and Jupiter's every year in order to increase the number of missions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/07/2009 06:22 am
Quote
That money then gets used to build a few extra Orion's and Altair's and Jupiter's every year in order to increase the number of missions.

With an ISS still operational and a new station in LLO you could reuse the Orions and Altairs. Commercial transport could get you to LEO and back, no need for NASA to do that. That means more launch capacity (whether or J-120, J-232, Ariane 5, Falcon or whatever) more hardware and infrastructure, not wasteful expendable transport.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 06:23 am
Quote
That's the sort of capability which DIRECT could afford to do with the same money as Ares' baseline budget plans.   That would be a program which would produce far more results.   It would be a program worth spending such sums upon.   It would be achieving things which the US could really take a lot of pride in.   And above all, it would be sustainable.

All laudable goals, which I'd love to see and for which you would need a lot of money. But why do you need J-232 for that?

I'd rather see the already huge J-120, let alone the J-232, move hardware and especially infrastructure into LEO than propellant. Why not take the money you're planning to spend on J-232 and develop a solar electric tug that will shuttle back and forth between LLO and GEO? It will take months to get there, but who cares, the moon isn't going anywhere. You could move much more hardware to LLO and the lunar surface. I think it would be better to aim for lots of power in lunar orbit and on the surface. A lunox plant as soon as possible, either in orbit or on the surface. Export of lunox and perhaps silicon to LEO to reduce costs of chemical propulsion.

That, it seems to me, would lead to lasting progress.

The thing of it is, that you aren't going to suddenly just create an ISRU base on the moon and "suddenly" be able to use it.   The INFRASTRUCTURE needed to allow that to really be useful is going to come together only after hundreds and hundreds of tons of materials have been landed on the moon first.

You're going to need to do a lot of mining for minerals.   That means you need a lot of equipment if you want to do it at industrial scales, not just the science-experiment scale.

You're also going to need a lot more equipment for processing the minerals too.

Then you're going to need facilities to store all the final products.

Then you need to be able to safely and reliably maintain all that equipment too -- and that means a team of people permanently on-site.


Now to do all of that, to set up the whole infrastructure, the distance to the moon means you are limited to only being able to land one lego-brick part of this 30-piece project at a time.


How do you get all that equipment there in the first place?   Well, your options are really thus:-

1) Fund an expensive system which can only land one piece every 6 months and which will take 15 years to complete the infrastructure (I'll point to ISS which has taken over 10 years to assemble in piecemeal fashion like this).

2) Fund a lower-cost launch infrastructure which is designed to fly more missions and greater payloads every year, which can land at least 6 (maybe as many as 12) units every year and have everything in place in just 5 years?


It's all about doing *more* with the limited resources (cash) which we've got.   It's not about just doing "bigger" or "smaller".

DIRECT isn't chasing the Guiness book of World Records entry for the largest launch vehicle in the world.   We are after the cheapest possible way to get *vast* quantities of materials, hardware and crew into space every year so we can really get on and make some serious progress towards building an infrastructure which will ultimately pave the way for humans to go all across the solar system.   The moon is the first outpost on that new highway system.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/07/2009 06:29 am
I just don't see any depots in our near future, and just like in Ares I'm sure there will be cost over runs and development delays.  Not every thing in DIRECT will be easy to accomplish. 

In any case are we still looking for good news come Jan 15?  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 06:41 am
I just don't see any depots in our near future, and just like in Ares I'm sure there will be cost over runs and development delays.  Not every thing in DIRECT will be easy to accomplish.

Oh, you bet!

Please believe me when I say we aren't under any illusions that this is a "simple" job.

That's why we like to pack our plans with extra margins all over the place.   About $2.5bn of the quoted $9.5bn cost for Jupiter-120 is allocated to cover overruns.   Our posted schedule (IOC December 2012) assumes 9 months of unexpected slips will come to pass.

We think we've got fairly comfortable margins given that a lot of the really technical/difficult bits are already largely in place today; RS-68 is a flight-certified and fully-operational engine, External Tank is an operational stage and has complete manufacturing facilities in place right now, and the 4-seg SRB's are fully-operational human-rated hardware which don't require any modifications at all.   Those facts puts us a long way down the path towards an operational system than starting completely afresh like Ares-I had to.


Quote
In any case are we still looking for good news come Jan 15?  ;)

Yup.   Actually I've already heard that subscribers are already receiving their copies earlier today!   Hint: You're looking for a popular publication with the initials "P M".

I'm getting my own advanced copies tomorrow -- just in time to use it to full effect!  ;)   [And for more information about what *that* might be, you'll have to wait until the weekend!!!   Muwahahahahaha  ;D]

Ross (Evil is good!).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/07/2009 06:58 am
Hey Ross,

It seems our goals are quite compatible, we just have different opinions on how best to get there.

Quote
The thing of it is, that you aren't going to suddenly just create an ISRU base on the moon and "suddenly" be able to use it.   The INFRASTRUCTURE needed to allow that to really be useful is going to come together only after hundreds and hundreds of tons of materials have been landed on the moon first.

I'm not sure you'd need hundreds of tons on the moon itself, you might get away with a limited presence on the moon and hundreds of tons in LLO. You'd need to do the math of course. And hundreds of tons in LLO should be feasible with a J-232 and a solar electric tug like the one described on the Ad Astra site: http://www.adastrarocket.com/AMA%20Video.wmv.

Quote
Now to do all of that, to set up the whole infrastructure, the distance to the moon means you are limited to only being able to land one lego-brick part of this 30-piece project at a time.

My guess is that using a solar electric tug to get cargo from GEO to LLO would have more impact than having an even bigger launcher than the already huge J-120.

One launch of a J-120 gets your tug to GEO. After that moving stuff to LLO becomes a lot cheaper. Another couple of launches and you have a LLO station. A couple of J-120's worth of solar panels should give you plenty of power. A couple of J-120's reused as a wet workshop should give you plenty of room. A few more and you have a whole bunch of industrial equipment in orbit. From there you do enough ISRU to fuel a reusable cargo. That should make moving stuff to the lunar surface cheaper. And so on.

Do you really think you'd need a J-232 for that? And all the infrastructure needs to be designed too, which would cost a lot of money.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/07/2009 09:34 am
Card 2 typo:
"Eliminating over 6,400 jobs at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) alone; representing 4
out 5 contractors"

"out of", perhaps?

Have you tried opening the first PDF recently?  It may be damaged...

Just worked for me.   Try clearing out your browser cache and re-loading it.

Here are the links again...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12379.0;attach=84526
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12379.0;attach=84527
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12379.0;attach=84528
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12379.0;attach=84529

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/07/2009 12:17 pm

Operations Recurring Annual Costs:
$1.0 billion - Ares-I + $130 million each
$4.1 billion - Ares-V + $490 million each

$1.1 billion - Jupiter-120 + $140 million each
$0.9 billion - Jupiter EDS + $250 million each Jupiter-232


How can the J120 be so cheap per unit? Here's a comparison between J120 and Ares-I:

Component           J120           Ares-I
SRB segments        8                 5
SRB nozzles/TVC    2                 1
SRB recovery sys    2                 1
Cryo stage tank       1                 1
Liquid engine           2                 1

We'll ignore the fact that the Jupiter's tank is so much larger than Ares's, and also that it's engines are far larger. There's still an extra three SRB segments, extra SRB nozzle and recovery system, and extra liquid propellant engine to consider. The PLF is also considerably larger. How can all of these elements add up to only $10m?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/07/2009 12:32 pm
Hint: You're looking for a popular publication with the initials "P M".

"Preventative Medicine" ?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cgrunska on 01/07/2009 12:55 pm
"Preventative Medicine" ?



hahaha

So again there is all this talk about wanting to use Direct, and all this math and science backing up your positions. This is all well and good. But really, who here has contacted or tried to enlighten anyone with the decision making capabilities about Direct or an alternative space program? I think getting this information out to parties that hold the power to decide to use this program should be a higher priority than what I am perceiving it to be.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/07/2009 01:14 pm
"Preventative Medicine" ?



hahaha

So again there is all this talk about wanting to use Direct, and all this math and science backing up your positions. This is all well and good. But really, who here has contacted or tried to enlighten anyone with the decision making capabilities about Direct or an alternative space program? I think getting this information out to parties that hold the power to decide to use this program should be a higher priority than what I am perceiving it to be.



I think the DIRECT team has been trying to raise awareness of their proposal in every way possible.  I, and most other pro-DIRECT posters that I have corresponded with, have written to our elected representatives.  How much higher can it get?  I don't think we have the numbers required to stage a "million man march".  But I think everyone is open to new ideas, if you have any.

But back to business:

"Professional Mariner" ?

Come on, you guys can do better than this.  Difficulty: can't use "Magazine" as the second word...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cgrunska on 01/07/2009 01:19 pm
Popular Mechanics...?

And I was just making sure that the issue was raised to write our reps. I wasn't sure if it was already noted, being that there are 2 threads, and this 2nd one has 266 pages!

Here's looking forward to a promising year
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/07/2009 02:09 pm
Since we can't talk about DIRECT in the thread, how would Charles Bolden be for DIRECT?  It seems he is an Ares supporter, however he also seems to be a very good leader with a distaste for BS.  Is this good, bad, or neutral for you guys?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 01/07/2009 02:17 pm
Popular Mechanics?  :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/07/2009 02:58 pm
Since we can't talk about DIRECT in the thread, how would Charles Bolden be for DIRECT?  It seems he is an Ares supporter, however he also seems to be a very good leader with a distaste for BS.  Is this good, bad, or neutral for you guys?

Can't talk about DIRECT?  If you're referring to the magazine bit, I was just trying to lighten things up a bit.  I guess after waiting for the rebuttal for so long and now Jan. 15th, I'm starting to get a bit twitchy...

As for Bolden, he does seem to have some good qualifications.  His experience as an astronaut leads me to believe that he would maintain a balanced program, and not just dump the manned program for robotic missions.  As a general, he may have learned leadership and management skills.  Since he flew with Sen. Nelson, he may have good political ties.  So all in all, he seems like a promising candidate.

As for whether he would specifically be good for DIRECT (as opposed to ARES), that remains to be seen.  I think the "best" we can hope for is what DIRECT has been asking for all along, an objective evaluation of our options for manned spaceflight going forward.  "Bad" would be to push forward with Ares without a reevaluation.  The "Worst" would be the outright cancellation (or an indeterminate hiatus) for manned flights, but that seems unlikely for an ex-astronaut.

Cheers!
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/07/2009 03:17 pm

Operations Recurring Annual Costs:
$1.0 billion - Ares-I + $130 million each
$4.1 billion - Ares-V + $490 million each

$1.1 billion - Jupiter-120 + $140 million each
$0.9 billion - Jupiter EDS + $250 million each Jupiter-232


How can the J120 be so cheap per unit? Here's a comparison between J120 and Ares-I:

Component           J120           Ares-I
SRB segments        8                 5
SRB nozzles/TVC    2                 1
SRB recovery sys    2                 1
Cryo stage tank       1                 1
Liquid engine           2                 1

We'll ignore the fact that the Jupiter's tank is so much larger than Ares's, and also that it's engines are far larger. There's still an extra three SRB segments, extra SRB nozzle and recovery system, and extra liquid propellant engine to consider. The PLF is also considerably larger. How can all of these elements add up to only $10m?

Indeed. The relation between Jupiter 232 and Ares V also looks dubious. Ares V has 40% more propulsion hardware. However, Jupiter uses more of the expensive J-2, and will need man-rated RS-68s. Avionics cost will be about the same. Jupiter 232 needs two different shrouds. Jupiter 232 will have a larger, more complex upper stage with twice as many engines and a more complex common bulkead. Remember that on Saturn V, the second stage cost more to build than the first. True, the Ares first stage will be bigger, but marginal cost for structure scales only weakly with size.

Ares V marginal cost might be 40% more, and 20% seems as likely. Not nearly double
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 01/07/2009 03:20 pm
If the Orion Project can set aside the latest round of massive structural changes all being imposed by Ares-I, they can get the current design (606E?) heading into PDR quite swiftly.   Then they plan one major delta-PDR to merge-in a single round of modifications.   Then push to CDR.

I guess your information must be better than mine, since I haven't seen a "latest round of massive structural changes."  Our last analysis was with a 606C, I know we are getting a new one upcoming, but I don't know what version it is.  I think you are being a bit too optimistic with what Orion Project can do.  Not so much with the redesign part - certainly if they weren't required to keep changing their designs, they would be further ahead.  But I still maintain that they are learning how to do this (as well as how to work with NASA as a customer - giving them what they ask), and that your plan of simply going back to what worked before...  I just don't think its that simple...  LM will have to "learn" how to put Orion on top of Jupiter, just like they are doing with Ares I.

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 03:26 pm
How can the J120 be so cheap per unit?

The per-unit cost of those items is pretty small once the fixed costs are covered.

At that point Economies of Scale take over too.   With a baseline of 10 Jupiter Core units per year, the economies are really good for the Jupiter.   At 4 per year for Ares-I, not so much.

Also, its interesting to note that each SRB segment for Ares-I is expected to cost more than they currently do for Shuttle, even after both are adjusted to FY2008 dollar values.   I'm not sure precisely why, but it is a fact according to CxP's own cost figures.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 03:31 pm
"Professional Mariner"

Dang, you guessed!   You guys take all the fun out of it!

Heh heh ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/07/2009 03:44 pm
Griffin Is Leaving NASA.   It was just announced elsewhere on the site this evening.

The #1 hurdle in the way of DIRECT being seriously considered has just been removed.

Ladies and gentlemen, lets just take a second to remember to keep this discussion civil.   Okay?

Thanks,

Ross.

I hope that the next NASA administrator will choose DIRECT or DIRECT + EELV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/07/2009 03:47 pm
How can the J120 be so cheap per unit?

The per-unit cost of those items is pretty small once the fixed costs are covered.

At that point Economies of Scale take over too.   With a baseline of 10 Jupiter Core units per year, the economies are really good for the Jupiter.   At 4 per year for Ares-I, not so much.

Also, its interesting to note that each SRB segment for Ares-I is expected to cost more than they currently do for Shuttle, even after both are adjusted to FY2008 dollar values.   I'm not sure precisely why, but it is a fact according to CxP's own cost figures.

Ross.

Where are those figures published?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/07/2009 04:00 pm

Operations Recurring Annual Costs:
$1.0 billion - Ares-I + $130 million each
$4.1 billion - Ares-V + $490 million each

$1.1 billion - Jupiter-120 + $140 million each
$0.9 billion - Jupiter EDS + $250 million each Jupiter-232


How can the J120 be so cheap per unit? Here's a comparison between J120 and Ares-I:

Component           J120           Ares-I
SRB segments        8                 5
SRB nozzles/TVC    2                 1
SRB recovery sys    2                 1
Cryo stage tank       1                 1
Liquid engine           2                 1

We'll ignore the fact that the Jupiter's tank is so much larger than Ares's, and also that it's engines are far larger. There's still an extra three SRB segments, extra SRB nozzle and recovery system, and extra liquid propellant engine to consider. The PLF is also considerably larger. How can all of these elements add up to only $10m?

Indeed. The relation between Jupiter 232 and Ares V also looks dubious. Ares V has 40% more propulsion hardware. However, Jupiter uses more of the expensive J-2, and will need man-rated RS-68s. Avionics cost will be about the same. Jupiter 232 needs two different shrouds. Jupiter 232 will have a larger, more complex upper stage with twice as many engines and a more complex common bulkead. Remember that on Saturn V, the second stage cost more to build than the first. True, the Ares first stage will be bigger, but marginal cost for structure scales only weakly with size.

Ares V marginal cost might be 40% more, and 20% seems as likely. Not nearly double

I think that you have left something out in your analysis--for Ares I where is the upperstage?  The J120 has no upperstage.  The costs of the J120 are pretty well understood--2 4-segment SRB, ET, two RS-68.  It should approx $20m for a manrated RS68=$40 million.  I see costs for the 4 segment at $23M/each.  So total so far approx $80m.  Then you have the ET.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/07/2009 04:06 pm
Since we can't talk about DIRECT in the thread, how would Charles Bolden be for DIRECT?  It seems he is an Ares supporter, however he also seems to be a very good leader with a distaste for BS.  Is this good, bad, or neutral for you guys?

Can't talk about DIRECT?  If you're referring to the magazine bit, I was just trying to lighten things up a bit.  I guess after waiting for the rebuttal for so long and now Jan. 15th, I'm starting to get a bit twitchy...

As for Bolden, he does seem to have some good qualifications.  His experience as an astronaut leads me to believe that he would maintain a balanced program, and not just dump the manned program for robotic missions.  As a general, he may have learned leadership and management skills.  Since he flew with Sen. Nelson, he may have good political ties.  So all in all, he seems like a promising candidate.

As for whether he would specifically be good for DIRECT (as opposed to ARES), that remains to be seen.  I think the "best" we can hope for is what DIRECT has been asking for all along, an objective evaluation of our options for manned spaceflight going forward.  "Bad" would be to push forward with Ares without a reevaluation.  The "Worst" would be the outright cancellation (or an indeterminate hiatus) for manned flights, but that seems unlikely for an ex-astronaut.

Cheers!
Mark S.


To think he will just up and switch to DIRECT is unreasonable. But the best we can all hope for is a fair review of all of the options. The worst case is that he just continues with business as usual (unlikely) or the Obama Transition team has already made a decision for him.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/07/2009 04:24 pm
Unless Congress changes the law, it still has to be Shutle-Derived.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/07/2009 04:31 pm

Operations Recurring Annual Costs:
$1.0 billion - Ares-I + $130 million each
$4.1 billion - Ares-V + $490 million each

$1.1 billion - Jupiter-120 + $140 million each
$0.9 billion - Jupiter EDS + $250 million each Jupiter-232


How can the J120 be so cheap per unit? Here's a comparison between J120 and Ares-I:

Component           J120           Ares-I
SRB segments        8                 5
SRB nozzles/TVC    2                 1
SRB recovery sys    2                 1
Cryo stage tank       1                 1
Liquid engine           2                 1

We'll ignore the fact that the Jupiter's tank is so much larger than Ares's, and also that it's engines are far larger. There's still an extra three SRB segments, extra SRB nozzle and recovery system, and extra liquid propellant engine to consider. The PLF is also considerably larger. How can all of these elements add up to only $10m?

Indeed. The relation between Jupiter 232 and Ares V also looks dubious. Ares V has 40% more propulsion hardware. However, Jupiter uses more of the expensive J-2, and will need man-rated RS-68s. Avionics cost will be about the same. Jupiter 232 needs two different shrouds. Jupiter 232 will have a larger, more complex upper stage with twice as many engines and a more complex common bulkead. Remember that on Saturn V, the second stage cost more to build than the first. True, the Ares first stage will be bigger, but marginal cost for structure scales only weakly with size.

Ares V marginal cost might be 40% more, and 20% seems as likely. Not nearly double

I think that you have left something out in your analysis--for Ares I where is the upperstage?  The J120 has no upperstage.  The costs of the J120 are pretty well understood--2 4-segment SRB, ET, two RS-68.  It should approx $20m for a manrated RS68=$40 million.  I see costs for the 4 segment at $23M/each.  So total so far approx $80m.  Then you have the ET.

For the post 2016 option of the Ares 1 upper stage contract, production cost averages about $46 million a unit. Of course, that contains some fixed cost as well.

Both Ares 1 and Jupiter 120 would need an avionics unit. Besides the tank, the Jupiter 120 core would need thrust structure and propulsion system, and the big fairing supporting Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/07/2009 04:50 pm
I think the "best" we can hope for is what DIRECT has been asking for all along, an objective evaluation of our options for manned spaceflight going forward.  "Bad" would be to push forward with Ares without a reevaluation.  The "Worst" would be the outright cancellation (or an indeterminate hiatus) for manned flights, but that seems unlikely for an ex-astronaut.

To think he will just up and switch to DIRECT is unreasonable. But the best we can all hope for is a fair review of all of the options. The worst case is that he just continues with business as usual (unlikely) or the Obama Transition team has already made a decision for him.


I would be opposed to any plan to just switch to DIRECT on a whim.  It needs a complete, unbiased, in depth study and validation of its core claims before abandoning Ares.  Same for EELV, and put Ares back on the examining table while we're at it.  Not just for cost, or for near-term access to LEO, but for long term human expansion into space and the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to conquer the solar system! Oh wait, is this mike on?  Sh*t!

Seriously though, the question should not be limited to which vehicle can get us to ISS the quickest and cheapest.  That is much too short-sighted and limited of a vision.  For all his shortcomings, Griffin had the right idea, just not the best way of achieving it.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Drapper23 on 01/07/2009 05:02 pm
According to Florida Today(Jan. 6,2009)Gen. Charles Bolden is willing to change certain elements of the Constellation program.  http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/01/bolden-no-contact-yet-on-nasas-top-job.shtml   Let's also remember that the NASA Astronaut Corp  has raised the greatest objections to the Ares 1 rocket. I recall reading several months ago that the Astronaut Corp favored a type of Direct Launcher over Ares 1. Given these facts, Gen. Bolden would seem to be a good choice for Direct 2 supporters.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 05:18 pm
I would be opposed to any plan to just switch to DIRECT on a whim.  It needs a complete, unbiased, in depth study and validation of its core claims before abandoning Ares.

Absolutely 100% agree.

We got into this mess because we failed to review all the options properly and instead made the decision and wrote a 'study' to justify that decision after the fact.

We can not afford to risk repeating that dreadful mistake again with any of the options, DIRECT included.

All the options need to be reviewed fairly against each other; Ares, DIRECT, EELV, Advanced EELV and EELV/Shuttle-C.   We need to duke this out once and for all on a level playing field.

We the people, more specifically we the US tax-payers, deserve to get the truth, one way or another, in return for our hard-earned money.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/07/2009 05:44 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/01/bolden-no-contact-yet-on-nasas-top-job.shtml
Charlie Bolden:
Quote
"If I would have any conversation with the transition team, I would plead for continuity -- if not in people, at least continuity in execution," he said.
"Now does that mean we don't change anything right now in the Constellation system?" he asked. "No, it doesn't mean that. But it means let's take a look at things and get to the moon and Mars."



It means that he is for reviewing of the implementation of the Constellation program. Sounds very good!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Drapper23 on 01/07/2009 06:04 pm
Orlando Sentinel.Com published an article on Aug. 8,2008 entitled,"More Rumblings Over Ares 1; Is The Stick Dying? The article states that the Astronaut Corps is "deeply unhappy with the design of the Ares 1". It also states that NASA is considering dumping Ares 1 for a type of Direct  Launcher(Jupiter 140). Ross, has stated that this Jupiter Configuration is not nearly as efficient as 120 or 232. However, the article verifies that the NASA Astronaut corp is the organization pushing for a major change in the Constellation architecture. Thus Gen. Bolden may be the perfect choice to examine the astronauts' deep concerns & switch to a design that ,in every sense, addresses those concerns.. i. e Direct 2. http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/more-rumblings.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/07/2009 06:07 pm
I think he is being *very* specific with his wording, and deliberately so.


The "Vision for Space Exploration" is the National Policy of the USA.

The Constellation Program (CxP) is NASA's division which is tasked with implementing the mission to explore "Moon, Mars and Beyond" as instructed by the VSE.

The Ares-I Project is just one of the many sub-divisions inside CxP tasked with creating the crew launch vehicle.

The Orion Project is another of the sub-divisions inside CxP, this time tasked with making the crew spacecraft used to safely get crew up and down.


General Bolden refers to continuity of execution, but qualifies that by saying parts of CxP might change.   I think he is referring to continuity of the VSE and continuity of CxP, but the individual Projects are subject to review and possible change.

That just my personal interpretation of his words as published in the press so far.

IMHO it will be a long time before we know for sure what his plans might be and right now this is all just speculation based on little more than a few soundbites.   The guy hasn't even agreed to do the job yet.   Lets give him a chance to catch his breath before we try to judge his intentions.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bad_astra on 01/07/2009 06:21 pm
His last comment on that article is so true.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/07/2009 06:27 pm
Orlando Sentinel.Com published an article on Aug. 8,2008 entitled,"More Rumblings Over Ares 1; Is The Stick Dying? The article states that the Astronaut Corps is "deeply unhappy with the design of the Ares 1". It also states that NASA is considering dumping Ares 1 for a type of Direct  Launcher(Jupiter 140). 

Four RS-68 engines?  Assuming the same mass for the modified ET, a suitable PLF, and the Orion on top, what kind of acceleration profile would that configuration exhibit?  If J-120 can get by with two RS-68, why would anyone consider four?  It just seems excessive to me.

Of course it's just a rumor, and a five-month old one at that, so I don't really put any stock in the specifics.  I could certainly believe the astronaut corps was ready to jump ship at the time, though.

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/07/2009 07:29 pm

Operations Recurring Annual Costs:
$1.0 billion - Ares-I + $130 million each
$4.1 billion - Ares-V + $490 million each

$1.1 billion - Jupiter-120 + $140 million each
$0.9 billion - Jupiter EDS + $250 million each Jupiter-232


How can the J120 be so cheap per unit? Here's a comparison between J120 and Ares-I:

Component           J120           Ares-I
SRB segments        8                 5
SRB nozzles/TVC    2                 1
SRB recovery sys    2                 1
Cryo stage tank       1                 1
Liquid engine           2                 1

We'll ignore the fact that the Jupiter's tank is so much larger than Ares's, and also that it's engines are far larger. There's still an extra three SRB segments, extra SRB nozzle and recovery system, and extra liquid propellant engine to consider. The PLF is also considerably larger. How can all of these elements add up to only $10m?

Indeed. The relation between Jupiter 232 and Ares V also looks dubious. Ares V has 40% more propulsion hardware. However, Jupiter uses more of the expensive J-2, and will need man-rated RS-68s. Avionics cost will be about the same. Jupiter 232 needs two different shrouds. Jupiter 232 will have a larger, more complex upper stage with twice as many engines and a more complex common bulkead. Remember that on Saturn V, the second stage cost more to build than the first. True, the Ares first stage will be bigger, but marginal cost for structure scales only weakly with size.

Ares V marginal cost might be 40% more, and 20% seems as likely. Not nearly double

I think that you have left something out in your analysis--for Ares I where is the upperstage?  The J120 has no upperstage.  The costs of the J120 are pretty well understood--2 4-segment SRB, ET, two RS-68.  It should approx $20m for a manrated RS68=$40 million.  I see costs for the 4 segment at $23M/each.  So total so far approx $80m.  Then you have the ET.

No, I allocated a cryo propellant tank and an engine. For this rough comparison, that equals a stage. Of course there are avionics and thrust structure to think about, but in both areas the bias is against J120 due to size.

There is a real danger in focusing on the numbers that you like and ignoring the ones that don't suit you. Only when you arrive at a conclusion that fits with all the evidence should you be happy. Hence you might conclude that J120 can be built for $140m, but then when cross-referenced against Ares-I at $130m you need to think again, because something isn't adding up.

A really good example of this happened on this forum a couple of years ago. A guy came along with an idea for a 'biamese' orbiter concept, and pulled various numbers from reputable places which showed that you could swap out engines, lighten structures, and install tanking and come up with a viable system. However when you stepped back, the design he was suggesting was completely out of line with any historical or existing hardware. It was massively over-optimistic. He refused to look at any numbers but his own and was living in a cloud cuckoo land.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/07/2009 07:33 pm
How can the J120 be so cheap per unit?

The per-unit cost of those items is pretty small once the fixed costs are covered.

At that point Economies of Scale take over too.   With a baseline of 10 Jupiter Core units per year, the economies are really good for the Jupiter.   At 4 per year for Ares-I, not so much.

Also, its interesting to note that each SRB segment for Ares-I is expected to cost more than they currently do for Shuttle, even after both are adjusted to FY2008 dollar values.   I'm not sure precisely why, but it is a fact according to CxP's own cost figures.

Ross.

Two worrying things here. Firstly, economies of scale: are you counting on these in your estimates? If so, what degree of reliability to you give the figures for per-unit costs at higher production rates? What would the effect be if these production runs were not realised?

Secondly, if CxP say that each SRB segment costs more on Ares-I, don't you think that's something that you should understand? It is a related system and these higher costs could conceivably stem from a reason which might affect Jupiter also. You cannot rule that out until you know the reason.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/07/2009 08:26 pm
Secondly, if CxP say that each SRB segment costs more on Ares-I, don't you think that's something that you should understand? It is a related system and these higher costs could conceivably stem from a reason which might affect Jupiter also. You cannot rule that out until you know the reason.

I thought the Ares RSRB's were going to use a different propellant mix, so maybe that's part of it.  Also, wouldn't the manufacturer have to factor in the cost of a new production line?

But that is a good point, if there is a cost difference, then it needs to be researched and understood.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: GraphGuy on 01/07/2009 08:38 pm

Two worrying things here. Firstly, economies of scale: are you counting on these in your estimates? If so, what degree of reliability to you give the figures for per-unit costs at higher production rates? What would the effect be if these production runs were not realised?

Secondly, if CxP say that each SRB segment costs more on Ares-I, don't you think that's something that you should understand? It is a related system and these higher costs could conceivably stem from a reason which might affect Jupiter also. You cannot rule that out until you know the reason.

Direct SRBs are the same as shuttle SRBs.  Ares I SRBs are not the same as shuttle SRBs.  Ares I SRBs are longer, different propellant mix, maybe different gimbaling (harder to stay on course with one SRB versus two), require lots of re certification, etc.

Also Ares I SRBs are used half as often per mission to go to ISS when compared to Direct SRBs so your annual costs push the cost per booster up.

 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/07/2009 09:13 pm
Popular Mechanics?  :(

What's wrong with that approach?
We're talking numbers here, READERSHIP, of the general population, not the scientific or space community. Once the buzz goes around...

If they ran an article saying someone conquered cold fusion, they would have to do a reprint they'd sell out of copies. It would be be all over the news in days.

I think it's a great Ace to play at this time.

And when Griffin's gone, a new person takes the chair, that's a perfect time to introduce the rebuttal document: on TOP of their desk, not hidden in a pile somewhere or shelved to collect dust, or worse. I wouldn't even be surprised if Griffin had it already, it would leave with him in his desk box.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/07/2009 09:24 pm
Has anyone seen the cover of Popular Mechanics lately, not sure if this belongs in its own thread or not?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/07/2009 11:26 pm
How can the J120 be so cheap per unit?

The per-unit cost of those items is pretty small once the fixed costs are covered.

At that point Economies of Scale take over too.   With a baseline of 10 Jupiter Core units per year, the economies are really good for the Jupiter.   At 4 per year for Ares-I, not so much.

Also, its interesting to note that each SRB segment for Ares-I is expected to cost more than they currently do for Shuttle, even after both are adjusted to FY2008 dollar values.   I'm not sure precisely why, but it is a fact according to CxP's own cost figures.

Ross.

So you say. I used NASA's crude online estimator to get production costs of various stages minus engines, assuming 10 Jupiter cores a year and four each Ares I and Ares V. I added 20% to the base value for the Ares I and Jupiter 232 US because of the more complex common bulkhead construction. I got the following value for average production cost in millions:

Ares V core: 150
Ares V US: 50
Ares I US: 38
Jupiter 232 core: 70
Jupiter US 48

I then plugged in the following:
Rs-68 15
Man rated RS-68 20
J-2 25
4 seg. Solid 34
5 seg. 43
5.5 seg 47
Avionics 10

Giving the following production costs:
Ares V 419
Ares 1 116
Jupiter 120 188
Jupiter 232 316


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/07/2009 11:32 pm

Two worrying things here. Firstly, economies of scale: are you counting on these in your estimates? If so, what degree of reliability to you give the figures for per-unit costs at higher production rates? What would the effect be if these production runs were not realised?

Secondly, if CxP say that each SRB segment costs more on Ares-I, don't you think that's something that you should understand? It is a related system and these higher costs could conceivably stem from a reason which might affect Jupiter also. You cannot rule that out until you know the reason.

Direct SRBs are the same as shuttle SRBs.  Ares I SRBs are not the same as shuttle SRBs.  Ares I SRBs are longer, different propellant mix, maybe different gimbaling (harder to stay on course with one SRB versus two), require lots of re certification, etc.

Also Ares I SRBs are used half as often per mission to go to ISS when compared to Direct SRBs so your annual costs push the cost per booster up.

Those all sound like plausible reasons. I was just a bit worried about Ross's comment that he didn't know why the Ares-I segments would cost more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/07/2009 11:33 pm
Quote
IMHO it will be a long time before we know for sure what his plans might be and right now this is all just speculation based on little more than a few soundbites.   The guy hasn't even agreed to do the job yet.   Lets give him a chance to catch his breath before we try to judge his intentions.

Ross.

That's something that concerns me, we could end up back at square one and reaching the moon by 2020 is nothing more than a dream...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/07/2009 11:48 pm

Those all sound like plausible reasons. I was just a bit worried about Ross's comment that he didn't know why the Ares-I segments would cost more.

The Ares SRB is totally new, completely untested, untried, and in strict terms, is an experimental motor. Given the climate for this kind of big-ticket purchase, it is not really a surprise that it would cost more, without even knowing all the technical reasons why. Does anyone out there honestly believe that if we built a Mercury spacecraft for use next year, that it would only cost $1.2 million? I'd expect it to cost about $5-7 million or so, which is four times what the originals cost, even allowing for what the dollar is today, as opposed to 1959-60.

The SRBs in use right now are all known quantities.

I know the DIRECT team knows a lot of things, but I don't expect those guys to know every last little detail, at this stage of the game. Sure, they're supposed to know the numbers. But some of these questions I'm seeing look like they are intentionally designed to ignore existing information, and cherry-pick unknown things to attempt to discredit the proposal. That's not cricket. If the DIRECT team say it's information they get from somewhere else, then that's what it is.

Someone else figuring out some number for themselves, and then saying what they think those numbers ought to be is pretty close  to making things up to have something to argue about. Let's just wait and see what happens in the next few days, and then we can start pressing for where these details come from, and how they were arrived at for use?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/07/2009 11:59 pm
Hey I'm not trolling here. I am actually a strong supporter of DIRECT. However I have seen how ruthless some of its critics can be, and I believe that the best way that I can help the 'cause' is by offering constructive criticism. I'd rather it was little old me asking awkward questions than NASA.

Back in the days of Direct v.1, a regular poster here by the name of JIS got a few backs up by referring to the regen RS68 as 'magic'. Ross was completely confident in the isp numbers, despite this minority criticism. However, when reviewed by NASA, it was indeed the isp number of regen RS68 which was seen as the show-stopper.

You've got to remember that NASA will choose their own method of verifying DIRECT's numbers. So the numbers presented should stand up to the most robust criticism possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Marsman on 01/08/2009 12:43 am
Has anyone seen the cover of Popular Mechanics lately, not sure if this belongs in its own thread or not?

Yeah, it's pretty cool isn't it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/08/2009 12:47 am
Has anyone seen the cover of Popular Mechanics lately, not sure if this belongs in its own thread or not?

Yeah, it's pretty cool isn't it?

You are kidding me right? Not to be bitter or anything but we "lurk" around NSF and other comment threads for almost 3 years. We finally get a cover article on a major publication and it takes all day for anyone to say anything? Sorry to sound a little bitter but c'mon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/08/2009 01:15 am
Has anyone seen the cover of Popular Mechanics lately, not sure if this belongs in its own thread or not?

Yeah, it's pretty cool isn't it?

You are kidding me right? Not to be bitter or anything but we "lurk" around NSF and other comment threads for almost 3 years. We finally get a cover article on a major publication and it takes all day for anyone to say anything? Sorry to sound a little bitter but c'mon.

I haven't seen it yet. I guess only PM subscribers have their issue.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/08/2009 01:16 am
Has anyone seen the cover of Popular Mechanics lately, not sure if this belongs in its own thread or not?

Yeah, it's pretty cool isn't it?

You are kidding me right? Not to be bitter or anything but we "lurk" around NSF and other comment threads for almost 3 years. We finally get a cover article on a major publication and it takes all day for anyone to say anything? Sorry to sound a little bitter but c'mon.

Ross gave us a big build up to Jan. 15th, and was being quite secretive about the whole thing.  Earlier today he dropped a hint, but nobody really wanted to believe it was Popular Mechanics.  I think "lead balloon" brings the right picture to mind.

I don't have a subscription and I haven't been to the magazine rack.  But I would have to guess that the more technical NSF forum members would not be too excited about anything in Popular Mechanics.  Maybe if it was on the cover of Aviation Week or something a little more authoritative, but not PM.

So would you care to elaborate about the cover and/or article?  I think that having DIRECT on the cover of PM could be a good thing, but I guess it depends on how it is presented.  What is the cover blurb?  How is the tone of the article?  Are there quotes from NASA and/or industry insiders?  Is it totally over the top "OMG ITS THE NEXT NASA ROCKET, DESIGNED IN SOME GUYS GARAGE!!!", or something more reasoned and balanced.  Give us some input, and then we can have a discussion about the merits and downsides, if any.

Thanks,
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 01/08/2009 01:18 am
Has anyone seen the cover of Popular Mechanics lately, not sure if this belongs in its own thread or not?

Yeah, it's pretty cool isn't it?

You are kidding me right? Not to be bitter or anything but we "lurk" around NSF and other comment threads for almost 3 years. We finally get a cover article on a major publication and it takes all day for anyone to say anything? Sorry to sound a little bitter but c'mon.

I haven't seen it yet. I guess only PM subscribers have their issue.

I saw it in the newsstands today.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/08/2009 01:22 am
I will have to make a trip to the bookstore tomorrow then.

I think this is a great thing for DIRECT if the article is written in a positive manner. The common person with interest in technology does not read Aviation Week, or come to NSF.
This is a great way for the common public to learn that there is more than just Ares and those "Military Rockets"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/08/2009 01:34 am
Yes, we are aware of that and are indeed 'digesting' it.

We had already seen the White Paper and there are lots of mistakes in there.   We aren't worried about that at all.   Most of what's in there was actually in the documentation we were sent back when v1.0 was FUD'd at the end of 2006.   That information was used to improve the v2.0 version we have now.   The differences need to be looked at, but the body of that document is 'nothing new' to us.

But the performance analysis is new to us today and I'm very thankful that Keith was able to get NASA to release it.   So far we've only had a brief chance to look over it, but there are quite a few highlighted points which we have 'issues' with already.   The fact that it uses all the same assumptions as CxP instantly sets the field askew.   The acceleration curve assessment is a joke because our curve is a delta curve not including Earth gravity (they *really* should have spotted that given the T:W figures), and the mass of the RS-68/J-2X was amended 6 months ago (we've been assuming a 7,000kg RS-68 and 5,450lb J-2X since our 29.x.x series).   Two different EDS?   We have a variety of different EDS sizes optimized for different profiles in our AIAA paper, but only one would ever be built - once we decide which profile we would ultimately use.   I thought we've always been very clear that we only want one EDS.   And don't even get me started on reviewing that horrid LOX-transfer we had in our AIAA paper baseline - I was personally so glad that this year we have been able to get completely away from that last-minute 'kludge' we included in that paper too.

We don't think the results are correct - obviously - but its the best attempt at a workup we've seen so far from inside the agency.   Even if it doesn't include any of the changes we have made since the September 2007 AIAA paper and misses some of the different assumptions we have specified.

It's nice to at least see confirmation that we were absolutely correct in ditching the J-120/J-232 EOR-LOR profile and the LOR-LOR profiles last year - our figures showed similar reasoning.   This possibly helps clarify why we changed the baseline to 2x Jupiter-232 EOR-LOR with no propellant transfer - but our current baseline isn't assessed here.

I won't go into any further the details yet.   We want some time to go over this 70 page document with a fine toothed comb, so give us a bit of time to prepare a formal dispute/rebuttal.   We're discussing whether we need to do a point-by-point reply (probably quite boring and confusing for most people) or whether a higher level reply wouldn't be better.   With a bit of luck we might be ready to reply some time next week, after the long weekend.

One thing I will make specific note of though, is that there is no cost comparison to speak of between Ares/DIRECT.   That would have made for *very* interesting reading indeed.


My personal opinion is that this simply reinforces my belief that we can not get a truly unbiased and totally fair hearing from the agency while it remains under Mike Griffin's thumb.   This serves only to strengthen my belief that the only real answers any of us are going to get will be from an independent review conducted outside of the agency.

Ross.

I know that the Direct team is working on this--but 6+ months for a rebuttal?  I do understand events have put this on the backburner, but the Direct team promised a response approx. 7/5 that they would respond within a week. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/08/2009 02:04 am
Quote
I know that the Direct team is working on this--but 6+ months for a rebuttal?

Indeed.

BTW those not thrilled about PM publishing something on DIRECT (I have not seen it yet) I don't see how you could wish for anything better.

PM has a huge subscriber base and affects more of the every day person.  Huge victory to even be mentioned with in it, let alone on the cover.

Any one know were I can find it online?  8)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/08/2009 02:20 am
Has anyone seen the cover of Popular Mechanics lately, not sure if this belongs in its own thread or not?

Yeah, it's pretty cool isn't it?

You are kidding me right? Not to be bitter or anything but we "lurk" around NSF and other comment threads for almost 3 years. We finally get a cover article on a major publication and it takes all day for anyone to say anything? Sorry to sound a little bitter but c'mon.

Oh man, You got me so intrigued I will go to a store to buy it now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/08/2009 02:29 am
Here is Phillip's updated FAQ through the first 50 pages of the Direct thread 2.0.  Yes--I still have over 200 pages to go and then edited, and adding other sections.

A few minor errors in there, I will see if I can get time to do some corrections.

Good evening,

Here is the updated FAQ--up to page 70.  Yes--200 more pages to go though.  Please note, there was approx 10 pages of discussion regarding the rebuttal and waiting for the Direct Team to respond.  I have put a question in the FAQ.  Please note some of the answer will change  the more currant I get. 

There will be editing down of the answers, to try and change the tone.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/08/2009 02:38 am
How can the J120 be so cheap per unit?

The per-unit cost of those items is pretty small once the fixed costs are covered.

At that point Economies of Scale take over too.   With a baseline of 10 Jupiter Core units per year, the economies are really good for the Jupiter.   At 4 per year for Ares-I, not so much.

Also, its interesting to note that each SRB segment for Ares-I is expected to cost more than they currently do for Shuttle, even after both are adjusted to FY2008 dollar values.   I'm not sure precisely why, but it is a fact according to CxP's own cost figures.

Ross.

So you say. I used NASA's crude online estimator to get production costs of various stages minus engines, assuming 10 Jupiter cores a year and four each Ares I and Ares V. I added 20% to the base value for the Ares I and Jupiter 232 US because of the more complex common bulkhead construction. I got the following value for average production cost in millions:

Ares V core: 150
Ares V US: 50
Ares I US: 38
Jupiter 232 core: 70
Jupiter US 48

I then plugged in the following:
Rs-68 15
Man rated RS-68 20
J-2 25
4 seg. Solid 34
5 seg. 43
5.5 seg 47
Avionics 10

Giving the following production costs:
Ares V 419
Ares 1 116
Jupiter 120 188
Jupiter 232 316



Those numbers although speculative would seem to be more accurate. 

Ross does your cost per unit require that x amount of flights occur per year in order to make it cheap?  If so then it'll have to be I'll believe when I see it ;p

What is the cost if Jupiter is flown only the same amount as Ares is planned?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/08/2009 02:44 am
How can the J120 be so cheap per unit?

The per-unit cost of those items is pretty small once the fixed costs are covered.

At that point Economies of Scale take over too.   With a baseline of 10 Jupiter Core units per year, the economies are really good for the Jupiter.   At 4 per year for Ares-I, not so much.

Also, its interesting to note that each SRB segment for Ares-I is expected to cost more than they currently do for Shuttle, even after both are adjusted to FY2008 dollar values.   I'm not sure precisely why, but it is a fact according to CxP's own cost figures.

Ross.

So you say. I used NASA's crude online estimator to get production costs of various stages minus engines, assuming 10 Jupiter cores a year and four each Ares I and Ares V. I added 20% to the base value for the Ares I and Jupiter 232 US because of the more complex common bulkhead construction. I got the following value for average production cost in millions:

Ares V core: 150
Ares V US: 50
Ares I US: 38
Jupiter 232 core: 70
Jupiter US 48

I then plugged in the following:
Rs-68 15
Man rated RS-68 20
J-2 25
4 seg. Solid 34
5 seg. 43
5.5 seg 47
Avionics 10

Giving the following production costs:
Ares V 419
Ares 1 116
Jupiter 120 188
Jupiter 232 316



Those numbers although speculative would seem to be more accurate. 

Ross does your cost per unit require that x amount of flights occur per year in order to make it cheap?  If so then it'll have to be I'll believe when I see it ;p

What is the cost if Jupiter is flown only the same amount as Ares is planned?


They may be some of the direct production costs, what about indirect cost, now I have to have 2 supply lines, 2 set of people intergrating, etc?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/08/2009 02:59 am
Oh man, You got me so intrigued I will go to a store to buy it now.


Unfortunately I did not find "Popular Mechanics" in my local Drug store and big grocery store. Each had a variety of more than 200 different magazines. They had "Popular Science", "Sky and Telescope", "SkyNews", "Astronomy", Aviation something but no "Popular Mechanics" :(
I live in Toronto area, Canada.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/08/2009 03:04 am
I'm going to try Barnes and Noble tomorrow. They usually have it. Has anyone picked up a copy yet?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/08/2009 04:08 am
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdf

from page 36 of the PDF

Quote
production capacity for Delta IV, with one possible exception, can satisfy the entire projected NSS launch demand. The exception involves the requirement to increase the Delta IV Heavy lift capability to accommodate a single NRO payload. The best solution to this requirement is currently under study.

I know that this is from 2006, however is this need still on the books?  Sounds like a Jupiter-120 payload to me as Ares-1 would need another stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: fotoguzzi on 01/08/2009 04:32 am
Has anyone seen the cover of Popular Mechanics lately, not sure if this belongs in its own thread or not?

Yeah, it's pretty cool isn't it?

Time for a poll.  How many people here have a PM subscription and a flatbed scanner?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/08/2009 04:59 am
Please go purchase a copy!

I don't want any illegally scanned copies appearing here please.   Please do the right thing guys, thanks!

You can't miss it when it appears on the shelves.   It's the one with a dirty great Jupiter launch vehicle taking-off right there on the front cover :)

And the photo at the start of the article gives a whole new meaning to the term "Gray Beard"!  LOL


The "gold nugget" bit is that the author managed to interview Bernard Kutter (Advanced Programs Manager at ULA, formerly Lockheed-Martin).   His comments are on page 57.

In short he directly challenges Steve Cook's claims that our Upper Stage mass figures are too low.   He goes toe-to-toe with Cook on this issue On The Record.

The thing is that Kutter has proven stages in production and flying to back his argument up.   What has Cook managed to get flying?   His last major project was X-33.   Who has the most credibility here?

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/08/2009 05:24 am
I know that the Direct team is working on this--but 6+ months for a rebuttal?  I do understand events have put this on the backburner, but the Direct team promised a response approx. 7/5 that they would respond within a week.

The analysis was first uncovered by NASAWatch in October, not 6 months ago :)   And I can only get so much done each day since my heart attack, so please cut me some slack :)

I compiled a lot of the document this last week, but it's still only ~90% complete and is back on the side-burner again ( :( ) right now because we have something later this week which takes precedence over everything else.   As I hinted previously, we will be able to talk more about this event over the weekend.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/08/2009 05:27 am
You are kidding me right? Not to be bitter or anything but we "lurk" around NSF and other comment threads for almost 3 years. We finally get a cover article on a major publication and it takes all day for anyone to say anything? Sorry to sound a little bitter but c'mon.

Actually these are only advanced copies going out to subscribers right now.

The mag doesn't officially hit the news-stands until the 15th/16th.   I happen to know they only started printing these issues on the 5th, so anyone who has a copy already is getting it really fast IMHO.

I was supposed to get an advanced copy today myself, but I'm still waiting :(

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/08/2009 06:11 am
I know that the Direct team is working on this--but 6+ months for a rebuttal?  I do understand events have put this on the backburner, but the Direct team promised a response approx. 7/5 that they would respond within a week.

The analysis was first uncovered by NASAWatch in October, not 6 months ago :)   And I can only get so much done each day since my heart attack, so please cut me some slack :)

I compiled a lot of the document this last week, but it's still only ~90% complete and is back on the side-burner again ( :( ) right now because we have something later this week which takes precedence over everything else.   As I hinted previously, we will be able to talk more about this event over the weekend.

Ross.

Wow that's an impressive cover I like it.  Ouch how long ago did you suffer a heart attack?  You need to be careful not to over stress your self and make sure you eat lots of healthy food!   ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/08/2009 07:39 am
I know that the Direct team is working on this--but 6+ months for a rebuttal?  I do understand events have put this on the backburner, but the Direct team promised a response approx. 7/5 that they would respond within a week.

The analysis was first uncovered by NASAWatch in October, not 6 months ago :)   And I can only get so much done each day since my heart attack, so please cut me some slack :)

I compiled a lot of the document this last week, but it's still only ~90% complete and is back on the side-burner again ( :( ) right now because we have something later this week which takes precedence over everything else.   As I hinted previously, we will be able to talk more about this event over the weekend.

Ross.

Hi Ross,

I am one of your biggest supporters.  Here is the link of 7/3/08. July 08 to Jan' 09 is 6 months.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28513

I am talking about this rebuttal. Here are cross links (#917, #990) to other statements on this forum thread from around 7/3 - 7/6 that Direct hoped to have a rebuttal within a week.  As I see things in this thread, that I feel may not been answered, I may re-ask them.  If you are 90% percent compete, then I will leave the question open.

Please look at my statements, I do not want any rebuttals rushed, but I just want to know if it is still an outstanding issue.  I look forward to more information over the weekend and coming weeks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/08/2009 07:40 am
Congrats Direct Team for the cover. Is this the event that was meant to come out around 1/15 or is there another shoe to drop? I wonder if the wire services will pick up the story?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/08/2009 07:47 am
This was the one for the 15th.   But since we started talking about that date *another* has slipped inside that too :)   I've been dropping hints like crazy, but y'all will have to wait a few more days to hear more.

Lets just say that you ought not to worry if you don't hear from me for a few days.   I expect to be offline until Saturday or Sunday.

"What do you hear, Starbuck?" ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/08/2009 12:05 pm
I know that the Direct team is working on this--but 6+ months for a rebuttal?  I do understand events have put this on the backburner, but the Direct team promised a response approx. 7/5 that they would respond within a week.

The analysis was first uncovered by NASAWatch in October, not 6 months ago :)   And I can only get so much done each day since my heart attack, so please cut me some slack :)

I compiled a lot of the document this last week, but it's still only ~90% complete and is back on the side-burner again ( :( ) right now because we have something later this week which takes precedence over everything else.   As I hinted previously, we will be able to talk more about this event over the weekend.

Ross.

Ross,

Are you working from the NASA document "257003main_NASA Performance Assessment of (DIRECT 2) Compiled.0702.pdf", or do you have a more detailed or up to date document?  That paper reads like a powerpoint slideshow to me, not an actual technical document.  Plus, it still references the old DIRECT 2 propellant transfer plan.  Was propellant transfer still the active DIRECT plan at the time that they did their analyses (in May 2007 and again in October 2007)?

NASA must have a document with actual numbers in it somewhere, where they compare Ares to the current DIRECT 2.0 plan, if they did the detailed analysis that they claimed.

If that's not the document, is the detailed NASA analysis posted publicly somewhere?

Thanks,
Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/08/2009 12:11 pm
Re.: PM Article

Damn... I can't wait until the fifteenth now!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/08/2009 01:03 pm
Here is Phillip's updated FAQ through the first 50 pages of the Direct thread 2.0.  Yes--I still have over 200 pages to go and then edited, and adding other sections.

A few minor errors in there, I will see if I can get time to do some corrections.

Good evening,

Here is the updated FAQ--up to page 70.  Yes--200 more pages to go though.  Please note, there was approx 10 pages of discussion regarding the rebuttal and waiting for the Direct Team to respond.  I have put a question in the FAQ.  Please note some of the answer will change  the more currant I get. 

There will be editing down of the answers, to try and change the tone.

Hip,
I know I offered to do a proof-read of the FAQ but haven't managed to get the time yet, and you're racing ahead of the version I was working on!
As general points though, there are plenty of typos needing corrected, and more importantly a lot of it doesn't read like a proper FAQ. There are multiple, involved wordy questions which need to be split up, and many of the answers go into wild tangents. A lot of the answers are also far too 'cheerleading' in their tone, or too wordy anyway. The best answer is usually a short one.
Anyway, all the best with the document!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/08/2009 01:07 pm
Please go purchase a copy!

I don't want any illegally scanned copies appearing here please.   Please do the right thing guys, thanks!

You can't miss it when it appears on the shelves.   It's the one with a dirty great Jupiter launch vehicle taking-off right there on the front cover :)

And the photo at the start of the article gives a whole new meaning to the term "Gray Beard"!  LOL


The "gold nugget" bit is that the author managed to interview Bernard Kutter (Advanced Programs Manager at ULA, formerly Lockheed-Martin).   His comments are on page 57.

In short he directly challenges Steve Cook's claims that our Upper Stage mass figures are too low.   He goes toe-to-toe with Cook on this issue On The Record.

The thing is that Kutter has proven stages in production and flying to back his argument up.   What has Cook managed to get flying?   His last major project was X-33.   Who has the most credibility here?

Ross.

Congratulations to Ross, Chuck, and the entire DIRECT team!  This is quite a publicity coup, notwithstanding my previous not-entirely-supportive posting.  The cover illustration is awesome, the blurb is not over the top like I feared, and apparently the article does contain some good insider quotes.

I will absolutely purchase my own copy, as soon as it shows up on the shelves.  Maybe two.  Like Ross, I encourage people to buy their own copies so we can have a meaningful discussion about it.  It's okay to post excerpts and quotations for discussion, but wholesale reproduction would be a slap in the face of the publisher who put DIRECT on the cover.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/08/2009 01:12 pm
Going quiet now for a couple of days.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/08/2009 01:25 pm
Please go purchase a copy!

I don't want any illegally scanned copies appearing here please.   Please do the right thing guys, thanks!

You can't miss it when it appears on the shelves.   It's the one with a dirty great Jupiter launch vehicle taking-off right there on the front cover :)

And the photo at the start of the article gives a whole new meaning to the term "Gray Beard"!  LOL


The "gold nugget" bit is that the author managed to interview Bernard Kutter (Advanced Programs Manager at ULA, formerly Lockheed-Martin).   His comments are on page 57.


That would be the same Lockheed-Martin that gave us the mass estimates for X-33 and Venture-Star?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 01/08/2009 01:34 pm
Please go purchase a copy!

I don't want any illegally scanned copies appearing here please.   Please do the right thing guys, thanks!

You can't miss it when it appears on the shelves.   It's the one with a dirty great Jupiter launch vehicle taking-off right there on the front cover :)

And the photo at the start of the article gives a whole new meaning to the term "Gray Beard"!  LOL


The "gold nugget" bit is that the author managed to interview Bernard Kutter (Advanced Programs Manager at ULA, formerly Lockheed-Martin).   His comments are on page 57.


That would be the same Lockheed-Martin that gave us the mass estimates for X-33 and Venture-Star?

ULA != Skunkworks.
This LM gave mass estimates for Centaurs and Atlases.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/08/2009 01:53 pm
Please go purchase a copy!

I don't want any illegally scanned copies appearing here please.   Please do the right thing guys, thanks!

You can't miss it when it appears on the shelves.   It's the one with a dirty great Jupiter launch vehicle taking-off right there on the front cover :)

And the photo at the start of the article gives a whole new meaning to the term "Gray Beard"!  LOL


The "gold nugget" bit is that the author managed to interview Bernard Kutter (Advanced Programs Manager at ULA, formerly Lockheed-Martin).   His comments are on page 57.

In short he directly challenges Steve Cook's claims that our Upper Stage mass figures are too low.   He goes toe-to-toe with Cook on this issue On The Record.

The thing is that Kutter has proven stages in production and flying to back his argument up.   What has Cook managed to get flying?   His last major project was X-33.   Who has the most credibility here?

Ross.

Congratulation to the DIRECT team on the article in "Popular Mechanics"!
It is great that there is in the article a person from the industry confirming DIRECT numbers!
Great news! Great advancement!

For me it is the best rebuttal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bad_astra on 01/08/2009 02:01 pm
I'll be getting that off the newstand on the 15th. Great cover!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/08/2009 02:01 pm
Please go purchase a copy!

I don't want any illegally scanned copies appearing here please.   Please do the right thing guys, thanks!

You can't miss it when it appears on the shelves.   It's the one with a dirty great Jupiter launch vehicle taking-off right there on the front cover :)

And the photo at the start of the article gives a whole new meaning to the term "Gray Beard"!  LOL


The "gold nugget" bit is that the author managed to interview Bernard Kutter (Advanced Programs Manager at ULA, formerly Lockheed-Martin).   His comments are on page 57.


That would be the same Lockheed-Martin that gave us the mass estimates for X-33 and Venture-Star?

I do not know if it was LM who gave the mass estimates for X-33 and Venture-Star but it is one thing to give a mass estimates for something new not flown before and it is a completely another thing to give a mass estimates for a typical upper stage which they produced many different ones and successfully flown during their long history in this business.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Joffan on 01/08/2009 02:07 pm
The leap into the spotlight... congratulations team.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/08/2009 02:36 pm
HIP
I don't currently have my computer to hand but I seem to recall a press release style statement in response to that statement piece, I think Steve wrote it, but i'd have to ask him. We wouldn't have done a full rebuttal document for that. We have been working on a rebuttal to the ~65 page "analysis" document dated Oct 2007, not the "statement" piece.

PS I'm writing this on my iPod at the airport, so forgive any mistakes ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 01/08/2009 02:36 pm
This was the one for the 15th.   But since we started talking about that date *another* has slipped inside that too :)   I've been dropping hints like crazy, but y'all will have to wait a few more days to hear more.

Tease.

Quote
"What do you hear, Starbuck?" ;)

Nothing but the rain of dropped hints...

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/08/2009 02:38 pm
Going quiet now for a couple of days.

Okay... they're off to DC... now while they're gone let's optimize Direct  for lox-kero with a hypergolic upper stage...

Direct 3.14159265... to heck with Popular Mechanics, it's Collier's or bust!

 First up we'll need a big fuel depot in LEO... :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/08/2009 02:42 pm
Grab 'Im lads... ;)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/08/2009 02:43 pm
Please go purchase a copy!

I don't want any illegally scanned copies appearing here please.   Please do the right thing guys, thanks!

You can't miss it when it appears on the shelves.   It's the one with a dirty great Jupiter launch vehicle taking-off right there on the front cover :)

And the photo at the start of the article gives a whole new meaning to the term "Gray Beard"!  LOL


The "gold nugget" bit is that the author managed to interview Bernard Kutter (Advanced Programs Manager at ULA, formerly Lockheed-Martin).   His comments are on page 57.


That would be the same Lockheed-Martin that gave us the mass estimates for X-33 and Venture-Star?

I do not know if it was LM who gave the mass estimates for X-33 and Venture-Star but it is one thing to give a mass estimates for something new not flown before and it is a completely another thing to give a mass estimates for a typical upper stage which they produced many different ones and successfully flown during their long history in this business.


The Direct EDS is not a typical stage. It has a better mass fraction than any hydrogen stage that has ever flown, by a considerable margin. Look here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15377.msg347878#msg347878
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/08/2009 02:44 pm
Going quiet now for a couple of days.

What do you mean "quiet"?

Mike Griffin's resignation and now an article in "Popular Mechanics" you call it "quiet"?  :o
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/08/2009 02:50 pm
Going quiet now for a couple of days.

What do you mean "quiet"?

Mike Griffin's resignation and now an article in "Popular Mechanics" you call it "quiet"?  :o

"The quiet before the storm"

AKA they are working on something big right now
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/08/2009 02:58 pm
I managed to get my laptop to connect, so now I can keep a close eye on zapkitty.   That bleedin' cat is gonna enjoy a visit to the vet if he keeps on making a mess all over the place ;) LOL

And Yegor, yeah, I know what you mean.   We're not going to have much internet access for a few days, and very little time too, so we (Chuck and I) are going "quiet", but I hear ya -- I've had that "waiting for a bus" feeling all week, we've been waiting for ages and suddenly a whole line of things are all happening at the same time -- all the buses came at once!

I've had about 6 hours sleep in the last three day and I'm pretty sure I've got a full couple of days ahead of me.   I can't talk about any of the details yet, but now is the time to wish us luck!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bobthemonkey on 01/08/2009 03:19 pm
Sounds fun.

If you are in DC, the Hawk and Dove isn't a bad place for a drink.

Good luck, by the way!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jeff.findley on 01/08/2009 03:23 pm
O.k.  I really like the cover.  Congrats!  Consider the popular distribution of PM, I agree that this is a *good thing*.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/08/2009 03:37 pm
I managed to get my laptop to connect, so now I can keep a close eye on zapkitty.   That bleedin' cat is gonna enjoy a visit to the vet if he keeps on making a mess all over the place ;) LOL

And Yegor, yeah, I know what you mean.   We're not going to have much internet access for a few days, and very little time too, so we (Chuck and I) are going "quiet", but I hear ya -- I've had that "waiting for a bus" feeling all week, we've been waiting for ages and suddenly a whole line of things are all happening at the same time -- all the buses came at once!

I've had about 6 hours sleep in the last three day and I'm pretty sure I've got a full couple of days ahead of me.   I can't talk about any of the details yet, but now is the time to wish us luck!

Ross.

Wow, well, I wish you all the luck!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Quintus on 01/08/2009 03:54 pm
Good Luck chaps!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/08/2009 04:03 pm
I've had about 6 hours sleep in the last three day and I'm pretty sure I've got a full couple of days ahead of me.   I can't talk about any of the details yet, but now is the time to wish us luck!

Ross.

Hey, Ross, take it easy, get a good sleep - we need you in a good health.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: guru on 01/08/2009 04:38 pm
So, Ross and Chuck are going to be on an episode of Battlestar Galactica?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 01/08/2009 04:40 pm

The Direct EDS is not a typical stage. It has a better mass fraction than any hydrogen stage that has ever flown, by a considerable margin. Look here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15377.msg347878#msg347878

Conveniently not counting the Space Shuttle External Tank of course...

The SWLT ET masses 26.5 t and holds 735 t of propellant, compared to the proposed Jupiter EDS dry mass of 17.5 t (less engines) and 359.1 t of propellant.

Yes that's right, the ET holds 100% more yet weighs only 50% more than what's claimed for Jupiter EDS. And a big chunk of the ET mass is the intertank containing the SRB thrust structure, (it actually outweighs the LOX tank).

Jupiter EDS doesn't look nearly so cutting edge now, does it? And don't give me that "the External Tank isn't a real stage, it doesn't have engines" BS. The above link is comparing stages, less engines, and the ET has more than equivalent thrust structures, etc.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/08/2009 04:56 pm

The Direct EDS is not a typical stage. It has a better mass fraction than any hydrogen stage that has ever flown, by a considerable margin. Look here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15377.msg347878#msg347878

Conveniently not counting the Space Shuttle External Tank of course...

The SWLT ET masses 26.5 t and holds 735 t of propellant, compared to the proposed Jupiter EDS dry mass of 17.5 t (less engines) and 359.1 t of propellant.

Yes that's right, the ET holds 100% more yet weighs only 50% more than what's claimed for Jupiter EDS. And a big chunk of the ET mass is the intertank containing the SRB thrust structure, (it actually outweighs the LOX tank).

Jupiter EDS doesn't look nearly so cutting edge now, does it? And don't give me that "the External Tank isn't a real stage, it doesn't have engines" BS. The above link is comparing stages, less engines, and the ET has more than equivalent thrust structures, etc.



Well, it isn't a real stage. Look what happens when Direct does the bare minimum necessary to turn it into one for the Jupiter first stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jose on 01/08/2009 05:07 pm
Please go purchase a copy!

Much too lazy to go huntin' through stores for a copy.  Just subscribed for a year.  Hope it starts with this issue, or I'm going to be disappointed.  And I'll have to go to a store then anyway.

BTW, if anyone else is thinkin' about subscribing through their website, follow the red "subscribe" link at the top.  It's $10 that way vs. the $12 they want if you follow the "current issue" link.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: veedriver22 on 01/08/2009 05:20 pm
 W O W.   Looking forward to reading the magazine article.   

We have that,  Grifs resignation,  and obviously more to come!!!!!
You guys deserve so much credit.  Outstanding.
It would be one thing to organize and design an alternative to ARES.
But what I am really impressed with is your continued effort.
You have kept at it both on the promotional side, refining the designs,
as well as working out additional configurations & missions.

 I wish you the best.  And if you succeed we may get to see things we didn't think were possible in our lifetimes.     
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/08/2009 05:42 pm
Good luck guys! Catch you on the flip side
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: imcub on 01/08/2009 05:47 pm
So when NASA announced Ares I/V ... did they make the cover of Popular Mechanics? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: texas_space on 01/08/2009 05:51 pm
Congrats to the DIRECT team on making PM's cover!

Best of luck guys!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/08/2009 06:02 pm
Well, it isn't a real stage.

Sure it is; it's one with side-mounted, jettisonable engines and controls. :)

Structurally it's a stage.  Get over it and pick something else to poke at.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/08/2009 06:15 pm
Well, it isn't a real stage.

Sure it is; it's one with side-mounted, jettisonable engines and controls. :)

Structurally it's a stage.  Get over it and pick something else to poke at.


It's not a good idea to dismiss criticism.
DIRECT will be reviewed by NASA under their own terms. NASA have designed an upper stage for the Ares-V, and it comes out at a much more conservative dry mass than JUS. Hence they will try to criticise the JUS. A 'pre-rebuttal' is needed to ensure that JUS's numbers can be verifed.

My main worry about the JUS is thus: we all know that Ares-V is being pushed to greater performance (six engines, bigger SRBs, composites, etc). If a significantly better EDS is possible, why haven't NASA adopted such a design?

Other than the EDS, my main worry for DIRECT is the cost numbers. How do you buy a much larger tank, PLF, and thrust structure, an RS68, an SRB nozzle and recovery system, and three SRB segments, for only $15m?*

It's all very well cutting DIRECT some slack in this forum. But don't expect NASA to play that nicely. We need the proposal to be as tough as nails to stand up to whatever NASA can throw at it.

* this number assumes that Ares-I's J2X costs $25m and an RS68 is only $20m.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: daver on 01/08/2009 06:17 pm
So, Ross and Chuck are going to be on an episode of Battlestar Galactica?

Good luck Ross and Chuck!

            SO SAY WE ALL!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 01/08/2009 06:19 pm
Is it me or does anyone else see a vision in the exhaust plume?

 ;D

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/08/2009 06:21 pm
Well, it isn't a real stage.

Sure it is; it's one with side-mounted, jettisonable engines and controls. :)

Structurally it's a stage.  Get over it and pick something else to poke at.


It's not a good idea to dismiss criticism.
DIRECT will be reviewed by NASA under their own terms.

I'm not dismissing it - this topic has been beaten to death over the last few weeks and Ross and Chuck have clearly stated DIRECT's rationale, as well as their desire for a truly independent review by an outside party.  A NASA "review" is the last thing America's manned space program needs (at least until after a new Administrator is sworn in and take over).

For that matter, NASA really ought to get out of the whole "design" business and get back to what it SHOULD be doing: overseeing contractors who do the real work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/08/2009 06:22 pm
Wow, that's a nice cover and on a big publication.

Is that one of your graphics Pheogh?

So, Ross and Chuck are going to be on an episode of Battlestar Galactica?

Moon, Mars and New Caprica? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/08/2009 06:32 pm
Wow, that's a nice cover and on a big publication.

Is that one of your graphics Pheogh?

So, Ross and Chuck are going to be on an episode of Battlestar Galactica?

Moon, Mars and New Caprica? ;)

Alas unfortunately no, although they did reference much of my artwork. Some German company is credited on the inside cover. Still its a great image and of course a huge deal for Direct :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/08/2009 06:33 pm
PM Cover and write-up is still not enough to make the front page of this site.

Hopefully the next shoe to drop on the 15th will qualify :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/08/2009 06:34 pm
PM Cover and write-up is still not enough to make the front page of this site.

Hopefully the next shoe to drop on the 15th may qualify :)

I second that completely!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/08/2009 06:38 pm
I went to a local "Chapters" bookstore (analog of "Barnes and Noble") they have not got a new "Popular Mechanics" yet but told me that they should get it tomorrow afternoon.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mattrog on 01/08/2009 06:45 pm
Is it me or does anyone else see a vision in the exhaust plume?

 ;D



Does look like quite an obvious face in throat of the outboard engine ... - bit too obvious so i guess it was intentional

Anyway - really really great job guys - im really hoping you get a positive payout from all of the hard work you have put in

Have a great time and get some rest!! This thread can wait till you get back - plenty of people here have got your back !!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 01/08/2009 06:52 pm
Is it me or does anyone else see a vision in the exhaust plume?

 ;D



Does look like quite an obvious face in throat of the outboard engine ... - bit too obvious so i guess it was intentional

Looks like it might be Obama's face.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 01/08/2009 06:56 pm
Does look like quite an obvious face in throat of the outboard engine ... - bit too obvious so i guess it was intentional

Looks like it might be Obama's face.

Ahem... You do realize that's Nascent Ascent's artistic impression, don't you? :-D

The original posted by Ross doesn't have a face.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: cgrunska on 01/08/2009 07:08 pm
This is great! I'm going to pick up this magazine in a few days and pour over it. Hopefully something great comes of this!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mattrog on 01/08/2009 07:16 pm
Does look like quite an obvious face in throat of the outboard engine ... - bit too obvious so i guess it was intentional

Looks like it might be Obama's face.

Ahem... You do realize that's Nascent Ascent's artistic impression, don't you? :-D

The original posted by Ross doesn't have a face.

Damn ..... *matt shuffles off soooo embarrassed - this is why i don't post often ....*
Damn .....
Damn .....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/08/2009 07:25 pm
Just picked it up at Barnes and Noble. Amazing! It is quite extraordinary that a concept that started in a discussion on this website has made its way to the cover of Popular Mechanics.

Congrats guys!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/08/2009 07:31 pm
I know NSF is mentioned in the first sentence!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Namechange User on 01/08/2009 07:35 pm
PM Cover and write-up is still not enough to make the front page of this site.

Hopefully the next shoe to drop on the 15th will qualify :)

What?  Why should it?  Chris and company I think have been very good giving the forum to discuss all of this.  It's up to him if he chooses to make a story out of it or not. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/08/2009 07:39 pm
PM Cover and write-up is still not enough to make the front page of this site.

Hopefully the next shoe to drop on the 15th will qualify :)

What?  Why should it?  Chris and company I think have been very good giving the forum to discuss all of this.  It's up to him if he chooses to make a story out of it or not. 

This is a news site. As excited as I am that Direct and NSF are in Popular Mechanics, it is not a news story.

If NASA switches to Jupiter, then we will see a story.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/08/2009 07:56 pm
Now, it would be nice to see a DIRECT article in "National Geographic". :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/08/2009 07:57 pm
Ross and Chuck know the deal with this. We're a "NASA and current vehicles" news media site, and that's our content base. If we were to run an article on Direct past the 2006 article that introduced the concept, then it has to work within the parameters of what we report.

That may happen via something like progress with the transition team and the fallout that may have on CxP's forward path (thus viable news). However, it would take the Direct team to provide me with an exclusive run on such news, because the other key element of this site is we never run second hand content. That's my duty to the site's readership as editor to ensure that when we run articles, it's not going to be something you've read somewhere else, that we've re-written, or at least has a new angle.

Unavoidable via commercial launches as a lot of it is always going to be press materials, but everything else has to work along those lines. Even our rollover article for Discovery was very different to the rollover articles on other sites due to the L2 processing content and expansion on the landing gear issue. The mating article tonight will be along those lines also, as we have to ensure it's news.

So it's not a blackout on reporting on Direct, it's a case of waiting for an update to breach into viable news content for this site under the aforementioned parameters....and the very same rules would apply to the EELV folks on their alternatives. If and when that becomes the case, we'll run with an article, no question about it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nathan on 01/08/2009 08:20 pm
I managed to get my laptop to connect, so now I can keep a close eye on zapkitty.   That bleedin' cat is gonna enjoy a visit to the vet if he keeps on making a mess all over the place ;) LOL

And Yegor, yeah, I know what you mean.   We're not going to have much internet access for a few days, and very little time too, so we (Chuck and I) are going "quiet", but I hear ya -- I've had that "waiting for a bus" feeling all week, we've been waiting for ages and suddenly a whole line of things are all happening at the same time -- all the buses came at once!

I've had about 6 hours sleep in the last three day and I'm pretty sure I've got a full couple of days ahead of me.   I can't talk about any of the details yet, but now is the time to wish us luck!

Ross.

Crossing fingers and toes - good luck Direct!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: buzz123 on 01/08/2009 08:36 pm
Congrats on the PM article!  In addition to the exposure, it's great having an independent look at the JUS!  I'm looking forward to reading the whole article but especially what is on page 57.  I've been following this since day 1 of the original DIRECT Goes Live Thread and it's been quite an experience watching things unfold.  Good luck with your trip! 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/08/2009 09:41 pm
This was the one for the 15th.   But since we started talking about that date *another* has slipped inside that too :)   I've been dropping hints like crazy, but y'all will have to wait a few more days to hear more.

Lets just say that you ought not to worry if you don't hear from me for a few days.   I expect to be offline until Saturday or Sunday.

"What do you hear, Starbuck?" ;)

Ross.

Beautiful cover image. I was all hell bent to go to the store and get a copy, but it looks like I have to wait. Worth it though.

"I hear nothing but the rain"...I have an idea  ;)

Good luck you guys, and God speed. You're an inspiration. You've done a fantastic job in answering our questions, being honest, and providing NASA and your country with the next step forward in space. I'll have a nice scotch tonight in your dedication.
Go Direct, Go!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/08/2009 10:58 pm
I managed to get my laptop to connect, so now I can keep a close eye on zapkitty.   That bleedin' cat is gonna enjoy a visit to the vet if he keeps on making a mess all over the place ;) LOL

And Yegor, yeah, I know what you mean.   We're not going to have much internet access for a few days, and very little time too, so we (Chuck and I) are going "quiet", but I hear ya -- I've had that "waiting for a bus" feeling all week, we've been waiting for ages and suddenly a whole line of things are all happening at the same time -- all the buses came at once!

I've had about 6 hours sleep in the last three day and I'm pretty sure I've got a full couple of days ahead of me.   I can't talk about any of the details yet, but now is the time to wish us luck!

Ross.

God Speed Ross and to the DIRECT team!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Integrator on 01/08/2009 11:02 pm
The Force will be with you.

INTEGRATOR
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/08/2009 11:13 pm
However, it would take the Direct team to provide me with an exclusive run on such news, because the other key element of this site is we never run second hand content.


Am I mis-reading this? ? ? ? You really won't report this unless DIRECT gives you an exclusive and refuses to talk to the rest of the press or any other news site? ? ? ? Hard not to understand your comment as meaning exactly this. Jeez.

I can understand if you need to hear directly from the source before you publish, but to say you won't list a news item just because someone else scooped you by 10 minutes is simply petty. It's still news (and directly from the souce), it's just not an exclusive.

I need to subscribe to some other news sites, I think, to hear all the news that you refuse to publish because someone beat you to it.

Martin

PS I'm very strongly tempted to apologise for such a dismissive tone, but if you really refuse to publish news because someone beat you to it, then you're not a news site, you're just screaming "first!" out to the internet. I would love to apologise if I've misunderstood the comment that I've quoted above, or its context.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/08/2009 11:59 pm
Could we take all of this somewhere else? This is supposed to be discussion about DIRECT. If you have a problem with how Chris runs his site, take it up with him in a PM. This is not the time nor the place to debate this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/09/2009 12:17 am
I got it, I got it!

Well, most of what's written is to be found within these hallowed threads & posts, but the weight of the article is jaw dropping, and I anticipate a surge* of interest in the general public when they read this.

* (maybe 1%, which is alot for the USA)

I would love to know where to get images of the J-2X engine like the one in the article. Beautiful.

The Direct team should be very proud of this acheivement. Definitely an issue for collectors.

And you gotta love having nasaspaceflight.com right there in the first line, as someone else here already pointed out. I'd be interested to know how the member ticker goes up in the next 1-2 months. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/09/2009 12:38 am
However, it would take the Direct team to provide me with an exclusive run on such news, because the other key element of this site is we never run second hand content.


Am I mis-reading this? ? ? ? You really won't report this unless DIRECT gives you an exclusive and refuses to talk to the rest of the press or any other news site? ? ? ? Hard not to understand your comment as meaning exactly this. Jeez.

I can understand if you need to hear directly from the source before you publish, but to say you won't list a news item just because someone else scooped you by 10 minutes is simply petty. It's still news (and directly from the souce), it's just not an exclusive.

I need to subscribe to some other news sites, I think, to hear all the news that you refuse to publish because someone beat you to it.

Martin

PS I'm very strongly tempted to apologise for such a dismissive tone, but if you really refuse to publish news because someone beat you to it, then you're not a news site, you're just screaming "first!" out to the internet. I would love to apologise if I've misunderstood the comment that I've quoted above, or its context.

Heh. I'll try and explain it better ;)

We cover NASA and current vehicles - we are not covering Direct's development (and no news media site is). You're seeing numerous news media taking up a feature on Direct and that's cool - we've done the same back in 2006 and we've got the forum threads (also cool). No one is "missing" anything due to the update threads.

It was intimated why we had not run another article on Direct based on (a) The latest magazine feature. Reason: not a viable news story for us to run with for the reasons given in my other post, and (b) That we might pending any big news that directly (pun intended) relates to NASA's CxP direction.

I noted (b) would be viable if we get the news off the Direct team. Reason: It is unviable as a news site to rehash something already reported by another site. Some sites do re-write previously run content (with the "according to a report in the Blah Blah news...", but not us - we break news here for the reasons given of bringing something new to the party. But we still would run something if we had an additional angle. Basically, it HAS to be fresh news. No one here wants to re-read something they already know, and rightly so.

"Exclusive run" means breaking the news, it does not mean "do not to speak to another site." They are under no obligation to come to me with a breaking development, but the point is if they did, then I would run it (which answers the orginal question).

So the bottom line is "yes" I would write a news article about Direct (I believe the intimation is I'm avoiding such content), but "no" I wouldn't write an article on news already reported, as the readership of this site expects me to give them something new in the articles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/09/2009 12:59 am
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Direct team came back from their undisclosed location, and offer you (Chris) a nice scoop, worthy of an article. Not to say they will, and maybe it still isn't time to break the seal on any really big one (whatever that may be), but we at least have to be grateful that much of their discussions are based here on this site, and that says something.

Edit: 'We' instead of 'you'
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/09/2009 01:05 am
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Direct team came back from their undisclosed location, and offer you (Chris) a nice scoop, worthy of an article. Not to say they will, and maybe it still isn't time to break the seal on any really big one (whatever that may be), but we at least have to be grateful that much of their discussions are based here on this site, and that says something.

Edit: 'We' instead of 'you'

Agreed, we are very fortunate to have them so active here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/09/2009 01:07 am
What happened to the basal heating taper?

Wow, that's a nice cover and on a big publication.

Is that one of your graphics Pheogh?

So, Ross and Chuck are going to be on an episode of Battlestar Galactica?

Moon, Mars and New Caprica? ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/09/2009 01:18 am
Just to let the DIRECT guys know, Old Town Alexandria is a great place to get a bite to eat and relax, and if internet is an issue Just go to the Air and Space Museum on the mall, they have free WI-fi (practically lived there for spring break)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/09/2009 01:52 am
Now to actually discuss the content of the article...

I was a little disappointed in the comparison graphic PM decided to use. I wish they had used the graphic that the Direct team has used in the past, that shows the Shuttle and compares Ares and Jupiter.
This more clearly shows how Ares is not truly Shuttle derived.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/09/2009 02:07 am
And from that other publication today:
301051main_Space_Transportation_Association_8_Jan_09.pdf

From Griffin...
Quote
... Constellation is also designed to support ISS but, as clearly stated from the outset, only if commercial service fails to materialize. Constellation is not focused
on or designed for maximum efficiency in LEO operations.

Hmmm.... doesn't this flatly contradict the criticism of Direct that the J-120 "overshoots" ISS requirements?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/09/2009 02:11 am
I didn't consider the article as 'agressive', that's for sure. It was tempered by various statements, almost leaving it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Since there were no numbers to back up either side, due most likely to limited pages and the less tech-savy public, I wonder how people would vote on such statements.

I'm thinking it will at least draw attention to shuttle retirement, re-living nostalgic memories of Apollo 11, Challenger & Columbia, and of course the cost in today's fiscal environment. But I'm betting overall it will plant the seed that maybe NASA needs a shake-up and some real hard questions answered. It may just get Direct that new study to look at all the options and a fair and unbiased comparison.

One disappointment was the lack of their website address in the article.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/09/2009 02:21 am
I also felt it tried to give both sides a chance, and was definitely left to the reader to take a position. But the overall tone was pro-Direct I feel.

The stories of people getting threatened and fired for speaking out, the engineer from ULA countering what Cooke had to say about the Jupiter upperstage. There was a slight Big Bad Government vs Innocent Small Guy feel to it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/09/2009 02:40 am
PM Cover and write-up is still not enough to make the front page of this site.

Hopefully the next shoe to drop on the 15th will qualify :)

What?  Why should it?  Chris and company I think have been very good giving the forum to discuss all of this.  It's up to him if he chooses to make a story out of it or not. 

This is a news site. As excited as I am that Direct and NSF are in Popular Mechanics, it is not a news story.

If NASA switches to Jupiter, then we will see a story.

I was stating a fact, and completely understand Chris's reasons.. I wasn't trying to be critical, and apologize if it came across that way.

 I am, however, truly hoping that what is happening behind the scenes with the Direct Team over the next few days, is something that is worthy of an article here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 01/09/2009 03:27 am

Have the dangers of an ocean spash-down been added to the Ares-I LOC numbers?  All kinds of things can go wrong with an ocean splash-down, such as the capsule capsizing or sinking, or the flotation devices could malfunction.  Surely that would have an adverse affect on the safety ratings of the mission.  I can't imagine that there could be 2000 splash-downs without a serious event taking place at least once.

Mark S.

To the best of my knowledge, Ares-I LOM/LOC numbers do NOT include any spacecraft recovery events or milestones. IIRC, they are limited to the spacecraft launch. Someone please correct me if that is not right.

So, the Columbia accident should not count towards Shuttle LOC numbers, in that case.  Sure, the trigger event was during the launch, but they actually survived the launch, completed their science mission, and had left orbit.  Clearly, that line of logic does not hold up.

I would say that LOC/LOM numbers have to account for and include any possible loss while riding in, on, or around any NASA vehicle.  Once they are safely on board the Nimitz (or whatever), then NASA can be absolved of responsibility.

Didn't one of the Mercury capsules actually sink, and nearly take the astronaut down with it?

Mark S.

Being fair, there is a very big difference between Launch Vehicle LOM/LOC numbers and Mission LOM/LOC numbers. While there are certain launch events that can have an affect on the Mission numbers, as in Columbia, typically the Launch Vehicle numbers do not include Mission numbers but are considered and quoted separately. Launching the spacecraft is the job of the launch vehicle. The mission after orbital insertion is generally not affected by the launch vehicle. That's why the mission numbers are quoted separately from the launch event.

The falacy in this particular case (Orion/Ares vs. Orion/Jupiter) is the current design of Orion has been severly compromised by the performance limitations of Ares-I, making the spacecraft much less safe than it would have been otherwise. It is not UN-safe, it is LESS-safe. That does NOT include resulting spacecraft performance shortfalls, only safety considerations; things like lacking mmod protection, reduced survival time in the water after splashdown, and single fault tolerant systems vs. dual fault tolerant.

Kind of like saying foam strikes make shuttle "LESS safe"... unless of course you die because of it... I think that would tend to demonstrate the vehicle to be "UNsafe"...

No harm no foul?? Isn't that the sort of thinking that led to the Challenger and Columbia disasters, even though evidence of prior damage/failure during previous missions showed there was a problem that, in hindsight, should have been addressed, and if it had, could likely have prevented the loss of the crews involved??  I tend to think that pushes such a problem into the 'unsafe' category myself... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 01/09/2009 05:17 am
Well, it isn't a real stage.

Sure it is; it's one with side-mounted, jettisonable engines and controls. :)

Structurally it's a stage.  Get over it and pick something else to poke at.


It's not a good idea to dismiss criticism.
DIRECT will be reviewed by NASA under their own terms. NASA have designed an upper stage for the Ares-V, and it comes out at a much more conservative dry mass than JUS. Hence they will try to criticise the JUS. A 'pre-rebuttal' is needed to ensure that JUS's numbers can be verifed.

I'm not dismissing crticism, I'm addressing and refuting it. The claim is that JUS is dubious because no hardware with equivalent performance has ever flown. I believe I have demonstrated that hardware with much better performance has flown, but that data was rejected due to semantics.

A much better criticism would be to analyze the forces & material properties, then show whether or not the structure is physically capable of performing as proposed. Neither the above posters nor NASA have done that.  Instead they point at the NASA design, say it's not as good as JUS, NASA are the experts, so JUS is not possible. That's a logical fallacy.

Quote
My main worry about the JUS is thus: we all know that Ares-V is being pushed to greater performance (six engines, bigger SRBs, composites, etc). If a significantly better EDS is possible, why haven't NASA adopted such a design?


Good question to which the answer comes in several parts:
1) EDS and JUS are not designed to perform exactly the same tasks.
The environments & loads are somewhat different requiring different designs.
2) JUS is bigger which in itself leads to greater mass efficiency.
3) LM have much more experience with cryogenic upper stages, so you would expect their design to be more efficient.
4) NASA have not asked for outside help with EDS. They want to develop the design experience in-house.

None of these alone account for all the differences, but add them all up...

Quote
Other than the EDS, my main worry for DIRECT is the cost numbers. How do you buy a much larger tank, PLF, and thrust structure, an RS68, an SRB nozzle and recovery system, and three SRB segments, for only $15m?*

It's all very well cutting DIRECT some slack in this forum. But don't expect NASA to play that nicely. We need the proposal to be as tough as nails to stand up to whatever NASA can throw at it.

* this number assumes that Ares-I's J2X costs $25m and an RS68 is only $20m.


Existing 4-seg SRB & RS-68 costs are fairly fixed. About $80m per J-120 stack. $100m per J-232.  Ares I and V SRB's and engines will be too, but at a higher rate for the RSB's because they will be 2 new designs with smaller production runs.

The big difference will be in the cost of building the Jupiter core & JUS vs ARES I US, Ares V core & EDS.

IIRC for 2 x ISS, 2 x Lunar Manned, 2 x Lunar Cargo you will need:

10 x Jupiter core, 8 x JUS   VS   4 x AUS, 4 x Ares V core, 4 x EDS

Many of the production costs are fixed, so if you make more copies of a stage, EACH ONE WILL COST LESS. Conversely, making only a few of each, drives up the individual cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/09/2009 07:32 am
However, it would take the Direct team to provide me with an exclusive run on such news, because the other key element of this site is we never run second hand content.


Am I mis-reading this? ? ? ? You really won't report this unless DIRECT gives you an exclusive and refuses to talk to the rest of the press or any other news site? ? ? ? Hard not to understand your comment as meaning exactly this. Jeez.

I can understand if you need to hear directly from the source before you publish, but to say you won't list a news item just because someone else scooped you by 10 minutes is simply petty. It's still news (and directly from the souce), it's just not an exclusive.

I need to subscribe to some other news sites, I think, to hear all the news that you refuse to publish because someone beat you to it.

Martin

PS I'm very strongly tempted to apologise for such a dismissive tone, but if you really refuse to publish news because someone beat you to it, then you're not a news site, you're just screaming "first!" out to the internet. I would love to apologise if I've misunderstood the comment that I've quoted above, or its context.

Heh. I'll try and explain it better ;)

And I should try to be more civil! I reckon Mail Goggles (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/07/google.email) was invented for me. Apologies for the tone, which was completely unnecessary.


Quote
We cover NASA and current vehicles - we are not covering Direct's development (and no news media site is). You're seeing numerous news media taking up a feature on Direct and that's cool - we've done the same back in 2006 and we've got the forum threads (also cool). No one is "missing" anything due to the update threads.

The clue is there in the NSF name. Loving the forum.


Quote
It was intimated why we had not run another article on Direct based on (a) The latest magazine feature. Reason: not a viable news story for us to run with for the reasons given in my other post,

Yeah, just what I need - another news feed rehashing the same thing yet again.


Quote
and (b) That we might pending any big news that directly (pun intended) relates to NASA's CxP direction.

I noted (b) would be viable if we get the news off the Direct team. Reason: It is unviable as a news site to rehash something already reported by another site. Some sites do re-write previously run content (with the "according to a report in the Blah Blah news...", but not us - we break news here for the reasons given of bringing something new to the party. But we still would run something if we had an additional angle. Basically, it HAS to be fresh news. No one here wants to re-read something they already know, and rightly so.

"Exclusive run" means breaking the news, it does not mean "do not to speak to another site." They are under no obligation to come to me with a breaking development, but the point is if they did, then I would run it (which answers the orginal question).

You've given excellent support, and I hope you get your scoop (assuming it's on-topic, of course). This forum has done a lot to get DIRECT's ideas out there and they've said more than once that your moderation has been important to this.


Quote
So the bottom line is "yes" I would write a news article about Direct (I believe the intimation is I'm avoiding such content), but "no" I wouldn't write an article on news already reported, as the readership of this site expects me to give them something new in the articles.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 01/09/2009 11:30 am
The big difference will be in the cost of building the Jupiter core & JUS vs ARES I US, Ares V core & EDS.

IIRC for 2 x ISS, 2 x Lunar Manned, 2 x Lunar Cargo you will need:

10 x Jupiter core, 8 x JUS   VS   4 x AUS, 4 x Ares V core, 4 x EDS

Many of the production costs are fixed, so if you make more copies of a stage, EACH ONE WILL COST LESS. Conversely, making only a few of each, drives up the individual cost.

Well, what we're really seeing here is the advantages of a common core stage between the J-120 and J-232. Think about it:

1) All your flights use the same core rather than having two separate designs.

2) The design keeps most of the external fuel tank, so you can use current facilities to produce the Jupiter core with minimal retooling, as opposed to making massive changes to your equipment to accommodate a new, larger design for Ares V or a new, smaller design for Ares I.

These two things alone would result in massive cost reductions when going with Jupiter. However, we can extend this out to the actual preparation and launch. Experience with prepping the J-120 in the VAB would be transferable to the J-232. You can't say the same for the Ares I and V, because they have different VAB platforms, crawlers, launch pads, et cetera. Once the Ares V rolls out, you'd practically need to retrain everyone who was working on the Ares I to work on the Ares V. However, with the J-232, you pretty much just train them on the upper stage and you're done. Not to mention the fact that NASA already has people who know how to put standard SRBs on something derived from the shuttle external fuel tank.

I just don't understand what's so mysterious about the Direct 2.0 numbers. It seems like people are just fishing for a problem. Everything is derivative on the Jupiter:

* Core fuel tank is the Shuttle ET.
* Engines are from the Delta IV.
* SRBs aren't even derivative, they're the SRBs.
* Upper stage is a resized Atlas Centaur.
* J2-X is a modified J2.

Direct 2.0 does have the burden of explaining the numbers and reasoning, but I find the level of skepticism a bit excessive.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kkattula on 01/09/2009 11:44 am
...
Direct 2.0 does have the burden of explaining the numbers and reasoning, but I find the level of skepticism a bit excessive.
Exactly.  I'd like to see a bit more constructive criticism from the skeptics and less "appeals to authority" & cries of "it's too good to be true".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacecase on 01/09/2009 02:09 pm
One additional point to be made regarding the production of Jupiter vs Aries.

Direct would require 3 production lines: Shuttle RSRB, Core stage, EDS

Aries would require 5 produciton lines: 5Seg RSRB, 5.5 Seg SRB, Aries I US, Aries V Core, Aries V US

The Shuttle RSRB lines exist, the Direct core stage line reuses a lot of ET production equipment, and the Jupiter EDS is a new line

All 5 production lines for Aries are new

----------------
As far as the JUS being a magical stage, at least one company thinks they can make it. All the Direct team is looking for is a review of the designs on an even playing field.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bad_astra on 01/09/2009 02:16 pm
Hope posting a link to another site won't get me in trouble:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/transition_team_4.html

"Word has it Buzz was going with them"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/09/2009 02:39 pm
One additional point to be made regarding the production of Jupiter vs Aries.

Direct would require 3 production lines: Shuttle RSRB, Core stage, EDS

Aries would require 5 produciton lines: 5Seg RSRB, 5.5 Seg SRB, Aries I US, Aries V Core, Aries V US

The Shuttle RSRB lines exist, the Direct core stage line reuses a lot of ET production equipment, and the Jupiter EDS is a new line

All 5 production lines for Aries are new

----------------
As far as the JUS being a magical stage, at least one company thinks they can make it. All the Direct team is looking for is a review of the designs on an even playing field.

If a contractor can actually build the ultalightweight EDS claimed by Direct, Ares V will not need 5.5 segments.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 01/09/2009 02:42 pm
Hope posting a link to another site won't get me in trouble:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/transition_team_4.html

"Word has it Buzz was going with them"

I've been wondering that for months, given his earlier support for shuttle C type solutions and the curious silence on the subject on his part for a while.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 01/09/2009 02:43 pm
If a contractor can actually build the ultalightweight EDS claimed by Direct, Ares V will not need 5.5 segments.

This assumes NASA is willing to let contractor build such an EDS. So far NASA wanted to do it "their way", and considering that NASA does not have required experience, no wonder "NASA way" EDS is worse.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/09/2009 02:45 pm
Hope posting a link to another site won't get me in trouble:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/transition_team_4.html

"Word has it Buzz was going with them"

Now that is interesting.  I know Buzz has his own ideas, but if DIRECT can get his endorsement it would be a big boost in credibility.

As for the "other site", that harbors over-the-top hostility towards DIRECT.  I suppose he must have his reasons, but even in the very first DIRECT article archived on his site, he comes down hard on DIRECT and any favorable posts.

Mark S.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/09/2009 03:08 pm
This assumes NASA is willing to let contractor build such an EDS. So far NASA wanted to do it "their way", and considering that NASA does not have required experience, no wonder "NASA way" EDS is worse.

This gets back to an earlier criticism of mine (and many others with industry experience):  NASA does NOT need to do detailed design!  Their highest, best role in the process should be as an overseer of the prime contractors selected.  The recent PDR debacle demonstrates that clearly.  NASA should focus its limited resources on generating top-level mission requirements and level one design requirements and then getting out of the way until PDR except in a general way. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/09/2009 03:12 pm
Good to see that Buzz may be on board!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/09/2009 03:16 pm
If a contractor can actually build the ultalightweight EDS claimed by Direct, Ares V will not need 5.5 segments.

This assumes NASA is willing to let contractor build such an EDS. So far NASA wanted to do it "their way", and considering that NASA does not have required experience, no wonder "NASA way" EDS is worse.

The NASA EDS is heavier. If lightness is the only figure of merit, all stages will have common bulkheads. They don't, and it isn't because the contractors don't know how to do it. Boeing's new upper stage for Delta IV doesn't have one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 01/09/2009 03:18 pm
Quote
 

PS  The pro-Ares arguments kind of remind of the current Microsoft Mojave commercials, which essentially say, "Windows Vista, it doesn't suck nearly as bad as you think, so get behind it and purchase a copy because you don't have an alternative!"

- John

EXACTLY!!! 

When did things in this country get so screwed up that elimination of competition and lack of an alternative, forcing one to adopt the existing plan/product no matter how bad it is, is somehow touted as "the best choice"??  Lack of an alternative means there IS NO CHOICE...  Ignoring, downplaying, and villifying alternatives is a BAD CHOICE, and is intellectually dishonest.  If something is the best choice, it would logically stand up to scrutiny and win on it's own merits-- not through elimination of any alternatives or competition FORCING it to be adopted even though it might be the worst alternative there is...
(throws up hands in disgust)-- OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bad_astra on 01/09/2009 03:26 pm
Quote from Aldrin, last year ""We need to stick with the mission but rethink some of the ways we implement it," said Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. "It doesn't pay to stick with a bad idea.""

source: http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:pWufv874OKIJ:current.com/items/89143128/nasa_legend_buzz_aldrin_voices_concerns_about_moon_rocket.htm+%22buzz+aldrin+voices+concerns%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 01/09/2009 03:40 pm
I just don't understand what's so mysterious about the Direct 2.0 numbers. It seems like people are just fishing for a problem. Everything is derivative on the Jupiter:

* Core fuel tank is the Shuttle ET.
* Engines are from the Delta IV.
* SRBs aren't even derivative, they're the SRBs.
* Upper stage is a resized Atlas Centaur.
* J2-X is a modified J2.

Direct 2.0 does have the burden of explaining the numbers and reasoning, but I find the level of skepticism a bit excessive.

My complaint is simply that the amount of work required to make Jupiter seems to be low-balled.  In the case of the ET, absolutely it uses the same manufacturing techniques, infrastructure, and procedures.  But it IS a different tank, the only component NOT modified will be the intertank, and that will probably need to be modified so as to adjust the cross beam stiffness for TO (remember it is a vehicle resonance).  Not saying anything about the value of doing it (cost/time), but its not the Shuttle ET (I know you said "derivative").

And with the Centaur upper stage, yes the design is a derivative, but tell me what its mass is after a few design evolutions.  What will make the highest loads on the centaur - and how will this affect it's design?  I know you aren't advocating the "Lego" LV design, but to simply say LM has more experience with this and can make their claims is to say that it's a Lego upperstage and won't need to be re-designed for Jupiter loads.  (BTW, no issue with LM, but I hope that their Centaur upper stage is designed with more clarity than the Orion).

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/09/2009 03:51 pm
One additional point to be made regarding the production of Jupiter vs Aries.

Direct would require 3 production lines: Shuttle RSRB, Core stage, EDS

Aries would require 5 produciton lines: 5Seg RSRB, 5.5 Seg SRB, Aries I US, Aries V Core, Aries V US

The Shuttle RSRB lines exist, the Direct core stage line reuses a lot of ET production equipment, and the Jupiter EDS is a new line

All 5 production lines for Aries are new

----------------
As far as the JUS being a magical stage, at least one company thinks they can make it. All the Direct team is looking for is a review of the designs on an even playing field.

On an operating basis the savings aren't as great as you might think, since most of the cost is in the propulsion and avionics, not the structure. Based on the contract cost, the savings from entirely eliminating the Ares I US production is about $90 million a year. That's not a very large share of the cost of the entire program.

Against this Jupiter requires man-rating the RS-68 and Jupiter core, both of which will raise costs for those components considerably.

Also, marginal cost will be higher on the ISS mission since you are buying more liquid engines and more SRB segments.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/09/2009 04:31 pm
Hope posting a link to another site won't get me in trouble:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/transition_team_4.html

"Word has it Buzz was going with them"

Now that is interesting.  I know Buzz has his own ideas, but if DIRECT can get his endorsement it would be a big boost in credibility.

As for the "other site", that dude harbors over-the-top hostility towards DIRECT.  I suppose he must have his reasons, but even in the very first DIRECT article archived on his site, he comes down hard on DIRECT and any favorable posts.  Someone must have really p*ssed in his lemonade.

Mark S.



Please change the tone.  Please be constructive.  Everyone has their own view.   Saying rude things about anyone does not help matters.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/09/2009 04:39 pm
I just don't understand what's so mysterious about the Direct 2.0 numbers. It seems like people are just fishing for a problem. Everything is derivative on the Jupiter:

* Core fuel tank is the Shuttle ET.
* Engines are from the Delta IV.
* SRBs aren't even derivative, they're the SRBs.
* Upper stage is a resized Atlas Centaur.
* J2-X is a modified J2.

Direct 2.0 does have the burden of explaining the numbers and reasoning, but I find the level of skepticism a bit excessive.

My complaint is simply that the amount of work required to make Jupiter seems to be low-balled.  In the case of the ET, absolutely it uses the same manufacturing techniques, infrastructure, and procedures.  But it IS a different tank, the only component NOT modified will be the intertank, and that will probably need to be modified so as to adjust the cross beam stiffness for TO (remember it is a vehicle resonance).  Not saying anything about the value of doing it (cost/time), but its not the Shuttle ET (I know you said "derivative").

And with the Centaur upper stage, yes the design is a derivative, but tell me what its mass is after a few design evolutions.  What will make the highest loads on the centaur - and how will this affect it's design?  I know you aren't advocating the "Lego" LV design, but to simply say LM has more experience with this and can make their claims is to say that it's a Lego upperstage and won't need to be re-designed for Jupiter loads.  (BTW, no issue with LM, but I hope that their Centaur upper stage is designed with more clarity than the Orion).

Marc

I believe that Ross or Chuck stated, a little while ago in this thread, that they already have an extra $2.5 Billion added in the figures they published just to deal with potential development cost overruns. 

Do you think that is not enough?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 01/09/2009 04:41 pm
Ross or Chuck do not control the budget of the United States
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/09/2009 04:46 pm
Ross or Chuck do not control the budget of the United States

No kidding.. What is this comment about? Chris?

I just stated that the numbers the DIRECT team is quoting already have, I believe, an extra $2.5 Billion included to deal with cost overruns. What about that do you have a problem with?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: GraphGuy on 01/09/2009 04:48 pm

The Ares SRB is totally new, completely untested, untried, and in strict terms, is an experimental motor. Given the climate for this kind of big-ticket purchase, it is not really a surprise that it would cost more, without even knowing all the technical reasons why. Does anyone out there honestly believe that if we built a Mercury spacecraft for use next year, that it would only cost $1.2 million? I'd expect it to cost about $5-7 million or so, which is four times what the originals cost, even allowing for what the dollar is today, as opposed to 1959-60.

The SRBs in use right now are all known quantities.

Yep.  I also forgot to mention the possibility of a composite SRB for Ares V which would be a wholly different "SRB" and be completely different than what Ares I uses.

So imagine if you could take all the R&D money for new SRBs and just use that to build other parts.  It saves quite a bit of time and money.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/09/2009 05:19 pm
Hope posting a link to another site won't get me in trouble:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/transition_team_4.html

"Word has it Buzz was going with them"

Now that is interesting.  I know Buzz has his own ideas, but if DIRECT can get his endorsement it would be a big boost in credibility.

As for the "other site", that dude harbors over-the-top hostility towards DIRECT.  I suppose he must have his reasons, but even in the very first DIRECT article archived on his site, he comes down hard on DIRECT and any favorable posts.  Someone must have really p*ssed in his lemonade.

Mark S.



Please change the tone.  Please be constructive.  Everyone has their own view.   Saying rude things about anyone does not help matters.

I believe everyone in the space advocacy/development community needs to take this to heart, from those of us cheering from the sidelines right up to NASA Administrators. Sounding like a bunch of Internet jerks doesn't do the cause any good. Regardless of how we feel about rockets and personalities, at rock bottom, we all want the same thing: a future for humanity off-earth.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/09/2009 05:24 pm
This assumes NASA is willing to let contractor build such an EDS. So far NASA wanted to do it "their way", and considering that NASA does not have required experience, no wonder "NASA way" EDS is worse.

This gets back to an earlier criticism of mine (and many others with industry experience):  NASA does NOT need to do detailed design!  Their highest, best role in the process should be as an overseer of the prime contractors selected.  The recent PDR debacle demonstrates that clearly.  NASA should focus its limited resources on generating top-level mission requirements and level one design requirements and then getting out of the way until PDR except in a general way. 

CLES? That would be the Commercial Lunar Exploration Services program...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/09/2009 05:31 pm
Hope posting a link to another site won't get me in trouble:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/transition_team_4.html

"Word has it Buzz was going with them"

Now that is interesting.  I know Buzz has his own ideas, but if DIRECT can get his endorsement it would be a big boost in credibility.

As for the "other site", that dude harbors over-the-top hostility towards DIRECT.  I suppose he must have his reasons, but even in the very first DIRECT article archived on his site, he comes down hard on DIRECT and any favorable posts.  Someone must have really p*ssed in his lemonade.

Mark S.



Please change the tone.  Please be constructive.  Everyone has their own view.   Saying rude things about anyone does not help matters.

I believe everyone in the space advocacy/development community needs to take this to heart, from those of us cheering from the sidelines right up to NASA Administrators. Sounding like a bunch of Internet jerks doesn't do the cause any good. Regardless of how we feel about rockets and personalities, at rock bottom, we all want the same thing: a future for humanity off-earth.

So it is now considered rude to point out the obvious?  I didn't call him names or cast aspersions about his parentage or mental capacity.  I simply made the observation that his site is hostile to DIRECT.  How is that a problem?

I didn't even include any veiled insults, like "prominent ego", "vocal advocacy group", or even "input is of marginal ... value".

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/09/2009 05:41 pm
Hope posting a link to another site won't get me in trouble:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/transition_team_4.html

"Word has it Buzz was going with them"

Now that is interesting.  I know Buzz has his own ideas, but if DIRECT can get his endorsement it would be a big boost in credibility.

As for the "other site", that dude harbors over-the-top hostility towards DIRECT.  I suppose he must have his reasons, but even in the very first DIRECT article archived on his site, he comes down hard on DIRECT and any favorable posts.  Someone must have really p*ssed in his lemonade.

Mark S.



Please change the tone.  Please be constructive.  Everyone has their own view.   Saying rude things about anyone does not help matters.

I believe everyone in the space advocacy/development community needs to take this to heart, from those of us cheering from the sidelines right up to NASA Administrators. Sounding like a bunch of Internet jerks doesn't do the cause any good. Regardless of how we feel about rockets and personalities, at rock bottom, we all want the same thing: a future for humanity off-earth.

I couldn't agree more. I would like to see the events of this week as DIRECT advancing into more considerate echelon of debate. Far away from the "guy in the basement of his mom's house" blog-o-sphere.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/09/2009 05:50 pm
Hope posting a link to another site won't get me in trouble:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/transition_team_4.html

"Word has it Buzz was going with them"

Now that is interesting.  I know Buzz has his own ideas, but if DIRECT can get his endorsement it would be a big boost in credibility.

As for the "other site", that dude harbors over-the-top hostility towards DIRECT.  I suppose he must have his reasons, but even in the very first DIRECT article archived on his site, he comes down hard on DIRECT and any favorable posts.  Someone must have really p*ssed in his lemonade.

Mark S.



Please change the tone.  Please be constructive.  Everyone has their own view.   Saying rude things about anyone does not help matters.

I believe everyone in the space advocacy/development community needs to take this to heart, from those of us cheering from the sidelines right up to NASA Administrators. Sounding like a bunch of Internet jerks doesn't do the cause any good. Regardless of how we feel about rockets and personalities, at rock bottom, we all want the same thing: a future for humanity off-earth.

So it is now considered rude to point out the obvious?  I didn't call him names or cast aspersions about his parentage or mental capacity.  I simply made the observation that his site is hostile to DIRECT.  How is that a problem?

I didn't even include any veiled insults, like "prominent ego", "vocal advocacy group", or even "input is of marginal ... value".

Mark S.


I agree with you.  Folks, the criticism of Mark's post is unfair.  He made no insults, just pointed out what is, in fact, obvious to many.  Further, Keith updated his site an hour or two ago to point out that "the DIRECT amazing peoples" (his phrase) were upset with him. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/09/2009 05:55 pm

So it is now considered rude to point out the obvious?  I didn't call him names or cast aspersions about his parentage or mental capacity.  I simply made the observation that his site is hostile to DIRECT.  How is that a problem?

I didn't even include any veiled insults, like "prominent ego", "vocal advocacy group", or even "input is of marginal ... value".

Mark S.


I agree with you.  Folks, the criticism of Mark's post is unfair.  He made no insults, just pointed out what is, in fact, obvious to many.  Further, Keith updated his site an hour or two ago to point out that "the DIRECT amazing peoples" (his phrase) were upset with him. 

Thanks Herb, I appreciate it.

I will concede that the phrase "p*ssed in his lemonade" is a bit crude, and will try to refrain from such colloquialisms in the future.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 01/09/2009 06:02 pm
Against this Jupiter requires man-rating the RS-68 and Jupiter core, both of which will raise costs for those components considerably.

Anything with the potential to have an Orion on top will have this problem. For the Ares I, you'd have to man-rate the J2-X engine, plus the SRB first stage has to be man-rated because it's essentially a new booster and has different weight loads and distribution. Assuming NASA isn't going to man-rate the Ares V, you gain a little there, but only if you intend to never man-rate the Delta IV, which leaves you with only one rocket capable of transporting astronauts into space.

Also, marginal cost will be higher on the ISS mission since you are buying more liquid engines and more SRB segments.

You're buying one extra engine and three extra SRBs. The SRBs in question are shuttle SRBs, so the Ares I SRB segments (which will almost certainly cost more than shuttle SRBs) would have to be no more than 1.6 times the cost of a shuttle SRB segment just to break even, SRB-wise. Of course, that's not counting the extra nozzle on the bottom, but then they're changing that for the Ares I too.

You may have someone of a point for the engines, assuming a J2-X is not significantly more expensive than an RS-68, but it's an apples-to-oranges comparison anyways because the Ares I can't haul cargo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 01/09/2009 06:04 pm
I believe that Ross or Chuck stated, a little while ago in this thread, that they already have an extra $2.5 Billion added in the figures they published just to deal with potential development cost overruns. 

Do you think that is not enough?

I have no idea, and I wasn't trying to make claim to the value in cost or time of Jupiter, rather that the tone of their claims is a bit misleading when it sounds like it's easily modified heritage hardware.  Essentially (and probably to NASA) it is a new tank, designed very closely to the existing ET.  There may be more issues with this than we know.  It is one thing to do a study (NLS) and another to design and analyze the tank as an integrated system.

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/09/2009 06:12 pm
I believe that Ross or Chuck stated, a little while ago in this thread, that they already have an extra $2.5 Billion added in the figures they published just to deal with potential development cost overruns. 

Do you think that is not enough?

I have no idea, and I wasn't trying to make claim to the value in cost or time of Jupiter, rather that the tone of their claims is a bit misleading when it sounds like it's easily modified heritage hardware.  Essentially (and probably to NASA) it is a new tank, designed very closely to the existing ET.  There may be more issues with this than we know.  It is one thing to do a study (NLS) and another to design and analyze the tank as an integrated system.

Marc

While there is no way to tell how easy something really is until we actually try, you have to remember that there have been several studies over the last few decades on modifying the ET to do exactly what DIRECT wants to do.
If there were a show stopper hidden somewhere, one of these studies would have had to found it by now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/09/2009 06:24 pm
Hope posting a link to another site won't get me in trouble:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/transition_team_4.html

"Word has it Buzz was going with them"

Now that is interesting.  I know Buzz has his own ideas, but if DIRECT can get his endorsement it would be a big boost in credibility.

As for the "other site", that dude harbors over-the-top hostility towards DIRECT.  I suppose he must have his reasons, but even in the very first DIRECT article archived on his site, he comes down hard on DIRECT and any favorable posts.  Someone must have really p*ssed in his lemonade.

Mark S.



Please change the tone.  Please be constructive.  Everyone has their own view.   Saying rude things about anyone does not help matters.

I believe everyone in the space advocacy/development community needs to take this to heart, from those of us cheering from the sidelines right up to NASA Administrators. Sounding like a bunch of Internet jerks doesn't do the cause any good. Regardless of how we feel about rockets and personalities, at rock bottom, we all want the same thing: a future for humanity off-earth.

So it is now considered rude to point out the obvious?  I didn't call him names or cast aspersions about his parentage or mental capacity.  I simply made the observation that his site is hostile to DIRECT.  How is that a problem?

I didn't even include any veiled insults, like "prominent ego", "vocal advocacy group", or even "input is of marginal ... value".

Mark S.


It wasn't meant to be a criticism of your post specifically, just a general observation that in-group bickering is hurting us all. I've tried to point this out on the site in question, as well. To no avail, of course.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/09/2009 06:29 pm
I believe that Ross or Chuck stated, a little while ago in this thread, that they already have an extra $2.5 Billion added in the figures they published just to deal with potential development cost overruns. 

Do you think that is not enough?

I have no idea, and I wasn't trying to make claim to the value in cost or time of Jupiter, rather that the tone of their claims is a bit misleading when it sounds like it's easily modified heritage hardware.  Essentially (and probably to NASA) it is a new tank, designed very closely to the existing ET.  There may be more issues with this than we know.  It is one thing to do a study (NLS) and another to design and analyze the tank as an integrated system.

Marc

I believe the NLS did pass PDR? did it not? Now, for sure it is not a one to one comparison but don't you think the review probably included analysis including ET-mods as well as Thrust structure evaluations. At the core of our argument has always been that this is not a completely new idea.

p.s. oh boy the Team artist is trying to talk engineering...  ::)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bad_astra on 01/09/2009 06:40 pm
Can we clear this up somehow with Keith Cowing? I just found his article interesting, and I did not intend for him to link back to us with the term "amazing peoples."

Frankly I don't care what rocket he prefers. We're all on the same side, in the end.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/09/2009 07:00 pm
Can we clear this up somehow with Keith Cowing? I just found his article interesting, and I did not intend for him to link back to us with the term "amazing peoples."

Frankly I don't care what rocket he prefers. We're all on the same side, in the end.

Nah, let's just drop it.  If anyone follow the link from his site, they will just find our normal conversations, not "all the DIRECT amazing peoples" being upset at him.  I'm the only one here who said anything at all about his site, and even then saying that I'm "upset" at him is a stretch.

And, they will see that I got thrown under the bus even for that.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ballew on 01/09/2009 07:34 pm
Can we clear this up somehow with Keith Cowing? I just found his article interesting, and I did not intend for him to link back to us with the term "amazing peoples."

Frankly I don't care what rocket he prefers. We're all on the same side, in the end.

I find it interesting that even though he obviously disagrees with the Direct concept he evidently monitors this thread.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/09/2009 07:40 pm
AP article shows up in a another location..

http://www.physorg.com/news135269357.html

Also top "breaking news" story on their homepage

http://www.physorg.com/

This seems like the kind of thing Popular Science or Popular Mechanics would eat up, if you could get them interested.



I guess someone did get PM interested!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/09/2009 07:42 pm
Quote
I find it interesting that even though he obviously disagrees with the Direct concept he evidently monitors this thread.

Indeed.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/09/2009 07:42 pm
Can we clear this up somehow with Keith Cowing? I

That might be the best idea, in which case I'm sure one of you could go on his site and ask him about that "in person"? He has a comment section on each of his posts.

I can predict it might get messy on here, so to pre-empt...I personally won't stand for this potentially turning into a series of posts based around "OMG, he called me a amazing people, I'm outraged" as he is former NASA, and thus deserves the respect that warrants.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 01/09/2009 07:47 pm
If a contractor can actually build the ultalightweight EDS claimed by Direct, Ares V will not need 5.5 segments.

This assumes NASA is willing to let contractor build such an EDS. So far NASA wanted to do it "their way", and considering that NASA does not have required experience, no wonder "NASA way" EDS is worse.

EXACTLY!  Hit the nail right on the head...

Suppose you and I decide we want to get into NASCAR racing... building a car and getting the requisite tools/equipment in place isn't that big of a deal, but now we come to the engine...

Now I know about regular car engines.  I know the basics of how to 'hop them up'... but I've never built a true racing engine...  while I 'reinvent the wheel' going over plans and mods and hop-ups trying to figure out what to do to get 700 horsepower out of a big block, a old guy from the next shop comments he can get 750 horsepower out of a small block.  Do I: 1.) call him a liar, since I don't even know how to get 700 horsepower out of a big block, let alone how to get that out of a small block and get it to hold together,  or 2.) ask how, maybe swallow my pride and go over and do a little learnin' at the master's feet so to speak to take advantage of his experience and avoid making all the 'reinventing the wheel' mistakes along the way??  Wouldn't it make more sense to maybe hire him to build us a 750 horsepower small block, and learn by helping do it, so we'd stand a chance at a 'winning season' rather than pridefully decide to go it alone, develop the knowledge ourselves, and suffer a lot of blown engines and lost races learning what NOT to do, as well as WHAT to do and how to do it?? 

After all, that's what life is about... two ways to learn things:
1) school
2) school of hard knocks

OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/09/2009 07:52 pm
Can we clear this up somehow with Keith Cowing? I

That might be the best idea, in which case I'm sure one of you could go on his site and ask him about that "in person"? He has a comment section on each of his posts.

I can predict it might get messy on here, so to pre-empt...I personally won't stand for this potentially turning into a series of posts based around "OMG, he called me a amazing people, I'm outraged" as he is former NASA, and thus deserves the respect that warrants.

Chris he has "banned" DIRECT team members or anyone who appears to be a direct supporter from commenting on his blog. Furthermore he has  put many of us in his "straight to trash" folder.

So I am sure I speak for the entire team when I say our interest in engaging him in anyway concluded some time ago.

I think we should move beyond this.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/09/2009 08:18 pm
Just ignore it. There is nothing that could be said to change opinions. It is a waste of time and energy to debate this further and try to come to some terms of agreement.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, and that is what I love about NSF. While you could lump me into the "Direct amazing people" category, I also could be called an "EELV amazing people", or "Anything that Isn't Ares I amazing people".
It is great that on Nasaspaceflight, someone can hold several opinions and viewpoints and not be ridiculed for them.

Thanks Chris! 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/09/2009 08:21 pm
Did anyone hear John Shannon's comments at the STS-119 briefing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/09/2009 08:22 pm
Possibly some resources from J-2X being redirected could help with that, but that's a darn good point that RS-68 may become the long tentpole to J-120 that J-2X is to Ares I...

Simon ;)

Without minimizing the work to be done (it is a significant task), man-rating the engine is not anticipated to be the huge undertaking that is being depicted here. It essentially boils down to adding appropriate health monitoring and then running the engine with these in place to recertify them for the throttle levels previously certified to. We have estimates from the P&WR engineers for what this is anticipated to take. I'll see if I can find them and report back. But it's not as long as has been discussed here.

Did the Direct team find any other information for this question?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/09/2009 08:26 pm
Did anyone hear John Shannon's comments at the STS-119 briefing.

You have me intrigued, what did he say? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/09/2009 08:33 pm
AP article shows up in a another location..

http://www.physorg.com/news135269357.html

Also top "breaking news" story on their homepage

http://www.physorg.com/

This seems like the kind of thing Popular Science or Popular Mechanics would eat up, if you could get them interested.



I guess someone did get PM interested!

So it would seem..

Surprised you remembered my comment, or bothered to search through to find it.  I'd laugh(and be happy same time) if it really sparked something/someone to set the wheels in motion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/09/2009 08:40 pm
Did anyone hear John Shannon's comments at the STS-119 briefing.

You have me intrigued, what did he say? 

The gist of it is on Bob Block's blog at the Orlando Sentinel (want to respect Chris's wishes not to post links) However he was adamant in stating that we already have a nearly 80-100mt heavy lift capability in the Shuttle stack, the crux of Direct's point essentially. Don't want to para-phrase too much but its encouraging that people are starting to speak up.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/09/2009 08:41 pm
I also felt it tried to give both sides a chance, and was definitely left to the reader to take a position. But the overall tone was pro-Direct I feel.

The stories of people getting threatened and fired for speaking out, the engineer from ULA countering what Cooke had to say about the Jupiter upperstage. There was a slight Big Bad Government vs Innocent Small Guy feel to it.

I couldn't agree with you more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/09/2009 08:43 pm
We're in  the top news story at popular mechanics.com now !! woo hoo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/09/2009 08:47 pm
And from that other publication today:
301051main_Space_Transportation_Association_8_Jan_09.pdf

From Griffin...
Quote
... Constellation is also designed to support ISS but, as clearly stated from the outset, only if commercial service fails to materialize. Constellation is not focused
on or designed for maximum efficiency in LEO operations.

Hmmm.... doesn't this flatly contradict the criticism of Direct that the J-120 "overshoots" ISS requirements?


When NASA studied DIRECT, they ignored Ross's claim that the unit cost of J120 was only $10m more than Ares-I, and claimed a much bigger difference. However it doesn't matter if J120 costs considerably more per unit, for two reasons:

1- COTS-D is supposed to supplant it anyway

2- ISS program is supposed to be terminated only a few years after Ares-I comes online. So if NASA are saying that everything is a-ok with CxP then we are only looking at a handful of ISS flights anyway. But if NASA think that the per-unit cost of an ISS flight does matter a lot, does that not imply that they are preparing for Ares-V cancellation and being stuck in LEO?

I think it is of greater benefit to DIRECT to publish a cost number for J120 which is more in line with what NASA will calculate, with the caveat that these LEO flights will only happen a handful of times, than to appear to be over-optimistic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/09/2009 08:48 pm
We're in  the top news story at popular mechanics.com now !! woo hoo.

Hey everyone this is worth reading.  It has comments from Ross on their meeting today.  Sorry Chris!

Closing line:

Quote
That is a lot of "ifs," but Tierney says was happy to take his long shot at influencing space history. "We got a full hearing today," he says. "If they're interested, they'll call."

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/09/2009 09:16 pm
We're in  the top news story at popular mechanics.com now !! woo hoo.

Hey everyone this is worth reading.  It has comments from Ross on their meeting today.  Sorry Chris!

Closing line:

Quote
That is a lot of "ifs," but Tierney says was happy to take his long shot at influencing space history. "We got a full hearing today," he says. "If they're interested, they'll call."



Its important to mention that the "ifs" associated with the vehicle are not the "ifs" he is talking about but instead the political "ifs"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/09/2009 09:18 pm
It's not a good idea to dismiss criticism.
DIRECT will be reviewed by NASA under their own terms. NASA have designed an upper stage for the Ares-V, and it comes out at a much more conservative dry mass than JUS. Hence they will try to criticise the JUS. A 'pre-rebuttal' is needed to ensure that JUS's numbers can be verifed.

I'm not dismissing crticism, I'm addressing and refuting it. The claim is that JUS is dubious because no hardware with equivalent performance has ever flown. I believe I have demonstrated that hardware with much better performance has flown, but that data was rejected due to semantics.
I consider that a comparison between the SII, SIVB, or Ares-V EDS and the JUS is a much more realistic test than a comparison with the ET. I do not believe that the JUS numbers are impossible. But I do know that the JUS is a real meaty target that NASA can pounce on and dismiss as over-optimistic powerpoint engineering.

It is not semantics to point out the differences between the ET and the JUS. They are very different stages. Different size, different bulkhead, completely different thrust structure. ET thrust structure is shared between the SRB beam/lox dome and the orbiter mount points. The JUS will carry all of the thrust at the aft end of the tank alone.

Again, I don't deny that the JUS numbers may be achievable. I just think it's too soft a target for NASA. If nothing else, I hope that the criticism levelled against the JUS on this forum is spurring the team into verifying their numbers to the highest standard possible.

Quote
A much better criticism would be to analyze the forces & material properties, then show whether or not the structure is physically capable of performing as proposed. Neither the above posters nor NASA have done that.  Instead they point at the NASA design, say it's not as good as JUS, NASA are the experts, so JUS is not possible. That's a logical fallacy.
Well, personally I do not have the skills or expertise to do that. But the process you describe will indeed happen: NASA will say 'we are the experts; the EDS we designed is as good as you can get; the JUS is over-optimistic'. I have yet to see a convicing reason why NASA would continue with their EDS design if the JUS really is possible.

Quote
Good question to which the answer comes in several parts:
1) EDS and JUS are not designed to perform exactly the same tasks.
The environments & loads are somewhat different requiring different designs.
2) JUS is bigger which in itself leads to greater mass efficiency.
3) LM have much more experience with cryogenic upper stages, so you would expect their design to be more efficient.
4) NASA have not asked for outside help with EDS. They want to develop the design experience in-house.

1) EDS and JUS have only slightly different roles. If you compare EDS, SIVB, and SII, they all make JUS look optimistic. You have to extrapolate from the ET to make JUS look realistic. Now that 'stage' does have a different role.
2) Offset by second engine/thrust structure
3) So why aren't LM offering their better design for use on Ares-V?
4) Why? Are they planning on developing lots of other upper stages?

Quote
The big difference will be in the cost of building the Jupiter core & JUS vs ARES I US, Ares V core & EDS.

IIRC for 2 x ISS, 2 x Lunar Manned, 2 x Lunar Cargo you will need:

10 x Jupiter core, 8 x JUS   VS   4 x AUS, 4 x Ares V core, 4 x EDS

Many of the production costs are fixed, so if you make more copies of a stage, EACH ONE WILL COST LESS. Conversely, making only a few of each, drives up the individual cost.

So does the unit cost of $140m per J120 assume economies of scale? With what level of confidence? And what effect is there if the proposed flight rate is not realised?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/09/2009 09:19 pm
...
Direct 2.0 does have the burden of explaining the numbers and reasoning, but I find the level of skepticism a bit excessive.
Exactly.  I'd like to see a bit more constructive criticism from the skeptics and less "appeals to authority" & cries of "it's too good to be true".
I am not the sceptic. NASA will do that. I'm just trying to point out the weak points in the hope that the DIRECT team can strengthen them before the rebuttal is published.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/09/2009 09:21 pm
If a contractor can actually build the ultalightweight EDS claimed by Direct, Ares V will not need 5.5 segments.

This assumes NASA is willing to let contractor build such an EDS. So far NASA wanted to do it "their way", and considering that NASA does not have required experience, no wonder "NASA way" EDS is worse.

This thinking is bordering on conspiracy theory. It does DIRECT no good whatsoever if to believe in it you must first cultivate mistrust of NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 01/09/2009 09:24 pm
I believe the NLS did pass PDR? did it not? Now, for sure it is not a one to one comparison but don't you think the review probably included analysis including ET-mods as well as Thrust structure evaluations. At the core of our argument has always been that this is not a completely new idea.

p.s. oh boy the Team artist is trying to talk engineering...  ::)

Not suggesting that there are showstoppers or that the idea hasn't been kicked around.  As far as NLS passing PDR, well as such it's a different thing to say based on NLS which is based on shuttle than to say based on shuttle.  I suppose at the end of the day it may be semantics, but if you start saying that it's simple and easy, and then when things get tough as you go through your design cycles, you are going to let down your peoples (maybe your congress).  There is something to be said about being over-optimistic.  But I'll leave it at that no need for one more pissing match over Direct - certainly Direct knows it cost and schedule so well that every contingency is planned for... 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/09/2009 09:26 pm
You're buying one extra engine and three extra SRBs. The SRBs in question are shuttle SRBs, so the Ares I SRB segments (which will almost certainly cost more than shuttle SRBs) would have to be no more than 1.6 times the cost of a shuttle SRB segment just to break even, SRB-wise. Of course, that's not counting the extra nozzle on the bottom, but then they're changing that for the Ares I too.

You may have someone of a point for the engines, assuming a J2-X is not significantly more expensive than an RS-68, but it's an apples-to-oranges comparison anyways because the Ares I can't haul cargo.

Yep, an engine, three segments, recovery system, nozzle, much bigger liquid stage and PLF. A bargain at $10m.

The apples-to-oranges comment is completely missing the point. So what if Ares-I can't launch cargo, that's all the more reason not to be afraid of admitting that J120 will cost a bit more than advertised.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 01/09/2009 09:40 pm
Now to actually discuss the content of the article...

I was a little disappointed in the comparison graphic PM decided to use. I wish they had used the graphic that the Direct team has used in the past, that shows the Shuttle and compares Ares and Jupiter.
This more clearly shows how Ares is not truly Shuttle derived.

I don't know if that's the same graphic attached to PM's website story (about DIRECT's meeting with the Obama transition team), but assuming it is, I very much like the colors used for the insulation -- Jupiter's core is STS-orange, Ares tanks are some-new-thing-yellow.

So that does help reenforce the idea that Area is no longer SDLV.

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/09/2009 09:50 pm


Any chance we can see an element by element, year by year breakdown of your budget?  (a sand chart?)  One that is up to date so we don't have the "old information" problem? 
[/quote]

Has this request been done?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/09/2009 09:52 pm
3) So why aren't LM offering their better design for use on Ares-V?

Because, as I've pointed out many times here to deaf ears, NASA (and by direction, MSFC) have taken it upon themselves to become designers rather than their traditional role of customer overseeing prime contractors.  NASA doesn't WANT LM to build a better US, they want their contractors to build to NASA's detail designs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/09/2009 09:54 pm
Did anyone hear John Shannon's comments at the STS-119 briefing.

You have me intrigued, what did he say? 

The gist of it is on Bob Block's blog at the Orlando Sentinel (want to respect Chris's wishes not to post links) However he was adamant in stating that we already have a nearly 80-100mt heavy lift capability in the Shuttle stack, the crux of Direct's point essentially. Don't want to para-phrase too much but its encouraging that people are starting to speak up.

Just gave it a read. Great stuff! The only criticism I have is that he said that Jupiter uses the Shuttle tank, SRBs, and main engines. The SSMEs are not included in Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/09/2009 09:55 pm

When NASA studied DIRECT, they ignored Ross's claim that the unit cost of J120 was only $10m more than Ares-I, and claimed a much bigger difference. However it doesn't matter if J120 costs considerably more per unit, for two reasons:

1- COTS-D is supposed to supplant it anyway

2- ISS program is supposed to be terminated only a few years after Ares-I comes online. So if NASA are saying that everything is a-ok with CxP then we are only looking at a handful of ISS flights anyway. But if NASA think that the per-unit cost of an ISS flight does matter a lot, does that not imply that they are preparing for Ares-V cancellation and being stuck in LEO?

I think it is of greater benefit to DIRECT to publish a cost number for J120 which is more in line with what NASA will calculate, with the caveat that these LEO flights will only happen a handful of times, than to appear to be over-optimistic.

I can't say much about costs.  But what I can say is that the Jupiter-120 would be much more capable and useful than either Ares-I or any planned COTS launcher.  It is planned to be able to place over 20 mT in LEO with a crew, or 50 mT without one.  This will give us an incredibly versatile and flexible LEO capability using a single launch architecture.

How many missions did the Shuttle fly with just crew and no appreciable cargo?  I don't know the exact number but I'm pretty sure it's a small number.  How would those missions with cargo have been carried out with COTS and/or Ares-I?  Obviously it would have taken multiple launches for each such mission, with double the risk of problems during launch.

People who say that the only reason to go to LEO is for ISS are being short sighted and are ignoring most of the history of the Shuttle.  There's lots to do up there, let's make sure we have maximum options and flexibility in a launcher.

And what do they mean about terminating the ISS program just a few years after Ares-I comes online?  Did we spend $100 billion dollars and over ten years building the thing just to abandon it?  Somehow, I don't think that is a politically astute move, if NASA wants to be seen as being a financially responsible agency.

Mark S.

Edit: Oops! Fixed spelling typo.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/09/2009 10:08 pm
Now to actually discuss the content of the article...

I was a little disappointed in the comparison graphic PM decided to use. I wish they had used the graphic that the Direct team has used in the past, that shows the Shuttle and compares Ares and Jupiter.
This more clearly shows how Ares is not truly Shuttle derived.

I don't know if that's the same graphic attached to PM's website story (about DIRECT's meeting with the Obama transition team), but assuming it is, I very much like the colors used for the insulation -- Jupiter's core is STS-orange, Ares tanks are some-new-thing-yellow.

So that does help reenforce the idea that Area is no longer SDLV.

Steve

Yes, that is the same graphic that they used in the magazine article.  I think they just didn't have the space to run a better picture.  Someone earlier said that they should have used DIRECT's graphics that include the Shuttle.

I think it really takes three illustrations in order to understand DIRECT.  First, the "shuttle derived" graphic that emphasizes DIRECT's commonality with Shuttle, and Ares's divergence from it.  Second, a picture showing the commonality between J-120 and J-232, and the lack of commonality between Ares-I and Ares-V.  Third, a picture of what is required for a LEO mission (Ares-I versus J-120) and a Lunar mission (Ares-I CLV + Ares-V CaLV versus J-232 CLV + J-232 EDS).  I think those three pictures together would convey about 90% of the message that DIRECT has been trying to get out.

The PM graphic tries to convey all those concepts in a single graphic, and I think it comes up a little short.  Not that I'm complaining or anything!  This whole PM article is a great shot in the arm for DIRECT, no doubt about it.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/09/2009 10:09 pm

When NASA studied DIRECT, they ignored Ross's claim that the unit cost of J120 was only $10m more than Ares-I, and claimed a much bigger difference. However it doesn't matter if J120 costs considerably more per unit, for two reasons:

1- COTS-D is supposed to supplant it anyway

2- ISS program is supposed to be terminated only a few years after Ares-I comes online. So if NASA are saying that everything is a-ok with CxP then we are only looking at a handful of ISS flights anyway. But if NASA think that the per-unit cost of an ISS flight does matter a lot, does that not imply that they are preparing for Ares-V cancellation and being stuck in LEO?

I think it is of greater benefit to DIRECT to publish a cost number for J120 which is more in line with what NASA will calculate, with the caveat that these LEO flights will only happen a handful of times, than to appear to be over-optimistic.

I can't say much about costs.  But what I can say is that the Jupiter-120 would be much more capable and useful than either Ares-I or any planned COTS launcher.  It is planned to be able to place over 20 mT in LEO with a crew, or 50 mT without one.  This will give us an incredibly versatile and flexible LEO capability using a single launch architecture.

How many missions did the Shuttle fly with just crew and no appreciable cargo?  I don't know the exact number but I'm pretty sure it's a small number.  How would those missions have been carried out with COTS and/or Ares-I?  Obviously it would have taken multiple launches for each such mission, with double the risk of problems during launch.

People who say that the only reason to go to LEO is for ISS are being short sighted and are ignoring most of the history of the Shuttle.  There's lots to do up there, let's make sure we have maximum options and flexibility in a launcher.

And what do they mean about terminating the ISS program just a few years after Arse-I comes online?  Did we spend $100 billion dollars and over ten years building the thing just to abandon it?  Somehow, I don't think that is a politically astute move, if NASA wants to be seen as being a financially responsible agency.

Mark S.


People can say all they want today at ISS only in service till 2016.  Politicans only get elected for 2/4 year terms.  I will take money with anyone that ISS will be flying after 2016.  Would you want to be the politican who said--sorry we spent $100b but we need to abandon now after 6 years?  I can see ISS flying till at least 2020 if not longer--even as only a museum.
 
Did anyone really think the Mars rovers would be going on 5 years? Nope! 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/09/2009 10:17 pm
Here is Phillip's updated FAQ through the first 50 pages of the Direct thread 2.0.  Yes--I still have over 200 pages to go and then edited, and adding other sections.

A few minor errors in there, I will see if I can get time to do some corrections.

Good evening,

Here is the updated FAQ--up to page 70.  Yes--200 more pages to go though.  Please note, there was approx 10 pages of discussion regarding the rebuttal and waiting for the Direct Team to respond.  I have put a question in the FAQ.  Please note some of the answer will change  the more currant I get. 

There will be editing down of the answers, to try and change the tone.

Yes--Now I am up to page 90 in the FAQ.  I will stop when I reach Page 300, this thread is already 280 pages+ and start editing. 

I think the Direct Team should think of creating a new thread when this reaches 300 pages.  The first thread was closed when it reached 250 pages.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/09/2009 10:23 pm
So DIRECT team has met with Obama administration transition team members!

This is great news!

Congratulations to the DIRECT team and to all of us - supporters!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/09/2009 10:32 pm

When NASA studied DIRECT, they ignored Ross's claim that the unit cost of J120 was only $10m more than Ares-I, and claimed a much bigger difference. However it doesn't matter if J120 costs considerably more per unit, for two reasons:

1- COTS-D is supposed to supplant it anyway

2- ISS program is supposed to be terminated only a few years after Ares-I comes online. So if NASA are saying that everything is a-ok with CxP then we are only looking at a handful of ISS flights anyway. But if NASA think that the per-unit cost of an ISS flight does matter a lot, does that not imply that they are preparing for Ares-V cancellation and being stuck in LEO?

I think it is of greater benefit to DIRECT to publish a cost number for J120 which is more in line with what NASA will calculate, with the caveat that these LEO flights will only happen a handful of times, than to appear to be over-optimistic.

I can't say much about costs.  But what I can say is that the Jupiter-120 would be much more capable and useful than either Ares-I or any planned COTS launcher.  It is planned to be able to place over 20 mT in LEO with a crew, or 50 mT without one.  This will give us an incredibly versatile and flexible LEO capability using a single launch architecture.

How many missions did the Shuttle fly with just crew and no appreciable cargo?  I don't know the exact number but I'm pretty sure it's a small number.  How would those missions with cargo have been carried out with COTS and/or Ares-I?  Obviously it would have taken multiple launches for each such mission, with double the risk of problems during launch.

People who say that the only reason to go to LEO is for ISS are being short sighted and are ignoring most of the history of the Shuttle.  There's lots to do up there, let's make sure we have maximum options and flexibility in a launcher.

And what do they mean about terminating the ISS program just a few years after Ares-I comes online?  Did we spend $100 billion dollars and over ten years building the thing just to abandon it?  Somehow, I don't think that is a politically astute move, if NASA wants to be seen as being a financially responsible agency.

Mark S.

Edit: Oops! Fixed spelling typo.


Mark, you don't need to sell DIRECT to me. I've followed it from day one. I even created the wiki article. I am a DIRECT 'fan' but not a cheerleader.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/09/2009 10:35 pm
People can say all they want today at ISS only in service till 2016.  Politicans only get elected for 2/4 year terms.  I will take money with anyone that ISS will be flying after 2016.  Would you want to be the politican who said--sorry we spent $100b but we need to abandon now after 6 years?  I can see ISS flying till at least 2020 if not longer--even as only a museum.
 
Did anyone really think the Mars rovers would be going on 5 years? Nope! 

Oh, I agree with you. ISS will remain in service post-2016. However it is probable that this will only happen because the lunar return has been delayed or cancelled. So for NASA to complain about J120 ISS costs is to admit that CxP will fail.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/09/2009 10:43 pm
Mark, you don't need to sell DIRECT to me. I've followed it from day one. I even created the wiki article. I am a DIRECT 'fan' but not a cheerleader.

Thank you for your years of service.  I won't try to sell you on DIRECT any more.

Meanwhile, some of us still get excited about space.  Sorry if I come across as a cheerleader, I need to practice being less enthusiastic.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/09/2009 11:04 pm
Quote from: zapkitty
Hmmm.... doesn't this flatly contradict the criticism of Direct that the J-120 "overshoots" ISS requirements?
When NASA studied DIRECT, they ignored Ross's claim that the unit cost of J120 was only $10m more than Ares-I...

Oops... :)

I was referring to the (hopefully-soon-to-be-rebutted) NASA criticism that the J-120's payload overshot requirements for ISS... and the seeming hypocrisy of Griffin in claiming yesterday that ISS needs weren't really drivers for Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/09/2009 11:08 pm
I think the main reason the J-120 seems so cheap is the economy of scale.  Because there are more launches and less development cost, you make a lot more units, so the price for each is lower.  100 SRB segments will cost less than five times 20 segments, because the 100 can be manufactured more efficiently than 20.

You're buying one extra engine and three extra SRBs. The SRBs in question are shuttle SRBs, so the Ares I SRB segments (which will almost certainly cost more than shuttle SRBs) would have to be no more than 1.6 times the cost of a shuttle SRB segment just to break even, SRB-wise. Of course, that's not counting the extra nozzle on the bottom, but then they're changing that for the Ares I too.

You may have someone of a point for the engines, assuming a J2-X is not significantly more expensive than an RS-68, but it's an apples-to-oranges comparison anyways because the Ares I can't haul cargo.

Yep, an engine, three segments, recovery system, nozzle, much bigger liquid stage and PLF. A bargain at $10m.

The apples-to-oranges comment is completely missing the point. So what if Ares-I can't launch cargo, that's all the more reason not to be afraid of admitting that J120 will cost a bit more than advertised.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/09/2009 11:14 pm
AP article shows up in a another location..

http://www.physorg.com/news135269357.html (http://www.physorg.com/news135269357.html)

Also top "breaking news" story on their homepage

http://www.physorg.com/ (http://www.physorg.com/)

This seems like the kind of thing Popular Science or Popular Mechanics would eat up, if you could get them interested.



I guess someone did get PM interested!

So it would seem..

Surprised you remembered my comment, or bothered to search through to find it.  I'd laugh(and be happy same time) if it really sparked something/someone to set the wheels in motion.

Too bad there are still people (especially over there at physorg who are still calling DIRECT a "napkin drawing" that violates the laws of physics.

Got to be some way past that...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/10/2009 12:16 am
In memorial of today's events we have made some updates to the DIRECT homepage, hope you guys like the updated look. Ideally I would like to mix this up from time to time but today seemed like an appropriate time for a semi-fresh look.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/10/2009 12:30 am

Thank you for your years of service.  I won't try to sell you on DIRECT any more.

Meanwhile, some of us still get excited about space.  Sorry if I come across as a cheerleader, I need to practice being less enthusiastic.

Mark S.


No, don't do that. I really enjoy reading your posts and your enthusiasm. Not only is it refreshing, it's contageous  :)

Keep waving those pom-poms  lol
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Paul Adams on 01/10/2009 12:45 am
Well done to all on the presentation to the transition team. I hope it goes well for you, DIRECT seems to make a whole lot more sence than A1 and A5.

In memorial of today's events we have made some updates to the DIRECT homepage, hope you guys like the updated look. Ideally I would like to mix this up from time to time but today seemed like an appropriate time for a semi-fresh look.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/10/2009 12:57 am

Quote
Any chance we can see an element by element, year by year breakdown of your budget?  (a sand chart?)  One that is up to date so we don't have the "old information" problem? 

Has this request been done?

Do you mean something like these?  I downloaded them sometime in December, I believe from one or more of Ross's posts, so they should be relatively "fresh".

Someone please let me know if I'm out of line for reposting these.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/10/2009 01:02 am
In memorial of today's events we have made some updates to the DIRECT homepage, hope you guys like the updated look. Ideally I would like to mix this up from time to time but today seemed like an appropriate time for a semi-fresh look.

I do like the look!

Perhaps more important, I took the opportunity to click on the Write Your Representative button and wrote mine, who happens to the Chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee (and a very distant professional acquaintance).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/10/2009 01:03 am
In memorial of today's events we have made some updates to the DIRECT homepage, hope you guys like the updated look. Ideally I would like to mix this up from time to time but today seemed like an appropriate time for a semi-fresh look.

That is very nice.  Kudos to the DIRECT team.

Mark S.

P.S. Who am I kidding?  GO TEAM GO!  Gimme a J! (J!) Gimme a U! (U!) ...  What does it spell?  JUPITER!!!   :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/10/2009 01:10 am
In memorial of today's events we have made some updates to the DIRECT homepage, hope you guys like the updated look. Ideally I would like to mix this up from time to time but today seemed like an appropriate time for a semi-fresh look.

I like the new look!

Go Direct Go!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/10/2009 01:11 am
Someone please let me know if I'm out of line for reposting these.

Um, actually all of the charts, diagrams, mission profiles, and other documents that Ross has been posting are now linked from the DirectLauncher.com front page.  Much more accessible than before.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/10/2009 01:51 am
Direct Cost:

Yes, a Jupiter-120 costs a little more than an Ares-I.   But a higher flight rate reduces the costs, no?   Well the Jupiter-120 hardware flies on all our configurations - which essentially doubles its flight rate.   The cost improvement from this brings Jupiter-120 back into line with Ares-I's costs when examined *at the expected flight rates*.

Assumptions:

Flight rate: 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo

Ares-I Fixed Costs $1bn annually
Ares-I Variable Cost $150m per flight

Jupiter-120 Fixed Costs $1bn annually
Jupiter-120 Variable Costs $200m per flight

90% Economies of Scale Rule (ESR) is in effect

Results:

Ares-I therefore flies 4 times per year (2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew).   At this flight rate Ares-I variable costs drop to $122m due to ESR.   So each flight ends up costing $372m + Orion.

Jupiter-120 flies 10 times that year though - twice in J-120 configuration to ISS, but 8 more times as part of the larger J-232 configuration.   Although the vehicle cost $200m for the first one, at this flight rate of 10 per year, that variable cost element drops to $141m each.   Combine that with the fixed costs now spread across 10 flights and a Jupiter-120 flight to ISS now costs $241m.   That's $131m *cheaper* than an Ares-I flight!

see reply: 102, 106, 110, 1440

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/10/2009 03:10 am
This has been a busy two days on here. It was quiet here for the past few weeks, but now things are really starting to get moving. Between the Orlando Sentinel, Popular Mechanics (online + print), and NASA Watch, Direct is being discussed.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/10/2009 03:14 am
In memorial of today's events we have made some updates to the DIRECT homepage, hope you guys like the updated look. Ideally I would like to mix this up from time to time but today seemed like an appropriate time for a semi-fresh look.

Looks great!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 01/10/2009 03:21 am
Direct Cost:

Yes, a Jupiter-120 costs a little more than an Ares-I.   But a higher flight rate reduces the costs, no?

I would assume that if the DIRECT folks are at all competent, that effect is already factored into the cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JPK on 01/10/2009 08:08 am
The US gov. committee required that post shuttle space craft must separate crew and cargo launches. Direct launches the Lander with the crew on lunar flights. This means that Direct cannot comply with constellation project requirements. Thus NASA cannot use direct. This makes Aries the cheapest launch option that complies with Gov. political requirements.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/10/2009 08:37 am
The US gov. committee required that post shuttle space craft must separate crew and cargo launches. Direct launches the Lander with the crew on lunar flights. This means that Direct cannot comply with constellation project requirements. Thus NASA cannot use direct. This makes Aries the cheapest launch option that complies with Gov. political requirements.

Too late... NASA done went there...
www.nasa.gov/pdf/140633main_ESAS_03.pdf

Quote
3.2 Operations GR&As

The Operations GR&As are listed below.
 • The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) will deliver crew to and from the International
   Space Station (ISS) through ISS end-of-life in 2016.
 • The CEV will deliver and return cargo to the ISS through ISS end-of-life in 2016.
 • The architecture will separate crew and large cargo to the maximum extent practical.
 • The architecture will support ISS up/down mass needs and other ISS requirements,
   as required, after Shuttle retirement.

Now if you want to base this argument on an interpretation that NASA's stipulation that CEV launches also haul cargo is "only temporary" and that the U.S. will be promptly abandoning ISS in 2016... well, please feel free....

Then I could just  argue that the LSAM is not "cargo" and instead is, perforce, a part of the launch architecture as its engine is required to brake the CEV into lunar orbit... ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/10/2009 09:11 am
Assuming that the TLI acceleration at burnout is the same as the J232 launh 2nd stage acceleration at burn out (2 g), is it really wise to have the crew module 'upside down'?  That's a lot of weight to hang off the seatbelts...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/10/2009 11:14 am
We're in  the top news story at popular mechanics.com now !! woo hoo.


Mistake in the graphic at http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/jupiter-direct-lg-0209.jpg

Quote
NASA uses only one rocket - the Ares V - to launch the Altair lander and the EDS. Jupiter Direct performs the same mission with two 232s: One for Orion and Altair; the other for the EDS

NASA uses only one rocket - the Ares V - to launch the Altair lander and the EDS and an Ares I to launch the Orion (for an apples-to-apples comparison).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Captain Scarlet on 01/10/2009 11:30 am
www.directlauncher.com

White text on a sky blue background = can't read the text. ???
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/10/2009 12:34 pm
Mark S, so what your graphs show is that there is 2 billion a year to be saved by dumping the ISS.  I can't disagree with that at all.

ISS is as much of a drag on exploration as the fixed costs of STS.   If they can get 5 years of somewhat useful science out of the ISS they need to let it go and get on with some interesting exploration.

Regarding the costs of Ares vs Direct I don't think the value of common manufacturing infrastructure and design elements can be over stated.  The falsehood of saying that Ares is a 1.5 system drives me nuts.  It is 2 discrete launch events.  It's a 2 launch system, just that one uses 2 SRBs and the other uses 1.  It's only a half launch if your stuck on thinking that a launch is measured in pairs of SRBs.

Two intirely seperate vehicles would have dramatically higher fixed costs, launch pads, handling hardware, procedures, staff, assembly etc etc.  I think it's insanity not to simply as much as possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: madscientist197 on 01/10/2009 12:36 pm
www.directlauncher.com

White text on a sky blue background = can't read the text. ???

Yes, I had the same problem.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/10/2009 12:52 pm
Small thing that can be solved, otherwise the site looks very nice and has a vital requirement that sooooo many sites forget about. "Everything above the fold" - you wouldn't believe the amount of exposure the content above the fold gets compared to what you need to scroll down for.

I don't know why that is the case, but it's true. On the old site, a top story would be building reader numbers nicely, but the second it went below the fold, reader numbers would die off.

Since the change of design to allow for at least five articles to be in full view, that's completely changed.

So Direct's site keeps to that requirement and everything you need is right in front of you. Works.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Integrator on 01/10/2009 12:57 pm
Mark S, so what your graphs show is that there is 2 billion a year to be saved by dumping the ISS.  I can't disagree with that at all.

ISS is as much of a drag on exploration as the fixed costs of STS.   If they can get 5 years of somewhat useful science out of the ISS they need to let it go and get on with some interesting exploration.


Move ISS to 28 degrees inclination.  Integrate it into the VSE.

IT'S POSSIBLE!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/10/2009 01:01 pm
Small thing that can be solved, otherwise the site looks very nice and has a vital requirement that sooooo many sites forget about. "Everything above the fold" - you wouldn't believe the amount of exposure the content above the fold gets compared to what you need to scroll down for.


Well one reason for that is we've been trained since we're young to read from the top down. And our attention spans aren't very great, strained more by the information overload we are presented on a daily basis.

I think the site looks great. Great job.

I wish I could be within driving distance to a return destination and hold a welcoming party for the men (and possibly women) of the hour.

Whether on their return or the 15th, I think we're going to get an inside sccop on those that attended from Direct & their supporters, those they met (in the transition team & others), and perhaps some revalations that peaked the transition team's interest.

As a personal note, I hope Ross got some sleep in DC, and takes 1-2 days off to rest before jumping back in. It sounds like a busy time ahead. Don't want to jeapordize your health, it isn't worth it if you can't see a launch.  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: pierre on 01/10/2009 01:21 pm
You're on Slashdot (a tech news site with millions of readers each day):

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/10/0630258

If anyone wants to post comments to the story to answer questions and correct the inevitable misinformation, I suggest that you register an account: it's possible to post anonymously, but most people don't read anonymous comments.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/10/2009 01:41 pm
Mark S, so what your graphs show is that there is 2 billion a year to be saved by dumping the ISS.  I can't disagree with that at all.

ISS is as much of a drag on exploration as the fixed costs of STS.   If they can get 5 years of somewhat useful science out of the ISS they need to let it go and get on with some interesting exploration.


Move ISS to 28 degrees inclination.  Integrate it into the VSE.

IT'S POSSIBLE!

Do the math on the delta-V required and get back to us on that one, please.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DavisSTS on 01/10/2009 01:41 pm
Slashdot doesn't get that many any more, more like 10,000 a day. And mainly geeky people looking for anti-government stories. Not a good place to be. The slashdot post doesn't even link to Direct or here. Just links to the Popular Mechanics article is taking the piss out of Direct, by calling it something designed by a toy rocket collector on internet chat rooms.

You guys seem to love publicity, even if it's negative.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/10/2009 01:48 pm
Move ISS to 28 degrees inclination.  Integrate it into the VSE.

IT'S POSSIBLE!

I'm sure you could find a way to include the ISS in VSE much in the same way you could work in an orbital zoo.  But at what cost?  If you want to explore and leave LEO I don't a use or need for ISS and it's budget.

If you need a lab or way point in LEO throw up a small skylab like station in one shot with Ares V or Direct and be done with it.  The current ISS model is a distraction, a horrendously expensive and complicated distraction.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/10/2009 01:55 pm
Slashdot doesn't get that many any more, more like 10,000 a day. And mainly geeky people looking for anti-government stories. Not a good place to be. The slashdot post doesn't even link to Direct or here. Just links to the Popular Mechanics article is taking the piss out of Direct, by calling it something designed by a toy rocket collector on internet chat rooms.

You guys seem to love publicity, even if it's negative.

Er, Slashdot and its affiliated SourceForge sites serve over 33 million unique visitors a month.  That's a LOT more than 10,000 a day.

And take a lesson from Hollywood here:  there's no such thing as bad publicity. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/10/2009 01:59 pm
Mark S, so what your graphs show is that there is 2 billion a year to be saved by dumping the ISS.  I can't disagree with that at all.

ISS is as much of a drag on exploration as the fixed costs of STS.   If they can get 5 years of somewhat useful science out of the ISS they need to let it go and get on with some interesting exploration.


Move ISS to 28 degrees inclination.  Integrate it into the VSE.

IT'S POSSIBLE!

Do the math on the delta-V required and get back to us on that one, please.


Well, it would give the VASIMR something to do, I suppose. That's supposed to be all about long, slow, efficient burns.

Unfortunate that they'd need to turn all the lights out to provide enough power.  ::)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 01/10/2009 02:22 pm
And from that other publication today:
301051main_Space_Transportation_Association_8_Jan_09.pdf

From Griffin...
Quote
... Constellation is also designed to support ISS but, as clearly stated from the outset, only if commercial service fails to materialize. Constellation is not focused
on or designed for maximum efficiency in LEO operations.

Hmmm.... doesn't this flatly contradict the criticism of Direct that the J-120 "overshoots" ISS requirements?


When NASA studied DIRECT, they ignored Ross's claim that the unit cost of J120 was only $10m more than Ares-I, and claimed a much bigger difference. However it doesn't matter if J120 costs considerably more per unit, for two reasons:

1- COTS-D is supposed to supplant it anyway

2- ISS program is supposed to be terminated only a few years after Ares-I comes online. So if NASA are saying that everything is a-ok with CxP then we are only looking at a handful of ISS flights anyway. But if NASA think that the per-unit cost of an ISS flight does matter a lot, does that not imply that they are preparing for Ares-V cancellation and being stuck in LEO?

I think it is of greater benefit to DIRECT to publish a cost number for J120 which is more in line with what NASA will calculate, with the caveat that these LEO flights will only happen a handful of times, than to appear to be over-optimistic.

I've said that several times over the last two years...  Griffin's loudest argument against Direct was that it was 'overkill for ISS' yet looking at the schedule for ISS phaseout, it was only going to be a small handful of flights anyway... and when Ares I started slipping to the right, it might not even be ready to EVER go to ISS before phaseout...  maybe a couple or three times at most...

It's sorta like arguing that Saturn IB was overkill for Skylab and ASTP, and so we need a complete redesign of the vehicle to "make it the right size"... who cares?? and what sense does it make to do a redesign for only four flights anyway??  Even if it was eight flights had Skylab II been flown... still doesn't make sense.  Better overkill than underkill...

I won't mention that Ares I can't lift a lunar Orion... which was the purpose it was originally designed for anyway... the ISS flights were just a stopgap, a sideshow. 

Wonders never cease... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/10/2009 02:38 pm
The US gov. committee required that post shuttle space craft must separate crew and cargo launches. Direct launches the Lander with the crew on lunar flights. This means that Direct cannot comply with constellation project requirements. Thus NASA cannot use direct. This makes Aries the cheapest launch option that complies with Gov. political requirements.


1.  There is no law/US govt. requirement stating NASA must seperate cargo and crew.

2. After Columbia, there was a congressional hearing (Sept 4 2003) after the Columbia Final Report, and the CAIB Chairperson gave his personal openion.  A openion should carry less weight than a recommendation.  If you do launch crew and cargo together, be able to separate the crew from the cargo in an abort situation. it is a good idea to design the spacecraft in such a way that either the crew and cargo ride in completely separate spacecraft, or that the crew portion of any cargo-laden spacecraft is free to be easily separated from the cargo portion in the event of a life-threatening situation. The manned spacecraft is designed to carry no cargo whatsoever, excepting personal items belonging to the crew, or perhaps a small amount of personal necessities requested by the crew located at the spacecraft’s destination. Any and all “cargo” would be carried aloft in a completely separate “cargo canister” launched below the spacecraft in the PLF, and would be “delivered” to the destination by the manned spacecraft, in much the same way as an ocean-going tug boat can dock to and deliver an unmanned floating barge to a waiting dock. In this way, if there is ever a need to separate the crew from the launch vehicle, the value of the cargo is turned over to the insurance companies while the value of the lives of the crew is held to the highest possible priorities, unencumbered by the presence of cargo.

3.  If you would like a copy of the Columbia Report--I can provide you with a link.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Integrator on 01/10/2009 02:40 pm
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger
Quote

Move ISS to 28 degrees inclination.  Integrate it into the VSE.

IT'S POSSIBLE!

Do the math on the delta-V required and get back to us on that one, please.

Use [significant!] electrostatic potential across structures for ED thruster, apply delta V at equator crossing each orbit, when there is max easterly component to orbital vector, over time, 3-4 years, inclination changes.  Tack into the wind.  It's possible.

Do the math yourself.

(The physics are there.  The politics I can not help with.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/10/2009 02:46 pm
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger
Quote

Move ISS to 28 degrees inclination.  Integrate it into the VSE.

IT'S POSSIBLE!

Do the math on the delta-V required and get back to us on that one, please.

Use [significant!] electrostatic potential across structures for ED thruster, apply delta V at equator crossing each orbit, when there is max easterly component to orbital vector, over time, 3-4 years, inclination changes.  Tack into the wind.  It's possible.

Do the math yourself.

(The physics are there.  The politics I can not help with.)

Most things are possible--if you put enough time and money into it.  But will happen--Very unlikly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/10/2009 02:46 pm

Move ISS to 28 degrees inclination.  Integrate it into the VSE.

IT'S POSSIBLE!

Do the physics.   The move to 28 degrees is not needed.  There is only a 6% performance loss going to the ISS at 51.6.  VSE can be done from a 51.6 ISS.   Also during the move to 28.5 would mean the ISS could not be supported by Progress and Soyuz, and hence the ISS would fail
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/10/2009 02:50 pm
The US gov. committee required that post shuttle space craft must separate crew and cargo launches. Direct launches the Lander with the crew on lunar flights. This means that Direct cannot comply with constellation project requirements. Thus NASA cannot use direct. This makes Aries the cheapest launch option that complies with Gov. political requirements.


That is not a requirement and the lander is not cargo, it is another spacecraft
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 01/10/2009 03:19 pm
The US gov. committee required that post shuttle space craft must separate crew and cargo launches. Direct launches the Lander with the crew on lunar flights. This means that Direct cannot comply with constellation project requirements. Thus NASA cannot use direct. This makes Aries the cheapest launch option that complies with Gov. political requirements.


Not quite correct... non-mission-specific cargo is not to be carried on crew flights... No satellites, planetary probes, etc. that are better launched on unmanned boosters anyway. 

Now obviously, sending a shuttle up to the station to install a new module or perform needed maintenance without that module or the appropriate tools and replacement parts would be completely idiotic.  The crux of the argument was to invalidate the fallacious argument used as the prime justification for shuttle when it was first developed-- using a manned spacecraft to transport satellites and other unrelated mission hardware into space, exposing the astronauts to the hazards of a flight for purposes better served by an unmanned launch vehicle.  Challenger was lost hauling up satellites that should have been launched on a Delta.  Now obviously shuttle is still flying with cargo, but it's only MISSION SPECIFIC hardware which is necessary to completing the mission at hand, and which the launch would be totally pointless without.  THAT is the purpose and meaning of the 'no crew and cargo' "rule" (which isn't really a "rule" at all, but a guideline, and one which NASA would quickly toss aside if it served their purposes.  The CAIB recommendations are just that--recommendations-- and do not carry the weight of law). 

Now it would be equally foolish to launch a lunar landing mission without a lunar lander.  How the mission specific components are divided up is a matter of semantics.  Besides, the "cargo" (lunar lander, or whatever LEO cargo might be carried on a Jupiter vehicle) is not IN THE SAME SPACECRAFT-- THE ORION, unlike a shuttle cargo which IS in the same spacecraft with the astronauts, who have virtually no means of escape or realistic abort in an emergency, and who would have to carry the cargo with them in an emergency.  An emergency on a booster carrying an Orion would result in an abort, with ONLY THE MANNED SPACECRAFT seperating from BOTH THE BOOSTER AND CARGO.  This is an extremely important difference between the shuttle system and whatever replaces it, and THAT was the point CAIB was trying to make-- never again should a vehicle be designed so that it is impossible for the crewed portion of the vehicle to escape the stack in an emergency without having the cargo ride along with them. 

Carrying the argument to extremes is just intellectually dishonest. 

As someone else said, once shuttle is gone, if Ares I is the launcher of choice, ANY mission in LEO requiring any cargo of any size or weight beyond a tool bag WILL REQUIRE A SECOND LAUNCH of a seperate vehicle...  which will basically make any missions in LEO apart from ISS too expensive to ever be considered. 

It's basically the opposite of the "sunny shuttle paradigm" used to sell the shuttle in 72-- "manned shuttles can completely replace unmanned expendable boosters with a reusable manned spacecraft, and do perform those missions SO cheaply it will become an 'airline' type service"... we all know how THAT turned out.  Now we see the bi-polar opposite face coming to the front-- "No crew and cargo" being used as the justification for building Ares I-- "the safest crew launcher ever conceived" (yeah right-- safest crew launcher ever conceived that requires sophisticated vibration dampers not to kill it's crew and can't even deliver the spacecraft to orbital injection without requiring the spacecraft to burn as a third stage) but which BY DESIGN cannot carry ANY cargo, hence REQUIRING the development of a SECOND HLV booster to be able to accomplish ANYTHING in space.  Of course if that second HLV never materializes because it's too expensive-- well, we're left with ISS and Orion and that's it.  Not a good trade.  OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/10/2009 03:28 pm
Direct Cost:

Yes, a Jupiter-120 costs a little more than an Ares-I.   But a higher flight rate reduces the costs, no?   Well the Jupiter-120 hardware flies on all our configurations - which essentially doubles its flight rate.   The cost improvement from this brings Jupiter-120 back into line with Ares-I's costs when examined *at the expected flight rates*.

Assumptions:

Flight rate: 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo

Ares-I Fixed Costs $1bn annually
Ares-I Variable Cost $150m per flight

Jupiter-120 Fixed Costs $1bn annually
Jupiter-120 Variable Costs $200m per flight

90% Economies of Scale Rule (ESR) is in effect

Results:

Ares-I therefore flies 4 times per year (2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew).   At this flight rate Ares-I variable costs drop to $122m due to ESR.   So each flight ends up costing $372m + Orion.

Jupiter-120 flies 10 times that year though - twice in J-120 configuration to ISS, but 8 more times as part of the larger J-232 configuration.   Although the vehicle cost $200m for the first one, at this flight rate of 10 per year, that variable cost element drops to $141m each.   Combine that with the fixed costs now spread across 10 flights and a Jupiter-120 flight to ISS now costs $241m.   That's $131m *cheaper* than an Ares-I flight!

see reply: 102, 106, 110, 1440



Only because you are ignoring shared overhead of Ares I and V. A lot  of the overhead and fixed cost applies to both vehicles, and the assignment of it to a particular launcher is pretty arbitrary.

For example, there's a whole layer of NASA oversight for the J-2. Presumably that's billed to Ares I on the NASA sandchart. But if we were going directly to Ares V, the same expense would go there.

And of course, there will be a period when only Jupiter 120 would exist and wouldn't get to share overhead with 232
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: luke strawwalker on 01/10/2009 03:34 pm

When NASA studied DIRECT, they ignored Ross's claim that the unit cost of J120 was only $10m more than Ares-I, and claimed a much bigger difference. However it doesn't matter if J120 costs considerably more per unit, for two reasons:

1- COTS-D is supposed to supplant it anyway

2- ISS program is supposed to be terminated only a few years after Ares-I comes online. So if NASA are saying that everything is a-ok with CxP then we are only looking at a handful of ISS flights anyway. But if NASA think that the per-unit cost of an ISS flight does matter a lot, does that not imply that they are preparing for Ares-V cancellation and being stuck in LEO?

I think it is of greater benefit to DIRECT to publish a cost number for J120 which is more in line with what NASA will calculate, with the caveat that these LEO flights will only happen a handful of times, than to appear to be over-optimistic.

I can't say much about costs.  But what I can say is that the Jupiter-120 would be much more capable and useful than either Ares-I or any planned COTS launcher.  It is planned to be able to place over 20 mT in LEO with a crew, or 50 mT without one.  This will give us an incredibly versatile and flexible LEO capability using a single launch architecture.

How many missions did the Shuttle fly with just crew and no appreciable cargo?  I don't know the exact number but I'm pretty sure it's a small number.  How would those missions have been carried out with COTS and/or Ares-I?  Obviously it would have taken multiple launches for each such mission, with double the risk of problems during launch.

People who say that the only reason to go to LEO is for ISS are being short sighted and are ignoring most of the history of the Shuttle.  There's lots to do up there, let's make sure we have maximum options and flexibility in a launcher.

And what do they mean about terminating the ISS program just a few years after Arse-I comes online?  Did we spend $100 billion dollars and over ten years building the thing just to abandon it?  Somehow, I don't think that is a politically astute move, if NASA wants to be seen as being a financially responsible agency.

Mark S.


People can say all they want today at ISS only in service till 2016.  Politicans only get elected for 2/4 year terms.  I will take money with anyone that ISS will be flying after 2016.  Would you want to be the politican who said--sorry we spent $100b but we need to abandon now after 6 years?  I can see ISS flying till at least 2020 if not longer--even as only a museum.
 
Did anyone really think the Mars rovers would be going on 5 years? Nope! 

Oh, I agree-- it seems completely idiotic to me that a space station that spent 20 years on the drawing board being designed and redesigned and then took over 10 years and $500 billion to build is only going to be in service for another 7 years and then dropped into the drink is nuts... and people wonder why there is so little support for NASA... Anyway, point being, ISS was a mistake, it's a boondoggle, and it's the reason we're in the boat we're in now... 

We've painted ourselves into a corner and now there are hard choices to be made-- ISS costs SO much to maintain and operate, there isn't budget left to do anything else.  It's truly EITHER/OR because we can't have BOTH exploration and ISS, plain and simple, there ain't enough money.  We either drop ISS in the drink in a few years, or keep pumping money into it and park all the exploration stuff in the barn until we do.  Additionally, as others have pointed out, a lot of ISS systems will have already or would be rapidly approaching their end of life.  Yes the Mars Rovers have greatly exceeded their 90 day 'design life' by about 5 years, but that's not really a fair comparison-- 1) no maintenance costs, just operations costs, and 2) when the Mars rovers crap out, they won't potentially kill any astronauts aboard, unlike ISS. 

Now, personally, if they keep Ares I and keep hoping for Ares V, I think all we'll get is Ares I, because Ares V is going to simply be too expensive to ever get built.  That leaves us with Ares I and ISS until ISS goes the way of Mir-- too old and decrepit to bother with anymore.  What replaces it?? Either by then somebody's ready to try to sell an exploration program AGAIN, based on a clean sheet or 'derived' HLV using parts of whatever is flying then, or we get 'mini space stations' composed of a few modules pushed up there by a handful of EELV launches...  That's how I see it... OL JR :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/10/2009 03:43 pm

Use [significant!] electrostatic potential across structures for ED thruster, apply delta V at equator crossing each orbit, when there is max easterly component to orbital vector, over time, 3-4 years, inclination changes.  Tack into the wind.  It's possible.

Do the math yourself.

(The physics are there.  The politics I can not help with.)

What "ED thruster" do you think exists on ISS?  Who's demonstrated the technology that could work in this context?  How does such a thing and your proposed long-term  get integrated into the existing ISS operations since lowering the inclination means Progress and Soyuz cannot rendezvous from Baikonour? 

This makes about as much sense as the "Two Shuttles to Mars" thing written about recently.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/10/2009 04:12 pm
Congratulations to the Direct team on the PM article and chance to pitch their plan to the transition team.

Here is what I see as the pros and cons of the Direct proposal in its current form.

Pro: Direct should have lower development costs. Perhaps as much as $10 billion, if they can deliver on the lightweight upper stage. If not, and they need to use a five segment booster after all, perhaps half that.

I find the argument that Direct will have significantly lower operating costs entirely unconvincing.

Con: I’ll start with the biggest one first.

1) I don’t think they can get operational sooner than Ares. I think they’ll take longer.

The Jupiter core is bigger and more complicated than the Ares I US. It will need an entirely new main propulsion system and a new payload fairing. Load paths will be entirely different from the Shuttle ET. It must support two very different flight paths. From contract award to a flight-worthy stage will be no better than the Ares I US to Ares I-Y and could be worse.

Nor do I think Direct can brush aside the competitive bidding process for the Jupiter core. Yes, Lockheed is building the ET. But Boeing builds the only other launcher powered by the RS-68, and is building the Ares I US with a lot less touch labor than the ET. NASA owns the Michoud plant, not Lockheed. Lockheed isn’t the only choice.

Simply handing the contract to Lockheed is bad procedure. Actually having a real bidding process will take time. Years.

The Direct team seems to assume that it won’t be a major issue to renegotiate the Ares I first and second stage contracts. That seems unlikely.

2) Direct will probably have more Lunar mission failures than the NASA baseline, since Ares I will probably be more reliable to LEO than the second Jupiter 232 in a two launch Direct scenario and the Direct TLI burn needs two J-2s to work without failure instead of one. Mission failures will be expensive, since NASA will almost certainly want to cease launches until it knows what went wrong

3) A realistic assessment of Jupiter 232 reliability suggests that Direct Lunar missions won’t be as safe as the NASA baseline. If NASA can achieve very favorable LOC and LOM numbers, this shouldn’t be a big factor. However, NASA’s LOM estimates for Ares I and V are very low compared to any existing vehicle. A more plausible estimate based on real world launchers might result in one more ascent abort over thirty years of Lunar operations with Direct than Ares. The odds are pretty good that the abort will be survivable, so it may only be an extra 10% chance of killing four people in that period. From a rational cost benefit view, avoiding that small risk isn’t worth billions of dollars. However, the American public and politicians aren’t entirely rational about cost benefit tradeoffs when it comes to putting astronauts at risk.

4) Jupiter 120 can also carry significant cargo. Unfortunately, taking advantage of the capability would pretty much pull the rug out from under the companies that invested in commercial ISS resupply.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 01/10/2009 04:23 pm
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger
Quote

Move ISS to 28 degrees inclination.  Integrate it into the VSE.

IT'S POSSIBLE!

Do the math on the delta-V required and get back to us on that one, please.

Use [significant!] electrostatic potential across structures for ED thruster, apply delta V at equator crossing each orbit, when there is max easterly component to orbital vector, over time, 3-4 years, inclination changes.  Tack into the wind.  It's possible.

Do the math yourself.

(The physics are there.  The politics I can not help with.)

The inclination of the ISS cannot be changed without the approval of the Russians. May be an agreement could be achieved if the Russians were to transfer their Soyuz and Progress launches to Kourou, French Guiana.

On the math side, to do an inclination transfer from 51.6 to 28.5 degrees requires a delta V of 3100 m/s (about the same a TLI burn!). This is a lot considering that the ISS final mass will be close to 400 mT.

On way this could be done economically (but over a long period of time) if the J-120 is selected for the regular ISS crew support missions, would be to sigificantly increase the SM propellant load to bring ORION mass up to 40 mT (maximum J-120 payload) and burn 25 mT of propellant during each mission while docked to the ISS. Such a burn would change the ISS inclination by about 1.5 degrees. So 15 such missions would eventually do the job as part of the regular ISS crew rotation flights.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/10/2009 04:38 pm
Can you guys push the ISS to a 28.5 deg inclination on another thread?

To add to the discussion about crew/cargo mix, if I launch in my Orion, but with a mission module (e.g. a fully fueled Altair) under the spacecraft, that does something to LOC/LOM numbers, even if I can separate cargo and crew in the event of an abort.

In the post Columbia world this was something that pushed toward Ares I, and it is something that Direct has to deal with.

We can still read in the recent Griffin's speech, that crew safety was not traded for a lower architecture cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/10/2009 04:41 pm
Quote
What "ED thruster" do you think exists on ISS?  Who's demonstrated the technology that could work in this context?

I don't know of any working ED thruster and I'm not advocating a plane change for the ISS, but I do know NASA reached an agreement with Ad Astra that may lead to a VASIMR being installed on the ISS. They would first have to pass a series of technical milestones, so I'm guessing it will take a while.

Quote
This makes about as much sense as the "Two Shuttles to Mars" thing written about recently.

Yeah, that was a good one :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/10/2009 05:01 pm
Congratulations to the Direct team on the PM article and chance to pitch their plan to the transition team.

Here is what I see as the pros and cons of the Direct proposal in its current form.

Pro: Direct should have lower development costs. Perhaps as much as $10 billion, if they can deliver on the lightweight upper stage. If not, and they need to use a five segment booster after all, perhaps half that.

I find the argument that Direct will have significantly lower operating costs entirely unconvincing.

Con: I’ll start with the biggest one first.

1) I don’t think they can get operational sooner than Ares. I think they’ll take longer.

The Jupiter core is bigger and more complicated than the Ares I US. It will need an entirely new main propulsion system and a new payload fairing. Load paths will be entirely different from the Shuttle ET. It must support two very different flight paths. From contract award to a flight-worthy stage will be no better than the Ares I US to Ares I-Y and could be worse.

Nor do I think Direct can brush aside the competitive bidding process for the Jupiter core. Yes, Lockheed is building the ET. But Boeing builds the only other launcher powered by the RS-68, and is building the Ares I US with a lot less touch labor than the ET. NASA owns the Michoud plant, not Lockheed. Lockheed isn’t the only choice.

Simply handing the contract to Lockheed is bad procedure. Actually having a real bidding process will take time. Years.

The Direct team seems to assume that it won’t be a major issue to renegotiate the Ares I first and second stage contracts. That seems unlikely.

2) Direct will probably have more Lunar mission failures than the NASA baseline, since Ares I will probably be more reliable to LEO than the second Jupiter 232 in a two launch Direct scenario and the Direct TLI burn needs two J-2s to work without failure instead of one. Mission failures will be expensive, since NASA will almost certainly want to cease launches until it knows what went wrong

3) A realistic assessment of Jupiter 232 reliability suggests that Direct Lunar missions won’t be as safe as the NASA baseline. If NASA can achieve very favorable LOC and LOM numbers, this shouldn’t be a big factor. However, NASA’s LOM estimates for Ares I and V are very low compared to any existing vehicle. A more plausible estimate based on real world launchers might result in one more ascent abort over thirty years of Lunar operations with Direct than Ares. The odds are pretty good that the abort will be survivable, so it may only be an extra 10% chance of killing four people in that period. From a rational cost benefit view, avoiding that small risk isn’t worth billions of dollars. However, the American public and politicians aren’t entirely rational about cost benefit tradeoffs when it comes to putting astronauts at risk.

4) Jupiter 120 can also carry significant cargo. Unfortunately, taking advantage of the capability would pretty much pull the rug out from under the companies that invested in commercial ISS resupply.






1) I do agree with you on the bidding part. It seems in a perfect world things would get moving fast. But this is NASA we are talking about. There are reports and committees for the committees that will later form a committee.
I would like to hear from Ross and Team how they feel NASA can get this thing rolling fast.

2) I disagree on this one. Under NASA's plan, for a successful lunar mission to occur, you also need a successful Ares V launch. If Ares V fails, you see delayed missions, investigations, etc. Ares V is much more complex than any of the Direct vehicles. 5.5 seg boosters and 6 RS-68, and the J-2X, there is a lot to go wrong there.
Also, I feel having 2 J-2Xs is safer, not a liability. If there is an engine failure on the way up to orbit, Ares I must abort, Jupiter can make it safely to orbit. If there is an engine failure on TLI for Ares, we're aborting too, same with Direct. In both cases, the J-2 must work on TLI.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/10/2009 05:38 pm
Congratulations to the Direct team on the PM article and chance to pitch their plan to the transition team.

Here is what I see as the pros and cons of the Direct proposal in its current form.

Pro: Direct should have lower development costs. Perhaps as much as $10 billion, if they can deliver on the lightweight upper stage. If not, and they need to use a five segment booster after all, perhaps half that.

I find the argument that Direct will have significantly lower operating costs entirely unconvincing.

Con: I’ll start with the biggest one first.

1) I don’t think they can get operational sooner than Ares. I think they’ll take longer.

The Jupiter core is bigger and more complicated than the Ares I US. It will need an entirely new main propulsion system and a new payload fairing. Load paths will be entirely different from the Shuttle ET. It must support two very different flight paths. From contract award to a flight-worthy stage will be no better than the Ares I US to Ares I-Y and could be worse.

Nor do I think Direct can brush aside the competitive bidding process for the Jupiter core. Yes, Lockheed is building the ET. But Boeing builds the only other launcher powered by the RS-68, and is building the Ares I US with a lot less touch labor than the ET. NASA owns the Michoud plant, not Lockheed. Lockheed isn’t the only choice.

Simply handing the contract to Lockheed is bad procedure. Actually having a real bidding process will take time. Years.

The Direct team seems to assume that it won’t be a major issue to renegotiate the Ares I first and second stage contracts. That seems unlikely.

2) Direct will probably have more Lunar mission failures than the NASA baseline, since Ares I will probably be more reliable to LEO than the second Jupiter 232 in a two launch Direct scenario and the Direct TLI burn needs two J-2s to work without failure instead of one. Mission failures will be expensive, since NASA will almost certainly want to cease launches until it knows what went wrong

3) A realistic assessment of Jupiter 232 reliability suggests that Direct Lunar missions won’t be as safe as the NASA baseline. If NASA can achieve very favorable LOC and LOM numbers, this shouldn’t be a big factor. However, NASA’s LOM estimates for Ares I and V are very low compared to any existing vehicle. A more plausible estimate based on real world launchers might result in one more ascent abort over thirty years of Lunar operations with Direct than Ares. The odds are pretty good that the abort will be survivable, so it may only be an extra 10% chance of killing four people in that period. From a rational cost benefit view, avoiding that small risk isn’t worth billions of dollars. However, the American public and politicians aren’t entirely rational about cost benefit tradeoffs when it comes to putting astronauts at risk.

4) Jupiter 120 can also carry significant cargo. Unfortunately, taking advantage of the capability would pretty much pull the rug out from under the companies that invested in commercial ISS resupply.






I will let the Direct Team deal with concerns 1-3.

Argrument 4:  J120 can carry signifcant cargo. 

Please notice the word 'can'.  SpaceX and Orbital have been awarded contracts up till 2016.  The Falcon9 will not be carry 45 tons to ISS.  NASA has already said that any flights they they fly will be used to supplement not replace COTS.  Dragon/F9 is in completely differant weight class.  http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9DataSheet.pdf

The J120 can just fly with a water ballast shield.  Your basic agrument is the same one that NASA is saying about "too" much performance will hurt COTS cargo only. 

It is like a mini-van.  A mini-van can carry 8-10 people, cargo, or a mixture of both.  If I need to pickup a 54'' LCD TV to deliver to my friends house, what do you use?  Do you use my 2 seater or do I use the pickup truck?  If I am need to deliver a few bags of groceries, what do I use?  I use the best tool that is required to do the job.

Once SpaceX or whomever can deliver x amount of cargo to the ISS, NASA should put out a contract for them to deliver it.  Please also see reply number 1643. 

How many flights is NASA planning to fly Ares with cargo only?  None! NASA killed the cargo version of Ares I. The whole idea of COTS is to eventually allow ISS both manned and cargo to be serviced with US commerical suppliers.

Jupiter 120 would be there as a backup and could fly other missions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Integrator on 01/10/2009 05:44 pm
Humans think so linearly. LOL You are not using the entire technology design space available to you, it is compartmentalized and the sections do not talk to each other, in fact they compete. This is inefficient and you will never reach the stars with this kind of self-limited thinking.  That requires multidimensional thinking and new combinations of understandings beyond general comprehension now.

This is a Direct thread, so will no hijack it any longer - but I made you think a bit so it was worth it!! 

As for the Direct Team, time will tell if they have accomplished more than they know today.  Now people must make choices.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 01/10/2009 05:47 pm

1) I do agree with you on the bidding part. It seems in a perfect world things would get moving fast. But this is NASA we are talking about. There are reports and committees for the committees that will later form a committee.
I would like to hear from Ross and Team how they feel NASA can get this thing rolling fast.



I think the the Direct Team is well aware of the Ares I contracts issue and it is probably why they are considering switching to the J-231H in order to salvage the 5 segments SRB contract. 

However, one thing here that could play in the Direct Team favor is the threat that if current contractors don't want to cooperate in contract amendments, the Obama administration could just cancel the whole VSE and transfer the money outside NASA. That would be a big blow for LM, Boeing, ATK, ...

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/10/2009 05:50 pm
Congratulations to the Direct team on the PM article and chance to pitch their plan to the transition team.

Here is what I see as the pros and cons of the Direct proposal in its current form.

Pro: Direct should have lower development costs. Perhaps as much as $10 billion, if they can deliver on the lightweight upper stage. If not, and they need to use a five segment booster after all, perhaps half that.

I find the argument that Direct will have significantly lower operating costs entirely unconvincing.

Con: I’ll start with the biggest one first.

1) I don’t think they can get operational sooner than Ares. I think they’ll take longer.

The Jupiter core is bigger and more complicated than the Ares I US. It will need an entirely new main propulsion system and a new payload fairing. Load paths will be entirely different from the Shuttle ET. It must support two very different flight paths. From contract award to a flight-worthy stage will be no better than the Ares I US to Ares I-Y and could be worse.

Nor do I think Direct can brush aside the competitive bidding process for the Jupiter core. Yes, Lockheed is building the ET. But Boeing builds the only other launcher powered by the RS-68, and is building the Ares I US with a lot less touch labor than the ET. NASA owns the Michoud plant, not Lockheed. Lockheed isn’t the only choice.

Simply handing the contract to Lockheed is bad procedure. Actually having a real bidding process will take time. Years.

The Direct team seems to assume that it won’t be a major issue to renegotiate the Ares I first and second stage contracts. That seems unlikely.

2) Direct will probably have more Lunar mission failures than the NASA baseline, since Ares I will probably be more reliable to LEO than the second Jupiter 232 in a two launch Direct scenario and the Direct TLI burn needs two J-2s to work without failure instead of one. Mission failures will be expensive, since NASA will almost certainly want to cease launches until it knows what went wrong

3) A realistic assessment of Jupiter 232 reliability suggests that Direct Lunar missions won’t be as safe as the NASA baseline. If NASA can achieve very favorable LOC and LOM numbers, this shouldn’t be a big factor. However, NASA’s LOM estimates for Ares I and V are very low compared to any existing vehicle. A more plausible estimate based on real world launchers might result in one more ascent abort over thirty years of Lunar operations with Direct than Ares. The odds are pretty good that the abort will be survivable, so it may only be an extra 10% chance of killing four people in that period. From a rational cost benefit view, avoiding that small risk isn’t worth billions of dollars. However, the American public and politicians aren’t entirely rational about cost benefit tradeoffs when it comes to putting astronauts at risk.

4) Jupiter 120 can also carry significant cargo. Unfortunately, taking advantage of the capability would pretty much pull the rug out from under the companies that invested in commercial ISS resupply.






1) I do agree with you on the bidding part. It seems in a perfect world things would get moving fast. But this is NASA we are talking about. There are reports and committees for the committees that will later form a committee.
I would like to hear from Ross and Team how they feel NASA can get this thing rolling fast.

2) I disagree on this one. Under NASA's plan, for a successful lunar mission to occur, you also need a successful Ares V launch. If Ares V fails, you see delayed missions, investigations, etc. Ares V is much more complex than any of the Direct vehicles. 5.5 seg boosters and 6 RS-68, and the J-2X, there is a lot to go wrong there.
Also, I feel having 2 J-2Xs is safer, not a liability. If there is an engine failure on the way up to orbit, Ares I must abort, Jupiter can make it safely to orbit. If there is an engine failure on TLI for Ares, we're aborting too, same with Direct. In both cases, the J-2 must work on TLI.




Look at the part count for a pair of 232s vs an Ares I and V. !0 liquid engines vs 8. 4 RSRMs vs 3. Eight separation events vs. 6. 4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad.

Having two engines can help with survivability, if you have a non-catastrophic failure. But you still are likely to lose the mission because you need extra fuel from the EDS or SM to get to LEO because of gravity losses, and you needed that fuel for the Lunar mission.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/10/2009 06:01 pm

1) I do agree with you on the bidding part. It seems in a perfect world things would get moving fast. But this is NASA we are talking about. There are reports and committees for the committees that will later form a committee.
I would like to hear from Ross and Team how they feel NASA can get this thing rolling fast.



I think the the Direct Team is well aware of the Ares I contracts issue and it is probably why they are considering switching to the J-231H in order to salvage the 5 segments SRB contract. 

However, one thing here that could play in the Direct Team favor is the threat that if current contractors don't want to cooperate in contract amendments, the Obama administration could just cancel the whole VSE and transfer the money outside NASA. That would be a big blow for LM, Boeing, ATK, ...

PaulL

I will have to find the thread but this issue has already been covered.  The contractors will play ball.  If one does not want play..guess what may happen to them on future contracts?  Ask LM about why they kept relatively quite after ESAS study.  LM were told play with us, or lose it all!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/10/2009 06:05 pm
Pro: Direct should have lower development costs. Perhaps as much as $10 billion, if they can deliver on the lightweight upper stage. If not, and they need to use a five segment booster after all, perhaps half that.
IMHO one of the other 'pros' is that, supposing budget constraints do not allow develpoment of a second vehicle, DIRECT puts you in a much stronger position because J120, even without an upper stage, is a very capable wide-body heavy lifter. My back-of-envelope Mars plan would fit a J120 perfectly. I'm sure lunar missions could be flown using J120 too.
By contrast, if we get left with Ares-I only, then all we've done is build a third EELV.

Quote
I find the argument that Direct will have significantly lower operating costs entirely unconvincing.
I disagree. I do think that the numbers are too optimistic and that it wouldn't hurt to propose more conservative ones, based on comparison with Ares rather than calculating them from first principles. However commoanlity and higher flight rates will undoubtedly have some effect; just look at how the EELV costs have suffered due to reduced flight rates.

Quote
From contract award to a flight-worthy stage will be no better than the Ares I US to Ares I-Y and could be worse.
OTOH, the Ares-I US is waiting on it's engine, and also requires new tooling. Both these elements are already in place for Jupiter core. Out of interest, could the Ares-I US be developed quicker if their engine was ready?people in that period. From a rational cost benefit view, avoiding that small risk isn’t worth billions of dollars. However, the American public and politicians aren’t entirely rational about cost benefit tradeoffs when it comes to putting astronauts at risk.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 01/10/2009 06:07 pm
I've been doing a lot of reading on the competing DIRECT concept vs. the planned Ares project.
I'm not aerospace engineer, but I am a mechanical engineer, so I find this all pretty interesting.

Assuming the DIRECT folks are accurate on their numbers and claims, I think there's still some factors that would favor Ares.
Advantages of DIRECT over ARES:
1)  Less initial Cost.
2)  Faster time to flight.
3)  Less disruption of current manufacturing and labor infrastructure.

Advantages of ARES over DIRECT.
1)  Less operating cost of ARES 1 vs. Jupiter 120
2)  Less Operating Cost of (1) Ares V vs. (2) Jupiter 232 launches for non moon-shot payloads.
3)  More flexibility in launching future spacecraft and payloads.

Obviously, no one really knows for sure how much the development costs and operating costs of each are (anything is really a guess), but it seems logical that a vehicle that's closer to current designs would be less expensive than one that's more for a departure.  And it seems logical that a smaller vehicle will cost less per launch (Ares 1) than a larger vehicle (Jupiter 120).

It's also logical that since it would take two Jupiter 232 vehicals to get the same payload into LEO as one Ares V, that Jupiter costs more there too.  (Two Jupiter's can get a little more in LEO actually, but if you need to get 200 tons in orbit, you need one Ares V or two Jupiter's)
But it's impossible to say when the payback will be in the future before you recouped the additional capitol cost of Ares in the money you save from per launch.  We can speculate, but that's impossible to know for sure.

Here's the way it seems.
The old Saturn V could get 130 tons into LEO (using LEO as a baseline to compare apples to apples).  The Current Space Shuttle can put about 27 tones into LEO.  That's why if you look at the old Skylab video, the astronauts had much more room in there than in any module in the ISS.
So Saturn could put 5 times the payload into LEO.
Ares 1 can also put 27 tones into LEO, it could actually be used to ferry replacement modules to the ISS that were designed to fly in the Shuttle.  So once it's flying, really the Shuttle's launching capabilities are effectively replaced.
A module designed to fit within the Space Shuttle Cargo bay can also fit within Ares 1's fairing diameter from the specifications I've read.
Now, it appears Jupiter 232 can put 110 tons into LEO, 20 tons less than the Saturn V.  Ares V can put 205 tons into LEO, or a little less than 2 Jupiter 232's.  So if even for some reason 2 Jupiters could be launched for the same cost as 1 Ares V, the increased size and lifting ability of the Ares V means you have a lot more options for payload.  You can put up a Space Telescope that 8 times larger than Hubble, with a far wider mirror.
You just can't put up a 200 ton telescope with Jupiter.  A telescope about half that size will be your limit, and you really don't want to try to assmeble two 100 tons halves in space then place in orbit.
Additionally, at some time we'll want a replacement for the ISS.  I think it's about 300 tons now, and will be around 350 tons when finished depending of if Russia puts it's two remaining modules up which is unlikely.  about 400 tons if they actually do.
The finished ISS will total about 31 launches of Shuttle and Russian Proton!  A few more if the Ruskies finish their part.
So, the Jupiter 232 could do that in about 4 launches, and the Ares V could do it in 2.  Maybe add an Ares 1 launch in there in case Astronauts need to help in the assembly of the two 200 ton modules.  In that case, you'd need a few Jupiter 120 launches as you have more modules to assemble.  Probably  3 Jupiter 120 launches, to connect modules 1 & 2, then to add the 3rd, and again to add the 4th and complete.
So right there you can see less than half the launches with the Ares system over the Jupiter, with larger, more spacious modules being put in orbit, and less assembly in space which is always benefitial.  THe more than can be done on the ground and built into a single module, the better, safer, more reliable, and cheaper.  Connecting two modules is far better than 4, and far, FAR better than the 31 launches for the ISS!
So Ares clearly has the edge in special payloads we'll obviously be interested in putting into orbit in the future. 

Here's the thing, almost all of the analysis I've seen on DIRECT is focused on going back to the moon.  That's imporant, sure.  But I think there's also the factor that whatever replaces the shuttle will be our primary launch vehical for several decades to come like the Shuttle has been.  So this is our one and only chance to get a true heavy lift vehicle, with all the versitility such a large lifter gives us for everything else other than lunar landings.

Sounds like Both DIRECT and Ares can get about the same payload to the moon and back, although DIRECT is a little trickier because you have to dock the LEM and Orion with the EDS.  In Ares, that's all one stack, and you just need to dock Orion with it and go.  An easier manuever, but not a deal breaker.  Our astronauts are pretty good pilots.  ;-)
So, while DIRECT might get us back to the ISS and back to the moon a few years faster than Ares, and for a little cheaper, Ares will likely give us a more versital platform for the next 30 years that now opens a lot more doors than DIRECT does.  DIRECT is certainly  a better launch vehicle than the shuttle.  We can get 4 times the payload to LEO per launch.  What a great savings.  But with Ares, we can get 8 times the payload per launch. 

And I just have to believe that when the rubber meets the road, 1 Ares V launch will be cheaper than two Jupiter 232 launches, aftet you account for manufacture, transportation from McChoud to Kennedy, assembly with payload, rollout, launch, and support.  Just like it's cheaper to drive a Ford F150 pickup than a Ford F350, but it's cheaper to drive one F350 than two F150's.

And that's a good analagy.  Ares gives us one commuter car, and one big 1-ton, crew cab, long bed, diesel pickup.  When you need to get 4 people to work and back, Ares 1 is there for those commutes.
But when you need to tow a big 5th wheel, you have the F350 too.
With DIRECT, you seem to have two F150.  Driving one back and forth to work for 4 people is more expensive than the 4-door commuter car.  But you really can't tow that big 5th wheel either unless you break it in half.
And you can tow a smaller trailer with it if you need to, although it's overpowered to do so, it still can if you need it.  But the F150 can't tow the big 5th wheel if you need it to.  And it's easier if you can tow the 5th wheel in tact, rather than breaking it in half to tow with the two F150's, and then reassemble at the destination.

Hopefully that makes sense.  So given that, I lean towards the Ares program no in place.  I am afraid that DIRECT gets us out of the gate faster, but puts some handcuffs on us down the road.
Not to mention a vehicle to go to Mars could be assembled easier the fewer launches you need to get it into space.
But either is far better than the Shuttle.  To stick with the analagy, the SHuttle is like having Lexus.  It's expensive to maintain and operate, but it can't really tow much.  It's pretty skick and fancy, but you can do the same thing for far less money.

Even Ares V launches will be cheaper than shuttle launches.  The tank's bigger and engines are expendable, but you save all the costs of refurbishing the Shuttle between flights, replacing all the tiles, and more or less rebuilding the thing between flights like we do now. 
So for the DIRECT supporters, even the big Ares V, while more expensive to launch than a single Jupiter 232, is cheaper than a shuttle launch.
We'll still have a better system that we currently have, so we're still moving forward.  And it'll be more versitile for future payloads and uses than the DIRECT.

Hmmmm...maybe those NASA guys aren't so dumb after all.  ;-)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/10/2009 06:14 pm
Going by part count is tricky. Is it 3 RSRMs vs. 4, or is it 16 (4+4+4+4) RSRM segments vs. 16 (5+5.5+5.5)? 6 RS-68 engines vs. 6 (or is it 7 now?). All that leaves is 4 J2Xs vs. 2 J2Xs. And, of course 0 CEV service engines vs. 1 (because the CEV SM is effectively the Ares I "third stage"). Looks like Ares I + Ares V has a 1-engine advantage over 2x Jupiter 232, and then only if Ares "V" turns out not to need that 7th engine...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/10/2009 06:16 pm
Congratulations to the Direct team on the PM article and chance to pitch their plan to the transition team.

Here is what I see as the pros and cons of the Direct proposal in its current form.

Pro: Direct should have lower development costs. Perhaps as much as $10 billion, if they can deliver on the lightweight upper stage. If not, and they need to use a five segment booster after all, perhaps half that.

I find the argument that Direct will have significantly lower operating costs entirely unconvincing.

Con: I’ll start with the biggest one first.

1) I don’t think they can get operational sooner than Ares. I think they’ll take longer.

The Jupiter core is bigger and more complicated than the Ares I US. It will need an entirely new main propulsion system and a new payload fairing. Load paths will be entirely different from the Shuttle ET. It must support two very different flight paths. From contract award to a flight-worthy stage will be no better than the Ares I US to Ares I-Y and could be worse.

Nor do I think Direct can brush aside the competitive bidding process for the Jupiter core. Yes, Lockheed is building the ET. But Boeing builds the only other launcher powered by the RS-68, and is building the Ares I US with a lot less touch labor than the ET. NASA owns the Michoud plant, not Lockheed. Lockheed isn’t the only choice.

Simply handing the contract to Lockheed is bad procedure. Actually having a real bidding process will take time. Years.

The Direct team seems to assume that it won’t be a major issue to renegotiate the Ares I first and second stage contracts. That seems unlikely.

2) Direct will probably have more Lunar mission failures than the NASA baseline, since Ares I will probably be more reliable to LEO than the second Jupiter 232 in a two launch Direct scenario and the Direct TLI burn needs two J-2s to work without failure instead of one. Mission failures will be expensive, since NASA will almost certainly want to cease launches until it knows what went wrong

3) A realistic assessment of Jupiter 232 reliability suggests that Direct Lunar missions won’t be as safe as the NASA baseline. If NASA can achieve very favorable LOC and LOM numbers, this shouldn’t be a big factor. However, NASA’s LOM estimates for Ares I and V are very low compared to any existing vehicle. A more plausible estimate based on real world launchers might result in one more ascent abort over thirty years of Lunar operations with Direct than Ares. The odds are pretty good that the abort will be survivable, so it may only be an extra 10% chance of killing four people in that period. From a rational cost benefit view, avoiding that small risk isn’t worth billions of dollars. However, the American public and politicians aren’t entirely rational about cost benefit tradeoffs when it comes to putting astronauts at risk.

4) Jupiter 120 can also carry significant cargo. Unfortunately, taking advantage of the capability would pretty much pull the rug out from under the companies that invested in commercial ISS resupply.






I will let the Direct Team deal with concerns 1-3.

Argrument 4:  J120 can carry signifcant cargo. 

Please notice the word 'can'.  SpaceX and Orbital have been awarded contracts up till 2016.  The Falcon9 will not be carry 45 tons to ISS.  NASA has already said that any flights they they fly will be used to supplement not replace COTS.  Dragon/F9 is in completely differant weight class.  http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9DataSheet.pdf

The J120 can just fly with a water ballast shield.  Your basic agrument is the same one that NASA is saying about "too" much performance will hurt COTS cargo only. 

It is like a mini-van.  A mini-van can carry 8-10 people, cargo, or a mixture of both.  If I need to pickup a 54'' LCD TV to deliver to my friends house, what do you use?  Do you use my 2 seater or do I use the pickup truck?  If I am need to deliver a few bags of groceries, what do I use?  I use the best tool that is required to do the job.

Once SpaceX or whomever can deliver x amount of cargo to the ISS, NASA should put out a contract for them to deliver it.  Please also see reply number 1643. 

How many flights is NASA planning to fly Ares with cargo only?  None! NASA killed the cargo version of Ares I. The whole idea of COTS is to eventually allow ISS both manned and cargo to be serviced with US commerical suppliers.

Jupiter 120 would be there as a backup and could fly other missions.

Here is a table of mass breakdown  that includes Falcon and Orbital:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11939.150
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ballew on 01/10/2009 06:29 pm
I've been doing a lot of reading on the competing DIRECT concept vs. the planned Ares project.
I'm not aerospace engineer, but I am a mechanical engineer, so I find this all pretty interesting.

Assuming the DIRECT folks are accurate on their numbers and claims, I think there's still some factors that would favor Ares.
Advantages of DIRECT over ARES:
1)  Less initial Cost.
2)  Faster time to flight.
3)  Less disruption of current manufacturing and labor infrastructure.

Advantages of ARES over DIRECT.
1)  Less operating cost of ARES 1 vs. Jupiter 120
2)  Less Operating Cost of (1) Ares V vs. (2) Jupiter 232 launches for non moon-shot payloads.
3)  More flexibility in launching future spacecraft and payloads.



I think you are missing several other important advantages that Direct has over the Ares 1 & V programs.

1. With Ares 1 & V, you are building 2 completely different launch vehicles that will not share any development costs except the J-2X.  However with the Direct concept you are only building 1 launch vehicle with 2 different configurations. Almost the entire development cost associated with building the first configuration (J120) is not going to have to be duplicated when building the second configuration (J232)

2. It will be economically and operationally more feasible to fly more J-232 missions than Ares V missions.

3. Another advantage is that if Ares I is built, it is very possible that budgetary restraints and repercussions from cost overruns will prevent the Ares V from ever being built because it will be so expensive. Then we will be trapped in LEO just like we are now.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 01/10/2009 06:34 pm
Look at the part count for a pair of 232s vs an Ares I and V. !0 liquid engines vs 8. 4 RSRMs vs 3. Eight separation events vs. 6. 4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad.

If engine and staging counts is the right way to think about this, you must not be an EELV fan :)

If I had a choice of going across country with either:
 1) Two Ferraris
 2) One Ferrari and one Lamborghini

...and somehow I was more interested in reliability (:)), why wouldn't I go for two supercars of the same type?  Isn't reliability at least as much a function of familiarity as staging events and engine count?

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/10/2009 06:39 pm
I've been doing a lot of reading on the competing DIRECT concept vs. the planned Ares project.
I'm not aerospace engineer, but I am a mechanical engineer, so I find this all pretty interesting.

Assuming the DIRECT folks are accurate on their numbers and claims, I think there's still some factors that would favor Ares.
Advantages of DIRECT over ARES:
1)  Less initial Cost.
2)  Faster time to flight.
3)  Less disruption of current manufacturing and labor infrastructure.

Advantages of ARES over DIRECT.
1)  Less operating cost of ARES 1 vs. Jupiter 120
2)  Less Operating Cost of (1) Ares V vs. (2) Jupiter 232 launches for non moon-shot payloads.
3)  More flexibility in launching future spacecraft and payloads.

Obviously, no one really knows for sure how much the development costs and operating costs of each are (anything is really a guess), but it seems logical that a vehicle that's closer to current designs would be less expensive than one that's more for a departure.  And it seems logical that a smaller vehicle will cost less per launch (Ares 1) than a larger vehicle (Jupiter 120).

It's also logical that since it would take two Jupiter 232 vehicals to get the same payload into LEO as one Ares V, that Jupiter costs more there too.  (Two Jupiter's can get a little more in LEO actually, but if you need to get 200 tons in orbit, you need one Ares V or two Jupiter's)
But it's impossible to say when the payback will be in the future before you recouped the additional capitol cost of Ares in the money you save from per launch.  We can speculate, but that's impossible to know for sure.

Here's the way it seems.
The old Saturn V could get 130 tons into LEO (using LEO as a baseline to compare apples to apples).  The Current Space Shuttle can put about 27 tones into LEO.  That's why if you look at the old Skylab video, the astronauts had much more room in there than in any module in the ISS.
So Saturn could put 5 times the payload into LEO.
Ares 1 can also put 27 tones into LEO, it could actually be used to ferry replacement modules to the ISS that were designed to fly in the Shuttle.  So once it's flying, really the Shuttle's launching capabilities are effectively replaced.
A module designed to fit within the Space Shuttle Cargo bay can also fit within Ares 1's fairing diameter from the specifications I've read.
Now, it appears Jupiter 232 can put 110 tons into LEO, 20 tons less than the Saturn V.  Ares V can put 205 tons into LEO, or a little less than 2 Jupiter 232's.  So if even for some reason 2 Jupiters could be launched for the same cost as 1 Ares V, the increased size and lifting ability of the Ares V means you have a lot more options for payload.  You can put up a Space Telescope that 8 times larger than Hubble, with a far wider mirror.
You just can't put up a 200 ton telescope with Jupiter.  A telescope about half that size will be your limit, and you really don't want to try to assmeble two 100 tons halves in space then place in orbit.
Additionally, at some time we'll want a replacement for the ISS.  I think it's about 300 tons now, and will be around 350 tons when finished depending of if Russia puts it's two remaining modules up which is unlikely.  about 400 tons if they actually do.
The finished ISS will total about 31 launches of Shuttle and Russian Proton!  A few more if the Ruskies finish their part.
So, the Jupiter 232 could do that in about 4 launches, and the Ares V could do it in 2.  Maybe add an Ares 1 launch in there in case Astronauts need to help in the assembly of the two 200 ton modules.  In that case, you'd need a few Jupiter 120 launches as you have more modules to assemble.  Probably  3 Jupiter 120 launches, to connect modules 1 & 2, then to add the 3rd, and again to add the 4th and complete.
So right there you can see less than half the launches with the Ares system over the Jupiter, with larger, more spacious modules being put in orbit, and less assembly in space which is always benefitial.  THe more than can be done on the ground and built into a single module, the better, safer, more reliable, and cheaper.  Connecting two modules is far better than 4, and far, FAR better than the 31 launches for the ISS!
So Ares clearly has the edge in special payloads we'll obviously be interested in putting into orbit in the future. 

Here's the thing, almost all of the analysis I've seen on DIRECT is focused on going back to the moon.  That's imporant, sure.  But I think there's also the factor that whatever replaces the shuttle will be our primary launch vehical for several decades to come like the Shuttle has been.  So this is our one and only chance to get a true heavy lift vehicle, with all the versitility such a large lifter gives us for everything else other than lunar landings.

Sounds like Both DIRECT and Ares can get about the same payload to the moon and back, although DIRECT is a little trickier because you have to dock the LEM and Orion with the EDS.  In Ares, that's all one stack, and you just need to dock Orion with it and go.  An easier manuever, but not a deal breaker.  Our astronauts are pretty good pilots.  ;-)
So, while DIRECT might get us back to the ISS and back to the moon a few years faster than Ares, and for a little cheaper, Ares will likely give us a more versital platform for the next 30 years that now opens a lot more doors than DIRECT does.  DIRECT is certainly  a better launch vehicle than the shuttle.  We can get 4 times the payload to LEO per launch.  What a great savings.  But with Ares, we can get 8 times the payload per launch. 

And I just have to believe that when the rubber meets the road, 1 Ares V launch will be cheaper than two Jupiter 232 launches, aftet you account for manufacture, transportation from McChoud to Kennedy, assembly with payload, rollout, launch, and support.  Just like it's cheaper to drive a Ford F150 pickup than a Ford F350, but it's cheaper to drive one F350 than two F150's.

And that's a good analagy.  Ares gives us one commuter car, and one big 1-ton, crew cab, long bed, diesel pickup.  When you need to get 4 people to work and back, Ares 1 is there for those commutes.
But when you need to tow a big 5th wheel, you have the F350 too.
With DIRECT, you seem to have two F150.  Driving one back and forth to work for 4 people is more expensive than the 4-door commuter car.  But you really can't tow that big 5th wheel either unless you break it in half.
And you can tow a smaller trailer with it if you need to, although it's overpowered to do so, it still can if you need it.  But the F150 can't tow the big 5th wheel if you need it to.  And it's easier if you can tow the 5th wheel in tact, rather than breaking it in half to tow with the two F150's, and then reassemble at the destination.

Hopefully that makes sense.  So given that, I lean towards the Ares program no in place.  I am afraid that DIRECT gets us out of the gate faster, but puts some handcuffs on us down the road.
Not to mention a vehicle to go to Mars could be assembled easier the fewer launches you need to get it into space.
But either is far better than the Shuttle.  To stick with the analagy, the SHuttle is like having Lexus.  It's expensive to maintain and operate, but it can't really tow much.  It's pretty skick and fancy, but you can do the same thing for far less money.

Even Ares V launches will be cheaper than shuttle launches.  The tank's bigger and engines are expendable, but you save all the costs of refurbishing the Shuttle between flights, replacing all the tiles, and more or less rebuilding the thing between flights like we do now. 
So for the DIRECT supporters, even the big Ares V, while more expensive to launch than a single Jupiter 232, is cheaper than a shuttle launch.
We'll still have a better system that we currently have, so we're still moving forward.  And it'll be more versitile for future payloads and uses than the DIRECT.

Hmmmm...maybe those NASA guys aren't so dumb after all.  ;-)



Please tell me one thing that is bigger than 100 tons. Currently the biggest thing the space shuttle takes up is approx 20 tons.

Bigger is not always better.  I can buy an 18 wheel, but if largest thing to date is 42 inch tv then an 18 wheeler is overkill.  Even for MARS, the biggest thing to be lifted is not over 100 tons.  The majority of the stuff that you need for Mars is fuel.  Fuel if you have a garage can be split up.  You also forgot, that for you new 18 wheeler, that you need new roads, since the roads were not built to take the weight, you also need two gargages. you basically now need two of everything, people to service it.   

What is the cost of Ares V? 25-30B.  Then how much does it cost to operate?  What is NASA's budget currently around $16B.  Do you spend twice your yearly budget to get your new car?  Most people would think that is insane.  That is not including the cost to operate it.

Please show me the less operating costs for 1 Ares cost less than 2 J232 for non moon shots?
 
Ares V Development: ~$15,000m, Fixed: $2,000m/year, Variable: $240m+90m (for the EDS)/flight @ 1 per year, $194m+$73m/flight @ 4 per year

Direct 232 "Development: ~$4,000m, Fixed: $800m/year, Variable: $110m/flight @ 1 per year, $93m/flight @ 4 per year.


Annual Ares V is cost you 1 flight: $2.2B plus vs. Direct is cost you $1b

If you have time please read the Frequently Asked Questions.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/10/2009 06:42 pm
"Please tell me one thing that is bigger than 100 tons. Currently the biggest thing the space shuttle takes up is approx 20 tons."

Kind of reminds me of the days when we said we'd never need more than 64Kb RAM. 8-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/10/2009 07:02 pm
"Please tell me one thing that is bigger than 100 tons. Currently the biggest thing the space shuttle takes up is approx 20 tons."

Kind of reminds me of the days when we said we'd never need more than 64Kb RAM. 8-)

We can always assemble a lunar mission in space in 18 months, going in 20t chunks at the pace ISS taught us we can go.

(I duck and run for cover, I know Jim doesn't like this)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 01/10/2009 07:11 pm
Now, it appears Jupiter 232 can put 110 tons into LEO, 20 tons less than the Saturn V.  Ares V can put 205 tons into LEO, or a little less than 2 Jupiter 232's. 

Wow! A 205 mT to LEO Ares V?  If it was true, NASA would have no problem closing CxP.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 01/10/2009 07:27 pm
Kind of reminds me of the days when we said we'd never need more than 64Kb RAM. 8-)

Uh huh, and now computers come with the square of that number in memory, so, what we need is a lifter that lifts the square of a typical EELV?  Hmm.

Computers evolved to that point, they didn't wait for a thrice-per-century redesign to revolutionize them, though there have been three jumps in scalability (16bit, 32bit, 64bit for 64k, 4G, 16ThermalMeltdown).  What I think you are looking for is a scalable architecture.  That's what the J-launcher gives you.  There's nothing stopping J232 from evolving into AresV, assuming the money shows up.  But the J232 allows you to do more with less, sooner.  Performance and scalability are different, and over-optimizing for performance can kill scalability.

More importantly, NASA is going to have to do a lot more with a lot less over the next 2-4 years.  I consider it nearly inevitable that ARES is canned, because it's too little, too late, for too much.  I expect J120 to fall into the same camp.  Space is just not going to be a priority with a $2T deficit, and I've expressed that concern before, and it was as much a distraction then as it is now :)  But everyone saying that ARES-V development costs aren't that high so we might as well big the biggest launcher known to man because, well, we might use it once or twice, have got to be joking.  It won't get funded.

imvho, of course!

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/10/2009 07:33 pm
Look at the part count for a pair of 232s vs an Ares I and V. !0 liquid engines vs 8. 4 RSRMs vs 3. Eight separation events vs. 6. 4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad.

If engine and staging counts is the right way to think about this, you must not be an EELV fan :)

If I had a choice of going across country with either:
 1) Two Ferraris
 2) One Ferrari and one Lamborghini

...and somehow I was more interested in reliability (:)), why wouldn't I go for two supercars of the same type?  Isn't reliability at least as much a function of familiarity as staging events and engine count?

-Dave


How about making the analogy motorcycles? So:

1) 2 Suzukis, or
2) 1 Harley and 1 Parts/Repair Van?

(Running for cover...)

Actually, I don't buy the statistical argument for fewer engines/staging events (other than in the context of the law of diminishing returns). It's a controversy as old as the space age, when the initial Saturn designs were referred to as Cluster's Last Stand.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 01/10/2009 07:36 pm
"Please tell me one thing that is bigger than 100 tons. Currently the biggest thing the space shuttle takes up is approx 20 tons."

Kind of reminds me of the days when we said we'd never need more than 64Kb RAM. 8-)

Agreed, we haven't put anything up larger than 130 tons because we've never had a vehical capable of putting it up (Saturn V).  The only thing larger is the ISS, and that's going to take 31 launches to finish.  If NASA had a vehical that could lift 200 tons, then they could build a new Space station as massive as the ISS, but in just two segments (maybe a 3rd with miscellanious external components).
DIRECT is also far better than the shuttle.  I'm just saying that the more you can construct on the ground, and the more you can integrate into fewer mudules rather than the jigsaw puzzle that is the ISS, the better, cheaper, and safer you are.  Not to mention how much more volumous and comfortable two large modules would be for living for 6 months at a go.  Again, I point you back to Skylab, which was built out of the EDS of a SAturn V.  Look at the internal video of that old lab and see how much larger it was to inhabit than the current ISS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 01/10/2009 07:40 pm
Now, it appears Jupiter 232 can put 110 tons into LEO, 20 tons less than the Saturn V.  Ares V can put 205 tons into LEO, or a little less than 2 Jupiter 232's. 

Wow! A 205 mT to LEO Ares V?  If it was true, NASA would have no problem closing CxP.

PaulL

205 standard tons, not metric tons. 
Was working in terms of standard pounds and tons.
That's what NASA's claiming anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 01/10/2009 07:41 pm
How about making the analogy motorcycles? So:

1) 2 Suzukis, or
2) 1 Harley and 1 Parts/Repair Van?

(Running for cover...)

Heh.
Of course, if ARES-V could repair an ARES-I launch....
LOL at ARES-I <--> Harley.  Are you claiming ARES-I will leak oil no matter what you do to the thing? :)

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 01/10/2009 07:55 pm
I've been doing a lot of reading on the competing DIRECT concept vs. the planned Ares project.
I'm not aerospace engineer, but I am a mechanical engineer, so I find this all pretty interesting.

Assuming the DIRECT folks are accurate on their numbers and claims, I think there's still some factors that would favor Ares.
Advantages of DIRECT over ARES:
1)  Less initial Cost.
2)  Faster time to flight.
3)  Less disruption of current manufacturing and labor infrastructure.

Advantages of ARES over DIRECT.
1)  Less operating cost of ARES 1 vs. Jupiter 120
2)  Less Operating Cost of (1) Ares V vs. (2) Jupiter 232 launches for non moon-shot payloads.
3)  More flexibility in launching future spacecraft and payloads.



I think you are missing several other important advantages that Direct has over the Ares 1 & V programs.

1. With Ares 1 & V, you are building 2 completely different launch vehicles that will not share any development costs except the J-2X.  However with the Direct concept you are only building 1 launch vehicle with 2 different configurations. Almost the entire development cost associated with building the first configuration (J120) is not going to have to be duplicated when building the second configuration (J232)

2. It will be economically and operationally more feasible to fly more J-232 missions than Ares V missions.

3. Another advantage is that if Ares I is built, it is very possible that budgetary restraints and repercussions from cost overruns will prevent the Ares V from ever being built because it will be so expensive. Then we will be trapped in LEO just like we are now.



Well obviously if there's a real chance Ares V will never fly, then yes, DIRECT would be obviously the better way to go.
THat's hard to know however, just speculation.  I also see potential for issues if you put the brakes on Ares and shift gears to DIRECT.  That's when a new administration swoops in and canibalizes the budget.
Will all this bailout talk by Obama, either Ares or Direct could be in trouble.

But assuming Ares would get built per current schedule, although I know it will cost more initially, just seems like it opens some doors down the road.  DIRECT is more of a short term solution where Ares seems more like a long term plan with a lot of legroom for larger payloads in the future.

As far as cost of operation.  Like I said, I'm no expert.  Just logic would dictate that one larger vehical would be cheaper to build, transport, assemble, and launch than two smaller ones, unless they are WAY smaller.  And each Jupiter 232 is about 55% of Ares V or so.  Like I said, it's cheaper to buy and use one F350 diesel that two F150's, even though the F350 can tow almost twice the load.

But I could be wrong.  Like I said, I've done a lot of reading and DIRECT was very intriguing.  I have no dog in the fight, just want the best sytem to win because it's what we'll be saddled with, good or bad, for the next several decades. 
I'm just a bit concerned that in the excitement over the initial cost savings of Direct, we could handcuff ourselves with a more limited vehicle for the next 30 years to so.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/10/2009 08:09 pm
I've been doing a lot of reading on the competing DIRECT concept vs. the planned Ares project.
I'm not aerospace engineer, but I am a mechanical engineer, so I find this all pretty interesting.

Assuming the DIRECT folks are accurate on their numbers and claims, I think there's still some factors that would favor Ares.
Advantages of DIRECT over ARES:
1)  Less initial Cost.
2)  Faster time to flight.
3)  Less disruption of current manufacturing and labor infrastructure.

Advantages of ARES over DIRECT.
1)  Less operating cost of ARES 1 vs. Jupiter 120
2)  Less Operating Cost of (1) Ares V vs. (2) Jupiter 232 launches for non moon-shot payloads.
3)  More flexibility in launching future spacecraft and payloads.



I think you are missing several other important advantages that Direct has over the Ares 1 & V programs.

1. With Ares 1 & V, you are building 2 completely different launch vehicles that will not share any development costs except the J-2X.  However with the Direct concept you are only building 1 launch vehicle with 2 different configurations. Almost the entire development cost associated with building the first configuration (J120) is not going to have to be duplicated when building the second configuration (J232)

2. It will be economically and operationally more feasible to fly more J-232 missions than Ares V missions.

3. Another advantage is that if Ares I is built, it is very possible that budgetary restraints and repercussions from cost overruns will prevent the Ares V from ever being built because it will be so expensive. Then we will be trapped in LEO just like we are now.



Well obviously if there's a real chance Ares V will never fly, then yes, DIRECT would be obviously the better way to go.
THat's hard to know however, just speculation.  I also see potential for issues if you put the brakes on Ares and shift gears to DIRECT.  That's when a new administration swoops in and canibalizes the budget.
Will all this bailout talk by Obama, either Ares or Direct could be in trouble.

But assuming Ares would get built per current schedule, although I know it will cost more initially, just seems like it opens some doors down the road.  DIRECT is more of a short term solution where Ares seems more like a long term plan with a lot of legroom for larger payloads in the future.

As far as cost of operation.  Like I said, I'm no expert.  Just logic would dictate that one larger vehical would be cheaper to build, transport, assemble, and launch than two smaller ones, unless they are WAY smaller.  And each Jupiter 232 is about 55% of Ares V or so.  Like I said, it's cheaper to buy and use one F350 diesel that two F150's, even though the F350 can tow almost twice the load.

But I could be wrong.  Like I said, I've done a lot of reading and DIRECT was very intriguing.  I have no dog in the fight, just want the best sytem to win because it's what we'll be saddled with, good or bad, for the next several decades. 
I'm just a bit concerned that in the excitement over the initial cost savings of Direct, we could handcuff ourselves with a more limited vehicle for the next 30 years to so.



Here is the lastest Ares numbers:
http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/ares5.html

Direct is about 80% of Ares. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/10/2009 08:13 pm
Now, it appears Jupiter 232 can put 110 tons into LEO, 20 tons less than the Saturn V.  Ares V can put 205 tons into LEO, or a little less than 2 Jupiter 232's. 

Wow! A 205 mT to LEO Ares V?  If it was true, NASA would have no problem closing CxP.

PaulL

205 standard tons, not metric tons. 
Was working in terms of standard pounds and tons.
That's what NASA's claiming anyway.

Then your numbers are inconsistent. DIRECT claim 111,000kg for J232, i.e. 111 tonnes. They generally use the term 'mT' to denote metric tonne, although this is in fact an abbreviation for mini-tesla, a unit of magnetism, and the lower-case letter 't' shoudl suffice on it's own.
So your numbers for DIRECT are too low compared to NASA's numbers.

By the way, so what if Skylab was bigger? Big isn't always best. The Soviets/Russians got by just fine with little Salyuts and a piddling 7,500kg Soyuz craft, so they accomplished a lot more than NASA could with their massive shuttle. But I digress.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 01/10/2009 08:32 pm
Well obviously if there's a real chance Ares V will never fly

As I understand it, ARES V cannot be built using NASA's current budget.

FWIW, I don't have any dogs in this fight either.  We all just want to actually accomplish something meaningful in space, so it's all good.

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/10/2009 08:34 pm
I've been doing a lot of reading on the competing DIRECT concept vs. the planned Ares project.
I'm not aerospace engineer, but I am a mechanical engineer, so I find this all pretty interesting.

Assuming the DIRECT folks are accurate on their numbers and claims, I think there's still some factors that would favor Ares.
Advantages of DIRECT over ARES:
1)  Less initial Cost.
2)  Faster time to flight.
3)  Less disruption of current manufacturing and labor infrastructure.

Advantages of ARES over DIRECT.
1)  Less operating cost of ARES 1 vs. Jupiter 120
2)  Less Operating Cost of (1) Ares V vs. (2) Jupiter 232 launches for non moon-shot payloads.
3)  More flexibility in launching future spacecraft and payloads.



I think you are missing several other important advantages that Direct has over the Ares 1 & V programs.

1. With Ares 1 & V, you are building 2 completely different launch vehicles that will not share any development costs except the J-2X.  However with the Direct concept you are only building 1 launch vehicle with 2 different configurations. Almost the entire development cost associated with building the first configuration (J120) is not going to have to be duplicated when building the second configuration (J232)

2. It will be economically and operationally more feasible to fly more J-232 missions than Ares V missions.

3. Another advantage is that if Ares I is built, it is very possible that budgetary restraints and repercussions from cost overruns will prevent the Ares V from ever being built because it will be so expensive. Then we will be trapped in LEO just like we are now.



Well obviously if there's a real chance Ares V will never fly, then yes, DIRECT would be obviously the better way to go.
THat's hard to know however, just speculation.  I also see potential for issues if you put the brakes on Ares and shift gears to DIRECT.  That's when a new administration swoops in and canibalizes the budget.
Will all this bailout talk by Obama, either Ares or Direct could be in trouble.

But assuming Ares would get built per current schedule, although I know it will cost more initially, just seems like it opens some doors down the road.  DIRECT is more of a short term solution where Ares seems more like a long term plan with a lot of legroom for larger payloads in the future.

As far as cost of operation.  Like I said, I'm no expert.  Just logic would dictate that one larger vehical would be cheaper to build, transport, assemble, and launch than two smaller ones, unless they are WAY smaller.  And each Jupiter 232 is about 55% of Ares V or so.  Like I said, it's cheaper to buy and use one F350 diesel that two F150's, even though the F350 can tow almost twice the load.

But I could be wrong.  Like I said, I've done a lot of reading and DIRECT was very intriguing.  I have no dog in the fight, just want the best sytem to win because it's what we'll be saddled with, good or bad, for the next several decades. 
I'm just a bit concerned that in the excitement over the initial cost savings of Direct, we could handcuff ourselves with a more limited vehicle for the next 30 years to so.



I understand your concern,

That is the Direct Teams concern as well.  The concern is that we are going to spend so much for Ares, that Ares V will never be built since it cost so much to develop and operate.

In that case, we are worse off than with shuttle.  Shuttle at least takes up 16 tons to ISS, Ares will take up nothing.

Being a Mechanical Engineer, you probably use your computer to do CAD/CAM drawings.  Now think about it is time to get that new computer.  You can get that supercomputer, but it will take up all your budget for the next few years and cost $1b.  That does not include the operating costs.  You also have a choice of that mainframe computer, that cost $300 million.  Remember this is to do your CAD/CAM work.  If you proposed to your boss that supercomputer, and you are desiging 1 story houses, he might can you.  Yes--it is great to have, but how many times can you afford to run it? Especailly if you told your boss it may cost annually over half his budget to run it four times annually. It does not make sense. 

One last question about Ares, you have not asked about the safety questions.   Have you read the FAQ?  Everyone is willing to listen to you and answer your questions.  If possible, please provide referances to any figures that you post.   

Ares might be great if we could afford it.  We cannot.  One of the reasons that Apollo was cancelled was cost.  If Constellation takes over 50% of NASA's budget for 4 flights annually, do you think that it will stand a good chance of getting cancelled?  Direct may be a little smaller, but it may cost 50 percent less.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/10/2009 08:38 pm
Build it and they will come?

I think it would be a serious problem to use this philosophy to for designing our launch vehicles.  There have to be requirements for these very large single-piece payloads to justify building them.

Requirements for a 110mt class vehicle like Jupiter-231/232 are clear if you accept the proposed mission schedule and budget realities.

There do not seem to be any clear requirements for a 200mt vehicle at all.  On top of that, the larger you make it the less often you will likely afford to launch it.

To add fuel to the fire, (literally), I would argue there could be a requirement for a propellant depot some time in the future to make mars missions more affordable and inclusive than alternative plans.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/10/2009 09:24 pm
I've been doing a lot of reading on the competing DIRECT concept vs. the planned Ares project.
I'm not aerospace engineer, but I am a mechanical engineer, so I find this all pretty interesting.

Assuming the DIRECT folks are accurate on their numbers and claims, I think there's still some factors that would favor Ares.
Advantages of DIRECT over ARES:
1)  Less initial Cost.
2)  Faster time to flight.
3)  Less disruption of current manufacturing and labor infrastructure.

Advantages of ARES over DIRECT.
1)  Less operating cost of ARES 1 vs. Jupiter 120
2)  Less Operating Cost of (1) Ares V vs. (2) Jupiter 232 launches for non moon-shot payloads.
3)  More flexibility in launching future spacecraft and payloads.

People often assume that Ares I will have lower operating costs than J-120.  In isolation, this might be true to a small extent.

But these are not launchers in isolation.  They each have another family member.  In the case of Ares, that family member is a 5th cousin 3 times removed.  In the case of Jupiter, it's a big brother.  The Ares system requires two sets of ground support equipment and personnel, one for each member of the family.  Jupiter only requires one set.  Ever heard of the shuttle "standing army"?  That is a major cost of the program, and Jupiter requires only one, while Ares requires two armies.  Given that context, I find it highly unlikely that the running cost of Ares will be lower than the running cost of Jupiter.  The cost of the SRB segments, engines, and tanks is only a relatively-small portion of the total cost of the launch vehicle program.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/10/2009 09:34 pm

1) I do agree with you on the bidding part. It seems in a perfect world things would get moving fast. But this is NASA we are talking about. There are reports and committees for the committees that will later form a committee.
I would like to hear from Ross and Team how they feel NASA can get this thing rolling fast.



I think the the Direct Team is well aware of the Ares I contracts issue and it is probably why they are considering switching to the J-231H in order to salvage the 5 segments SRB contract. 

However, one thing here that could play in the Direct Team favor is the threat that if current contractors don't want to cooperate in contract amendments, the Obama administration could just cancel the whole VSE and transfer the money outside NASA. That would be a big blow for LM, Boeing, ATK, ...

PaulL

Even with good will and a desire to move forward on both sides, NASA will need to decide exactly what they want from the new contract, and the contractor will need to decide what they will charge for it. And NASA will need to decide if the new price is acceptable. This won't happen overnight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/10/2009 09:38 pm
Congratulations to the Direct team on the PM article and chance to pitch their plan to the transition team.

Here is what I see as the pros and cons of the Direct proposal in its current form.

Pro: Direct should have lower development costs. Perhaps as much as $10 billion, if they can deliver on the lightweight upper stage. If not, and they need to use a five segment booster after all, perhaps half that.

I find the argument that Direct will have significantly lower operating costs entirely unconvincing.

Con: I’ll start with the biggest one first.

1) I don’t think they can get operational sooner than Ares. I think they’ll take longer.

The Jupiter core is bigger and more complicated than the Ares I US. It will need an entirely new main propulsion system and a new payload fairing. Load paths will be entirely different from the Shuttle ET. It must support two very different flight paths. From contract award to a flight-worthy stage will be no better than the Ares I US to Ares I-Y and could be worse.

Nor do I think Direct can brush aside the competitive bidding process for the Jupiter core. Yes, Lockheed is building the ET. But Boeing builds the only other launcher powered by the RS-68, and is building the Ares I US with a lot less touch labor than the ET. NASA owns the Michoud plant, not Lockheed. Lockheed isn’t the only choice.

Simply handing the contract to Lockheed is bad procedure. Actually having a real bidding process will take time. Years.

The Direct team seems to assume that it won’t be a major issue to renegotiate the Ares I first and second stage contracts. That seems unlikely.

2) Direct will probably have more Lunar mission failures than the NASA baseline, since Ares I will probably be more reliable to LEO than the second Jupiter 232 in a two launch Direct scenario and the Direct TLI burn needs two J-2s to work without failure instead of one. Mission failures will be expensive, since NASA will almost certainly want to cease launches until it knows what went wrong

3) A realistic assessment of Jupiter 232 reliability suggests that Direct Lunar missions won’t be as safe as the NASA baseline. If NASA can achieve very favorable LOC and LOM numbers, this shouldn’t be a big factor. However, NASA’s LOM estimates for Ares I and V are very low compared to any existing vehicle. A more plausible estimate based on real world launchers might result in one more ascent abort over thirty years of Lunar operations with Direct than Ares. The odds are pretty good that the abort will be survivable, so it may only be an extra 10% chance of killing four people in that period. From a rational cost benefit view, avoiding that small risk isn’t worth billions of dollars. However, the American public and politicians aren’t entirely rational about cost benefit tradeoffs when it comes to putting astronauts at risk.

4) Jupiter 120 can also carry significant cargo. Unfortunately, taking advantage of the capability would pretty much pull the rug out from under the companies that invested in commercial ISS resupply.






1) I do agree with you on the bidding part. It seems in a perfect world things would get moving fast. But this is NASA we are talking about. There are reports and committees for the committees that will later form a committee.
I would like to hear from Ross and Team how they feel NASA can get this thing rolling fast.

2) I disagree on this one. Under NASA's plan, for a successful lunar mission to occur, you also need a successful Ares V launch. If Ares V fails, you see delayed missions, investigations, etc. Ares V is much more complex than any of the Direct vehicles. 5.5 seg boosters and 6 RS-68, and the J-2X, there is a lot to go wrong there.
Also, I feel having 2 J-2Xs is safer, not a liability. If there is an engine failure on the way up to orbit, Ares I must abort, Jupiter can make it safely to orbit. If there is an engine failure on TLI for Ares, we're aborting too, same with Direct. In both cases, the J-2 must work on TLI.




Look at the part count for a pair of 232s vs an Ares I and V. !0 liquid engines vs 8. 4 RSRMs vs 3. Eight separation events vs. 6. 4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad.

Having two engines can help with survivability, if you have a non-catastrophic failure. But you still are likely to lose the mission because you need extra fuel from the EDS or SM to get to LEO because of gravity losses, and you needed that fuel for the Lunar mission.

Going by part count isn't the most accurate way. As was stated above, Ares may use 3 RSRMs, but they are larger and use more segments. Also, you can argue that the Direct RSRMs are more reliable and safer as they are the exact RSRMs the Shuttle uses. Ares I uses a NEW RSRM in a NEW, unproven, configuration. Ares V is a 5.5 segment monster, and there were rumors that it could go up to 6.
You also argue that more liquid engines are a bad thing...Ares V uses 6 RS-68s on its first stage, Jupiter in its largest configuration uses half that number. There is a lot more that can go wrong on an Ares V launch. New boosters, more RS-68s, new tank.

Also mentioned above, Ares I requires that the Orion SM engine lights, or it is time to go home.

Yes, Ares has a slight part advantage, but if you count the SRM segments, that goes out the window. And if you count the amount of unproven hardware Ares relies on, you see an advantage for Jupiter.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/10/2009 09:48 pm
[...]

Also mentioned above, Ares I requires that the Orion SM engine lights, or it is time to go home.

[...]

It looks like that would be a big problem for Direct too. In addition to having more hardware left stranded in space.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/10/2009 09:51 pm
[...]

Also mentioned above, Ares I requires that the Orion SM engine lights, or it is time to go home.

[...]

It looks like that would be a big problem for Direct too. In addition to having more hardware left stranded in space.

I guess I should have elaborated. Ares I needs Orions engine to light to get to Orbit. It uses it as a third kicker stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/10/2009 10:00 pm
I guess I should have elaborated. Ares I needs Orions engine to light to get to Orbit. It uses it as a third kicker stage.

Why go to orbit if you can't do anything there?

Sorry, I am not that much acquainted with Direct. If J120 places Orion into orbit directly, how do you dispose of the big tank?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/10/2009 10:03 pm
Direct Cost:

Yes, a Jupiter-120 costs a little more than an Ares-I.   But a higher flight rate reduces the costs, no?   Well the Jupiter-120 hardware flies on all our configurations - which essentially doubles its flight rate.   The cost improvement from this brings Jupiter-120 back into line with Ares-I's costs when examined *at the expected flight rates*.

Assumptions:

Flight rate: 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew, 2 Lunar Cargo

Ares-I Fixed Costs $1bn annually
Ares-I Variable Cost $150m per flight

Jupiter-120 Fixed Costs $1bn annually
Jupiter-120 Variable Costs $200m per flight

90% Economies of Scale Rule (ESR) is in effect





I don't think the assumptions are correct. If you look at post 217, you will see  that in 2020, when Ares I and V are both in operation, the following approximate costs eyeballed from the chart in 2009 dollars: Ares 1 $500 million, Ares V (core and SRB) $1.3 billion and EDS $700 million. This is total cost, not fixed. If you assume the production costs I posted earlier and two flights a year of each vehicle, fixed costs become about $300 million for Ares I, $600 million for the Ares V and $500 million for the EDS. This seems a lot for the EDS, but it does carry the costs for fairings, avionics, payload adapters and the ability for multiday orbital loiter.

The Jupiter EDS is even bigger and more complex, and can't share J-2 costs with another vehicle. Fixed costs will be higher than Ares for this stage.

The Jupiter core and RSRMs are smaller than Ares V, but need pretty much all the same systems. RS-68s and the core stage must be man-rated, increasing overhead. Unlike Ares, overhead for the RSRMs is not shared. Jupiter 120 versions of the core must bear the overhead for avionics,  while on Ares V the avionics ride on the EDS. Putting all this together, fixed costs for the Jupiter cores and RSRMs won't be much less than Ares V and could be more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 01/10/2009 10:07 pm
Also, you can argue that the Direct RSRMs are more reliable and safer as they are the exact RSRMs the Shuttle uses. Ares I uses a NEW RSRM in a NEW, unproven, configuration.

Minor nit, DIRECT loses this 'advantage' if they baseline the J-231H.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/10/2009 10:12 pm

Why go to orbit if you can't do anything there?

Sorry, I am not that much acquainted with Direct. If J120 places Orion into orbit directly, how do you dispose of the big tank?

Ulage motors, exactly the same way as Saturn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/10/2009 10:16 pm

Why go to orbit if you can't do anything there?

Sorry, I am not that much acquainted with Direct. If J120 places Orion into orbit directly, how do you dispose of the big tank?

Ulage motors, exactly the same way as Saturn.

If it is in orbit can we do use the tank/stage for anything useful?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bad_astra on 01/10/2009 10:18 pm
the insulation will popcorn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/10/2009 10:21 pm
the insulation will popcorn.

Pity.

I assume that means that the tank can not be recycled into a propellant depot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/10/2009 10:27 pm
[...]

I assume that means that the tank can not be recycled into a propellant depot.

That is correct.

What does NASA think of a big orange tank shedding popcorns at orbital altitudes and speeds?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/10/2009 10:27 pm
Congratulations to the Direct team on the PM article and chance to pitch their plan to the transition team.

Here is what I see as the pros and cons of the Direct proposal in its current form.

Pro: Direct should have lower development costs. Perhaps as much as $10 billion, if they can deliver on the lightweight upper stage. If not, and they need to use a five segment booster after all, perhaps half that.

I find the argument that Direct will have significantly lower operating costs entirely unconvincing.

Con: I’ll start with the biggest one first.

1) I don’t think they can get operational sooner than Ares. I think they’ll take longer.

The Jupiter core is bigger and more complicated than the Ares I US. It will need an entirely new main propulsion system and a new payload fairing. Load paths will be entirely different from the Shuttle ET. It must support two very different flight paths. From contract award to a flight-worthy stage will be no better than the Ares I US to Ares I-Y and could be worse.

Nor do I think Direct can brush aside the competitive bidding process for the Jupiter core. Yes, Lockheed is building the ET. But Boeing builds the only other launcher powered by the RS-68, and is building the Ares I US with a lot less touch labor than the ET. NASA owns the Michoud plant, not Lockheed. Lockheed isn’t the only choice.

Simply handing the contract to Lockheed is bad procedure. Actually having a real bidding process will take time. Years.

The Direct team seems to assume that it won’t be a major issue to renegotiate the Ares I first and second stage contracts. That seems unlikely.

2) Direct will probably have more Lunar mission failures than the NASA baseline, since Ares I will probably be more reliable to LEO than the second Jupiter 232 in a two launch Direct scenario and the Direct TLI burn needs two J-2s to work without failure instead of one. Mission failures will be expensive, since NASA will almost certainly want to cease launches until it knows what went wrong

3) A realistic assessment of Jupiter 232 reliability suggests that Direct Lunar missions won’t be as safe as the NASA baseline. If NASA can achieve very favorable LOC and LOM numbers, this shouldn’t be a big factor. However, NASA’s LOM estimates for Ares I and V are very low compared to any existing vehicle. A more plausible estimate based on real world launchers might result in one more ascent abort over thirty years of Lunar operations with Direct than Ares. The odds are pretty good that the abort will be survivable, so it may only be an extra 10% chance of killing four people in that period. From a rational cost benefit view, avoiding that small risk isn’t worth billions of dollars. However, the American public and politicians aren’t entirely rational about cost benefit tradeoffs when it comes to putting astronauts at risk.

4) Jupiter 120 can also carry significant cargo. Unfortunately, taking advantage of the capability would pretty much pull the rug out from under the companies that invested in commercial ISS resupply.






1) I do agree with you on the bidding part. It seems in a perfect world things would get moving fast. But this is NASA we are talking about. There are reports and committees for the committees that will later form a committee.
I would like to hear from Ross and Team how they feel NASA can get this thing rolling fast.

2) I disagree on this one. Under NASA's plan, for a successful lunar mission to occur, you also need a successful Ares V launch. If Ares V fails, you see delayed missions, investigations, etc. Ares V is much more complex than any of the Direct vehicles. 5.5 seg boosters and 6 RS-68, and the J-2X, there is a lot to go wrong there.
Also, I feel having 2 J-2Xs is safer, not a liability. If there is an engine failure on the way up to orbit, Ares I must abort, Jupiter can make it safely to orbit. If there is an engine failure on TLI for Ares, we're aborting too, same with Direct. In both cases, the J-2 must work on TLI.




Look at the part count for a pair of 232s vs an Ares I and V. !0 liquid engines vs 8. 4 RSRMs vs 3. Eight separation events vs. 6. 4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad.

Having two engines can help with survivability, if you have a non-catastrophic failure. But you still are likely to lose the mission because you need extra fuel from the EDS or SM to get to LEO because of gravity losses, and you needed that fuel for the Lunar mission.

Going by part count isn't the most accurate way. As was stated above, Ares may use 3 RSRMs, but they are larger and use more segments. Also, you can argue that the Direct RSRMs are more reliable and safer as they are the exact RSRMs the Shuttle uses. Ares I uses a NEW RSRM in a NEW, unproven, configuration. Ares V is a 5.5 segment monster, and there were rumors that it could go up to 6.
You also argue that more liquid engines are a bad thing...Ares V uses 6 RS-68s on its first stage, Jupiter in its largest configuration uses half that number. There is a lot more that can go wrong on an Ares V launch. New boosters, more RS-68s, new tank.

Also mentioned above, Ares I requires that the Orion SM engine lights, or it is time to go home.



Quite honestly, I think you can set your mind to rest on the reliability of a properly designed and tested pressure fed hypergolic engine. They have operated multiple times on teach Shuttle flight, and have always been found entirely reliable.

That isn't to say they are entirely foolproof, but the failure rate is pretty low.

Air-started Hydrogen engines, not so much.

I think an extra SM burn is *much* less of a risk factor than the docking event in Direct where Orion pulls the lander out of one Launcher and plugs the aft end into a docking adapter on a different EDS, with direct view of the docking entirely blocked by the lander.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 01/10/2009 10:28 pm
Ulage motors, exactly the same way as Saturn.

Ullage motors or retro motors? How big motors are we talking here and what's the ballpark delta-V for deorbit? Would venting the remaining propellant do the job as well?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/10/2009 10:39 pm

Use [significant!] electrostatic potential across structures for ED thruster, apply delta V at equator crossing each orbit, when there is max easterly component to orbital vector, over time, 3-4 years, inclination changes.  Tack into the wind.  It's possible.

Do the math yourself.

(The physics are there.  The politics I can not help with.)

What "ED thruster" do you think exists on ISS?  Who's demonstrated the technology that could work in this context?  How does such a thing and your proposed long-term  get integrated into the existing ISS operations since lowering the inclination means Progress and Soyuz cannot rendezvous from Baikonour? 

This makes about as much sense as the "Two Shuttles to Mars" thing written about recently.


The agreement is signed for VASIMR to go up to ISS.

If the orbit is to be realigned (and yes, it seems v. unlikely to me), this would be the obvious way to do it.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/10/2009 10:41 pm
To add to the discussion about crew/cargo mix, if I launch in my Orion, but with a mission module (e.g. a fully fueled Altair) under the spacecraft, that does something to LOC/LOM numbers, even if I can separate cargo and crew in the event of an abort.

In the post Columbia world this was something that pushed toward Ares I, and it is something that Direct has to deal with.

We can still read in the recent Griffin's speech, that crew safety was not traded for a lower architecture cost.


How many safety / redundancy features have been removed from Orion to cut the mass down to what Ares-I can lift?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 01/10/2009 10:41 pm
the insulation will popcorn.

Any reason to stick, long-term, with the current insulation?  Aerogel blankets as an alternative?  I would think that, no longer constrained by protecting thermal tiles, there could be some set of changes made there....

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/10/2009 10:44 pm
Humans think so linearly. LOL You are not using the entire technology design space available to you, it is compartmentalized and the sections do not talk to each other, in fact they compete. This is inefficient and you will never reach the stars with this kind of self-limited thinking.

...sez the alien among us !!  ;)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/10/2009 10:44 pm
the insulation will popcorn.

Any reason to stick, long-term, with the current insulation?  Aerogel blankets as an alternative?  I would think that, no longer constrained by protecting thermal tiles, there could be some set of changes made there....

-Dave


No unnecessary changes of any kind until after Jupiter is flying - even ones that could make it better.

The goal is not to make it better, it's to make it fly.
We can make it better later, IF that is actually justified.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/10/2009 10:45 pm

[...]

I think an extra SM burn is *much* less of a risk factor than the docking event in Direct where Orion pulls the lander out of one Launcher and plugs the aft end into a docking adapter on a different EDS, with direct view of the docking entirely blocked by the lander.

Speaking in general terms that docking is not a big deal, you might perform that with the help of cameras (although astronauts are fond of big windows for situation awareness). It is a big deal for NASA because they have not accomplished such a docking yet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 01/10/2009 10:45 pm
Martin,

Thx.  Your observation and reply are one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

-NA

Humans think so linearly. LOL You are not using the entire technology design space available to you, it is compartmentalized and the sections do not talk to each other, in fact they compete. This is inefficient and you will never reach the stars with this kind of self-limited thinking.

...sez the alien among us !!  ;)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/10/2009 10:48 pm
How many safety / redundancy features have been removed from Orion to cut the mass down to what Ares-I can lift?

cheers, Martin

ZBV is a design process it is not the final product. They are doing the same with Altair.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/10/2009 10:48 pm

[...]

I think an extra SM burn is *much* less of a risk factor than the docking event in Direct where Orion pulls the lander out of one Launcher and plugs the aft end into a docking adapter on a different EDS, with direct view of the docking entirely blocked by the lander.

The pilot will use the same camera system that is used for landing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 01/10/2009 10:53 pm
the insulation will popcorn.

Any reason to stick, long-term, with the current insulation?

Development costs of a replacement.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/10/2009 10:59 pm
2) I disagree on this one. Under NASA's plan, for a successful lunar mission to occur, you also need a successful Ares V launch. If Ares V fails, you see delayed missions, investigations, etc. Ares V is much more complex than any of the Direct vehicles. 5.5 seg boosters and 6 RS-68, and the J-2X, there is a lot to go wrong there.

The figures on one of DIRECT's diagrams has the Ares-V LOM at about 1:80 (using NASA's figures, I presume), which is *much* worse than any of the other Ares or Jupiter vehicles.


Quote
Quote
Also, I feel having 2 J-2Xs is safer, not a liability. If there is an engine failure on the way up to orbit, Ares I must abort, Jupiter can make it safely to orbit. If there is an engine failure on TLI for Ares, we're aborting too, same with Direct. In both cases, the J-2 must work on TLI.

Look at the part count for a pair of 232s vs an Ares I and V. !0 liquid engines vs 8. 4 RSRMs vs 3. Eight separation events vs. 6. 4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad.

Having two engines can help with survivability, if you have a non-catastrophic failure. But you still are likely to lose the mission because you need extra fuel from the EDS or SM to get to LEO because of gravity losses, and you needed that fuel for the Lunar mission.


"4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad"

Surely, then, it's better to have two engines, because if one doesn't start at least the other might.

BTW, on Ares-I the single engines on second stage & SM must both start for crew to make it to orbit. That's two separate non-redundant engine starts for Ares-I vs one redundant engine start for J-232 which at least allows abort-to-orbit.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/10/2009 11:02 pm

[...]

I think an extra SM burn is *much* less of a risk factor than the docking event in Direct where Orion pulls the lander out of one Launcher and plugs the aft end into a docking adapter on a different EDS, with direct view of the docking entirely blocked by the lander.

The pilot will use the same camera system that is used for landing.

And it will probably work pretty well, even though the pilot would rather see what was going on with his own eyes.  But I don't see it as a trivial event, either.  Docking attempts don't always work.

I think it's probably less of an issue than a single air-start for a LH engine, and more than a single start of a pressure fed hypergolic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/10/2009 11:04 pm

Any reason to stick, long-term, with the current insulation? 

Yes, it is qualified, it works great and it is inexpensive
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/10/2009 11:06 pm

We can always assemble a lunar mission in space in 18 months, going in 20t chunks at the pace ISS taught us we can go.

That is not an ISS lesson.   That is as shuttle problem
EELV could launch faster
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/10/2009 11:27 pm

We can always assemble a lunar mission in space in 18 months, going in 20t chunks at the pace ISS taught us we can go.

That is not an ISS lesson.   That is as shuttle problem
EELV could launch faster

(I knew it, he caught me!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/10/2009 11:27 pm
2) I disagree on this one. Under NASA's plan, for a successful lunar mission to occur, you also need a successful Ares V launch. If Ares V fails, you see delayed missions, investigations, etc. Ares V is much more complex than any of the Direct vehicles. 5.5 seg boosters and 6 RS-68, and the J-2X, there is a lot to go wrong there.

The figures on one of DIRECT's diagrams has the Ares-V LOM at about 1:80 (using NASA's figures, I presume), which is *much* worse than any of the other Ares or Jupiter vehicles.


Quote
Quote
Also, I feel having 2 J-2Xs is safer, not a liability. If there is an engine failure on the way up to orbit, Ares I must abort, Jupiter can make it safely to orbit. If there is an engine failure on TLI for Ares, we're aborting too, same with Direct. In both cases, the J-2 must work on TLI.

Look at the part count for a pair of 232s vs an Ares I and V. !0 liquid engines vs 8. 4 RSRMs vs 3. Eight separation events vs. 6. 4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad.

Having two engines can help with survivability, if you have a non-catastrophic failure. But you still are likely to lose the mission because you need extra fuel from the EDS or SM to get to LEO because of gravity losses, and you needed that fuel for the Lunar mission.


"4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad"

Surely, then, it's better to have two engines, because if one doesn't start at least the other might.


Not if your primary goal is to perform the mission.

If you need two engines to get to orbit with enough fuel to get to the moon, then a single engine failure will doom the mission. Two engines simply doubles the chance of failure.

That's why Lockheed switched to a single engine Centaur for most missions.

If your primary goal is to survive the mission, and actually performing it is secondary, then a different calculus applies.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 01/10/2009 11:34 pm
That's why Lockheed switched to a single engine Centaur for most missions.

I thought this was primarily because it suits GTO missions better?

If you need two engines to get to orbit with enough fuel to get to the moon, then a single engine failure will doom the mission. Two engines simply doubles the chance of failure.

This is offset by the fact that if one of your two engines failed late in let's say TLI burn, it would not necessarily mean LOM. If, on the other hand, your only engine failed near the end of TLI burn (even though the probability for that is roughly 2x lower), your mission is over.

It's not all that black-n-white. More engines can mean more redundancy. Ask the Apollo 13 crew.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/10/2009 11:35 pm
No unnecessary changes of any kind until after Jupiter is flying - even ones that could make it better.

What exactly is the problem? Reusing the Shuttle ET in orbit has been studied for a long time. Is there anything special about the Jupiter that prevents reuse?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/10/2009 11:38 pm
That's why Lockheed switched to a single engine Centaur for most missions.

I thought this was primarily because it suits GTO missions better?

and better reliability.  It was only possible with a greater velocity increment from the booster and higher thrust RL-10 (20 vs 15K)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/10/2009 11:44 pm
No unnecessary changes of any kind until after Jupiter is flying - even ones that could make it better.

What exactly is the problem? Reusing the Shuttle ET in orbit has been studied for a long time. Is there anything special about the Jupiter that prevents reuse?

"Studied" doesn't mean it's a good idea.  Insulation popcorning and shedding in the orbital vicinity is not a real good situation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/10/2009 11:51 pm
Have to say, love how ULA delivered a knock-out punch to Steve Cooke's comment on the J-232 Upperstage, really shows that the Ares office is not the all powerful Oz that the general public believes it to be.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/10/2009 11:52 pm
Have to say, love how ULA delivered a knock-out punch to Steve Cooke's comment on the J-232 Upperstage, really shows that the Ares office is not the all powerful Oz that the general public believes it to be.

Can you ref it? Thanks.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/10/2009 11:57 pm
That's why Lockheed switched to a single engine Centaur for most missions.

I thought this was primarily because it suits GTO missions better?

If you need two engines to get to orbit with enough fuel to get to the moon, then a single engine failure will doom the mission. Two engines simply doubles the chance of failure.

This is offset by the fact that if one of your two engines failed late in let's say TLI burn, it would not necessarily mean LOM. If, on the other hand, your only engine failed near the end of TLI burn (even though the probability for that is roughly 2x lower), your mission is over.

It's not all that black-n-white. More engines can mean more redundancy. Ask the Apollo 13 crew.

This is why I think two is better than one. Yes there are more engines to go wrong, but you have the extra engine to help out if the first engine fails later on.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 01/11/2009 12:10 am
"Studied" doesn't mean it's a good idea.  Insulation popcorning and shedding in the orbital vicinity is not a real good situation.

So this is a problem with the Shuttle ET as well?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/11/2009 12:17 am
If you need two engines to get to orbit with enough fuel to get to the moon, then a single engine failure will doom the mission. Two engines simply doubles the chance of failure.

There are often times during a burn when the loss of one engine does not result in the loss of the mission, even if LOM would occur if the engine never started in the first place.  Shuttle even has 2-engine and single-engine press points that don't necessarily result in LOM.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 01/11/2009 12:18 am
"Studied" doesn't mean it's a good idea.  Insulation popcorning and shedding in the orbital vicinity is not a real good situation.

So this is a problem with the Shuttle ET as well?

No, because at the time of ET SEP the ET is on a suborbital trajectory, so any insulation that is shed will re-enter along with the tank.

It *would* be a problem if an ET were carried to orbit, but that is not going to happen.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/11/2009 12:44 am
If you need two engines to get to orbit with enough fuel to get to the moon, then a single engine failure will doom the mission. Two engines simply doubles the chance of failure.

There are often times during a burn when the loss of one engine does not result in the loss of the mission, even if LOM would occur if the engine never started in the first place.  Shuttle even has 2-engine and single-engine press points that don't necessarily result in LOM.

Exactly. We have had two missions where SSMEs have cut out, but because the Shuttle has more than one engine, the flight was able to continue.
Same goes for Apollo 13, where the center engine cut off early.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/11/2009 12:56 am
Have to say, love how ULA delivered a knock-out punch to Steve Cooke's comment on the J-232 Upperstage, really shows that the Ares office is not the all powerful Oz that the general public believes it to be.

Can you ref it? Thanks.

The PM article in print
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 01/11/2009 01:08 am
I'm surprised no one has called Lobo on is big mistake.
The latest version of Ares V (the 5 1/2 segment and 6 RS-68's) can lift around 141 tons to orbit.
Now lets assume Ares I "Could" lift its required 25 tons to orbit.
141 plus 25 equals 166 tons total to orbit.
Making things real simple here, about half that 166 tons is fuel for the Earth Departure Stage, so that makes about 83 ton Lunar throw weight.
The real number is more like 76 tons, buts lets just say it is 83 to keep things real simple.
Each of the two Jupiter 232's can place 110 tons into orbit.
110 plus 110 equals 220 tons total in orbit.
Again half EDS fuel, makes Direct's Lunar throw weight 110 tons.
110 tons is a lot more than 83 tons!
Now to be totally fair here; two of the latest configuration Ares V's would place 282 tons in orbit, with a 141 ton Lunar throw weight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/11/2009 01:10 am
It has become common knowledge that we met with the Transition Team on Friday.

We have decided it would be inappropriate for us to publicly discuss any details of this private meeting.

All we will say is this: We met with members of the Transition Team, presented DIRECT and the Jupiter launch vehicle, answered their questions and then came home.

Beyond that, our only answer will be "No Comment".   Respectfully, we ask all our supporters to please refrain from enquiring further.

Thank-you.

Ross Tierney
On behalf of The DIRECT Team
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/11/2009 01:24 am
Have to say, love how ULA delivered a knock-out punch to Steve Cooke's comment on the J-232 Upperstage, really shows that the Ares office is not the all powerful Oz that the general public believes it to be.

Can you ref it? Thanks.

The PM article in print

I hope we will get more from ULA soon. Great group to have on Jupiter's side. The article only has one sentence on ULA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/11/2009 01:28 am
It has become common knowledge that we met with the Transition Team on Friday.

We have decided it would be inappropriate for us to publicly discuss any details of this private meeting.

All we will say is this: We met with members of the Transition Team, presented DIRECT and the Jupiter launch vehicle, answered their questions and then came home.

Beyond that, our only answer will be "No Comment".   Respectfully, we ask all our supporters to please refrain from enquiring further.

Thank-you.

Ross Tierney
On behalf of The DIRECT Team

Finally! I have got so tired waiting for you to speak up about this.

Hi Ross! Hi Chuck!

Welcome back guys! I am so glad to see you!

It is a great victory! We have been heard!

Congratulation to all of you and us!

Yegor

P.S. It is fine with me that you will no comment on the meeting.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/11/2009 01:32 am
It has become common knowledge that we met with the Transition Team on Friday.

We have decided it would be inappropriate for us to publicly discuss any details of this private meeting.

All we will say is this: We met with members of the Transition Team, presented DIRECT and the Jupiter launch vehicle, answered their questions and then came home.

Beyond that, our only answer will be "No Comment".   Respectfully, we ask all our supporters to please refrain from enquiring further.

Thank-you.

Ross Tierney
On behalf of The DIRECT Team

Well, congratulations on gaining the attention of the transition team just the same.  It's probably not too hard for us to guess what you said.  It's what you've been saying all along and is in this thread and your papers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/11/2009 02:06 am
Beyond that, our only answer will be "No Comment".   Respectfully, we ask all our supporters to please refrain from enquiring further.

I guess I can't resist one question.  Did you get the model built in time?   ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/11/2009 02:21 am
Ross - congratulations to you and the rest of the DIRECT team for getting your case heard.  Hopefully sense and intelligence will prevail over ego and the right decision will be made.  But even if not, even if nothing else ever comes of it, at least you had a chance to have your say.  That in itself is a significant accomplishment.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 01/11/2009 02:30 am
Beyond that, our only answer will be "No Comment".   Respectfully, we ask all our supporters to please refrain from enquiring further.

I guess I can't resist one question.  Did you get the model built in time?   ;)

Hmmm . . .

Isn't this question kinda like asking Casey Ryback if the bouillabaisse is ready? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Siege)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/11/2009 02:30 am
A question to DIRECT team (not for now but when you guys get some rest):

I remember that NASA rebuttal document said that two J-2X engines produce too much "g" for astronauts during TLI and it is the main reason why Ares V EDS has just one J-2X.
I wonder if DIRECT EDS can use just one out of two J-2X during TLI?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/11/2009 02:34 am
Or throttle-back the J-2Xs?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/11/2009 02:35 am
I think meeting with the transition only guarantees one thing, that Direct is on the list of options being evaluated. 

If it gets a reasonable evaluation and it's design and advantages fit the needs (political, schedule, cost) then perhaps we will see it adopted.

At least its in the mix.

Let the best solution win.

Edt: spelling
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/11/2009 02:41 am
Reminds me of a Johnny Cash Lyric:

"There's a man going around taking names"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/11/2009 02:43 am
Beyond that, our only answer will be "No Comment".   Respectfully, we ask all our supporters to please refrain from enquiring further.

I guess I can't resist one question.  Did you get the model built in time?   ;)

Yes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 01/11/2009 02:54 am
Or throttle-back the J-2Xs?

Is the J-2X throttlable? The J-2 wasn't, IIRC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/11/2009 03:16 am
Reminds me of a Johnny Cash Lyric:

"There's a man going around taking names"

Man, don't get me going.  I've spent the last three days listening to Johnny Cash pretty much non-stop.  The Man in Black is one of my personal heroes in life. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/11/2009 03:18 am
A question to DIRECT team (not for now but when you guys get some rest):

I remember that NASA rebuttal document said that two J-2X engines produce too much "g" for astronauts during TLI and it is the main reason why Ares V EDS has just one J-2X.
I wonder if DIRECT EDS can use just one out of two J-2X during TLI?

It is possible to run the two-engine EDS with a single engine, but that would increase the lateral loads on the LSAM > CEV connection so it will have to be designed to handle that.   The NASA analysis document essentially tries to suggest that they couldn't possibly re-design the LSAM to handle any greater loads.   Sorry, I don't buy that for one single second.


Internally within the team I am personally supporting the idea of re-baselining to the J-231 architecture though, now that our MSFC guys have confirmed it closes the performance targets.   If we did go down that path the issue becomes a moot one and the existing (early) LSAM designs would not need any sort of alteration at all.

I figure we will decide on this either next week or maybe the week after.   Either way though, we will continue to calculate both J-232 and J-231 architecture options in parallel, just in case we decide to change again for any currently unforeseen reason in the future.   Doing so gives us an immediate logical backup plan "just in case".

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/11/2009 03:21 am
Or throttle-back the J-2Xs?

Is the J-2X throttlable? The J-2 wasn't, IIRC.

Correct, J-2 was not throttlable.

Once lit, the J-2X is designed to remain at a static throttle setting until Shutdown.   However, the J-2X *is* being designed to operate at either 81% or at 100% throttle settings.   The lower throttle setting offers slightly greater Isp (fuel efficiency) and is therefore designed to be used to maximize performance during the TLI burn.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/11/2009 03:29 am
People discussed here today safety of separation of cargo and crew vehicles. Here is mine two cents:

Ares I: theoretical, unproven LOC 1 in 1400
Jupiter-232: LOC 1 in 1250

Ares I LOC is only theoretical. Ares I concept is a new concept. In practice who knows what LOC it is going to be? May be it will be 1 in 20 like in the case of Shuttle? On the other hand DIRECT is an old concept so we can be pretty sure about its 1 in 1250 LOC number. Ares I declared LOC is not true and is not comparable to Jupiter-232 LOC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 01/11/2009 03:30 am
All we will say is this: We met with members of the Transition Team, presented DIRECT and the Jupiter launch vehicle, answered their questions and then came home.

Fabulous.

Quote
The NASA analysis document essentially tries to suggest...

Now ... about that response document...  ;)

-Dave

PS: Kidding, enjoy your weekend!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/11/2009 03:51 am
Ares I LOC is only theoretical. Ares I concept is a new concept. In practice who knows what LOC it is going to be? May be it will be 1 in 20 like in the case of Shuttle? On the other hand DIRECT is an old concept so we can be pretty sure about its 1 in 1250 LOC number. Ares I declared LOC is not true and is not comparable to Jupiter-232 LOC.

You raise a good point.   There are always going to be more uncertainties with a wholely new design than with something firmly grounded and related to existing designs.   It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.   I would hope any smart High-School graduate should be able to figure that out for themselves.   Trouble is, that's effectively impossible to quantify accurately.

All the NASA LOC and LOM numbers do is apply a mathematically weighted formula to an analysis of the types and numbers of failures which can be predicted.   Its as scientific as can humanly be done, but nobody is realistically claiming it is perfect, well nobody without a straight-jacket anyway.

All we can realistically do is compare two (or more) vehicles designs using precisely the same methodologies, so that they are apples-to-apples comparisons.   It's an "ideal world" solution to a non-ideal-world problem, but its good enough to use for most comparison purposes.

In the case of Jupiter's numbers they were actually compared in late 2007 by the same people who were preparing the latest Ares-I set of numbers for the IS-TIM on November 8th.

At that specific time, the apples-to-apples comparison showed that Ares-I's LOC was down to just 1 in 1256 while Jupiter-120's was 1 in 1413.   That is correct; Jupiter's directly comparable safety figure was indeed higher than Ares-I's using exactly the same method of calculation.

However, as a result of the IS-TIM, the analysis methodology was changed.   The agenda documentation (still available on L2) for that meeting confirms that changing the risk analysis methodology was indeed going to be a topic for discussion.

Over the following months a new implementation was gradually rolled out for calculating Ares LOC and LOM figures.   Shortly after that, Ares-I's LOC had 'magically' climbed by more than 1,000 points, yet the basic hardware configuration did not change significantly.

Within the last 6 weeks we have heard that Steve Cook has quoted 1 in 2,400 LOC for Ares-I.

I have recently requested another analysis from our guys at MSFC, but a few of them have moved departments over the intervening year and no longer have access to the same tools, so the new figures are still 'in work', now through new people doing Ares-I and Ares-V's numbers.   We have been told to expect a similar increase to Jupiter's numbers, but we don't have anything "hard" to show you yet.


I personally believe that reality will ultimately show that knocking the last digit off *ALL* the LOC figures currently being thrown around will prove more accurate.   If we manage not to kill any other crew in the first 100 flights of whatever new system we deploy, I think we will have been exceptionally lucky and that the ground operations team will have proven to be exceptionally skilled too.

What concerns me more than anything else right now is the fact that we are about to throw the experienced ground operations team out in 18 months time and we will therefore lose all of their 25+ years of knowledge and experience, which can never be replaced.

If that isn't the stupidest thing about the current plans, I really don't know what is.   That alone will reduce the LOC figures *drastically*.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/11/2009 03:53 am
Congratulations to the Direct team on the PM article and chance to pitch their plan to the transition team.

Here is what I see as the pros and cons of the Direct proposal in its current form.

Pro: Direct should have lower development costs. Perhaps as much as $10 billion, if they can deliver on the lightweight upper stage. If not, and they need to use a five segment booster after all, perhaps half that.

I find the argument that Direct will have significantly lower operating costs entirely unconvincing.

Con: I’ll start with the biggest one first.

1) I don’t think they can get operational sooner than Ares. I think they’ll take longer.

The Jupiter core is bigger and more complicated than the Ares I US. It will need an entirely new main propulsion system and a new payload fairing. Load paths will be entirely different from the Shuttle ET. It must support two very different flight paths. From contract award to a flight-worthy stage will be no better than the Ares I US to Ares I-Y and could be worse.

Nor do I think Direct can brush aside the competitive bidding process for the Jupiter core. Yes, Lockheed is building the ET. But Boeing builds the only other launcher powered by the RS-68, and is building the Ares I US with a lot less touch labor than the ET. NASA owns the Michoud plant, not Lockheed. Lockheed isn’t the only choice.

Simply handing the contract to Lockheed is bad procedure. Actually having a real bidding process will take time. Years.

The Direct team seems to assume that it won’t be a major issue to renegotiate the Ares I first and second stage contracts. That seems unlikely.

2) Direct will probably have more Lunar mission failures than the NASA baseline, since Ares I will probably be more reliable to LEO than the second Jupiter 232 in a two launch Direct scenario and the Direct TLI burn needs two J-2s to work without failure instead of one. Mission failures will be expensive, since NASA will almost certainly want to cease launches until it knows what went wrong

3) A realistic assessment of Jupiter 232 reliability suggests that Direct Lunar missions won’t be as safe as the NASA baseline. If NASA can achieve very favorable LOC and LOM numbers, this shouldn’t be a big factor. However, NASA’s LOM estimates for Ares I and V are very low compared to any existing vehicle. A more plausible estimate based on real world launchers might result in one more ascent abort over thirty years of Lunar operations with Direct than Ares. The odds are pretty good that the abort will be survivable, so it may only be an extra 10% chance of killing four people in that period. From a rational cost benefit view, avoiding that small risk isn’t worth billions of dollars. However, the American public and politicians aren’t entirely rational about cost benefit tradeoffs when it comes to putting astronauts at risk.

4) Jupiter 120 can also carry significant cargo. Unfortunately, taking advantage of the capability would pretty much pull the rug out from under the companies that invested in commercial ISS resupply.






1) I do agree with you on the bidding part. It seems in a perfect world things would get moving fast. But this is NASA we are talking about. There are reports and committees for the committees that will later form a committee.
I would like to hear from Ross and Team how they feel NASA can get this thing rolling fast.

2) I disagree on this one. Under NASA's plan, for a successful lunar mission to occur, you also need a successful Ares V launch. If Ares V fails, you see delayed missions, investigations, etc. Ares V is much more complex than any of the Direct vehicles. 5.5 seg boosters and 6 RS-68, and the J-2X, there is a lot to go wrong there.
Also, I feel having 2 J-2Xs is safer, not a liability. If there is an engine failure on the way up to orbit, Ares I must abort, Jupiter can make it safely to orbit. If there is an engine failure on TLI for Ares, we're aborting too, same with Direct. In both cases, the J-2 must work on TLI.




Look at the part count for a pair of 232s vs an Ares I and V. !0 liquid engines vs 8. 4 RSRMs vs 3. Eight separation events vs. 6. 4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad.

Having two engines can help with survivability, if you have a non-catastrophic failure. But you still are likely to lose the mission because you need extra fuel from the EDS or SM to get to LEO because of gravity losses, and you needed that fuel for the Lunar mission.

Going by part count isn't the most accurate way. As was stated above, Ares may use 3 RSRMs, but they are larger and use more segments. Also, you can argue that the Direct RSRMs are more reliable and safer as they are the exact RSRMs the Shuttle uses. Ares I uses a NEW RSRM in a NEW, unproven, configuration. Ares V is a 5.5 segment monster, and there were rumors that it could go up to 6.
You also argue that more liquid engines are a bad thing...Ares V uses 6 RS-68s on its first stage, Jupiter in its largest configuration uses half that number. There is a lot more that can go wrong on an Ares V launch. New boosters, more RS-68s, new tank.

Also mentioned above, Ares I requires that the Orion SM engine lights, or it is time to go home.

Yes, Ares has a slight part advantage, but if you count the SRM segments, that goes out the window. And if you count the amount of unproven hardware Ares relies on, you see an advantage for Jupiter.

REPOST:
The infrastructure is a very complicated aspect.   Essentially it covers everything from the sourcing of raw materials, the manufacturing of them into usable hardware, all the transportation, the inspections, assembly, integration, launch preparations, ground ops, launch ops, mission ops, recovery ops, planning, administration, management, quality control, crew support and all those other aspects which go into the program as a whole. In the simplest terms the infrastructure to support two launch systems is always going to be higher than for one.   Some aspects, such as administration overheads and maybe common hardware elements, can be merged to get share some common costs, but it is looking more and more likely that there won't be a lot in common between the Ares-I and Ares-5/6/7 any longer. From another angle, the Jupiter launchers will share a fair amount in common with the current Shuttle.   This means that the impact of changing a lot of the existing infrastructure can be minimized as well. From another angle, the Jupiter launchers will share a fair amount in common with the current Shuttle.   This means that the impact of changing a lot of the existing infrastructure can be minimized as well. Then there is the operations cost as well covering how much these systems will cost to operate each year of their operational lives. To implement the changes to get from Shuttle to Ares-I is going to cost NASA in the region of $2bn covering Michoud & Kennedy alone.   Ares-V will be another $2bn on top of that and estimates I have seen say that the larger Ares-6/7 designs could add anything from $0.5bn to $1.5bn again.Jupiter, by choosing to keep most of the existing Shuttle tooling and launch processing facilities relatively unchanged can save about 1 billion compared to Ares-I and only needs half a billion more to implement the Jupiter-232 afterward.   That is a considerable cost saving right at the start, and a major cost saving for implementing the Lunar phase later.  The cost to build and operate any given cryo liquid stage, surprisingly,  really isn't affected much by the physical dimensions.   The infrastructure costs per year to build an Ares-I Upper Stage structure is not going to be very different from a Core Stage structure.   You need a very similar amount of tooling to do either and a similar number of staff to operate that tooling.   Both require Forward Skirts, Tank Domes and Barrel Sections for both LOX and LH2 tanks, both require an Aft Skirt and a Thrust Structure, both need avionics, feedlines, TPS and a host of other things.   Just because they are a different size does *NOT* mean you use less tooling or less staff - that's a common assumption some people mistakenly make. When you get right down to it, the cost to build the two different stages only really varies by the raw materials cost going into the structures - and that accounts for a *very* small portion of the total.   Taking *everything* (manufacturing, launch costs, management etc) into account you can use a very general 'rule of thumb' to get first-order estimates of operational costs by using the 500/50 rule.   $500m per stage for fixed costs, $50m for each unit coming off the production line in reasonable quantities.   It will get you in the right ballpark at least. When you get right down to it, the cost to build the two different stages only really varies by the raw materials cost going into the structures - and that accounts for a *very* small portion of the total.   Taking *everything* (manufacturing, launch costs, management etc) into account you can use a very general 'rule of thumb' to get first-order estimates of operational costs by using the 500/50 rule.   $500m per stage for fixed costs, $50m for each unit coming off the production line in reasonable quantities.   It will get you in the right ballpark at least. Ares-I and Jupiter-120 are actually pretty similar from a cost perspective.   They both require one production line for SRB's, one production line for a single cryo stage and one production line for a liquid engine.   They also require a similar amount of the VAB, LCC, Pad, Crawlers and MLP to be utilized too, and over at JSC they require the same MMT and the same MCC facilities there too.   The net result of all this is that the Jupiter-120 and the Ares-I don't cost a great deal different to operate.  Both systems fixed costs are reduced by more than half compared to Shuttle - primarily because there is no complicated and high-maintenance Orbiter element any longer and there are no high-maintenance reusable engines in the cost profile either.   We're talking about $1bn in fixed costs for either Jupiter-120 or Ares-I every year compared to about $2.5bn per year in a continuing-operation year (2008 in not one of those BTW - the program is *already* scaling back). Ares-V requires two more stages - one massive Core Stage and a new Upper Stage probably made from composite materials and having no commonality at all with anything else.   It is also looking more and more likely to require different boosters too (possibly also composite disposables), which would will add another production line on top as well.   It also requires another liquid engine production line too.   On top of a whole echelon of infrastructure changes to support it in addition to the already operating Ares-I systems.   Ares-V will be so different from Ares-I that it will be unable to utilize any of the infrastructure elements from manufacturing to launch processing to actual launch itself.   It requires almost a complete replication of resources at almost every level. So Ares-V needs a minimum of two additional $500m infrastructure elements (covering manufacturing to launch) every year to be maintained and staffed in addition to the Ares-I facilities.   It is yet to be seen if it will require a third additional production line for the divergent SRB's too, but seems likely. Jupiter requires only one Upper Stage to be added and one liquid engine and has been designed explicitly to re-use *all* of the infrastructure elements already utilized by Jupiter-120.   It supplements those with specific systems for the Upper Stage, but does not require any new infrastructure elements for either the Core Stage or the SRB elements.  To support the Lunar phase of the program (and Mars later too) the two approaches diverge considerably.   Because of this divergence, Ares-I and Ares-V together end up costing more than a billion dollars more per year than Jupiter-120/232 do.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/11/2009 04:08 am
What concerns me more than anything else right now is the fact that we are about to throw the experienced ground operations team out in 18 months time and we will therefore lose all of their 25+ years of knowledge and experience, which can never be replaced.

If that isn't the stupidest thing about the current plans, I really don't know what is.   That alone will reduce the LOC figures *drastically*.

Ross.
I do agree that it will reduce the LOC figures :(
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: fotoguzzi on 01/11/2009 06:47 am
Way to go, Ross and DIRECTheads!!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 01/11/2009 12:02 pm
Or throttle-back the J-2Xs?

Is the J-2X throttlable? The J-2 wasn't, IIRC.

Correct, J-2 was not throttlable.

Wasn't J-2 kind of throttleable with those PU shift schemes? I've read one account at least (Apollo 11 debrief probably) that you feel a noticeable drop in accels once the mix became fuel rich on S-II.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: madscientist197 on 01/11/2009 12:20 pm
Are you sure that wasnt anything to do with the termination of the center engine to limit g-forces?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 01/11/2009 12:27 pm
Are you sure that wasnt anything to do with the termination of the center engine to limit g-forces?

Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11tcdb.html#030) comments:

S-II performance:
Quote
Armstrong
The PM ratio shift was observable. You could feel g's decrease.


S-IVB performance:
Quote
Aldrin
PU shift was noticeable.

Collins
That was very noticeable.

Aldrin
That was quite a jolt. About as much as one engine out.

Armstrong
That's probably about right.

Aldrin
About the same change in thrust.

Not sure about "one engine out", maybe a comparison with S-II g-levels.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: pierre on 01/11/2009 01:00 pm
I think an extra SM burn is *much* less of a risk factor than the docking event in Direct where Orion pulls the lander out of one Launcher and plugs the aft end into a docking adapter on a different EDS, with direct view of the docking entirely blocked by the lander.

The pilot will use the same camera system that is used for landing.

Pilot?

It's a docking between two spacecrafts in microgravity... Is manual docking the baseline or only a backup if the automated system fails?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/11/2009 01:11 pm
Beyond that, our only answer will be "No Comment".   Respectfully, we ask all our supporters to please refrain from enquiring further.

I guess I can't resist one question.  Did you get the model built in time?   ;)

Yes.

Here's 2 pictures; one of the Jupiter-120 and one of the Jupiter-232. This is the work of our own Lancer525. The pictures do not do justice to the fine craftsmanship that was evident in these two models.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/11/2009 01:18 pm
Beyond that, our only answer will be "No Comment".   Respectfully, we ask all our supporters to please refrain from enquiring further.

I guess I can't resist one question.  Did you get the model built in time?   ;)

Yes.

Here's 2 pictures; one of the Jupiter-120 and one of the Jupiter-232. This is the work of our own Lancer525. The pictures do not do justice to the fine craftsmanship that was evident in these two models.

Very glad to hear that this got done.  Well done to Lancer!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/11/2009 01:25 pm
I think an extra SM burn is *much* less of a risk factor than the docking event in Direct where Orion pulls the lander out of one Launcher and plugs the aft end into a docking adapter on a different EDS, with direct view of the docking entirely blocked by the lander.

The pilot will use the same camera system that is used for landing.

Pilot?

It's a docking between two spacecrafts in microgravity... Is manual docking the baseline or only a backup if the automated system fails?

All docking will be automatic, with the ability of the pilot to override.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: PaulL on 01/11/2009 01:37 pm

If the day comes that Jupiter/Direct is actually selected, I will be forming a Conga-Line in my Office!! I'm really proud of what Ross, Chuck, Steven and the other Direct people have done. And 'win or lose', you guys have gained the pragmatic, moral high ground. Does this make me a 'Direct amazing people?' Who cares! Right is Right...


If it comes to that, it would be interesting for the DIRECT Team members to write a book explaining their "journey" through the development and evolution of the Direct concept.  I am certain that there are a lot of discussions/activities "under the table" that we are not aware.  I am also looking forward to eventually learn the names of the 60 or so anonymous rocket scientists/engineers supporting DIRECT. So, I hope that Ross and Chuck have been keeping good notes over the last few years!

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/11/2009 02:15 pm
"4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad"

Surely, then, it's better to have two engines, because if one doesn't start at least the other might.

Not if your primary goal is to perform the mission.

If you need two engines to get to orbit with enough fuel to get to the moon, then a single engine failure will doom the mission. Two engines simply doubles the chance of failure.

That's why Lockheed switched to a single engine Centaur for most missions.

If your primary goal is to survive the mission, and actually performing it is secondary, then a different calculus applies.

Well, I thought that crew safety was absolutely NASA's primary concern. Understandable after two Shuttle tragedies, and the disruption it caused. PLOC of better than 1:1000 seems to be non-negotiable, and who would argue with that?

However if you combine the LOM numbers from the two launch vehicles (I believe a simple addition is a close approximation) from page 3 of http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.2.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.2.pdf), I'm not sure they support your argument, either:-

Ares-I = 1:350
Ares-V = 1:100
Total launch PLOM = 1:78


J-232 (each) = 1:175
Total launch PLOM = 1:88


However, I will admit that under Constellation, the majority of the LOM risk (Ares-V) will be out of the way before the crew lifts off. However, LOC numbers are the same for Ares-I and J-232.

In summary LOC is the same, LOM is better (for the launch phase).

Question: once the launch phase is over, having two engines on JUS may increase the probability of LOM, but does it improve the chances of limping home in the event of a single engine failure, thus improving LOC (ref Apollo 13)?

cheers, Martin

PS yes, I've seen Ross's intervening post on the subject of LOC numbers, but "we have been told to expect a similar increase to Jupiter's numbers, but we don't have anything "hard" to show you yet".


EDIT: changed "I believe a simple addition is appropriate" to "I believe a simple addition is a close approximation".


EDIT 2: OK, I've worked out where my error was - treated them as independent, but flight 1 failure scrubs flight 2.

Correct figures (which are not materially different) are:-

Ares: 1:100 + (99:100 x 1:350) = 1:77.95 (instead of 1:77.78)

DIRECT 1:175 + (174:175 x 1:175) = 1:87.75 (instead of 1:87.5)
Title: DIRECT v2.0 - Letter to Congress
Post by: robert_d on 01/11/2009 02:46 pm
We have a new Congressperson so I finally sent a short note in support of Direct.  This seemed the key time.  For anyone still on the fence - if I can direct you to the NASA comments about Direct where they say disparagingly "the vehicles were sized to the infrastructure" - I say Precisely!  They dismiss that viewpoint without any justification and in contravention of the specific Congressional mandate to use what we have.  Also do not decide until you have reviewed the Aldridge Commission report.  Sustainability is key and that includes the ability to add evolutionary changes rather than having these horrible gaps.  The biggest fault in my mind with the Shuttle is that it was so expensive only limited changes could be afforded. Aries 1 has no upgrade path and any crew/cargo mission would require 2 launches. What evolution to Ares 1
is there?  Note also that internal inconsistencies may reveal questionable logic. The NASA published notional pictures  I have seen never show ARES 1 with its true launch tower.  And they never talk about the VAB mods that limit launch rates with the ARES two vehicle architecture.
Think about it.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/11/2009 02:49 pm
"4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad"

Surely, then, it's better to have two engines, because if one doesn't start at least the other might.

Not if your primary goal is to perform the mission.

If you need two engines to get to orbit with enough fuel to get to the moon, then a single engine failure will doom the mission. Two engines simply doubles the chance of failure.

That's why Lockheed switched to a single engine Centaur for most missions.

If your primary goal is to survive the mission, and actually performing it is secondary, then a different calculus applies.

Well, I thought that crew safety was absolutely NASA's primary concern. Understandable after two Shuttle tragedies, and the disruption it caused. PLOC of better than 1:1000 seems to be non-negotiable, and who would argue with that?

However if you combine the LOM numbers from the two launch vehicles (I believe a simple addition is a close approximation) from page 3 of http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.2.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.2.pdf), I'm not sure they support your argument, either:-

Ares-I = 1:350
Ares-V = 1:100
Total launch PLOM = 1:78


J-232 (each) = 1:175
Total launch PLOM = 1:88



As I posted earlier, I don't think the Jupiter 232 PLOM given is consistent with the ESAS methodology. I can't understand how Direct gets the number, and they haven't been able to explain how they got to it.

1:175 might fit for Jupiter 232 without the upper stage. 1:110 is more consistent with the other numbers if the upper stage burn is included.

And I think the ESAS methodology is pretty optimistic about upper stage and SRB reliability. Less optimistic estimates for these components hurts Direct more than Ares.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/11/2009 02:50 pm
Have to say, love how ULA delivered a knock-out punch to Steve Cooke's comment on the J-232 Upperstage, really shows that the Ares office is not the all powerful Oz that the general public believes it to be.

Can you ref it? Thanks.

The PM article in print

Page 57, 4th and 5th paragraphs up from the bottom.

Steve Cook is quoted as saying the JUS is "just unrealistically light for what it has to do. ... They're apparently building it out of unobtainium." On behalf of NASA, Steve Cook has publicly pooh-poohed the JUS design.

In the next paragraph, Bernard Kutter, Manager of Advanced Programs at ULA - Lockheed-Martin, countered that the Jupiter-232's upper stage (JUS) is "very reasonable. I'd even call it conservative."

Ok, we know who Steve Cook is, but who is Bernard Kutter, and what are his credentials?

Steve Cook has never designed a successful upper stage.
Bernard Kutter is an upper stage designer and has been doing that for many years; as a design engineer, and now as the Manager of the Advanced Systems department. His designs are actually flying today and have been for years.

I ask you all a question: When it comes to upper stage design, who has more credibility; a man who has never successfully designed one, or one who does that for a living and is actually flying his designs?

The man who has never successfully designed an upper stage says the JUS doesn't work, and the man who is actually flying his designs says the JUS design is actually conservative.

The paragraph ends "Kutter also spearheaded development of a cryogenic upper-stage design that the Jupiter-232 planners [that's us] suggest adopting." Hmmm. I wonder what relationship there is to the JUS?

By the way, Bernard Kutter had to get permission from ULA to say the things that he did, so all his statements have been cleared by ULA.

The JUS is the biggest threat to the Ares program when it comes to the lunar mission, because the Ares-V EDS cannot put the minimum mass necessary thru TLI at this point, while the Jupiter-232 JUS actually can, with margin to spare. It would appear that NASA realized this and because they can't yet get it done, the only way to divert attention from this unpleasant fact is to find some way to discredit the one thing that actually can get it done; the Jupiter-232's upper stage. So in their so-called "Analysis", they substituted their US design parameters for the JUS, analyzed that instead of the JUS, and of course it failed. The JUS was never analyzed at all, at least not publicly. Instead, an upper stage design that was known to fail was substituted for the JUS which, of course, makes the Jupiter-232 fail. All this is clearly shown in our rebuttal document which is almost ready to be released. It is huge - almost as large as the 2007 AIAA paper. You will not be disappointed, at least not with us. How you feel about what NASA has done will be your decision.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/11/2009 02:52 pm
Beyond that, our only answer will be "No Comment".   Respectfully, we ask all our supporters to please refrain from enquiring further.

I guess I can't resist one question.  Did you get the model built in time?   ;)

Yes.

Here's 2 pictures; one of the Jupiter-120 and one of the Jupiter-232. This is the work of our own Lancer525. The pictures do not do justice to the fine craftsmanship that was evident in these two models.

Excellent work! I really admire that kind of craftsmanship, and wish I could do it. Maybe something for retirement, when and if, if and when, if ever... 8-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/11/2009 03:13 pm
Have to say, love how ULA delivered a knock-out punch to Steve Cooke's comment on the J-232 Upperstage, really shows that the Ares office is not the all powerful Oz that the general public believes it to be.

Can you ref it? Thanks.

The PM article in print

Page 57, 4th and 5th paragraphs up from the bottom.

Steve Cook is quoted as saying the JUS is "just unrealistically light for what it has to do. ... They're apparently building it out of unobtainium." On behalf of NASA, Steve Cook has publicly pooh-poohed the JUS design.

In the next paragraph, Bernard Kutter, Manager of Advanced Programs at ULA - Lockheed-Martin, countered that the Jupiter-232's upper stage (JUS) is "very reasonable. I'd even call it conservative."

Ok, we know who Steve Cook is, but who is Bernard Kutter, and what are his credentials?

Steve Cook has never designed a successful upper stage.
Bernard Kutter is an upper stage designer and has been doing that for many years; as a design engineer, and now as the Manager of the Advanced Systems department. His designs are actually flying today and have been for years.

I ask you all a question: When it comes to upper stage design, who has more credibility; a man who has never successfully designed one, or one who does that for a living and is actually flying his designs?

The man who has never successfully designed an upper stage says the JUS doesn't work, and the man who is actually flying his designs says the JUS design is actually conservative.


Which new operational upper stage did he design?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/11/2009 03:31 pm
Internally within the team I am personally supporting the idea of re-baselining to the J-231 architecture though, now that our MSFC guys have confirmed it closes the performance targets.   If we did go down that path the issue becomes a moot one and the existing (early) LSAM designs would not need any sort of alteration at all.

I figure we will decide on this either next week or maybe the week after.   Either way though, we will continue to calculate both J-232 and J-231 architecture options in parallel, just in case we decide to change again for any currently unforeseen reason in the future.   Doing so gives us an immediate logical backup plan "just in case".


Congrats on getting yourselves heard.

When you get a minute (so that'll be about April, then!), it would be great to see Baseball cards for the J-231s. Nice to see the J-120 & J-232 ones linked directly from the site (don't remember them being separately linked documents before?)

However, I'd say the rebuttal would now be a much higher priority. If someone comes back and says "OK, you've got your chance, now try to persuade the engineers that it will really work", I would say that will be one of the first things that you will need to present.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/11/2009 03:35 pm
Thank you, Mr. Barton.

When I return home from work this afternoon, I'll post a better picture of the models, if anyone is interested...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/11/2009 03:42 pm
Have to say, love how ULA delivered a knock-out punch to Steve Cooke's comment on the J-232 Upperstage, really shows that the Ares office is not the all powerful Oz that the general public believes it to be.

Can you ref it? Thanks.

The PM article in print

Page 57, 4th and 5th paragraphs up from the bottom.

Steve Cook is quoted as saying the JUS is "just unrealistically light for what it has to do. ... They're apparently building it out of unobtainium." On behalf of NASA, Steve Cook has publicly pooh-poohed the JUS design.

In the next paragraph, Bernard Kutter, Manager of Advanced Programs at ULA - Lockheed-Martin, countered that the Jupiter-232's upper stage (JUS) is "very reasonable. I'd even call it conservative."

Ok, we know who Steve Cook is, but who is Bernard Kutter, and what are his credentials?

Steve Cook has never designed a successful upper stage.
Bernard Kutter is an upper stage designer and has been doing that for many years; as a design engineer, and now as the Manager of the Advanced Systems department. His designs are actually flying today and have been for years.

I ask you all a question: When it comes to upper stage design, who has more credibility; a man who has never successfully designed one, or one who does that for a living and is actually flying his designs?

The man who has never successfully designed an upper stage says the JUS doesn't work, and the man who is actually flying his designs says the JUS design is actually conservative.


Which new operational upper stage did he design?

He has been a major presence on the Centaur program for a very long time and been involved in the upgrades and evolutions from one flying configuration to another. He has also been involved in several advanced projects including the Wide Body Centaur and ICES.
He has been published many times and his reputation is extremely well known throughout the industry.
He has authored, and co-authored many, many papers throughout the years.
I did a quick search on NTRS and grabbed just one quick reference for you.
This is only one out of many that I grabbed, just to give you a quick flavor.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060049150_2006251226.pdf

There is much, much more to the man than I could possibly provide in a quick post, but it was a valid question and I wanted to provide "something" in quick response.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/11/2009 03:42 pm
Which new operational upper stage did he design?

It seems to me he didn't indicate it was flying, just that it was a new design.  Perhaps it will be flying in the not too distant future. 

But does it matter?  If there is no credibility for the design, or the track record of the designer, I would be interested to know which designers who have upper stages flying have looked at it and done a critical analysis. 

Details of their analysis could make for a constructive discussion.

To me, critical analysis from individuals who haven't built and flown an US is very useful, but it can only go so far.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/11/2009 03:48 pm
Thank you, Mr. Barton.

When I return home from work this afternoon, I'll post a better picture of the models, if anyone is interested...

Oh yes, we will ALL be interested. I'm sorry that I didn't get better pictures, but we were all extremely busy putting the finishing touches on the presentation itself for the briefing, well into the wee hours of the morning.

On a personal note, I just want to publicly tell Lancer525 that when we actually saw the models for the first time, we were all simply stunned at the quality of the workmanship. I build models myself (I have for years), and I was instantly jealous at the superb quality of what he did.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/11/2009 03:49 pm
With all the new developments and since I see we reached 290 pages, is it time to start DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/11/2009 03:51 pm
Which new operational upper stage did he design?

It seems to me he didn't indicate it was flying, just that it was a new design. 

His work is flying.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 01/11/2009 03:53 pm
With all the new developments and since I see we reached 290 pages, is it time to start DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3?

I would second that suggestion, this is becoming a ridiculously long thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Stephan on 01/11/2009 03:54 pm
Hi Ross, Chuck and all the team.

Is there a graph showing payload mass vs C3 energy for the Jupiter 232 (without or with a Centaur third stage if possible) ?
Something to compare to graph p24 there : http://event.arc.nasa.gov/aresv/ppt/Saturday/2Sumrall/2Sumrall.pdf

It would be interesting to see.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/11/2009 03:55 pm
The JUS is the biggest threat to the Ares program when it comes to the lunar mission, because the Ares-V EDS cannot put the minimum mass necessary thru TLI at this point, while the Jupiter-232 JUS actually can, with margin to spare. It would appear that NASA realized this and because they can't yet get it done, the only way to divert attention from this unpleasant fact is to find some way to discredit the one thing that actually can get it done; the Jupiter-232's upper stage.

Or they could simply adopt this design for their 2nd stages. (I know, I'm about the 27th person to say this.)


Quote
So in their so-called "Analysis", they substituted their US design parameters for the JUS, analyzed that instead of the JUS, and of course it failed. The JUS was never analyzed at all, at least not publicly. Instead, an upper stage design that was known to fail was substituted for the JUS which, of course, makes the Jupiter-232 fail. All this is clearly shown in our rebuttal document which is almost ready to be released. It is huge - almost as large as the 2007 AIAA paper. You will not be disappointed, at least not with us. How you feel about what NASA has done will be your decision.


Presumably this will be a rebuttal of how the analysis was mistaken against your published documents at the time?

Will it also include comparisons with the latest version of DIRECT and the latest published performance of Ares?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/11/2009 03:59 pm
Which new operational upper stage did he design?

It seems to me he didn't indicate it was flying, just that it was a new design. 

His work is flying.

Centaur is not a new design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/11/2009 04:00 pm
With all the new developments and since I see we reached 290 pages, is it time to start DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3?

Maybe start the new thread with the rebuttal document?

Or, start it with news of / reports from whatever is the new "holding our breath for" event.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ugordan on 01/11/2009 04:02 pm
Centaur is not a new design.

You make it sound as if the stage is not allowed to evolve over the years.

Do I detect attempts to downplay Kutter's credibility?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/11/2009 04:04 pm
Which new operational upper stage did he design?

It seems to me he didn't indicate it was flying, just that it was a new design. 

His work is flying.

Centaur is not a new design.

No it's not. But what is flying today is not anything like the original Centaur. What's flying today is what Mr. Kutter is part of.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/11/2009 04:13 pm

Or they could simply adopt this design for their 2nd stages. (I know, I'm about the 27th person to say this.)


But if you have a design that reuses many existing components, tooling and infrastructure that can support the mission and be complete much sooner, what is the benefit of continuing with a design that requires much more time and significant additional development $ along with 4 additional production lines, new tooling and new infrastructure?

How many flights does Ares I/V need to overcome the effect of the up-front costs of development on the average cost of launch? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/11/2009 04:22 pm

Or they could simply adopt this design for their 2nd stages. (I know, I'm about the 27th person to say this.)


But if you have a design that reuses many existing components, tooling and infrastructure that can support the mission and be complete much sooner, what is the benefit of continuing with a design that requires much more time and significant additional development $ along with 4 additional production lines, new tooling and new infrastructure?

You need to remember what Dr Griffin was attempting to accomplish. For decades, all of NASA's design work was being done by the outside contractors, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. Dr Griffin is attempting to recreate that capability "in-house", so that NASA won't need to go to the contractors for design work. Unfortunately, that means that the in-house design force is near the bottom of the learning curve and do not have the advantage of decades of design experience to draw on that the contractors have.

Now that's not a bad goal. It's just that it is not a good fit with such a compressed timescale and the imminent retirement of Shuttle. The only possible consequence is over-budget and late results, results that may work but that cannot be anything but sub-optimal, especially when trying to field a launch vehicle configuration that has never been flown before, like the Ares-I.

As for their approach to the upper stage, going with the kind of technology that the contractors can provide is just not an option for them. The knowledge base needed to go that route just does not exist in-house at NASA. There is no way that they could possibly compete with the industry-based designs; they just don't know how.

That's why we went the route we did:
The core stage is actually backed up by literally thousands and thousands of pages of analysis created to build the NLS, done mostly by the remaining members of the Von Braun team that did Saturn-V and the engineers that mentored under them. For example, there is a document that is over 1,000 pages in length that details, right down to the last bolt and rivet, how to transform the Shuttle ET into the core stage, nearly identical in every way to the Jupiter core stage.

For the upper stage, we went directly to industry, to the people who have doing them for decades. They knew how, and we leaned heavily on their expertise and advice. Finally, what became the JUS became part of the Jupiter launch vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: NUAETIUS on 01/11/2009 04:22 pm
Maybe start the new thread with the rebuttal document?

Or, start it with news of / reports from whatever is the new "holding our breath for" event.

cheers, Martin

Hold off on starting a new thread.  Start the new thread once an official response to the
Direct proposal by the Transition Team / Obama Administration is published. 

The presentation just given to the transition teams was the climax of the Direct idea. 

If the transition team recommends Direct as the new Ares rockets, and the new administrator goes along, then a new thread on the transition from Ares 1/5 to Jupiter 120 &232 is in order.

If the transition team recommends Direct, but administration/director rejects the idea a new thread for Direct lobbing of congress should be started.

If the transition team rejects Direct, then in my opinion a new forum should be started for the discussion of Direct as a “what might have been” program.

Either way, I have a feeling that we will know the general direction that this is going within a few weeks.  It would be really odd to start a new thread under Exploration Alternatives, only to move Direct onto the front forum page, bumping the Ares I and V off in a month or so.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: NUAETIUS on 01/11/2009 04:27 pm
Centaur is not a new design.

And the Camero, Mustang, Civic, Acord, F150, and every other "legacy" brand name vehicle are not new designs.

God I wish all Mustangs where the 64 1/2, maybe I would buy one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/11/2009 04:28 pm
Congratulations to the Direct team on the PM article and chance to pitch their plan to the transition team.

Here is what I see as the pros and cons of the Direct proposal in its current form.

Pro: Direct should have lower development costs. Perhaps as much as $10 billion, if they can deliver on the lightweight upper stage. If not, and they need to use a five segment booster after all, perhaps half that.

I find the argument that Direct will have significantly lower operating costs entirely unconvincing.

Con: I’ll start with the biggest one first.

1) I don’t think they can get operational sooner than Ares. I think they’ll take longer.

The Jupiter core is bigger and more complicated than the Ares I US. It will need an entirely new main propulsion system and a new payload fairing. Load paths will be entirely different from the Shuttle ET. It must support two very different flight paths. From contract award to a flight-worthy stage will be no better than the Ares I US to Ares I-Y and could be worse.

Nor do I think Direct can brush aside the competitive bidding process for the Jupiter core. Yes, Lockheed is building the ET. But Boeing builds the only other launcher powered by the RS-68, and is building the Ares I US with a lot less touch labor than the ET. NASA owns the Michoud plant, not Lockheed. Lockheed isn’t the only choice.

Simply handing the contract to Lockheed is bad procedure. Actually having a real bidding process will take time. Years.

The Direct team seems to assume that it won’t be a major issue to renegotiate the Ares I first and second stage contracts. That seems unlikely.

2) Direct will probably have more Lunar mission failures than the NASA baseline, since Ares I will probably be more reliable to LEO than the second Jupiter 232 in a two launch Direct scenario and the Direct TLI burn needs two J-2s to work without failure instead of one. Mission failures will be expensive, since NASA will almost certainly want to cease launches until it knows what went wrong

3) A realistic assessment of Jupiter 232 reliability suggests that Direct Lunar missions won’t be as safe as the NASA baseline. If NASA can achieve very favorable LOC and LOM numbers, this shouldn’t be a big factor. However, NASA’s LOM estimates for Ares I and V are very low compared to any existing vehicle. A more plausible estimate based on real world launchers might result in one more ascent abort over thirty years of Lunar operations with Direct than Ares. The odds are pretty good that the abort will be survivable, so it may only be an extra 10% chance of killing four people in that period. From a rational cost benefit view, avoiding that small risk isn’t worth billions of dollars. However, the American public and politicians aren’t entirely rational about cost benefit tradeoffs when it comes to putting astronauts at risk.

4) Jupiter 120 can also carry significant cargo. Unfortunately, taking advantage of the capability would pretty much pull the rug out from under the companies that invested in commercial ISS resupply.






1) I do agree with you on the bidding part. It seems in a perfect world things would get moving fast. But this is NASA we are talking about. There are reports and committees for the committees that will later form a committee.
I would like to hear from Ross and Team how they feel NASA can get this thing rolling fast.

2) I disagree on this one. Under NASA's plan, for a successful lunar mission to occur, you also need a successful Ares V launch. If Ares V fails, you see delayed missions, investigations, etc. Ares V is much more complex than any of the Direct vehicles. 5.5 seg boosters and 6 RS-68, and the J-2X, there is a lot to go wrong there.
Also, I feel having 2 J-2Xs is safer, not a liability. If there is an engine failure on the way up to orbit, Ares I must abort, Jupiter can make it safely to orbit. If there is an engine failure on TLI for Ares, we're aborting too, same with Direct. In both cases, the J-2 must work on TLI.




Look at the part count for a pair of 232s vs an Ares I and V. !0 liquid engines vs 8. 4 RSRMs vs 3. Eight separation events vs. 6. 4 hydrogen engines air starting  vs 2, and these are a lot trickier than starting on the pad.

Having two engines can help with survivability, if you have a non-catastrophic failure. But you still are likely to lose the mission because you need extra fuel from the EDS or SM to get to LEO because of gravity losses, and you needed that fuel for the Lunar mission.

Going by part count isn't the most accurate way. As was stated above, Ares may use 3 RSRMs, but they are larger and use more segments. Also, you can argue that the Direct RSRMs are more reliable and safer as they are the exact RSRMs the Shuttle uses. Ares I uses a NEW RSRM in a NEW, unproven, configuration. Ares V is a 5.5 segment monster, and there were rumors that it could go up to 6.
You also argue that more liquid engines are a bad thing...Ares V uses 6 RS-68s on its first stage, Jupiter in its largest configuration uses half that number. There is a lot more that can go wrong on an Ares V launch. New boosters, more RS-68s, new tank.

Also mentioned above, Ares I requires that the Orion SM engine lights, or it is time to go home.

Yes, Ares has a slight part advantage, but if you count the SRM segments, that goes out the window. And if you count the amount of unproven hardware Ares relies on, you see an advantage for Jupiter.

REPOST:
The infrastructure is a very complicated aspect.   Essentially it covers everything from the sourcing of raw materials, the manufacturing of them into usable hardware, all the transportation, the inspections, assembly, integration, launch preparations, ground ops, launch ops, mission ops, recovery ops, planning, administration, management, quality control, crew support and all those other aspects which go into the program as a whole. In the simplest terms the infrastructure to support two launch systems is always going to be higher than for one.   Some aspects, such as administration overheads and maybe common hardware elements, can be merged to get share some common costs, but it is looking more and more likely that there won't be a lot in common between the Ares-I and Ares-5/6/7 any longer. From another angle, the Jupiter launchers will share a fair amount in common with the current Shuttle.   This means that the impact of changing a lot of the existing infrastructure can be minimized as well. From another angle, the Jupiter launchers will share a fair amount in common with the current Shuttle.   This means that the impact of changing a lot of the existing infrastructure can be minimized as well. Then there is the operations cost as well covering how much these systems will cost to operate each year of their operational lives. To implement the changes to get from Shuttle to Ares-I is going to cost NASA in the region of $2bn covering Michoud & Kennedy alone.   Ares-V will be another $2bn on top of that and estimates I have seen say that the larger Ares-6/7 designs could add anything from $0.5bn to $1.5bn again.Jupiter, by choosing to keep most of the existing Shuttle tooling and launch processing facilities relatively unchanged can save about 1 billion compared to Ares-I and only needs half a billion more to implement the Jupiter-232 afterward.   That is a considerable cost saving right at the start, and a major cost saving for implementing the Lunar phase later.  The cost to build and operate any given cryo liquid stage, surprisingly,  really isn't affected much by the physical dimensions.   The infrastructure costs per year to build an Ares-I Upper Stage structure is not going to be very different from a Core Stage structure.   You need a very similar amount of tooling to do either and a similar number of staff to operate that tooling.   Both require Forward Skirts, Tank Domes and Barrel Sections for both LOX and LH2 tanks, both require an Aft Skirt and a Thrust Structure, both need avionics, feedlines, TPS and a host of other things.   Just because they are a different size does *NOT* mean you use less tooling or less staff - that's a common assumption some people mistakenly make. When you get right down to it, the cost to build the two different stages only really varies by the raw materials cost going into the structures - and that accounts for a *very* small portion of the total.   Taking *everything* (manufacturing, launch costs, management etc) into account you can use a very general 'rule of thumb' to get first-order estimates of operational costs by using the 500/50 rule.   $500m per stage for fixed costs, $50m for each unit coming off the production line in reasonable quantities.   It will get you in the right ballpark at least. When you get right down to it, the cost to build the two different stages only really varies by the raw materials cost going into the structures - and that accounts for a *very* small portion of the total.   Taking *everything* (manufacturing, launch costs, management etc) into account you can use a very general 'rule of thumb' to get first-order estimates of operational costs by using the 500/50 rule.   $500m per stage for fixed costs, $50m for each unit coming off the production line in reasonable quantities.   It will get you in the right ballpark at least. Ares-I and Jupiter-120 are actually pretty similar from a cost perspective.   They both require one production line for SRB's, one production line for a single cryo stage and one production line for a liquid engine.   They also require a similar amount of the VAB, LCC, Pad, Crawlers and MLP to be utilized too, and over at JSC they require the same MMT and the same MCC facilities there too.   The net result of all this is that the Jupiter-120 and the Ares-I don't cost a great deal different to operate.  Both systems fixed costs are reduced by more than half compared to Shuttle - primarily because there is no complicated and high-maintenance Orbiter element any longer and there are no high-maintenance reusable engines in the cost profile either.   We're talking about $1bn in fixed costs for either Jupiter-120 or Ares-I every year compared to about $2.5bn per year in a continuing-operation year (2008 in not one of those BTW - the program is *already* scaling back). Ares-V requires two more stages - one massive Core Stage and a new Upper Stage probably made from composite materials and having no commonality at all with anything else.   It is also looking more and more likely to require different boosters too (possibly also composite disposables), which would will add another production line on top as well.   It also requires another liquid engine production line too.   On top of a whole echelon of infrastructure changes to support it in addition to the already operating Ares-I systems.   Ares-V will be so different from Ares-I that it will be unable to utilize any of the infrastructure elements from manufacturing to launch processing to actual launch itself.   It requires almost a complete replication of resources at almost every level. So Ares-V needs a minimum of two additional $500m infrastructure elements (covering manufacturing to launch) every year to be maintained and staffed in addition to the Ares-I facilities.   It is yet to be seen if it will require a third additional production line for the divergent SRB's too, but seems likely. Jupiter requires only one Upper Stage to be added and one liquid engine and has been designed explicitly to re-use *all* of the infrastructure elements already utilized by Jupiter-120.   It supplements those with specific systems for the Upper Stage, but does not require any new infrastructure elements for either the Core Stage or the SRB elements.  To support the Lunar phase of the program (and Mars later too) the two approaches diverge considerably.   Because of this divergence, Ares-I and Ares-V together end up costing more than a billion dollars more per year than Jupiter-120/232 do.



Much of what you call infrastructure is actually overhead, and that makes a difference. The manufacturing cost of the  Ares I US at two a year is about $90 million, and that includes variable costs.

Looking at the budget document on reply #4189, you can calculate that the 2020 non-manufacturing costs for the EDS are about $500 million, Ares V $600 million, Ares I $500 million and flight and ground operations $800 million.

However, a lot of the cost of Ares I is overseeing the solid and liquid propulsion and avionics: the bare US is only about a third of the manufacturing cost.

So, going to a two launch solution doesn't save you a full $500 million, because a lot of the propulsion and avionics overhead allocation just shifts to the other vehicle: perhaps half of the total.

$250 million isn't trivial, but two launch imposes some additional expense, because now you need to man rate the RS-68 and core stage, with the additional NASA overhead that entails.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/11/2009 04:29 pm
This thread got started when the old thread was 250 pages long. 

The thread should stop when it is 300 pages long.  This thread is too long as it is.  Very few people have the time to read the thread.  When was the last time that anyone or the Direct team read this thread from start to finish?  I am trying to put together a FAQ of this thread---but remember there have been over 4,000 replies. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 01/11/2009 04:38 pm
This thread got started when the old thread was 250 pages long. 

The thread should stop when it is 300 pages long.  This thread is too long as it is.  Very few people have the time to read the thread.  When was the last time that anyone or the Direct team read this thread from start to finish?  I am trying to put together a FAQ of this thread---but remember there have been over 4,000 replies. 


Me, before I posted anything here. It was a chore, but no different from reading multiple threads with the same stuff in it.

A summary / FAQ will make things a lot more manageable for newcomers.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/11/2009 05:05 pm
Will,

Please re-read reply #4355..halfway Ross talks about the operational costs.  I have looked at reply #217.  Please can you provide a link. 

What do you feel are Ares annual costs?

According to CxP's own cost estimators Ares-V, when flown 4 times per year as planned, will cost $1,400m each.   Ares-I will cost an additional $850m each (4 p/y).   

Here are costs for Orion and Altair.

$300m per Orion, $500m per Altair (does anybody have good numbers on these?) that would add more than $3bn additional- giving a total Constellation budget of $12bn.    This is over 50-60% of NASA budget in 2008 figures.  Ares will be too expensive.


Flown 6 times per year, Shuttle mission's cost about $600m each. (snip) for the last ten years costs per mission have been (USD in that year):

Enacted FY 2008: 4 missions - 4,007 million -> 1,002 million/mission
FY 2007: 3 missions - 4,017 million -> 1,339 million/mission
FY 2006: 2 missions - 4,777 million -> 2,388 million/mission
FY 2005: 1 mission -   4,319 million -> 4,319 million/mission
FY 2004: N/A
FY 2003: 3 missions - 3,252 million -> 1,084 million/mission
FY 2002: 4 missions - 3,278 million -> 820 million/mission
FY 2001: 7 missions - 3,125 million -> 446 million/mission
FY 2000: 4 missions - 3,011 million -> 753 million/mission
FY 1999: 4 missions - 3,028 million -> 757 million/mission

I think what Ross and others are tying to tell you, that Ares I and Ares V share very little infrastructure and overhead.  So if Ares I is going to cost $1b dollars a year, Ares V is going to cost you an additional $1 billion dollars annually.  Please remember what the public was told about shuttle.  I am very spectical of NASA's numbers and I feel it may even be higher.  Look at the development costs now--they are over $32b and climbing. 

At least with Direct we have some experaince with the costs since a large part is made up of existing shuttle parts, Constellation is basically brand new. Very little of Ares is shuttle dervived.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/11/2009 05:18 pm
Will,

Please re-read reply #4355..halfway Ross talks about the operational costs.  I have looked at reply #217.  Please can you provide a link. 



Sorry for the confusion. I misread the number of posts by that poster instead of the number of the post.

This one, top chart.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg352417#msg352417
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/11/2009 05:40 pm
Have to say, love how ULA delivered a knock-out punch to Steve Cooke's comment on the J-232 Upperstage, really shows that the Ares office is not the all powerful Oz that the general public believes it to be.

Can you ref it? Thanks.

The PM article in print

Page 57, 4th and 5th paragraphs up from the bottom.

Steve Cook is quoted as saying the JUS is "just unrealistically light for what it has to do. ... They're apparently building it out of unobtainium." On behalf of NASA, Steve Cook has publicly pooh-poohed the JUS design.

In the next paragraph, Bernard Kutter, Manager of Advanced Programs at ULA - Lockheed-Martin, countered that the Jupiter-232's upper stage (JUS) is "very reasonable. I'd even call it conservative."

Ok, we know who Steve Cook is, but who is Bernard Kutter, and what are his credentials?

Steve Cook has never designed a successful upper stage.
Bernard Kutter is an upper stage designer and has been doing that for many years; as a design engineer, and now as the Manager of the Advanced Systems department. His designs are actually flying today and have been for years.

I ask you all a question: When it comes to upper stage design, who has more credibility; a man who has never successfully designed one, or one who does that for a living and is actually flying his designs?

The man who has never successfully designed an upper stage says the JUS doesn't work, and the man who is actually flying his designs says the JUS design is actually conservative.

The paragraph ends "Kutter also spearheaded development of a cryogenic upper-stage design that the Jupiter-232 planners [that's us] suggest adopting." Hmmm. I wonder what relationship there is to the JUS?

By the way, Bernard Kutter had to get permission from ULA to say the things that he did, so all his statements have been cleared by ULA.

The JUS is the biggest threat to the Ares program when it comes to the lunar mission, because the Ares-V EDS cannot put the minimum mass necessary thru TLI at this point, while the Jupiter-232 JUS actually can, with margin to spare. It would appear that NASA realized this and because they can't yet get it done, the only way to divert attention from this unpleasant fact is to find some way to discredit the one thing that actually can get it done; the Jupiter-232's upper stage. So in their so-called "Analysis", they substituted their US design parameters for the JUS, analyzed that instead of the JUS, and of course it failed. The JUS was never analyzed at all, at least not publicly. Instead, an upper stage design that was known to fail was substituted for the JUS which, of course, makes the Jupiter-232 fail. All this is clearly shown in our rebuttal document which is almost ready to be released. It is huge - almost as large as the 2007 AIAA paper. You will not be disappointed, at least not with us. How you feel about what NASA has done will be your decision.

Excellent news about the JUS there, that really improves my confidence in the numbers.
Now there's just the small matter of per-unit costs...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/11/2009 05:47 pm

Here's 2 pictures; one of the Jupiter-120 and one of the Jupiter-232. This is the work of our own Lancer525. The pictures do not do justice to the fine craftsmanship that was evident in these two models.

Wow, great models!
Unfortunately the pictures are out of focus but still the models look great!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kch on 01/11/2009 05:51 pm
If the transition team recommends Direct, but administration/director rejects the idea a new thread for Direct lobbing of congress should be started.

It's a tempting thought, I must admit -- how far downrange would you want to lob them?  ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 01/11/2009 06:07 pm
This thread got started when the old thread was 250 pages long. 

The thread should stop when it is 300 pages long.  This thread is too long as it is.  Very few people have the time to read the thread.  When was the last time that anyone or the Direct team read this thread from start to finish?  I am trying to put together a FAQ of this thread---but remember there have been over 4,000 replies. 

Perhaps the first post on the new thread should be the Rebuttal Document, seems a natural break to me.

edit : seems I'm not alone in this sentiment ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/11/2009 06:14 pm

Here's 2 pictures; one of the Jupiter-120 and one of the Jupiter-232. This is the work of our own Lancer525. The pictures do not do justice to the fine craftsmanship that was evident in these two models.

Wow, great models!
Unfortunately the pictures are out of focus but still the models look great!

Keep the models around.  If Direct is chosen or there is a big public argument then press photographers may want to photograph them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/11/2009 06:25 pm
Not to mention, if Direct is selected, NASA may want them. I think there was a contract put out for models of the Ares rockets early on. Those have been seen everywhere.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 01/11/2009 06:36 pm
If Direct is chosen or there is a big public argument then ...

I wonder what the expectation should really be here.  I wouldn't expect either the President, or the Congress, to mandate an implementation.  I would think a "choice" right around end of January would be ... highly irregular, unless there is a super-majority within NASA already heading towards Direct, which was not how I've understood the situation there.

I had understood that the expectation would be for a 3rd party review, not a "choice".  Such a review would be politically messy, and I wouldn't expect much to be made public, while I would expect plenty of unhappiness to be spread around.

Could someone detail what the next steps are, what we can/should be doing, and what we can/should be expecting in response?  Or whatever/whichever of those things can be made public?

Thanks,
-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jorge on 01/11/2009 06:55 pm
If Direct is chosen or there is a big public argument then ...

I wonder what the expectation should really be here.  I wouldn't expect either the President, or the Congress, to mandate an implementation.

Me neither. That puts them directly on the hook if problems arise, and they don't want that. At the most, if they want a particular outcome the president would appoint an administrator known to favor that outcome. But I don't expect even that.

Quote
  I would think a "choice" right around end of January would be ... highly irregular...

I had understood that the expectation would be for a 3rd party review, not a "choice".

Yes. That would provide cover not just for the president and Congress, but also for the new administrator. And given the level of criticism about how the haste of the ESAS 60-day study led to many options not being studied adequately, we can expect the next review to both be broader and to take longer.

I'd be surprised if the picture were completely clear before the start of FY10.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/11/2009 07:07 pm
Thank you, Mr. Barton.

When I return home from work this afternoon, I'll post a better picture of the models, if anyone is interested...

Oh yes, we will ALL be interested. I'm sorry that I didn't get better pictures, but we were all extremely busy putting the finishing touches on the presentation itself for the briefing, well into the wee hours of the morning.

On a personal note, I just want to publicly tell Lancer525 that when we actually saw the models for the first time, we were all simply stunned at the quality of the workmanship. I build models myself (I have for years), and I was instantly jealous at the superb quality of what he did.

Chuck: I'm sure you guys were pressed for time, and I'm certrain you couldn't have wasted a lot of time on mere pictures. My wife, however, is one step ahead of me. I mentioned to her when I went home for lunch today, that you  had posted photos of the model, she suggested I put one of my pictures on a zip drive, so I could have it here at work here to post. :)

I am exceptionally flattered by your comments. I deeply appreciate your praise, and wish to state publicly how grateful I am for being permitted to contribute in this small manner.

Now, on to the photo:

(http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/Direct.jpg)
 (http://s109.photobucket.com/albums/n59/lancer525/?action=view&current=Direct.jpg)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/11/2009 07:15 pm
[...]

Yes. That would provide cover not just for the president and Congress, but also for the new administrator. And given the level of criticism about how the haste of the ESAS 60-day study led to many options not being studied adequately, we can expect the next review to both be broader and to take longer.

I'd be surprised if the picture were completely clear before the start of FY10.

Would a review done in 2009 change the assumptions made in 2005? Would they favor a less safe launcher in place of Ares I?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/11/2009 07:19 pm
Would a review done in 2009 change the assumptions made in 2005? Would they favor a less safe launcher in place of Ares I?

IMHO, priorities have changed. In 2005 the top three priorities were safety, safety, and safety. These days people are grumbling about costs and schedule. Plus, as we all know, the Ares designs have evolved very considerably since ESAS, and man-rating requirements have potentially been relaxed.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 01/11/2009 07:39 pm
WRT to the model, details of construction.  Card, plastic, turned wood, model rocket parts?  Plans?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/11/2009 07:43 pm
[...]

Yes. That would provide cover not just for the president and Congress, but also for the new administrator. And given the level of criticism about how the haste of the ESAS 60-day study led to many options not being studied adequately, we can expect the next review to both be broader and to take longer.

I'd be surprised if the picture were completely clear before the start of FY10.

Would a review done in 2009 change the assumptions made in 2005? Would they favor a less safe launcher in place of Ares I?


Remember that one of the big drivers for the current plan was a presidential directive to get to the moon by an arbitrary date. The new administration may feel differently.

Griffin has said that he liked the idea of propellant depots, but that he couldn't wait until they were proven to make a decision on the cargo vehicle.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/11/2009 07:43 pm
[...] These days people are grumbling about costs and schedule.[...]

It seems what killed the Challenger and Columbia crews.

Ok with what you say, but on a decadal endeavor, it is almost sure that the some of the original assumptions would be invalidated or surpassed. But then the continuous reconsidering of the plan may also undefinitely delay reaching your goal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/11/2009 07:56 pm
WRT to the model, details of construction.  Card, plastic, turned wood, model rocket parts?  Plans?

(... pushes luck...)
Or dxf, 3ds, lwo... ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: ballew on 01/11/2009 08:13 pm
(... pushes luck...)
Or dxf, 3ds, lwo... ;)


2nd the request for lwo or obj files
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/11/2009 08:14 pm
WRT to the model, details of construction.  Card, plastic, turned wood, model rocket parts?  Plans?

Ditto here. And, all one piece, or do they come apart to show additional detail (interstage, fairing, etc)? This is beautiful work.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: dnavas on 01/11/2009 08:26 pm
Would a review done in 2009 change the assumptions made in 2005? Would they favor a less safe launcher in place of Ares I?

A 2009 review is hardly a done deal, but it seems reasonable to suppose that an *independent* technical review could quite likely come to a different conclusion independent of changes to the constraints of the review.  If ARES-I is really going to lose recoverability, it seems reasonable to suggest that ARES-I safety is a farce at this point.

Or, to be somewhat more blunt:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15509.msg352942#msg352942

BTW, very nice looking models.  I tried to build a model once.

Once.

I don't have the patience for it, and admire those who do.

-Dave
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/11/2009 08:50 pm
I highly doubt that we will have a decision by the end of Jan. At best we could hope for some announcement of a review in the first few months of the new administration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/11/2009 08:51 pm
WRT to the model, details of construction.  Card, plastic, turned wood, model rocket parts?  Plans?

And Ditto for me too. I haven't done models for a long time, but those are real beauties; a most excellent job Lancer!

I never want to forget the Direct proposal, my many days and nights reading these posts, following along, and sharing these moments in time and of history. They would look awesome, separate from all others, for my love of rocketry and space travel.

Great that the Direct team made it back okay, and job well done!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Yegor on 01/11/2009 09:01 pm
Now, on to the photo:
Great models! Looks very realistic!
Thank you very much!

What is it made from?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/11/2009 09:07 pm
Good Afternoon,

What do people want to see the Direct Team perform/produce over the next 30-60 days?  Remember that they have limited resources.  Even other words, what do you think that the Direct teams goals should/might be?

MARKETING

 1. Produce weekly/bi-weekly editorial pieces send them to NYTimes, Ornlando Sentinal, Houston and Washington DC papers.


1.5 Create Media Kit
     CD/DVD that contains the following:

       A.   Video of J232 from launch to Moon.
       B.   Video of how shuttle parts are used to make J232
       C.   Few pictures
       D.   No more than 5 page summary and contact information



 2. Set a goal of responding with 2-5 days to Pro-Constellation letters/letters to the editor.
 
3.  Send out marketing kits, etc to the new congressional leaders who have oversight of space transportation.  Maybe a little plastic model for congressional aides?

4.  Do another FOI Request for 6A- 6F.  If no action within 45 days, then take NASA to Federal court. (You may say extreme:  But NASA is not holding back punches, people are being transferred, etc.)


5.  Update video of J232.  Show it from launch, moon landing, and back to earth.

6.   Get people to standup and be counted supporting Direct--News releases.

7.  Send marketing kits to protential new Administrators.

8.  Send maketing kits to Washington DC TV station's science producers.

9. Recuit people from board/forums to help.


REBUTTAL

 1.  Produce rebuttal within the next 2 weeks and send it out to major news agencys.





Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/11/2009 09:10 pm
....These days people are grumbling about costs and schedule.

If by schedule you mean 'the gap' then yes.  Since its grown by 3 years it's only reasonable to factor that in.

Regarding safety, how safe does it need to be?  Do you accept the safety numbers of a Direct or Ares V with an abort system that is many times more reliable than STS or do you have to pick the vehicle with best (on paper) safety numbers? 

How much is that supposed delta in safety worth to the tax payers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/11/2009 09:14 pm
As to what the future holds, I suspect that President Obama (as he shortly will be) will probably ask whoever is the new NASA chief administrator to carry out a full review of Shuttle replacement.  The review will be in order to determine which of the plans the Transition Team regards workable are best in terms of (in order of priority):

1) Best use of existing budget (any extra money will be for Shuttle extension, IMHO);

2) Minimising manned spaceflight gap;

3) Most 'bang for buck' (combined function of flexibility and maximum payload weight);

4) Best workforce retention.

My guess is that this will evolve into a ESDS mk2 with a full review of all the cards on the table.  Given how badly things are going with Ares-I in terms of the overall safety of the Ares-I/Orion combination, I think that the contenders will be:

* EELV + EELV evolved specifically Atlas-V and the tri-core Atlas-V, which is a 75t launcher, IIRC

* EELV + Ares-V downsized (8.4m core, 5 x RS-25 & 5-seg SRB)

* EELV + Shuttle-B as a cargo-only launcher

* DIRECT

I would expect it to be a 120 day+ study and I wouldn't expect any decision before summer.

Off topic, this keeps on bugging me and I can't deal with it: Am I the only one who thinks that the picture of the J-120 that used to be the homepage image on directlauncher.com made it look like the old Mercury/Atlas (with strap-on SRBs)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/11/2009 09:20 pm
Good Afternoon,

What do people want to see the Direct Team perform/produce over the next 30-60 days?  Remember that they have limited resources.  Even other words, what do you think that the Direct teams goals should/might be?

MARKETING

 1. Produce weekly/bi-weekly editorial pieces send them to NYTimes, Ornlando Sentinal, Houston and Washington DC papers.

 2. Set a goal of responding with 2-5 days to Pro-Constellation letters/letters to the editor.
 
3.  Send out marketing kits, etc to the new congressional leaders who have oversight of space transportation.  Maybe a little plastic model for congressional aides?

4.  Do another FOI Request for 6A- 6F.  If no action within 45 days, then take NASA to Federal court. (You may say extreme:  But NASA is not holding back punches, people are being transferred, etc.)

5.  Update video of J232.  Show it from launch, moon landing, and back to earth.

6.   Get people to standup and be counted supporting Direct--News releases.

7.  Send marketing kits to protential new Administrators.

8.  Send maketing kits to Washington DC TV station's science producers.


REBUTTAL

 1.  Produce rebuttal within the next 2 weeks and send it out to major news agencys.







One big problem I see here is the amount of money required, and not to sound negative but I believe that is one thing the DIRECT team has a lack of.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: NUAETIUS on 01/11/2009 09:21 pm
Have the members of the team called the major news organizations and made themselves available for interview?  BBC, Aljazera, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Sky, and NPR?  Have the Team considered "recruiting" some of the more active non team members from the forum as official representative for the program?  Of course these people would not get paid or anything, but some of the advocates on this site have the resume, and might like the attention.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/11/2009 09:27 pm
Re.: A possible media pack.

I recommend lots of pretty pictures.  Don't worry too much about technical details beyond broad strokes about 'cheaper, sooner, safer'.  Lots of pretty pictures will give the media types something to pad out their reports with, maybe even turn it into a Sunday suppliment special report.

Also: Don't worry about 'near-term achievable'.  Mention all those great beyond Earth/Moon ideas you use in the AIAA paper on your site - Mars sample return, NEO lander, etc.  What you want is to create a 'buzz' and an ambitious vision will do that for the ordinary man and woman in the street.  They want to see NASA blaze the trail again - promise them that in glorous technicolour.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 01/11/2009 09:41 pm
Good Afternoon,

What do people want to see the Direct Team perform/produce over the next 30-60 days?  Remember that they have limited resources.  Even other words, what do you think that the Direct teams goals should/might be?

MARKETING

 1. Produce weekly/bi-weekly editorial pieces send them to NYTimes, Ornlando Sentinal, Houston and Washington DC papers.

 2. Set a goal of responding with 2-5 days to Pro-Constellation letters/letters to the editor.
 
3.  Send out marketing kits, etc to the new congressional leaders who have oversight of space transportation.  Maybe a little plastic model for congressional aides?

4.  Do another FOI Request for 6A- 6F.  If no action within 45 days, then take NASA to Federal court. (You may say extreme:  But NASA is not holding back punches, people are being transferred, etc.)

5.  Update video of J232.  Show it from launch, moon landing, and back to earth.

6.   Get people to standup and be counted supporting Direct--News releases.

7.  Send marketing kits to protential new Administrators.

8.  Send maketing kits to Washington DC TV station's science producers.


REBUTTAL

 1.  Produce rebuttal within the next 2 weeks and send it out to major news agencys.



You don't really need any more Press coverage as you hit prime-time already. Influencing politicians with low-key classy intelligent approaches (no petitions !) especially the new Administrator and producing and publicising the Rebuttal should be the priorities. The transition team has already heard the approach so if they don't go Direct they will have alternate reasons why but at least the product of all your endeavours has had its fair pitch.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4298615.html

p.s. forget 4, it will be counter-productive  ! For what purpose too, to be proven 'right' ? You will be annoying not Griffin but his successor. Work with NASA now, not against.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 01/11/2009 09:47 pm
A 60 Minutes piece would be great, eh?

They love a story with a bad guy (Griffin) / good guy story.   :-\
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/11/2009 09:52 pm

You don't really need any more Press coverage as you hit prime-time already. Influencing politicians with low-key classy intelligent approaches (no petitions !) especially the new Administrator and producing and publicising the Rebuttal should be the priorities. The transition team has already heard the approach so if they don't go Direct they will have alternate reasons why but at least the product of all your endeavours has had its fair pitch.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4298615.html

p.s. forget 4, it will be counter-productive  ! For what purpose too, to be proven 'right' ? You will be annoying not Griffin but his successor. Work with NASA now, not against.

[/quote]


Absolutely. If anything, just let the news media come to you, that's what they're paid for. They have budgets, these guys don't. Now that the transition team has Direct's proposal (probably numbers too, maybe some insight as well), and once NASA has the rebuttal, it's only answering questions.

The Direct team has already gone above and beyond, most likely paying out of pocket for their trip to DC. What more do you guys want? I'd help pay for party if I could and there were ever one. They deserve it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: marsavian on 01/11/2009 09:57 pm
A 60 Minutes piece would be great, eh?

They love a story with a bad guy (Griffin) / good guy story.   :-\

I disagree. Even if the new Administrator thinks Griffin is a misguided fool he will side with him out of Agency loyalty and be annoyed at the friction caused. DIRECT now has to be pitched in a classy non-controversial way if it is to be accepted as the successor to Ares with minimum dispute. That means it has to be pitched positively and not negatively at the expense of Ares I and Griffin/Horowitz. The latter have all been discredited already so no more flogging of the already dead horses, diplomacy and constructive input is needed for the final leg ;).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/11/2009 10:03 pm
WRT to the model, details of construction.  Card, plastic, turned wood, model rocket parts?  Plans?

And Ditto for me too. I haven't done models for a long time, but those are real beauties; a most excellent job Lancer!

I never want to forget the Direct proposal, my many days and nights reading these posts, following along, and sharing these moments in time and of history. They would look awesome, separate from all others, for my love of rocketry and space travel.

Great that the Direct team made it back okay, and job well done!

I too hope to construct a model of Jupiter. There are many free paper Shuttle models available online, but a plastic kit-bash should not be too hard either.

Either way these models are amazing looking, way beyond anything I have ever produced.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 01/11/2009 10:06 pm
Interesting comment on the PM site...  Note that the poster misspelled the name of his long time acquaintance.  So, what's the deal with insideksc? Have they always been long time crapehangers against Direct?


Quote
10. RE: NASA Renegades Pitch Obama Team New Post-Shuttle Plan
The Jupiter Direct proposal is little more than an internet-based sham. My long-time acquaintance, Ross Tierny, is a great toy maker, but he is in no better a position to question NASA engineering than the person who created the Cabbage Patch doll. I queried Jupiter Direct's top "inside-NASA" engineer and his technical claims left a lot to be desired. In fact, he is only peripherally associated with the Ares program. His total of two pages of diagrams about structural loading and launch drift (provided to me after promising to withhold his identity) were fell far short of meeting even the lowest standards of evidence or proof. I also discovered that he has a good personal reason to hold a grudge against NASA. I am sure that the Obama transition people were only being proper and polite when they were confronted by Tierney and any of the rag-tag collective of Jupiter Direct devotees. Their alternative to the Ares vehicles has and is going nowhere. I would also like to know who is paying Tierney's travel expenses. That could be very revealing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/11/2009 10:08 pm
Re.: A possible media pack.

I recommend lots of pretty pictures.  Don't worry too much about technical details beyond broad strokes about 'cheaper, sooner, safer'.  Lots of pretty pictures will give the media types something to pad out their reports with, maybe even turn it into a Sunday suppliment special report.

Also: Don't worry about 'near-term achievable'.  Mention all those great beyond Earth/Moon ideas you use in the AIAA paper on your site - Mars sample return, NEO lander, etc.  What you want is to create a 'buzz' and an ambitious vision will do that for the ordinary man and woman in the street.  They want to see NASA blaze the trail again - promise them that in glorous technicolour.

I have to agree on the bit about the importance of graphics. The old phrase, "a picture is worth a thousand words" comes to mind.

I have always been a fan of Direct, but what really sold me is the image and then the animation comparing the Shuttle, Jupiter, and Ares. It made perfectly clear in 2 mins what 100 pages of text could.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/11/2009 10:11 pm
So, what's the deal with insideksc? Have they always been long time crapehangers against Direct?

Very well known anti-DIRECT (almost to the point of hate) and pro-Ares spokesman in the on-line community.  His comments on his own forum (which has its own following in NASA, from what I understand) suggest that he really doesn't like any of the public personalities associated with DIRECT for a variety of personal reasons.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/11/2009 10:20 pm
So, what's the deal with insideksc? Have they always been long time crapehangers against Direct?

Very well known anti-DIRECT (almost to the point of hate) and pro-Ares spokesman in the on-line community.  His comments on his own forum (which has its own following in NASA, from what I understand) suggest that he really doesn't like any of the public personalities associated with DIRECT for a variety of personal reasons.

What I find ironic is, the case has always been that Direct-supporters have caught flak for being disrespectful and insulting with pro-Ares supporters.
Looking at the comments on other sites, it seems it is actually the Direct team that faces constant insults, questions of credibility, and just plain unprofessional and nasty comments.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/11/2009 10:34 pm
I'll let Ross speak to that if he wishes to, but suffice it to say that his comments against Ross, and to the rest of the team by extension, are personal and sometimes vicious. That's a site we avoid like the plague. And to make it perfectly clear, we pay our own expenses, sometimes with extreme difficulty. We have never received a dime of support from anybody, nor do we ever expect it to be otherwise.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: pierre on 01/11/2009 10:44 pm
If all that your opponents can come up with is personal attacks, then your technical arguments must be pretty solid.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/11/2009 10:50 pm
Good Afternoon,

What do people want to see the Direct Team perform/produce over the next 30-60 days?  Remember that they have limited resources.  Even other words, what do you think that the Direct teams goals should/might be?

MARKETING

 1. Produce weekly/bi-weekly editorial pieces send them to NYTimes, Ornlando Sentinal, Houston and Washington DC papers.


1.5 Create Media Kit
     CD/DVD that contains the following:

       A.   Video of J232 from launch to Moon.
       B.   Video of how shuttle parts are used to make J232
       C.   Few pictures
       D.   No more than 5 page summary and contact information



 2. Set a goal of responding with 2-5 days to Pro-Constellation letters/letters to the editor.
 
3.  Send out marketing kits, etc to the new congressional leaders who have oversight of space transportation.  Maybe a little plastic model for congressional aides?

4.  Do another FOI Request for 6A- 6F.  If no action within 45 days, then take NASA to Federal court. (You may say extreme:  But NASA is not holding back punches, people are being transferred, etc.)


5.  Update video of J232.  Show it from launch, moon landing, and back to earth.

6.   Get people to standup and be counted supporting Direct--News releases.

7.  Send marketing kits to protential new Administrators.

8.  Send maketing kits to Washington DC TV station's science producers.

9. Recuit people from board/forums to help.


REBUTTAL

 1.  Produce rebuttal within the next 2 weeks and send it out to major news agencys.







I have attached a word document with some of the suggestions that have been suggested.  If you have any suggestions, please post them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/11/2009 10:53 pm
I'll let Ross speak to that if he wishes to, but suffice it to say that his comments against Ross, and to the rest of the team by extension, are personal and sometimes vicious. That's a site we avoid like the plague. And to make it perfectly clear, we pay our own expenses, sometimes with extreme difficulty. We have never received a dime of support from anybody, nor do we ever expect it to be otherwise.

Unreal. Figured it was that way too.
Well, if you guys ever want to promote a Jupiter rocket for sale to help offset costs, I'd buy one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Davinator on 01/11/2009 10:57 pm
It's beyond rediculous that some of you feel compelled to link to anyone that doesn't agree with you. You are carrying out their wish of being linked up and adding to their exposure. Don't feed the trolls.

If they have a fact based question to counter the claims, let them come here and ask people to their faces. Otherwise let them armwave from a safe unaccountable distance.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 01/11/2009 10:57 pm
I think so too, along with an announcement by Obama to extend shuttle until at least 2012 when he arrives at KSC to watch the launch of STS-119.
Unlikely that a KSC visit in the middle of February is a done deal.  Could be highly dependent on timing and how well things are going for his administration, which would only be three weeks old.  If he hasn't signed a bailout package bill by then, the PR considerations might swing either way.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/11/2009 11:02 pm
Well, I have to say that I had absolutely NO clue there would be this gracious a reception to the DIRECT models. I'm flabbergasted, flummoxed, and gobsmacked! (Ross will get that one)

They're card models, built of 65lb & 75lb paper, some textured, some smooth. I put the textured papers on the core, to give that "rippled" effect to the foam on the ET/Core. Forgive me for being smug, but I expected that no one would even notice it, yet it would give a very subtle realism to the model. They're at 1/144 scale, which puts the 120 at about 22" in height, and the 232 at about 26" tall or so. I never really measured them.

I didn't really draft up "plans" per se, but I imagine that I could go back and go through the files I created to put a set of them together. I borrowed a few parts from some of the freely available STS models out there, and designed all the rest myself. Those parts I "borrowed" I used to get the shape right, and went back in to re-skin and recolor them to the look I wanted. If I can toot my own horn for a moment, I'm especially proud of the coloration of the Core sections, as I drew up this nice semi-checkerboard configuration and played with the pixel colors until I got them to look the way I wanted.  The blocks in the checkerboard were only a few pixels square, so you have to look really closely to see it. They aren't designed to come apart into sections, because I felt that would create more issues with packing and shipping than I was prepared to deal with, not to mention adding a boatload of construction time to an already tight schedule. If people want to modify the plans to add more detail, they can go right ahead and build them the way they like.

Hopefully, after I can get someone on the DIRECT team who has a little spare time (ha, I know) to look them over, I will be asking for permission to put them out there for the general public. This includes, and especially means all you great forum posters who are interested. I won't say where I'm going to publish them yet, since it is by no means a foregone conclusion, but I will publish links to the sites if Chris permits me to do so.

If I get permission to publish, the package will be a PDF file, as that is pretty much the standard I've worked with as long as I've built  card models. I think it will end up being about 10 to 12 pages of pieces, for both the 120 and the 232, plus instructions.

The models will be available free of charge. I absolutely wouldn't want to try to charge for them, but if anyone feels the need to pay something, please make a donation to the ASPCA in my name. :)

I wish I knew exactly where they are right now, because I'd like to take some more photos, but I would hope they'd end up on someone's desk, or on display somewhere, but I think that's too much to hope for. I think that one of the DIRECT team members has them, but if they don't, its okay.

Steve Cook likes to call DIRECT a "paper rocket." Well, they really are now...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: NUAETIUS on 01/11/2009 11:47 pm
If all that your opponents can come up with is personal attacks, then your technical arguments must be pretty solid.

I looked at the site, and it almost looked fake.  There are no real disagreements over there.  They don't mention newspace at all.  How do they manage to run a site without nutters like me getting in there? :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 01/12/2009 12:22 am
Your models are truely excellent.  Your card ones look much better than my plastic/resin ones.  :)

Well, I have to say that I had absolutely NO clue there would be this gracious a reception to the DIRECT models. I'm flabbergasted, flummoxed, and gobsmacked! (Ross will get that one)

They're card models, built of 65lb & 75lb paper, some textured, some smooth. I put the textured papers on the core, to give that "rippled" effect to the foam on the ET/Core. Forgive me for being smug, but I expected that no one would even notice it, yet it would give a very subtle realism to the model. They're at 1/144 scale, which puts the 120 at about 22" in height, and the 232 at about 26" tall or so. I never really measured them.

I didn't really draft up "plans" per se, but I imagine that I could go back and go through the files I created to put a set of them together. I borrowed a few parts from some of the freely available STS models out there, and designed all the rest myself. Those parts I "borrowed" I used to get the shape right, and went back in to re-skin and recolor them to the look I wanted. If I can toot my own horn for a moment, I'm especially proud of the coloration of the Core sections, as I drew up this nice semi-checkerboard configuration and played with the pixel colors until I got them to look the way I wanted.  The blocks in the checkerboard were only a few pixels square, so you have to look really closely to see it. They aren't designed to come apart into sections, because I felt that would create more issues with packing and shipping than I was prepared to deal with, not to mention adding a boatload of construction time to an already tight schedule. If people want to modify the plans to add more detail, they can go right ahead and build them the way they like.

Hopefully, after I can get someone on the DIRECT team who has a little spare time (ha, I know) to look them over, I will be asking for permission to put them out there for the general public. This includes, and especially means all you great forum posters who are interested. I won't say where I'm going to publish them yet, since it is by no means a foregone conclusion, but I will publish links to the sites if Chris permits me to do so.

If I get permission to publish, the package will be a PDF file, as that is pretty much the standard I've worked with as long as I've built  card models. I think it will end up being about 10 to 12 pages of pieces, for both the 120 and the 232, plus instructions.

The models will be available free of charge. I absolutely wouldn't want to try to charge for them, but if anyone feels the need to pay something, please make a donation to the ASPCA in my name. :)

I wish I knew exactly where they are right now, because I'd like to take some more photos, but I would hope they'd end up on someone's desk, or on display somewhere, but I think that's too much to hope for. I think that one of the DIRECT team members has them, but if they don't, its okay.

Steve Cook likes to call DIRECT a "paper rocket." Well, they really are now...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jgoldader on 01/12/2009 12:23 am
[...]we pay our own expenses, sometimes with extreme difficulty. We have never received a dime of support from anybody, nor do we ever expect it to be otherwise.

I'd be delighted to shell out for a nice rendering of a Jupiter on mug or T-shirt from CafePress... Have you ever thought of using that as a way to help pay the bills?

Jeff
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/12/2009 12:43 am
Direct Team.

Will you update the News section of the website to have a link about PM article?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/12/2009 12:48 am
Quote from: mike robel
Manned Missions to Mars -- Always 20, nope, 30 years in the future.

Of course... we're not going until we've had nuclear fusion for 10+ years...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/12/2009 12:50 am
Ross,

Where on the Directlauncher site are the postcards with that were given out at KSC?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/12/2009 01:04 am
If all that your opponents can come up with is personal attacks, then your technical arguments must be pretty solid.

I have to agree. While it strikes me as about as unprofessional as you can get, it does mean we have struck a nerve.
We can provide a solid argument against Ares I, without resorting to name calling and debasing. In fact, from the start Direct supporters have said that the men and women working on Ares I are amazing individuals doing great work and are the best at what they do. We just feel they were handed a bad egg to work with.

It is an act of desperation when you need to resort to name calling. If you can't discredit the idea, the last ditch effort is to discredit the people presenting it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/12/2009 01:18 am
Ross,

     Here is the rough draft of the letter that I mentioned yesterday. I intend to send out to as many people as I can get to listen, IE: Congress and Presidental Candidates (both of them) and to anyone else with a copy of the proposal, either in paper format of on CDs (I haven't decide).  Please keep in mind this is just a first draft and while having experience writing after-action reports, this will be my first letter to any Congressional leader so any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  That goes for everyone else as well.  All I'm trying to do is help but if anyone has got any other ideas or suggestions, I'm all ears.  Please keep in mind that this is only the meat and that I will add the approiate greeting and header to each individual letter before printing it out as well as my signature in ink and my contact information.  Thanks again,

-Tom

Hi Tom,

I hope that you do not mind, here is updated letter of yours to be sent to our Congressional leaders with some editing.  I am waiting for some more information so this a draft.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/12/2009 01:25 am
This thread got started when the old thread was 250 pages long. 

The thread should stop when it is 300 pages long.  This thread is too long as it is.  Very few people have the time to read the thread.  When was the last time that anyone or the Direct team read this thread from start to finish?  I am trying to put together a FAQ of this thread---but remember there have been over 4,000 replies. 


Me, before I posted anything here. It was a chore, but no different from reading multiple threads with the same stuff in it.

A summary / FAQ will make things a lot more manageable for newcomers.

cheers, Martin


Here is more information that will be included in the FAQ.  Please note this IS a draft.  I am up to approx page 130--only 170 more pages to do. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2009 01:31 am
The issue is a personal one between myself and a Mr James McDade of Birmingham Alabama.   We used to be friends.   We aren't any longer.   He has decided, on a number of occasions, to try to hurt me and my colleagues with poorly informed opinion pieces.   I don't intend to lower myself to his level.

In point of fact, myself and Mr Rick Fischer, the owner of the website Mr. McDade claims to represent, have managed to renew our friendship which was torn asunder as part of this.

I have tonight requested Mr. Fischer to contact Popular Mechanics and get their editors to remove the reference to his website from that post, which I hope they'll be able to do tomorrow.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 01/12/2009 01:35 am
[...]we pay our own expenses, sometimes with extreme difficulty. We have never received a dime of support from anybody, nor do we ever expect it to be otherwise.

I'd be delighted to shell out for a nice rendering of a Jupiter on mug or T-shirt from CafePress... Have you ever thought of using that as a way to help pay the bills?

Jeff

Seconded.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/12/2009 01:39 am
Chuck said this in another thread:

"The newest DIRECT architecture does exactly that. The EELV's are an integral part of the DIRECT architecture."

I'm sorry I've missed this, and I didn't find it in the latest proposal on the web site.  Can you give me the brief overview of this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 01/12/2009 01:45 am
Well, the comments have gone both ways.  I've read some pretty caustic comments directed straight at Griffin here.  In all cases, such personal attacks do nothing to forward the cause of getting back to the Moon and onto Mars.

So, what's the deal with insideksc? Have they always been long time crapehangers against Direct?

Very well known anti-DIRECT (almost to the point of hate) and pro-Ares spokesman in the on-line community.  His comments on his own forum (which has its own following in NASA, from what I understand) suggest that he really doesn't like any of the public personalities associated with DIRECT for a variety of personal reasons.

What I find ironic is, the case has always been that Direct-supporters have caught flak for being disrespectful and insulting with pro-Ares supporters.
Looking at the comments on other sites, it seems it is actually the Direct team that faces constant insults, questions of credibility, and just plain unprofessional and nasty comments.





Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2009 02:30 am
Well, the comments have gone both ways.  I've read some pretty caustic comments directed straight at Griffin here.  In all cases, such personal attacks do nothing to forward the cause of getting back to the Moon and onto Mars.

I have to agree.   I've been responsible for a healthy share of the vitriol towards Dr. Griffin, but the amazing thing is that our areas of disagreement are actually much smaller than the areas where we do actually see eye-to-eye.

No, I don't believe his rocket plans will work for a variety of reasons.   I also don't agree that the rest of NASA, specifically the Science Mission Directorate, the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate and the general R&D departments need to their budgets slashed in order to pay for the new program.   I believe there is a much less costly way.

But I do agree with Mike that a program without Heavy Lift isn't going to be sustainable either.   I also agree that an SDLV approach is required to gain the political support of all the Congressional districts involved.   I agree that the Orion and the Altair are fundamentally good ways to approach the new Lunar Program, building upon proven experience from Apollo in both cases.    And I believe we need to keep our eyes not just on the initial LEO or even the Lunar phases of the program, but that we need to build-in to the system the forward-looking capability which will ultimately allow expansion beyond Earth and Moon, to NEO's, Mars and eventually even further.

I often have a lot to say against Griffin.   But I also recognize that there is quite a lot to be said for him too.

I still believe that his current plans are deeply flawed though, that they are not affordable and will be unsustainable, leading to a premature cancellation of the whole effort.   Given the fact that he has stated he is unwilling to consider changing direction at all, I therefore continue to support the call for a new Administrator as soon as possible this year.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Will on 01/12/2009 02:41 am
....These days people are grumbling about costs and schedule.

If by schedule you mean 'the gap' then yes.  Since its grown by 3 years it's only reasonable to factor that in.

Regarding safety, how safe does it need to be?  Do you accept the safety numbers of a Direct or Ares V with an abort system that is many times more reliable than STS or do you have to pick the vehicle with best (on paper) safety numbers? 

How much is that supposed delta in safety worth to the tax payers?

A lot, apparently. From return to flight after Challenger through Columbia's last flight, the Shuttle had a failure rate a bit over 1%. Reducing this the zero might save an average of something less than two lives over the remainder of the program. The post Columbia standdown could be expected to achieve something less than this. Yet the program did stand down for over two years, at a cost exceeding 6 billion dollars, with the full approval of the US government and public.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: AndrewSTS on 01/12/2009 02:44 am
This site has a cafepress store which seems to be an internal thing as although it's publically available, it's not advertised by the site as a link. Maybe they could be sold there?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2009 02:49 am
Chuck said this in another thread:

"The newest DIRECT architecture does exactly that. The EELV's are an integral part of the DIRECT architecture."

I'm sorry I've missed this, and I didn't find it in the latest proposal on the web site.  Can you give me the brief overview of this?

*Very* brief:

1) DIRECT requires Orion be developed anyway.
2) Jupiter-120 requires RS-68 be human-rated (Delta-IV can be utilized as a test-bed for this)
3) Jupiter-120 requires Delta-IV Heavy's Upper Stage to be human-rated for use on the "Apollo 8" flyby mission in Dec 2013.

At this point, more than half the Delta-IV Heavy has already be human-rated under the DIRECT effort, including the crew spacecraft.   The cost to complete the human-rating of Delta-IV is therefore relatively low.   DIRECT calls for it to be done ASAP.

Whichever system is ready to launch a crew first should be allowed to do so -- although the long-pole for both is actually the Orion, not the LV.

At that point Atlas-V 401 is already being looked at by Bigelow for human-rating too, to fly with Dream Chaser.   That effort should not be held up and the next NASA Administrator needs to ensure that his predecessor did not do anything to delay that effort.

Space-X will eventually human-rate their system for Dragon too.

Don't yet know about Orbital, RpK or PlanetSpace's plans, but they might join-in too.

And eventually Jupiter-120 will be upgraded to Jupiter-232 specification.

That will mean the US will have at least five human-rated launch vehicles in its arsenal, covering an extremely wide performance range from roughly 10mT to over 110mT.

Early ISS missions would be supported mostly by Jupiter-120 allowing the lifting of new spare parts, grounded hardware and logistic supplies with every Orion crew.   As soon as ISS no longer requires extra hardware to be lofted with crews the launches would mostly migrate to the Delta-IV Heavy.

ISS missions can then be flown on whichever system is best for that particular mission.   Tourist flights would probably be on the Atlas and Falcon.   NASA flights probably on the Delta and Jupiter.   Everyone gets valuable business in the middle-term.

Ultimately we hope that all ISS missions not requiring a payload module will be launched by a non-Jupiter system, freeing those systems to concentrate on the much larger exploration-class missions where Heavy Lift and extremely large diameter/volume payloads are critical.

We are not proposing a commercial version of Jupiter-120.   But we do think that NASA, ATK, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin should get together and examine the option fully to see if there are any benefits.

The Propellant Depot comes online as early as possible (currently scheduled ~2019) and from that point onwards NASA contracts-out all domestic propellant deliveries to non-Jupiter commercial bidders exclusively, again freeing up the Jupiter to concentrate on lifting the spacecraft.   Jupiter could comfortably support 12 (maybe 16) Orion/Altair launcher per year and production rates in that range would drive the costs of each mission down very significantly.

The advantage here is that the commercial operators can also cut costs substantially given the very low value of the payload.   The insurance indemnity alone for LOX/LH2 delivery is an order of magnitude lower cost than for a $4bn dollar spy satellite.   Launch costs drop substantially for all such flights which can delete such overheads.   Launch costs also drop substantially when 5+ launches are required to support every Lunar mission.   Just winning a single such contract would substantially improve the cost profile for any of the manufacturers, but with 12 to 16 launches per year there will be a great deal of opportunity to compete for market share.

Additionally partner nations without space programs will purchase propellant launch services on the international market in return for a seat on a US-led Lunar mission.   They will be required to deliver approximately 60mT of propellant to the Depot in return for each seat.   US domestic launch service companies should then be encouraged to compete for this business too -- with each successful contract lowering launch costs further.   We predict somewhere between 400-1,000 metric tons of propellant will need to be launched by the commercial operators every year, starting around 2020 if the DIRECT proposal were adopted.

That's the basic outline.   There are a lot of details within that though.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/12/2009 02:50 am
This site has a cafepress store which seems to be an internal thing as although it's publically available, it's not advertised by the site as a link. Maybe they could be sold there?

Na, they would be best to get their own store so funds are directly going to them. We had a store, but it was an experiment. We'll have a new version up later in the year.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2009 03:08 am
The DIRECT Cafe Press Store (http://www.cafepress.com/directlauncher/) is open to the public.   We really ought to put a link on the website some time :)

But we haven't been asking for any profit from it (although I don't know what cut Cafe Press takes for themselves).

Perhaps we should try to get a little money, but it seems a little unfair to you guys.   We aren't in this to make money, which is contrary to 'some' opinions about us.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/12/2009 03:14 am
Possible Congressional letter.
[/quote]

Here is an updated letter.  Please tell me if there is anything else that should be included, changed, etc.

Maybe the Direct Team could put the approved FINAL letter on the website?  This would make it easier for people to email/contact their representative.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/12/2009 03:30 am
Quote from: AndrewSTS
This site has a cafepress store which seems to be an internal thing as although it's publically available, it's not advertised by the site as a link. Maybe they could be sold there?

Na, they would be best to get their own store so funds are directly going to them. We had a store, but it was an experiment. We'll have a new version up later in the year.

BUT... considering that the accusation of "internet sham" has already been flung (by someone very reality-challenged, it seems) I'd be very careful of floating that concept very high until direct feedback on the idea has been received from the Direct team.

Okay, Ross chimed in while I was composing with the news that Direct has an essentially break-even cafepress site :)

Still, it might be best to stick to the all-volunteer all-donated meme as long as possible and not wave red flags in front of people who are already irritated (and possibly scared.)

I was an inhabitant of the sci.space newsgroups for some years before I drifted into the election integrity movement (I'm on "vacation" right now is why I'm tormenting you folks :) ) and I can bear witness to how ginned-up accusations of "They take money!" can hobble the dissemination of even the most straightfoward and well-documented facts.

Just my two cents :)

... as for donations... well I do web stuff and I could host any free 3d models the Direct team might want to put out there. Perhaps, say, medium resolution unofficial models released just for public enlightenment...  Just saying... ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/12/2009 03:36 am
Chuck said this in another thread:

"The newest DIRECT architecture does exactly that. The EELV's are an integral part of the DIRECT architecture."

I'm sorry I've missed this, and I didn't find it in the latest proposal on the web site.  Can you give me the brief overview of this?

*Very* brief:

Thanks for the explanation that followed, Ross.  I appreciate you taking the time.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: texas_space on 01/12/2009 03:53 am
Congrats to the DIRECT team on getting the meeting with the Transition Team!  This is a big accomplishment.

Lancer, very nice models!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/12/2009 10:14 am
Here's a car analogy for you:

Delta and Atlas are old VW bugs and Jeep wranglers (only Jim knows which is which).

The shuttle is an old Toyota Landcruiser troop carrier, which is getting too expensive to keep on the road.

J120 is a V6 Landcruiser trayback.

J232 is a V8 Toyota landcruiser trayback with 3 ton, 2 axle trailer.

Ares I is a Mercedes coupe

Ares V is a Mercedes 5 tonne truck.

Your driveway is designed for light vehicles, and can only take 2 tonnes per axle.


Bigger is not always better.  I can buy an 18 wheel, but if largest thing to date is 42 inch tv then an 18 wheeler is overkill.  Even for MARS, the biggest thing to be lifted is not over 100 tons.  The majority of the stuff that you need for Mars is fuel.  Fuel if you have a garage can be split up.  You also forgot, that for you new 18 wheeler, that you need new roads, since the roads were not built to take the weight, you also need two gargages. you basically now need two of everything, people to service it.   

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/12/2009 11:22 am
Delta and Atlas are old VW bugs and Jeep wranglers (only Jim knows which is which).

(snip)

Ares I is a Mercedes coupe

I accept all the anologies except these two. 

I think that you could say that both the Delta is the Jeep and the Atlas, if I understand its expansion options, is something closer to a flatbed truck (maybe the ubiquitious Toyota, with reference to its non-American-designed engines) that can theoretically handle a much larger load if you add on a trailer or something.

The Ares-I is closer, I think, to that hybrid micro-compact the Smart Car.  Very economical but it really doesn't have a load carrying capability worth a damn.

Still, LL's point is clear enough.  The Ares system is very unbalanced with too small (Ares-I) and too big (Ares-V).  NASA, no matter what option it chooses, must move away from those extremes or the costs involved in operating them will be crippling in even the medium term.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/12/2009 11:43 am

The Ares-I is closer, I think, to that hybrid micro-compact the Smart Car.  Very economical but it really doesn't have a load carrying capability worth a damn.


It isn't economical, it is going to be more expensive than the EELV's
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/12/2009 01:02 pm
I agree with Jim, Ares 1 will not be economical in anyway what so ever.  It's planned for a low flight rate and will have huge fixed costs to keep operational on any given year.  A specific pad, mobile launcher and VAB facilities. 

It will not be economical.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/12/2009 02:04 pm
I know this will never happen and dont answer if you are too swamped.  If the Jupiter Core used the RD-0120, how would performance fare vs the SSME or the RS-68?  I would imagine it would do better considering it was designed primarily for the booster configuration and class roughly that a Jupiter is.

I know that due to political reasons it wont happen, but I can dream cant I ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/12/2009 08:35 pm

MARKETING

 1. Produce weekly/bi-weekly editorial pieces send them to NYTimes, Ornlando Sentinal, Houston and Washington DC papers.


1.5 Create Media Kit
     CD/DVD that contains the following:

       A.   Video of J232 from launch to Moon.
       B.   Video of how shuttle parts are used to make J232
       C.   Few pictures
       D.   No more than 5 page summary and contact information



 2. Set a goal of responding with 2-5 days to Pro-Constellation letters/letters to the editor.
 
3.  Send out marketing kits, etc to the new congressional leaders who have oversight of space transportation.  Maybe a little plastic model for congressional aides?

4.  Do another FOI Request for 6A- 6F.  If no action within 45 days, then take NASA to Federal court. (You may say extreme:  But NASA is not holding back punches, people are being transferred, etc.)


5.  Update video of J232.  Show it from launch, moon landing, and back to earth.

6.   Get people to standup and be counted supporting Direct--News releases.

7.  Send marketing kits to protential new Administrators.

8.  Send maketing kits to Washington DC TV station's science producers.

9. Recuit people from board/forums to help.


REBUTTAL

 1.  Produce rebuttal within the next 2 weeks and send it out to major news agencys.






[/quote]

I have attached a word document with some of the suggestions that have been suggested.  If you have any suggestions, please post them.
[/quote]

Good Afternoon Direct team and readers,

I hope that you read this marketing plan that I feel may help Direct.  I have updated it from last night.  The plan includes Directlauncher.com suggested changes and updated things to include in a media kit.  Please give me your thoughts. 

The Direct team needs to sell the proposal.  The proposal may be very good, but being very good does not necessaraily mean that it will win.  You can have a great product but if you do not market it right, an inferior product could win the day.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/12/2009 08:50 pm
I agree with having some form of a sample letter to email congress or to send to them. I think alot of people would want to notify their congressmen, but are unsure of what to say.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/12/2009 09:16 pm
Quote
Given the fact that he has stated he is unwilling to consider changing direction at all, I therefore continue to support the call for a new Administrator as soon as possible this year.

Ross.

What if the new Administrator doesn't want anything to do with goals beyond LEO? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/12/2009 09:37 pm
What if the new Administrator doesn't want anything to do with goals beyond LEO? 

That would be awkward for NASA because VSE is actually part of American federal law.  NASA is actually required to pursue those goals.  Suddenly saying that you don't want to do this (or can't) is a quick way to drop your career into a bottomless pit.

Of course, laws can be repealed and, AFAIK, the law doesn't mention a timeline.  However, focus on LEO would doom NASA (or, at least, the human spaceflight end of it).  By 2020, commercial sector companies would (in economic and quantitative terms) dominate the Earth-to-LEO market, both in LVs and, likely, in destinations.  NASA human spaceflight, if it focussed on LEO, would lose its function and be canned in pretty short order.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: shanksow on 01/12/2009 11:39 pm
Hello-

I just joined up with this site after reading about it in the latest issue of Popular Mechanics (Feb 2009).  I loved that article and think it is great.  If only it could be pulled off.  I hate this idea of us sitting on our butts for 5+ years between the last shuttle flight and the first Orion/Aries flight.

There is something in the back of my mind about the Vandenburg launch site and that while it had been modified for shuttle operations, there never ever was a shuttle launched from there.  Since the KSC is all hell bent for leather to convert KSC to Orion/Aries operation, why not use Vandenburg for Jupiter until such time that:

1. Jupiter proves itself to be better.
2. When funding allows for it, to build Jupiter launch pad/services at KSC so that all '3' rocket types (Aries I/Aries V/Jupiter series), can operate out of there.

Well, I thought that I would toss it out and see the result if anything it generates.

thankyou,

Don W. Shanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/12/2009 11:41 pm
[...]we pay our own expenses, sometimes with extreme difficulty. We have never received a dime of support from anybody, nor do we ever expect it to be otherwise.

I'd be delighted to shell out for a nice rendering of a Jupiter on mug or T-shirt from CafePress... Have you ever thought of using that as a way to help pay the bills?

Jeff

Seconded.

Thirded.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 01/12/2009 11:41 pm
I'm surprised no one has called Lobo on is big mistake.
The latest version of Ares V (the 5 1/2 segment and 6 RS-68's) can lift around 141 tons to orbit.
Now lets assume Ares I "Could" lift its required 25 tons to orbit.
141 plus 25 equals 166 tons total to orbit.
Making things real simple here, about half that 166 tons is fuel for the Earth Departure Stage, so that makes about 83 ton Lunar throw weight.
The real number is more like 76 tons, buts lets just say it is 83 to keep things real simple.
Each of the two Jupiter 232's can place 110 tons into orbit.
110 plus 110 equals 220 tons total in orbit.
Again half EDS fuel, makes Direct's Lunar throw weight 110 tons.
110 tons is a lot more than 83 tons!
Now to be totally fair here; two of the latest configuration Ares V's would place 282 tons in orbit, with a 141 ton Lunar throw weight.


The numbers I used were primarily from Wikipedia for Saturn V, Ares 1 & V, and Jupiter 120 and 232.
Yea, I know Wikipedia isn't always the most accurate, but I figured at least I'd be consistant in the source, since there' so few sources that give you comparitive statistics without have a fairly obvious bias one way or the other. 
So that's where I got the Lifting capacity of the Ares 1 & 5  AND the Jupter's.

Ares V:  410,000 lbs to LEO (205 tons), 157,000 lbs to TLI (78.5 tons)
Ares I:  25,000 kg  to LEO (27.5 tons (not mT))
Shuttle:  53,000 lbs to LEO (27 tons)
Jupiter:  90,655-22,746 lbs to LEO (45.3-110 tons (I assume this is based on which config is launched, but 110 tons being the max)
Saturn V: 260,000 lbs to LEO (130 tons), 100,000 to TLI (50 tons)

If these are inaccurate, then my appologies, but that's what listed and other than Saturn and the Shuttle, everything else is theorteical anyway since none have been built and launced yet. 
And, while I'm not expert on this, as an ME I do know that you really don't know for sure what the bottom line is until the thing's been built and operated.  Until that point, there's always modifications and tweaking and unforseen problems.  Always. 
When the Shuttle was built and flown, it had a very different payload, initial cost, cost of operation, and reliability than they originally thought.
You can reduce that some by using more known quantities as DIRECT looks to do, but make no mistake, it's a brand new animal.  The SSMT was never designed to carry payload on it's nose, or have rocket engines under it, with all the avionics that entails.  Modifying to to do that could be as expensive and problematic as building a new chasis from scratch that -is- designed for it.

For example, would it have been cheaper to just modify the existing F-15 Fighter design to make them stealth fighters, even though they weren't designed for it?  Or it more feasable to build a new fighter from scratch to be a stealth fighter like the F22.  Obviously it would have been harder to modify the F15 design than.
just an example.

Do I know?  no.  But no one does, and that's my point.  It's all numbers and theories until it gets built.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 01/12/2009 11:54 pm
[...]we pay our own expenses, sometimes with extreme difficulty. We have never received a dime of support from anybody, nor do we ever expect it to be otherwise.

I'd be delighted to shell out for a nice rendering of a Jupiter on mug or T-shirt from CafePress... Have you ever thought of using that as a way to help pay the bills?

Jeff

Seconded.

Thirded.

Fourthed
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 12:07 am
REGARDING INSIDEKSC.COM

I have this evening been in contact with the owner of the website, Mr Rick Fischer.   There has been an exchange of hot-blooded and nasty communications from supporters over the last day or so going both ways.

I am formally asking everyone to please refrain from any such activities.   Mr Fischer and I are friends.   It is not the position of him, nor that of his website, to support any personal attacks on us or anyone else.

We are BOTH stepping in right now to ensure there are no further repeats of such behavior again.

I ask anyone who has been involved in sending any vitriolic communication towards him or to his website to please make an apology to him at this time.   Please do it for me.   Please do it for the entire DIRECT Team.   And please do it now.

I am taking a firm stand in refusing to support ANY vicious personal attacks from anyone claiming support of the DIRECT effort.   It is misguided, it is unprofessional and it is extremely disappointing.

Yes, some of us might be attacked again down the road.   Get over that reality now.   We need to take the higher moral ground from this moment onwards.   We must not sink to that level ourselves.

I appreciate your continued support and your fervor, but I need everyone to take a step back, calm down and re-think things please.

Thank-you,

Ross B Tierney
On behalf of The DIRECT Team
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 12:12 am
[...]we pay our own expenses, sometimes with extreme difficulty. We have never received a dime of support from anybody, nor do we ever expect it to be otherwise.

I'd be delighted to shell out for a nice rendering of a Jupiter on mug or T-shirt from CafePress... Have you ever thought of using that as a way to help pay the bills?

Jeff

Seconded.

Thirded.

Fourthed

http://www.cafepress.com/directlauncher/

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 12:13 am
Quote
Given the fact that he has stated he is unwilling to consider changing direction at all, I therefore continue to support the call for a new Administrator as soon as possible this year.

Ross.

What if the new Administrator doesn't want anything to do with goals beyond LEO?

He will have to do whatever Congress tells him, and more importantly FUNDS him, to do.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2009 12:13 am
  The SSMT was never designed to carry payload on it's nose, or have rocket engines under it, with all the avionics that entails.  Modifying to to do that could be as expensive and problematic as building a new chasis from scratch that -is- designed for it.


Not true.

The ET (not MT)  to Direct core is not the same as F-15 to stealth fighter.

It is more like F-15 C/D to F-15E.

The same assembly jigs and tooling can be used for both.  Skin thicknesses are the basic differences.  New domes on the LO2 and LH2 tanks are basically the same as the remaining ones on the tank.  The thrust structure and forward adapter are not hard items to build. 
Avionics has no bearing, new avionics is being designed for Ares I which would be adapted
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 12:30 am
I know this will never happen and dont answer if you are too swamped.  If the Jupiter Core used the RD-0120, how would performance fare vs the SSME or the RS-68?  I would imagine it would do better considering it was designed primarily for the booster configuration and class roughly that a Jupiter is.

I know that due to political reasons it wont happen, but I can dream cant I ;)

Straight answer is:   I don't know precisely.   We have never run the numbers using that unit.

But the RD-0120 is marginally lower thrust and lower Isp than the SSME and weights more as a unit.   Performance would therefore obviously be proportionally lower than the equivalent SSME-powered launcher -- although it would be safe to assume that the RD-0120 is a much cheaper engine than the SSME.

But 3 x SSME's don't produce quite enough total thrust for the bigger launcher configuration.   You need at least 4 on the Core to get the optimum performance out of the config with the large J-2X powered Upper Stage.


That's where the higher thrust of the RS-68 is an advantage.   You can essentially do similar performance with just three RS-68's.


So it all depends on whether you are optimizing for 1-launch LEO missions or 2-launch Exploration missions.   We are optimizing the whole system for the latter (just using the same hardware in J-120 'as is' because it is quite sufficient).   So we are going with the cheaper, higher-thrust RS-68's on Jupiter.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 12:42 am
  The SSMT was never designed to carry payload on it's nose, or have rocket engines under it, with all the avionics that entails.  Modifying to to do that could be as expensive and problematic as building a new chasis from scratch that -is- designed for it.


Not true.

The ET (not MT)  to Direct core is not the same as F-15 to stealth fighter.

It is more like F-15 C/D to F-15E.

The same assembly jigs and tooling can be used for both.  Skin thicknesses are the basic differences.  New domes on the LO2 and LH2 tanks are basically the same as the remaining ones on the tank.  The thrust structure and forward adapter are not hard items to build. 
Avionics has no bearing, new avionics is being designed for Ares I which would be adapted

If you want a reasonably detailed description of the sorts of changes required, I refer you to this public document:-

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930007493


The first 600 pages or so detail all the changes which are required to make each part of an ET into an NLS Core Stage.

But from page 611 onwards there is a really *great* description of how NLS was planning to modify the existing tooling -- and that gives you a glimpse into what's really involved in what they do day-to-day at Michoud.

It should be noted that NLS had the additional complication that they were planning to manufacture up to 14 NLS Cores at the same time as continuing production of up to 9 Shuttle ET's every year -- all occurring in parallel.   We don't have that same complication.

The details are a little out of date because this is all dealing with LWT structures, not SLWT.   Most of the general principles all still apply, as does quite a large portion of the same tooling actually, just not all.

I find it amazing that they believed they were able to do this in 1993, so much so that the program passed its PDR.   Yet 'some' people are trying to tell us its 'too hard' to do these days, all the while promoting an option which requires everything to be 100% replaced.   That argument holds no water for me.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacedem on 01/13/2009 12:45 am

What if the new Administrator doesn't want anything to do with goals beyond LEO? 


That would be a bad move politically.  Obama has shown more savvy than that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/13/2009 01:40 am
What if the new Administrator doesn't want anything to do with goals beyond LEO?

Then he or she will never even become Administrator because they would need to be confirmed by the Senate, who passed the law requiring missions beyond LEO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/13/2009 02:19 am
  The SSMT was never designed to carry payload on it's nose, or have rocket engines under it, with all the avionics that entails.  Modifying to to do that could be as expensive and problematic as building a new chasis from scratch that -is- designed for it.


Not true.

The ET (not MT)  to Direct core is not the same as F-15 to stealth fighter.

It is more like F-15 C/D to F-15E.

The same assembly jigs and tooling can be used for both.  Skin thicknesses are the basic differences.  New domes on the LO2 and LH2 tanks are basically the same as the remaining ones on the tank.  The thrust structure and forward adapter are not hard items to build. 
Avionics has no bearing, new avionics is being designed for Ares I which would be adapted

If you want a reasonably detailed description of the sorts of changes required, I refer you to this public document:-

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930007493


The first 600 pages or so detail all the changes which are required to make each part of an ET into an NLS Core Stage.

But from page 611 onwards there is a really *great* description of how NLS was planning to modify the existing tooling -- and that gives you a glimpse into what's really involved in what they do day-to-day at Michoud.

It should be noted that NLS had the additional complication that they were planning to manufacture up to 14 NLS Cores at the same time as continuing production of up to 9 Shuttle ET's every year -- all occurring in parallel.   We don't have that same complication.

The details are a little out of date because this is all dealing with LWT structures, not SLWT.   Most of the general principles all still apply, as does quite a large portion of the same tooling actually, just not all.

I find it amazing that they believed they were able to do this in 1993, so much so that the program passed its PDR.   Yet 'some' people are trying to tell us its 'too hard' to do these days, all the while promoting an option which requires everything to be 100% replaced.   That argument holds no water for me.

Ross.

I would like to note that the F-15 C/D's and the E models are almost a new plane under neath the skin, and dont get me started on the Hornet vs Super Hornet.

Ross I would suggest taking the old NLS document either in paper or electronic form everywhere you can when presenting.  Very powerful argument to use a well defined paper on your subject from a "neutral era.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/13/2009 02:43 am
I agree on the NLS document. There is proof right there, from NASA, that Jupiter is possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 03:18 am
There are actually over 160 other documents like that one publicly available on ntrs.nasa.gov dealing with similar Shuttle derived systems, be those NLS, ALS, Shuttle-C and whatever.

Not one of NASA's studies prior to 2004 ever mentioned a "Stick" configuration like Ares-I.   And none ever tried to propose a Shuttle-derived configuration as ridiculously large as Ares-V has become.

It is my opinion that a Shuttle-derived solution needs to at least retain the 4-seg SRB's and the 8.4m tank to qualify as "Shuttle Derived".   If there's less than 25% of the system actually with real heritage back to Shuttle, its not very honest to try to claim its Shuttle Derived any more.

If you bought a car from a dealer and later found that only 10% of it was actually the original car identified by the VIN plate, you'd have an open-and-shut case for getting your money back.

I believe we represent the evolution of the "horse we are riding" today -- which I will remind everyone is *Shuttle*, not Ares.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Marsman on 01/13/2009 03:22 am
I'm surprised no one has called Lobo on is big mistake.
The latest version of Ares V (the 5 1/2 segment and 6 RS-68's) can lift around 141 tons to orbit.
Now lets assume Ares I "Could" lift its required 25 tons to orbit.
141 plus 25 equals 166 tons total to orbit.
Making things real simple here, about half that 166 tons is fuel for the Earth Departure Stage, so that makes about 83 ton Lunar throw weight.
The real number is more like 76 tons, buts lets just say it is 83 to keep things real simple.
Each of the two Jupiter 232's can place 110 tons into orbit.
110 plus 110 equals 220 tons total in orbit.
Again half EDS fuel, makes Direct's Lunar throw weight 110 tons.
110 tons is a lot more than 83 tons!
Now to be totally fair here; two of the latest configuration Ares V's would place 282 tons in orbit, with a 141 ton Lunar throw weight.


The numbers I used were primarily from Wikipedia

Ares V:  410,000 lbs to LEO (205 tons), 157,000 lbs to TLI (78.5 tons)
Ares I:  25,000 kg  to LEO (27.5 tons (not mT))
Shuttle:  53,000 lbs to LEO (27 tons)
Jupiter:  90,655-22,746 lbs to LEO (45.3-110 tons (I assume this is based on which config is launched, but 110 tons being the max)
Saturn V: 260,000 lbs to LEO (130 tons), 100,000 to TLI (50 tons)


Ares I does not lift 25,000 kg to LEO. It lifts ~23,000 kg to sub-LEO.
Ares V does lift around 157,000 lbs (71.2 mt) to TLI, but does not lift anywhere close to 410,000 lbs (185.9 mt) to LEO. It is ~140-150 mt to LEO) It has to do with the optimization of the upper stage for TLI targets, not LEO targets.

Sorry, don't trust Wikipedia when it comes to details.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/13/2009 03:43 am
There are actually over 160 other documents like that one publicly available on ntrs.nasa.gov dealing with similar Shuttle derived systems, be those NLS, ALS, Shuttle-C and whatever.

Not one of NASA's studies prior to 2004 ever mentioned a "Stick" configuration like Ares-I.   And none ever tried to propose a Shuttle-derived configuration as ridiculously large as Ares-V has become.

It is my opinion that a Shuttle-derived solution needs to at least retain the 4-seg SRB's and the 8.4m tank to qualify as "Shuttle Derived".   If there's less than 25% of the system actually with real heritage back to Shuttle, its not very honest to try to claim its Shuttle Derived any more.

If you bought a car from a dealer and later found that only 10% of it was actually the original car identified by the VIN plate, you'd have an open-and-shut case for getting your money back.

I believe we represent the evolution of the "horse we are riding" today -- which I will remind everyone is *Shuttle*, not Ares.

Ross.

Not to mention, the last SDLV using an SRB first stage was the SRB-X concept, which Global Security.org states is, "the single worst shuttle-derived launcher ever proposed".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 01/13/2009 04:05 am
Quote
It is my opinion that a Shuttle-derived solution needs to at least retain the 4-seg SRB's and the 8.4m tank to qualify as "Shuttle Derived".

Ross,

Would you be able to explain why adding a seg or 1.5 segs to the SRBs makes them non-derivative?  It would seem to this layman that it wouldn't be that major of a change.  I would agree that the larger diameter tank is a major design change. 

NA
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 04:25 am
Quote
It is my opinion that a Shuttle-derived solution needs to at least retain the 4-seg SRB's and the 8.4m tank to qualify as "Shuttle Derived".

Ross,

Would you be able to explain why adding a seg or 1.5 segs to the SRBs makes them non-derivative?  It would seem to this layman that it wouldn't be that major of a change.  I would agree that the larger diameter tank is a major design change. 

NA

Sure, glad to.

First is the $1.8bn contract cost (plus oversight overheads).

Second is the 8 years required from contract to the first operational unit, which is not helping with the delays.

Third is the need to replace so much of the critical hardware.   The TVC, the power systems, the hydraulic systems, the nozzle, all of the mounting connections, the parachutes.   In fact *everything* changes except the cylindrical steel case segments themselves -- the simplest items of all.

Fourth is the need to pay a vast amount of money required to cover converting the infrastructure at Hangar AF, on both recovery ships and the factory in Utah.

Fifth is the fact that the SRB's were never designed to be utilized in this fashion with hundreds of tons of stage and payload on top.   They just weren't designed for these loads.

Sixth is that the extra segment increases the quantity of fuel by 25% which results in higher propellant burn rates, itself resulting in larger forces and pressure inside the booster, to levels which have never been previously experienced during the Shuttle Program.

Seventh is the really nasty flight environment which the Ares-I will fly through.   1,000psf max-Q, acoustic levels over 180dB and the TO issue all contribute to making it the worst flight environment any human launch vehicle has ever flown through, period.   It is also pretty close to the worst *any* large-scale cargo launcher has ever had to fly through too.

Eighth, while the computers are saying we're okay on all of these issues, the fact is that there is absolutely *zero* flight data for a configuration like this in these conditions.   There is, in fact, no experience base at all for this combination of conditions.   Whenever you venture into the unknown you are guaranteed to come across something which wasn't predicted or predictable -- and in this business an oversight can cost you the lives of a crew.

I don't consider the 5-segment SRB's as planned for Ares-I anything other extremely distantly related to the current 4-segment ones -- in much the same way the Mercury Atlas is related to the current Atlas-V.   There is very little real-world heritage there.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/13/2009 08:09 am
Ares I does not lift 25,000 kg to LEO. It lifts ~23,000 kg to sub-LEO.
Ares V does lift around 157,000 lbs (71.2 mt) to TLI, but does not lift anywhere close to 410,000 lbs (185.9 mt) to LEO. It is ~140-150 mt to LEO) It has to do with the optimization of the upper stage for TLI targets, not LEO targets.

Sorry, don't trust Wikipedia when it comes to details.

Controversial updates to Wikipedia need to reference sources.  Are there sources for these numbers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 09:58 am
Those wikipedia numbers represent the gross performance numbers without margin, and to the sub-orbital -11x100 "injection" point, not to the final orbit.

If you work it out that way (which is a plain stupid way I might add) Ares-I is supposedly able to lift 23,151kg for ISS missions and 25,573kg for Lunar -- but only to "injection", and without accounting for any performance margins at all.

Once you apply industry-standard margins and deduct the propellant used by the SM to achieve full orbit, you aren't delivering anything like that amount of actual payload to a useful orbit (220nmi circular, 51.6deg for ISS and 130nmi circular, 29.0deg for Lunar).

The 23mT and 25mT are really just meaningless "sales speak" figures.   Yeah, your car might be rated by the manufacturer at "125mph maximum", but if you need five miles of dead-straight downhill road to ever actually achieve it is that really an accurate statement?

The Ares-I will never, ever, ever be able to lift that amount of mass to stable orbit in practice.   No way, no how.

Every other rocket in the world quotes its final delivered performance to stable orbit, and states it after the routine margins have been accounted for.


But Ares-I keeps on deliberately conning everyone because they hope nobody understands what they're actually looking at.   They refuse to reveal the apples-to-apples comparisons and instead persists in this practice of only ever publishing the "theoretical maximum" which they know the system will never actually be able to achieve in the real world.


Why is that?

Because once you knock the industry-standard 10% margin off those figures and once you account for the propellant which the Orion needs to burn in order to achieve its final orbit, the final delivery performance is no better than the Delta-IV Heavy.

And CxP daren't risk anyone noticing that they're spending $14 billion of your tax dollars on a rocket which can't actually match our existing capability!



So lets actually work it out and see what the truth REALLY is...


ISS:-
23,151kg is Ares-I's maximum theoretical performance.   So start by knocking this down to 90% to cover regular 10% margins:   20,836kg is therefore the actual *practical* maximum payload mass which the system can insert to -11x100nmi, 51.6deg.

Orion must then circularize to 100x100nmi or it will be heading straight back to Earth.   Using a Hohmann Transfer, that requires a 62.241m/s burn, assuming Orion masses the full 20,836kg at the start and that its engine is 326.0s vac Isp, and ignoring any wasted propellant used during the engine start sequence, Orion will use 402kg of propellant to perform Burn #1.   Total mass now drops to 20,434kg to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg stable initial orbit.

Now the Orion needs to boost its orbit ready for a rendezvous with the ISS which usually has a nominal orbital altitude of 220nmi circular.   Another two Hohmann burns are therefore required.   Burn #2 is 64.603m/s and uses another 409kg of propellant leaving 20,025kg total Orion mass.   Burn #3 is then a 64.068m/s burn using another 397kg of propellant.


The result is that the maximum *REAL WORLD* mass delivered by the Ares-I/Orion system is no more than 19,628kg to 220x220nmi, 51.6deg.


Not quite as impressive as the 23 metric tons they keep telling us, is it?   In fact the true apples-to-apples comparable performance of the system is actually only 85% of the figure which they keep telling us.   I think deliberately and continually over-quoting things by 15% is rather deceitful myself.

There are laws in most industries clearly saying that if you market a product as one thing, say a bar of Milk Chocolate clearly marked as 1kg in weight, and the customer takes it home and finds there's only 850 grams of chocolate inside they have a legal claim to get their money back.   I consider this a very similar situation, albeit at a much more expensive level.


Delta-IV Heavy can directly insert the Orion spacecraft straight into that 220nmi circular orbit without Orion having to perform any of those extra burns.   And DIVH can actually deliver a little over 21,000kg to that exact same orbit in its Crew-launch configuration *after* it has successfully accounted for all its margins too.   That's the real apples-to-apples comparison 19.6mT for Ares vs. 21.0mT for Delta.


But Ares keeps on claiming "23 metric tons" or "25 metric tons".   They are successfully pulling the wool over many people's eyes with that claim because nobody understands the rocket science sufficiently well enough to disprove the claim.

They can try all they like to make it appear that Ares-I is more capable than the existing Delta system.   But the physics don't lie.   It is clearly not the truth.


Anyway, I digress.   That was totally off-topic...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/13/2009 11:06 am
Since the KSC is all hell bent for leather to convert KSC to Orion/Aries operation, why not use Vandenburg for Jupiter?

There are several problems with this suggestion. 

Firstly, Vandenberg is on the West Coast and is almost exclusively used for polar orbit insertion launches.  The reason why KSC is on the East Coast is that it gives NASA several hundred thousand square miles of ocean to drop booster stages into.  A flightpath to equatorial or near-equatorial orbit from Vandenberg would take the Jupiter over the entire breadth of the continental United States.  Remember that we are dropping off the SRBs at T+2 minutes and (for the J-232) the Jupiter CCB about three to four minutes later.  The people in Mississipi and the Carolinas might take offence at several hundred tons of booster dropping on their heads, even parachute-retarded ones like the SRBs.

The big problem with this idea, though, is that I understand that the Vandenberg shuttle infrastructure was not ever built.  Brigining it up to launch specification and building the VAB and other industrial facilities at Vandenberg to support even just J-120 operations from there would be immense (as Jim was so kind as to point out to me).  That doesn't mean that, if the USAF wanted to use J-120 for polar launches from Vandenberg that the money couldn't be found, it is just that it isn't likely before the type has been operated by NASA from KSC for a while.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/13/2009 11:09 am
Anyway, I digress.   That was totally off-topic...

Yeah, you're in big trouble now, mister.  Wait until Chris finds out about this...    :)

So when someone claims Ares-I performance of 23 mT, it is safe for us to say "Wrong.  It's only 19.6 mT to ISS."

Congratulations on all the exciting developments of the past few weeks.  Now we just need Pres. Obama to find an administrator who can stomach the idea of an objective evaluation of Ares, DIRECT, and EELV launch options.  NASA, like the rest of the country, needs to start digging it's way out of the hole it has been put in.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2009 11:13 am

The big problem with this idea, though, is that I understand that the Vandenberg shuttle infrastructure was not ever built. 

It was built but Delta IV and other programs have taken it over.  It would still needed to be rebuilt
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: William Barton on 01/13/2009 11:36 am

The big problem with this idea, though, is that I understand that the Vandenberg shuttle infrastructure was not ever built. 

It was built but Delta IV and other programs have taken it over.  It would still needed to be rebuilt

My recollection is the first flight from Vandenberg was only months away. At the beginning of 1986, I was worried about Shuttle because of Centaur G and the wound casing SRBs coming up. Concerned about disaster, but not the one that really happened.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 11:44 am
Anyway, I digress.   That was totally off-topic...

Yeah, you're in big trouble now, mister.  Wait until Chris finds out about this...    :)

I'm not afraid o' Chris!

Well, alright.   Maybe a little.   He is a Colonel on the T.A. after all...

:)


Quote
So when someone claims Ares-I performance of 23 mT, it is safe for us to say "Wrong.  It's only 19.6 mT to ISS."

Yes, but be forewarned that anyone who's been drinking from the font of Kool-aid and not the font of Knowledge is going to argue with you.   You'll largely just end up banging your head against a brick wall, but every now and again you'll open someone else's eyes and they will be forever grateful for exposing a little bit of truth.   The amazing thing is, its *really* easy to work when you have that on your side.


Quote
NASA, like the rest of the country, needs to start digging it's way out of the hole it has been put in.

That I can completely agree with.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 11:54 am
Since the KSC is all hell bent for leather to convert KSC to Orion/Aries operation, why not use Vandenburg for Jupiter?

As an aside;
KSC as a whole is not actually very enthusiastic about ripping up all of the Shuttle facilities.   I think its safe to say that the majority of people there no longer think Ares is the right way to go.

Further, I would venture to say that JSC is probably 50:50 right now, with more and more people gradually slipping further and further away from Ares every day.

MSFC is a different story though.   Being the lead design center, they are still hungrily chasing the both of the $15bn Ares development projects -- even if it will cost all the other centers the majority of their contractor workforces.


But anyway...
DIRECT is not really compatible with Ares.   Its going to be one or the other, but not both at the same time.   Jupiter-120 replaces the Ares-I, and Jupiter-232 would replace the Ares-V.

Theoretically Jupiter *could* still lead to Ares-V still (RS-68, J-2X and EDS are transferable), but that's still an awfully big stretch ($$$) as a concept plan so I wouldn't recommend it.


Even if the worst happened and the decision to change were made very late (2010+) and a very large amount of the KSC infrastructure had already been ripped out (which it can't be until after the last Shuttle flies, because its mostly the same infrastructure needed for both), its would still only be a cost issue, not a technical issue, to replace it all.   The extra costs would cause a delay to the schedule, but wouldn't be a show-stopper for DIRECT to continue.

There's a major benefit (over $2 billion worth) in not replacing everything and reusing existing Shuttle facilities as much as possible, but even if we couldn't, $2bn more costs to replace all that equipment isn't even close to the added costs which Ares is expecting.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/13/2009 12:16 pm
...Delta-IV Heavy can directly insert the Orion spacecraft straight into that 220nmi circular orbit without Orion having to perform any of those extra burns.   And DIVH can actually deliver a little over 21,000kg to that exact same orbit in its Crew-launch configuration *after* it has successfully accounted for all its margins too.   That's the real apples-to-apples comparison 19.6mT for Ares vs. 21.0mT for Delta...

Is that for a no black-zone trajectory? Does it require RS68a engines?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: mrbliss on 01/13/2009 02:51 pm
Fifth is the fact that the SRB's were never designed to be utilized in this fashion with hundreds of tons of stage and payload on top.   They just weren't designed for these loads.

Why are these loads a big issue for the SRB, but not for Jupiter's ET-based core stage?  Is it because the core (being mostly tanks holding the liquids) can be redesigned to handle the loads, but the SRB can't be modified similarly?

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zapkitty on 01/13/2009 03:27 pm
Quote from: kraisee
Fifth is the fact that the SRB's were never designed to be utilized in this fashion with hundreds of tons of stage and payload on top.   They just weren't designed for these loads.
Why are these loads a big issue for the SRB, but not for Jupiter's ET-based core stage?  Is it because the core (being mostly tanks holding the liquids) can be redesigned to handle the loads, but the SRB can't be modified similarly?

Mostly because the ET-to-core stage conversion has been a longstanding concept at NASA with a lot of study already done towards it...

... If you want a reasonably detailed description of the sorts of changes required, I refer you to this public document:-
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930007493
The first 600 pages or so detail all the changes which are required to make each part of an ET into an NLS Core Stage.
But from page 611 onwards there is a really *great* description of how NLS was planning to modify the existing tooling -- and that gives you a glimpse into what's really involved in what they do day-to-day at Michoud...
Ross.

... as for previous studies towards an SRB-to-core stage conversion? Not so much...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: JIS on 01/13/2009 03:35 pm
Those wikipedia numbers represent the gross performance numbers without margin, and to the sub-orbital -11x100 "injection" point, not to the final orbit.

If you work it out that way (which is a plain stupid way I might add) Ares-I is supposedly able to lift 23,151kg for ISS missions and 25,573kg for Lunar -- but only to "injection", and without accounting for any performance margins at all.

Once you apply industry-standard margins and deduct the propellant used by the SM to achieve full orbit, you aren't delivering anything like that amount of actual payload to a useful orbit (220nmi circular, 51.6deg for ISS and 130nmi circular, 29.0deg for Lunar).

The 23mT and 25mT are really just meaningless "sales speak" figures.   Yeah, your car might be rated by the manufacturer at "125mph maximum", but if you need five miles of dead-straight downhill road to ever actually achieve it is that really an accurate statement?

The Ares-I will never, ever, ever be able to lift that amount of mass to stable orbit in practice.   No way, no how.

Every other rocket in the world quotes its final delivered performance to stable orbit, and states it after the routine margins have been accounted for.


This is demagogy. Stable or unstable - doesn't mater. It should be useful orbit for it's payload. -11x100nm is useful orbit for Orion. It's not so useful for some commercial payload. Ares would need to use some third stage to achieve higher orbit as Ares US is too big (many times bigger than common upper stages) to be left on orbit and it doesn't have any means to be safely deorbited.

Ares 1 payload capability would be very likely more for commercial payload as it doesn't need LAS and Ares can fly lofted (low Q) trajectory.

Quote
But Ares-I keeps on deliberately conning everyone because they hope nobody understands what they're actually looking at.   They refuse to reveal the apples-to-apples comparisons and instead persists in this practice of only ever publishing the "theoretical maximum" which they know the system will never actually be able to achieve in the real world.


Why is that?


Think again. Once Ares goes commercial you'll definitelly get your number.
Look at numbers for Ares V. Payload capability refers to injection orbit which is required for its payload (LSAM) only.

Quote
Because once you knock the industry-standard 10% margin off those figures and once you account for the propellant which the Orion needs to burn in order to achieve its final orbit, the final delivery performance is no better than the Delta-IV Heavy.

Wouldn't be better to look at Delta-IV numbers for Orion like mission? Look into ESAS Table 6-4.
Hint: for 30x160nm 51.6deg it's 22.5mt.
Ares 1 like launcher (5seg HTBP SRB, 1xJ-2S with ISP of 451.5s) had 27.0 mt.

Quote

And CxP daren't risk anyone noticing that they're spending $14 billion of your tax dollars on a rocket which can't actually match our existing capability!


Existing? Human rated Delta doesn't exist yet as far as I know.

Quote


So lets actually work it out and see what the truth REALLY is...

***

The result is that the maximum *REAL WORLD* mass delivered by the Ares-I/Orion system is no more than 19,628kg to 220x220nmi, 51.6deg.

If I wanted to use Ares 1 for LEO commercial mission then I would use Ares 1 combined with some dedicated US. I wouldn't bother with Orion/LAS.


Quote
Delta-IV Heavy can directly insert the Orion spacecraft straight into that 220nmi circular orbit without Orion having to perform any of those extra burns.   And DIVH can actually deliver a little over 21,000kg to that exact same orbit in its Crew-launch configuration *after* it has successfully accounted for all its margins too.   That's the real apples-to-apples comparison 19.6mT for Ares vs. 21.0mT for Delta.

Any reference for your Delta numbers or is it from ESAS?

Quote
But Ares keeps on claiming "23 metric tons" or "25 metric tons".   They are successfully pulling the wool over many people's eyes with that claim because nobody understands the rocket science sufficiently well enough to disprove the claim.

Fortunately, you do.

Quote
They can try all they like to make it appear that Ares-I is more capable than the existing Delta system.   But the physics don't lie.   It is clearly not the truth.

Based on those ESAS numbers?
Wow.
BTW the original ESAS Lunar CEV CM (5.5m diameter) was 9.5mt. To what number it has been mutilated now (5m diameter)? To 8.7mt? Too bad.




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/13/2009 03:55 pm
JIS:
1. Negative 11 nm x 100 nm is not an orbit - it's a crash and it's not useful for anything. It takes you 11 nautical miles beneath the surface of the earth.
2. There is no such thing as a commercial Ares-I. US law prohibits it. Even if there were, an EELV flight would be less expensive and more dependable.
3. A non-existant commercial Ares-I has nothing to do with DIRECT. This is a DIRECT thread. Stay on topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/13/2009 05:01 pm
1. Negative 11 nm x 100 nm is not an orbit - it's a crash and it's not useful for anything. It takes you 11 nautical miles beneath the surface of the earth.

That "orbit" is a trajectory that safely disposes of the US just as Shuttle does with ET. If you bring with you the US to a stable orbit, then you need to deorbit your US (some solids and pyrotechnics involved... again impacting LOC/LOM). But now since the US is insulated in foam, you can't deorbit the popcorns...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 01/13/2009 05:08 pm
Fifth is the fact that the SRB's were never designed to be utilized in this fashion with hundreds of tons of stage and payload on top.   They just weren't designed for these loads.

Why are these loads a big issue for the SRB, but not for Jupiter's ET-based core stage?  Is it because the core (being mostly tanks holding the liquids) can be redesigned to handle the loads, but the SRB can't be modified similarly?

Steve

The SRB has no problem holding up the loads of the Ares upper stage, since two of them have to jointly hold up the entire fueled ET and Shuttle with payload in bending.  Ares US is ~400,000 lbs fueled, nothing close to the 1.6 million+ lbs of fueled ET alone.  And in flight, they can only apply a force in similar magnitude to the force they are creating. 

Ross, I'm sure this will upset you, but I think you need to take it down a notch.  Passion is good, but in all honesty your post above with the bold text and italicizing, and comments of the "truth" all remind me of a certain Italian that needs to stay off the internet.

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/13/2009 05:17 pm
[...] all remind me of a certain Italian that needs to stay off the internet.

Not me, I hope!  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 01/13/2009 05:33 pm
  The SSMT was never designed to carry payload on it's nose, or have rocket engines under it, with all the avionics that entails.  Modifying to to do that could be as expensive and problematic as building a new chasis from scratch that -is- designed for it.


Not true.

The ET (not MT)  to Direct core is not the same as F-15 to stealth fighter.

It is more like F-15 C/D to F-15E.

The same assembly jigs and tooling can be used for both.  Skin thicknesses are the basic differences.  New domes on the LO2 and LH2 tanks are basically the same as the remaining ones on the tank.  The thrust structure and forward adapter are not hard items to build. 
Avionics has no bearing, new avionics is being designed for Ares I which would be adapted

Good points.
It was just an analagy.  But the my point is still converting an exsting vehicle to do something it was never intended to do, -can- be much more involved than one thinks it might be, and in the end, you can end up with basically a morphidite in a role it was never intended for and a purpose built-vehicle would have been a better option.
The SST was never intended to carry nose payload, or have thrust directly under it, or go beyond LEO.
This is part of the issues with those thinking about using the EELV's for man missions.  Not to say it won't work.  Not to say it wouldn't work well.  Each case is it's own animal.  But working in the pneumatic indusdury, I've seen what happens when people try to modify existing equipment to perform new rolls it wasn't designed for.  Often, it never works as well as buying new, proper equipment.  And often ends up costing a lot more on the back and so all of your front end savings are gone in the long haul.

Obviously I'm speaking in generalities here, from my experience. 
Doesn't necessarily mean this will be the case with DIRECT.  Sometimes modifying existing equipemnt for a new use works swimmingly.

But to stick to the F15 analgy, The F15-E was more economcal than the Air Force developing a purpose-built light bomber, but will never be as good as a dedicated bomber in it's side.  It's basic air frame was designed for high-G maneuvers and Air Superiority, not for coming in low and quiet and hauling and dropping massive ordinance and/or internal bay ordinance on the target. 
It was deemed it would do a "good enough" job that the cost saving were more attractive.  The same with using an F/A-18 to replace the F-14's and A6's on a carrier.

So, is DIRECT, "good enough"?  Or is it the best vehicle?
Sometimes you can't afford the best vehicle, and have to make do with "good enough".  No shame in that.  But I'd like to know which is legitimately the better system. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Pheogh on 01/13/2009 05:35 pm
Fifth is the fact that the SRB's were never designed to be utilized in this fashion with hundreds of tons of stage and payload on top.   They just weren't designed for these loads.

Why are these loads a big issue for the SRB, but not for Jupiter's ET-based core stage?  Is it because the core (being mostly tanks holding the liquids) can be redesigned to handle the loads, but the SRB can't be modified similarly?

Steve
, and comments of the "truth" all remind me of a certain Italian that needs to stay off the internet.

Marc

That's quite a stretch
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 01/13/2009 05:55 pm
Those wikipedia numbers represent the gross performance numbers without margin, and to the sub-orbital -11x100 "injection" point, not to the final orbit.

If you work it out that way (which is a plain stupid way I might add) Ares-I is supposedly able to lift 23,151kg for ISS missions and 25,573kg for Lunar -- but only to "injection", and without accounting for any performance margins at all.

Once you apply industry-standard margins and deduct the propellant used by the SM to achieve full orbit, you aren't delivering anything like that amount of actual payload to a useful orbit (220nmi circular, 51.6deg for ISS and 130nmi circular, 29.0deg for Lunar).

The 23mT and 25mT are really just meaningless "sales speak" figures.   Yeah, your car might be rated by the manufacturer at "125mph maximum", but if you need five miles of dead-straight downhill road to ever actually achieve it is that really an accurate statement?

The Ares-I will never, ever, ever be able to lift that amount of mass to stable orbit in practice.   No way, no how.

Every other rocket in the world quotes its final delivered performance to stable orbit, and states it after the routine margins have been accounted for.


But Ares-I keeps on deliberately conning everyone because they hope nobody understands what they're actually looking at.   They refuse to reveal the apples-to-apples comparisons and instead persists in this practice of only ever publishing the "theoretical maximum" which they know the system will never actually be able to achieve in the real world.


Why is that?

Because once you knock the industry-standard 10% margin off those figures and once you account for the propellant which the Orion needs to burn in order to achieve its final orbit, the final delivery performance is no better than the Delta-IV Heavy.

And CxP daren't risk anyone noticing that they're spending $14 billion of your tax dollars on a rocket which can't actually match our existing capability!



So lets actually work it out and see what the truth REALLY is...


ISS:-
23,151kg is Ares-I's maximum theoretical performance.   So start by knocking this down to 90% to cover regular 10% margins:   20,836kg is therefore the actual *practical* maximum payload mass which the system can insert to -11x100nmi, 51.6deg.

Orion must then circularize to 100x100nmi or it will be heading straight back to Earth.   Using a Hohmann Transfer, that requires a 62.241m/s burn, assuming Orion masses the full 20,836kg at the start and that its engine is 326.0s vac Isp, and ignoring any wasted propellant used during the engine start sequence, Orion will use 402kg of propellant to perform Burn #1.   Total mass now drops to 20,434kg to 100x100nmi, 51.6deg stable initial orbit.

Now the Orion needs to boost its orbit ready for a rendezvous with the ISS which usually has a nominal orbital altitude of 220nmi circular.   Another two Hohmann burns are therefore required.   Burn #2 is 64.603m/s and uses another 409kg of propellant leaving 20,025kg total Orion mass.   Burn #3 is then a 64.068m/s burn using another 397kg of propellant.


The result is that the maximum *REAL WORLD* mass delivered by the Ares-I/Orion system is no more than 19,628kg to 220x220nmi, 51.6deg.


Not quite as impressive as the 23 metric tons they keep telling us, is it?   In fact the true apples-to-apples comparable performance of the system is actually only 85% of the figure which they keep telling us.   I think deliberately and continually over-quoting things by 15% is rather deceitful myself.

There are laws in most industries clearly saying that if you market a product as one thing, say a bar of Milk Chocolate clearly marked as 1kg in weight, and the customer takes it home and finds there's only 850 grams of chocolate inside they have a legal claim to get their money back.   I consider this a very similar situation, albeit at a much more expensive level.


Delta-IV Heavy can directly insert the Orion spacecraft straight into that 220nmi circular orbit without Orion having to perform any of those extra burns.   And DIVH can actually deliver a little over 21,000kg to that exact same orbit in its Crew-launch configuration *after* it has successfully accounted for all its margins too.   That's the real apples-to-apples comparison 19.6mT for Ares vs. 21.0mT for Delta.


But Ares keeps on claiming "23 metric tons" or "25 metric tons".   They are successfully pulling the wool over many people's eyes with that claim because nobody understands the rocket science sufficiently well enough to disprove the claim.

They can try all they like to make it appear that Ares-I is more capable than the existing Delta system.   But the physics don't lie.   It is clearly not the truth.


Anyway, I digress.   That was totally off-topic...

Ross.

Ross,

No, not off topic.  Very informative.  These are the things I am interested in knowing.  Like I said before, I have no real dog in the fight, just want the best dog to win.

If your numbers are correct, that's interesting indeed.

Not to play Devil's advocate, but Ares still seems like it could perform the role of ISS supply and crew rotation, even if their numbers are inflated.  And could theoretically still deliver replacement components to the ISS, as [I believe] the largest single component delivered by the Shuttle was 17.6 tons, in the solar arrays and Kibo main lab.  (Per your data, Ares 1 can still lift 21.6 tons to the ISS)
That's assuming of course they can or would modify it to carry dedicated payloads.  I know that'd been part of the the original goals in the Ares design to launch cargos to the ISS, but haven't heard much about that idea lately.  Have they abandon using Ares 1 for anything but carrying Orion?

But, that's not to say it's the best design to do it.  Just that it could still do what it's supposed to, just not as well as NASA is claiming, if you are correct. 

Again, thanks for the info.  I'm always looking for more.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 01/13/2009 06:06 pm
There are actually over 160 other documents like that one publicly available on ntrs.nasa.gov dealing with similar Shuttle derived systems, be those NLS, ALS, Shuttle-C and whatever.

Not one of NASA's studies prior to 2004 ever mentioned a "Stick" configuration like Ares-I.   And none ever tried to propose a Shuttle-derived configuration as ridiculously large as Ares-V has become.

It is my opinion that a Shuttle-derived solution needs to at least retain the 4-seg SRB's and the 8.4m tank to qualify as "Shuttle Derived".   If there's less than 25% of the system actually with real heritage back to Shuttle, its not very honest to try to claim its Shuttle Derived any more.

If you bought a car from a dealer and later found that only 10% of it was actually the original car identified by the VIN plate, you'd have an open-and-shut case for getting your money back.

I believe we represent the evolution of the "horse we are riding" today -- which I will remind everyone is *Shuttle*, not Ares.

Ross.

Ross,

Out of curiosity.  Could Direct (or for that matter Ares V) use a 3rd or a 4th 4-stage SRB strapped to the core, as some of the EELV's strap on more SRB's depending on their payload?  Could Jupiter 232 actually be upgraded with an additional SRB and larger diameter fairing (to let's say 10 meters, the diameter of Ares V) and boost larger payloads than the 110 tons max the 232 is projected to do?

As you are obviously more intune to this than I, could even Ares use 3 or 4 standard 4 segment SRB's, rather than 2 longer ones?
I am assuming the longer SRB's give you longer burn times rathar than just more, but I'm not sure.  As I understand they burn from the inside out, top to bottom, so a reduced orafice will extend burn time?

Always wondered about that, but hadn't really found any place with good answers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 01/13/2009 06:08 pm
  The SSMT was never designed to carry payload on it's nose, or have rocket engines under it, with all the avionics that entails.  Modifying to to do that could be as expensive and problematic as building a new chasis from scratch that -is- designed for it.


Not true.

The ET (not MT)  to Direct core is not the same as F-15 to stealth fighter.

It is more like F-15 C/D to F-15E.

The same assembly jigs and tooling can be used for both.  Skin thicknesses are the basic differences.  New domes on the LO2 and LH2 tanks are basically the same as the remaining ones on the tank.  The thrust structure and forward adapter are not hard items to build. 
Avionics has no bearing, new avionics is being designed for Ares I which would be adapted

If you want a reasonably detailed description of the sorts of changes required, I refer you to this public document:-

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930007493


The first 600 pages or so detail all the changes which are required to make each part of an ET into an NLS Core Stage.

But from page 611 onwards there is a really *great* description of how NLS was planning to modify the existing tooling -- and that gives you a glimpse into what's really involved in what they do day-to-day at Michoud.

It should be noted that NLS had the additional complication that they were planning to manufacture up to 14 NLS Cores at the same time as continuing production of up to 9 Shuttle ET's every year -- all occurring in parallel.   We don't have that same complication.

The details are a little out of date because this is all dealing with LWT structures, not SLWT.   Most of the general principles all still apply, as does quite a large portion of the same tooling actually, just not all.

I find it amazing that they believed they were able to do this in 1993, so much so that the program passed its PDR.   Yet 'some' people are trying to tell us its 'too hard' to do these days, all the while promoting an option which requires everything to be 100% replaced.   That argument holds no water for me.

Ross.

Thanks, I'll check it out.  :-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: zinfab on 01/13/2009 06:11 pm
Lobo, it is technically conceivable to strap on more SRBs. Early on in the DIRECT conversation (first thread?), someone (maybe Antonio) mocked up a version as you describe-- but it was only done to amuse the geeks on the forum.

That said, it would lose all commonality with launch infrastructure (pads, MLPs, etc.).

As I understand DIRECT's goal, they want to keep the same launch footprint. If you increase the diameter of the ET, then you're starting to talk about ARES V territory. At that point, it probably makes more sense to pursue ARES V or a clean-sheet launch system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 01/13/2009 06:13 pm
The SRB has no problem holding up the loads of the Ares upper stage, since two of them have to jointly hold up the entire fueled ET and Shuttle with payload in bending.  Ares US is ~400,000 lbs fueled, nothing close to the 1.6 million+ lbs of fueled ET alone.  And in flight, they can only apply a force in similar magnitude to the force they are creating. 

Forgive any mistakes in my math henceforth. I don't exactly have a PhD in aerospace...

Orbiter + Payload = Total Weight of Orbiter
68,585 + 25,061 = 93,646

SSME Thrust x 3 = 400,000 x 3 = 1,200,000

1,200,000 - 93,646 = 1,106,354

So 1,106,354 pounds of positive thrust from the orbiter.

1,600,000 - 1,106,354 = 493,646

493,646 / 2 = 246,823

So each 4 segment SRB would support 246,823 pounds of external fuel tank, not 400,000. Let's assume we get a 5/4 improvement in thrust with an additional segment:

246,823 x (5 / 4) = 308,529

That's still almost 100,000 pounds short. Granted, my reasoning is probably flawed, but I think I've sufficiently illustrated that the mass of the tank itself is not proof of an SRB's capacity to lift weight on its own.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 01/13/2009 06:32 pm
The SRB has no problem holding up the loads of the Ares upper stage, since two of them have to jointly hold up the entire fueled ET and Shuttle with payload in bending.  Ares US is ~400,000 lbs fueled, nothing close to the 1.6 million+ lbs of fueled ET alone.  And in flight, they can only apply a force in similar magnitude to the force they are creating. 

Forgive any mistakes in my math henceforth. I don't exactly have a PhD in aerospace...

Orbiter + Payload = Total Weight of Orbiter
68,585 + 25,061 = 93,646

SSME Thrust x 3 = 400,000 x 3 = 1,200,000

1,200,000 - 93,646 = 1,106,354

So 1,106,354 pounds of positive thrust from the orbiter.

1,600,000 - 1,106,354 = 493,646

493,646 / 2 = 246,823

So each 4 segment SRB would support 246,823 pounds of external fuel tank, not 400,000. Let's assume we get a 5/4 improvement in thrust with an additional segment:

246,823 x (5 / 4) = 308,529

That's still almost 100,000 pounds short. Granted, my reasoning is probably flawed, but I think I've sufficiently illustrated that the mass of the tank itself is not proof of an SRB's capacity to lift weight on its own.

What about prelaunch when the tank is filled but the SSME's are not on?

What you have illustrated would be the loads on the stack after the SSME's have fired, but before the SRB's fire.  Btw, this is part of the reason for the "twang" before liftoff, when the nose of the ET rocks forward and then back a few feet (or so, can't remember exactly).

After the SRB's light, the force at the intertank attachment post is equal to the force of the SRB - the Mass of the SRB (very generally).  And as such, it's going to get larger as the thrust of the SRB stays relatively constant, but it's mass changes by almost a million lbs.  So imagine the force from the SRB before tailoff (FYI, for the Ares I, at ~ t=100, you get 2.7 million lbs of thrust, and a mass of 350,000 lbs or an applied force of 2.4 million lbs to the upper stage of Ares or shuttle or Jupiter).

If you make the claim that the segments are in tension, then all the applied force comes from the upper dome during flight, then our worst compressive loads come from when we have the most weight on the stack.  This is when the tank is fully fueled so 800,000 lbs on each SRB before SSME ignition (with almost 100,000 lbs hanging way off the side).  Almost double the weight of Ares on the SRB.

Marc

Edit: for the sake of being on topic, the SRB loads on Jupiter would certainly be less the shuttle.  You could argue that having the mass of the Orion on the nose could create some issues on rollout, but having that other SRB really helps out with that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: sandrot on 01/13/2009 06:36 pm
And it seems to me there is some mixup kg vs lb
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 01/13/2009 07:07 pm
Lobo, it is technically conceivable to strap on more SRBs. Early on in the DIRECT conversation (first thread?), someone (maybe Antonio) mocked up a version as you describe-- but it was only done to amuse the geeks on the forum.

That said, it would lose all commonality with launch infrastructure (pads, MLPs, etc.).

As I understand DIRECT's goal, they want to keep the same launch footprint. If you increase the diameter of the ET, then you're starting to talk about ARES V territory. At that point, it probably makes more sense to pursue ARES V or a clean-sheet launch system.

Well, I'd thought to keep the ET/core the same diameter as with the proposed Jupiters, not widen them like Ares, except perhaps with a modification of allowing more external boosters to it (I have no idea if that'd be a fairly easy mod, or a complete redesign of the whole ET, which would of couse defeat the purpose.

So, 1) would the tank have to be drastically altered to withstand the force of a 3rd or 4th SRB?
2)  Would the launch pad need to be modified significantly to withstand the force of an extra SRB or two (how much different would that be from current design?  Maybe one pad could be modified, so it could launch either the 120/232 or the new heavy with 1 or 2 additional SRB's.  How much real cost is there in that? If not significant, that could be looked at as a growth path 10 years down the road.  The Ares V wouldn't be ready for another 10 years anyway.
3)  Once the 3 or 4 standard 4-segment SRB's are exhausted, is there enough fuel/thrust available in the core to insert the heavier payload into LEO?  Getting it off the ground is only part of the battle, it needs to still have enough juice to get into LEO.  That I don't know but am curious about.  Would the additional SRB's allow the RS-68 engines to be throttled down enough to conserve enough fuel so they could be kicked up to full thrust after SRB separation and have enough fuel and thrust to get a larger payload into LEO?

Really I bring this question up for these reasons.
As I understand, the SRB really give you one of the best fuel to weight ratio, as well as being simpler than liquid fuel as you don't have any cryo, or pumps, etc.  The drawback is more vibration, non throttleable, and a slow thrust speed, so they are good to get you going, but you need something with a faster exhaust velocity to boost you to the fast speeds.
Hence why they are used for 1st stages but not after that.

So could we use more, rather that new larger ones for Ares V?
Could we use more, to boost the weight of the Jupiter's?
I forget how the Jupiter nomenclature works, so I'll call it a Jupiter -232 Heavy for now.

If you can utilize the additional lift off thrust of extra SRB's, can the fuel in the ET be throttled back to conserve until SRB separation, and then have enough to still get how much payload into orbit?
Can it be fitted with a 10 meter fairing?

I guess I keep looking at it beyond just the ISS and moonshot.  The Ares V would give a lot of flexability for lifting large volume, heavy mass payloads into orbit for future space stations, satillites, telescopes, and Mars Mission Hardware.  Can the Jupiter architecture provide a reasonable groth path to that end?  Wouldn't necessarily even have to match the Ares V, but for basically just the additional cost of 1 or 2 more SRB's, you can get 150 or 170 tons into orbit, with a larger diameter, then you have some growth potential.
Future space telescopes are a primary beneficiary of payload width flexability.  Telescopes are all about mirror size, the larger the mirror, the farther you can see, period.  I've already been reading proposed project for new space telescopes based on the width and lifting capability of the Ares V.  Simply opens up entirely new avenues in astronomy if you can put up a 10 meter telescope.  Basically, that's the width of the Keck Telescopes on Mauna Kea (which I've visted many times while vacationing on the Big Island of HAwaii).  Hubble is like 1.6 meter diameter.  And with current Space Shuttle, EELV capability, Hubble is about all we can put up.  They have some new designes for fold out multiple mirror designs (similar to the Keck mirrors), but these are super, SUPER precise instruments, and adding the ability to fold out and deploy adds exponentially to the odds of something malfunctioning and having a 400 million dollar piece of space junk floating around.  Having the ability to prefab a 10 meter diameter mirror on the ground is obviously a huge advantage.

If the Jupiter could add to it's payload weight and diameter, than for guys like me who are thinking we'll be stuck with whichever design for several decades would feel more comfortable.  With Direct over the long term.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: jarmumd on 01/13/2009 07:20 pm
Sorry, feeling a bit post happy today...

FYI a 5 seg SRB weighs almost 1.6 million lbs ready to go.  Unlike a liquid engine, you have to carry all that mass to the pad (liquids fill at the pad).  They weigh almost an order of magnitude more than the empty tank / spacecraft.  Thus, adding two more doubles your weight and is much to heavy for the crawler - so upgrade crawler, and for the crawler way - so rebuild path.  It's just way too expensive when you could better design your spacecraft.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/13/2009 07:25 pm
Fifth is the fact that the SRB's were never designed to be utilized in this fashion with hundreds of tons of stage and payload on top.   They just weren't designed for these loads.

Why are these loads a big issue for the SRB, but not for Jupiter's ET-based core stage?  Is it because the core (being mostly tanks holding the liquids) can be redesigned to handle the loads, but the SRB can't be modified similarly?

Steve

The SRB has no problem holding up the loads of the Ares upper stage, since two of them have to jointly hold up the entire fueled ET and Shuttle with payload in bending.  Ares US is ~400,000 lbs fueled, nothing close to the 1.6 million+ lbs of fueled ET alone.  And in flight, they can only apply a force in similar magnitude to the force they are creating. 

Ross, I'm sure this will upset you, but I think you need to take it down a notch.  Passion is good, but in all honesty your post above with the bold text and italicizing, and comments of the "truth" all remind me of a certain Italian that needs to stay off the internet.

Marc

This is what I said to the Direct Team yesterday under Marketing Plan:

•On blogs, forums etc stay professional.  Put the facts out, but change tone to look appear more professional.  No side remarks, etc.  Personal attacks such as saying a person does not know what he is doing look childish and have hurt Direct.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Matthew Raymond on 01/13/2009 07:38 pm
And it seems to me there is some mixup kg vs lb

Oops, you're right. I'll rerun the numbers:

151,205 + 55,250 = 206,455

393,800 x 3 = 1,181,400

1,181,400 - 240,000 = 941,400

1,667,000 - 941,400 = 725,600

725,600 / 2 = 362,800

362,800 x (5 / 4) = 453,500

DOH!!!

Of course, this assumes a 5-segment SRB actually has x1.25 the thrust of a 4-segment SRB. It also doesn't account for the fact that the 400,000 lbs of mass for the Ares I is a second stage is static, while the weight of the external tank decreases over time due to fuel consumption. Then again, an Ares I might have less aerodynamic drag...

Moral of the story: Leave rocket science to the rocket scientists. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/13/2009 07:39 pm
Sorry, feeling a bit post happy today...

FYI a 5 seg SRB weighs almost 1.6 million lbs ready to go.  Unlike a liquid engine, you have to carry all that mass to the pad (liquids fill at the pad).  They weigh almost an order of magnitude more than the empty tank / spacecraft.  Thus, adding two more doubles your weight and is much to heavy for the crawler - so upgrade crawler, and for the crawler way - so rebuild path.  It's just way too expensive when you could better design your spacecraft.

Good golly Miss Molly, I can't imagine the MLP, crawler and crawler way required for a 4 SRB vehicle.  Not to mention flame trench changes for that level of thrust.

It could be built it would be amazing but WOW! 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: spacecase on 01/13/2009 07:59 pm
I am assuming the longer SRB's give you longer burn times rathar than just more (thrust), but I'm not sure.  As I understand they burn from the inside out, top to bottom, so a reduced orafice will extend burn time?

Lobo,

Solids produce more thrust when there is more surface area and burn for a longer time when there is more thickness to the propellent.

So for a general rule of thumb:
* Longer = more thrust
* Wider = more burn time
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/13/2009 08:58 pm
Just found that the popular mechanics news made it as far as some tech blog called Gizmodo. Random blogs and websites have really picked it up.

It is great that it went so far, but the downside is you now have the general public discussing Direct and Ares, many times without people "in the know" to clear up some of the mud.

On another note, do you think it would be worth starting a Direct facebook group? Something like "Space Fans for Direct" for a "1 million for Direct" group?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: bad_astra on 01/13/2009 09:06 pm
Call it Direct amazing peoples just for the benefit of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named-But-Lurks-Here
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/13/2009 09:08 pm
I'm thinking of going with "I'm A Direct Fan Boy, and Proud Of It!"
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2009 09:16 pm

That would be the same Lockheed-Martin that gave us the mass estimates for X-33 and Venture-Star?

That was Skunkworks and not Denver/ULA
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2009 09:26 pm

Existing? Human rated Delta doesn't exist yet as far as I know.

same goes for Ares I, it doesn't exist.  But Delta IV is flying

Define human rated.
 
Additionally, Ares I doesn't meet the human rating requirement that existed one year ago

"manrating" a Delta IV isn't a big deal
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/13/2009 09:27 pm
If you have a facebook, here is the group:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=45545713366
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2009 09:28 pm
Fifth is the fact that the SRB's were never designed to be utilized in this fashion with hundreds of tons of stage and payload on top.   They just weren't designed for these loads.

Why are these loads a big issue for the SRB, but not for Jupiter's ET-based core stage?  Is it because the core (being mostly tanks holding the liquids) can be redesigned to handle the loads, but the SRB can't be modified similarly?

Steve

Ross months ago I showed that the Ares I and Shuttle put the same loads on the SRB.  Remember the SRB lift from the forward attachment
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Bill White on 01/13/2009 09:33 pm
I'm thinking of going with "I'm A Direct Fan Boy, and Proud Of It!"

Perhaps flip this triangle over and print the Jupiter logo and the above slogan on this product (http://www.4allpromos.com/scripts/pv/3263/Triangle_Hand_Fan.html)

then distribute "amazing people fans"

Pity CafePress doesn't seem to offer fans.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/13/2009 09:35 pm
Just wondering, would it be possible to provide the image that is currently the background at directlauncher.com?

Really great image.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/13/2009 09:36 pm
Fifth is the fact that the SRB's were never designed to be utilized in this fashion with hundreds of tons of stage and payload on top.   They just weren't designed for these loads.

Why are these loads a big issue for the SRB, but not for Jupiter's ET-based core stage?  Is it because the core (being mostly tanks holding the liquids) can be redesigned to handle the loads, but the SRB can't be modified similarly?

Steve

Ross months ago I showed that the Ares I and Shuttle put the same loads on the SRB.  Remember the SRB lift from the forward attachment

Don't the fifth segment and the structural resonance with the upper stage increase those loads?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/13/2009 09:37 pm
1. Negative 11 nm x 100 nm is not an orbit - it's a crash and it's not useful for anything. It takes you 11 nautical miles beneath the surface of the earth.

That "orbit" is a trajectory that safely disposes of the US just as Shuttle does with ET. If you bring with you the US to a stable orbit, then you need to deorbit your US (some solids and pyrotechnics involved... again impacting LOC/LOM). But now since the US is insulated in foam, you can't deorbit the popcorns...

He specifically referred to it as an "orbit", not a trajectory.
Quote
-11x100nm is useful orbit for Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/13/2009 09:52 pm
It was just an analagy.  But the my point is still converting an exsting vehicle to do something it was never intended to do, -can- be much more involved than one thinks it might be, and in the end, you can end up with basically a morphidite in a role it was never intended for and a purpose built-vehicle would have been a better option.
The SST was never intended to carry nose payload, or have thrust directly under it, or go beyond LEO.
This is part of the issues with those thinking about using the EELV's for man missions. 
The shuttle ET, there is no other name, as modified for Direct, doesn't leave LEO.

NASA, not just Direct, had plans to put payloads on the nose of the ET, on the aft of the ET, extend the length of the ET for propellant, use it for the basis of the NLS Core.  So what if is wasn't designed for it, it can be easily modified to do this because the diameter stays the same.  Length, skin gage or what attaches to the ends are easy changes.

This is standard practice. 
Titan II became T-III with the strengthening of the core to accept the largest SRM's at the time.  Per your post, this shouldn't happen since the T-II wasn't designed that way.  That is partially correct.  The core was no longer a T-II but a T-III (it was slightly heavier).  The same thing will happen with the shuttle ET, it will be come a Direct core.  The two are not interchangeable.

To continue, the T-III, became the T-34D and then the T-IV.

The same thing occurred with Thors having solids added and the tapered LOX tank being made into a constant 8' cylinder. 

The Atlas to accept the Centaur had skin gage thickness change and a constant 10' diameter.   It also had SRM's added.

So in all, the change of a shuttle ET into a Direct core is not a big deal.  It is all within standard LV experience.

BTW the orbiter does lift the ET from the aft, just a little to the side. 

Additionally, the change from ET to Direct is easier than from Direct to ET, if Direct was designed first
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 10:17 pm
Opening the new "THREAD 3" Here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15541.0

This thread will be locked now.

Ross.