Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1  (Read 1228149 times)

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #380 on: 06/05/2009 03:24 pm »
I'm going to make a specific appeal to all of our supporters:

Can we all please try to refrain from any "confrontation" with CxP from here onwards.   It isn't helping things.


Okey dokey!!!  :)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #381 on: 06/05/2009 03:28 pm »

  With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.


Not being antagonistic, but much like I have asked the DIRECT guys, prove this statement.

Its not.   Well, not exactly...

What the Depot allows you to do is increase the number of missions each year.   By amortizing costs over a larger number of elements each year that helps reduce the cost *OF EACH MISSION*.

A secondary effect is that the cost of all the systems reduces, so other uses for them become more affordable.   For example, if a dozen Atlas-V's were added to the annual launch manifest, the cost to DoD, NOAA, NASA and commercial customers would drop -- which would likely increase business a bit in all those different areas.   So the cost savings would ultimately also feed back into places like SMD and that would help to perpetuate more science missions as one of the side-effects.


Ultimately, you will still spend the same amount of total money.

But *overall* you will get greater returns for it -- and not just in NASA's back yard, but also across many areas of the whole industry.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 03:30 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #382 on: 06/05/2009 03:32 pm »
Keys to any organization are a clear vision, effective direction and delegation.

Agreed.   But it gets a lot trickier if your resources are very finite :) LOL

Ours are. :(

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 03:39 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline adamsmith

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • chicago, IL USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #383 on: 06/05/2009 03:33 pm »

  With propellant depots a lunar architecture is cheaper. ( please review appropriate section in Direct v2.0 presentation.


Not being antagonistic, but much like I have asked the DIRECT guys, prove this statement.

Its not.   Well, not exactly...

What the Depot allows you to do is increase the number of missions each year.   By amortizing costs over a larger number of elements each year that helps reduce the cost *OF EACH MISSION*.

A secondary effect is that the cost of all the systems reduces, so other uses for them become more affordable.   For example, if a dozen Atlas-V's were added to the annual launch manifest, the cost to DoD, NOAA, NASA and commercial customers would drop -- which would likely increase business a bit in all those different areas.   So the cost savings would ultimately also feed back into places like SMD and that would help to perpetuate more science missions as one of the side-effects.


Ultimately, you will still spend the same amount of total money.

But *overall* you will get greater returns for it -- and not just in NASA's back yard, but also across many areas of the whole industry.

Ross.

Again you hit the nail on the head.  I did mispeak, you got it right.  More missions per $, not fewer total $.

Thanks

Stan

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #384 on: 06/05/2009 03:38 pm »
Now, what about my point concerning no Mars without PD.

NASA HSF budget would need to increase 4-5x to enable Mars mission (NR is $100-$400B, RE is at least $7B) so the point is effectively moot.

mars,
Where are you getting those cost estimates from?   They're a lot higher than what I've been seeing.   I've been seeing figures around $25bn spread over 12 years, which is roughly $2bn per year -- or what we're currently spending on ISS.

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

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #385 on: 06/05/2009 03:39 pm »
Okay, I'm gonna bugger-off for a while.   I need to go get some real work done :)

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

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #386 on: 06/05/2009 03:41 pm »
Ross and Team,

Quick question.
I know you've been looking for ways to make the J-130 work to put the CSM and LSAM into orger to dock with the EDS launched on a J-246.

Just out of curiosity, what more do you need performance wise from the J-130 to accomplish that (without each having to do it's own circulization burn)?

I think it's a great idea if you can make it happen, saves a 2nd EDS.
 

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #387 on: 06/05/2009 04:02 pm »
NASA News Bulletin clip


Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #388 on: 06/05/2009 04:13 pm »

NASA HSF budget would need to increase 4-5x to enable Mars mission (NR is $100-$400B, RE is at least $7B) so the point is effectively moot.

I could quote the dissection of SEI (not the full architecture) I did letter and verse, or any number of other Mars costs studies I have seen, but rather than that, I'll do it by complexity and similarity.

(all inflated to today's dollars, tomorrow's dollars will cost more ;-)

Apollo - $175B
Skylab - $13B
Shuttle - $35B
Hubble - $6B (original estimate of a "copy" was $1BFY08)
Station - $35-$100B (depending on book keeping)
TSAT (without launch, est at cancellation) - $26B

A Mars mission is more complex than any of these ... and costs increase logarithically with complexity.  See attached graphic from this ... and see what happens when you underfund or have too ambitious a schedule (epic fail!):

http://ses.gsfc.nasa.gov/ses_data_2008/080603_Bearden.ppt

Finally, remember that today's space industry cost much, much more than the industry of the 1970's and 1980's to pay for an order of magnitude improvement in reliability and mission assurance.  The TSAT costs are your best guide, a Shuttle in today's world would cost at least $50B.

I would bet my house there is no way to do it for $2B a year.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 04:54 pm by mars.is.wet »

Offline MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #389 on: 06/05/2009 04:14 pm »
If I were going to recommend a name convention change, which I'm not really inclined to, I would probably suggest using the simplest descriptions of just the "Jupiter" vehicle and the "Jupiter with Upper Stage".

This works very well, but pedantically "Jupiter" is the generic name of the vehicle.

If you want to be specific, perhaps "Jupiter with Upper Stage" and "Jupiter without Upper Stage", which makes the point very well, but is rather cumbersome. After the first couple of mentions in any conversation you'd probably start using "Jupiter with" and "Jupiter without". Acceptable in a conversation or a forum, but not appropriate for the commission, for instance.

For the commission, I presume "one core, two vehicles" is a point you'd press firmly at the start of the presentation, and that should do the trick. They presumably know one end of a rocket from the other.

cheers, Martin

Offline MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #390 on: 06/05/2009 04:36 pm »
Concepts are judged by their weakest link. 

Propellant depots are a non-starter IMO, and simply weaken the DIRECT presentation and distract from the main message.

I agree with this.  Don't even mention depots as having anything to do with Direct at this time.  Direct 3.0 gets us to the moon without them.  Depots are very high risk and need lots of development at this time.  I think the idea should be brought forward to the Commission, but not tied to Direct.

Danny Deger


I am torn on this one - it's a great technology, and I can see in 20 years time that people could be shaking their heads and wondering however we managed without them.

As I understand it, the commission is there to set direction, not just "should we keep Ares or choose a different path, or abandon the whole exploration plan".

Maybe this would make a good subject for a separate presentation, depots & the whole of DIRECT phase 2. Gives you another bite at the cherry.

Is Jongoff planning to present?

cheers, Martin

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #391 on: 06/05/2009 04:45 pm »

snip

Maybe this would make a good subject for a separate presentation, depots & the whole of DIRECT phase 2. Gives you another bite at the cherry.

snip

cheers, Martin

I think this is the perfect way to do it.  Maybe show a single Jupiter in the future can do a lunar cargo mission if a depot is in place.  Single launch lunar cargo is one of the strengths of Ares V over Jupiter.

Just make sure depots and Direct 3.0 are not tied at the hip and someone on the Commission says, "I don't think we are ready for depots, we better not use Direct 3.0."

Danny Deger
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 04:48 pm by Danny Dot »
Danny Deger

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #392 on: 06/05/2009 05:06 pm »
As I understand things, Direct 3.0 is very well positioned to take advantage of the leverage offered by propellant depots however Direct 3.0 is not dependent upon the deployment of depots to fulfill VSE objectives.

Is this an accurate summary?
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #393 on: 06/05/2009 05:24 pm »
Any launch vehicle is in position to take advantage of a prop depot as long as the payload it is carrying is capable of topping off the tanks. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #394 on: 06/05/2009 05:48 pm »
Except it isn't as obvious an upgrade path for Ares, because you'd have to upgrade Altair to get much extra performance out of a depot with a one-launch Ares V mission - Ares V already lofts 90% of the payload, and they don't seem to want to launch crew on the thing anyway.

With Jupiter, a PD turns two J-246 launches into one.  All the pieces are there on the crew launch; all you have to do is refill the upper stage, and presto - instant EDS...

If you do want to upgrade Altair later, then the difference between the two launch architectures WRT PD blurs a bit...

Offline loomy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #395 on: 06/05/2009 06:01 pm »
3)  Without Propellant depots, it is impossible to go to mars.

As as been said, that isn't worth mentioning to Augustine in the DIRECT presentation, because it could hurt the DIRECT presentation by confusing it.  They are separate enough topics that it should be in a vision for space presentation only.  "Vision for space by DIRECT".

Also just because the PD thing is so up for debate. (I think the moon resource mission should happen before an earth PD and therefore before a stroll on mars.  And by the time that happens we might have new earth launch vehicles that don't need the old earth PD.  Or maybe an earth PD could be built and sent to the moon.  In any case it is all up for debate, and that debate is different than today's launcher debate)

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #396 on: 06/05/2009 06:21 pm »
Except it isn't as obvious an upgrade path for Ares, because you'd have to upgrade Altair to get much extra performance out of a depot with a one-launch Ares V mission - Ares V already lofts 90% of the payload, and they don't seem to want to launch crew on the thing anyway.

With Jupiter, a PD turns two J-246 launches into one.  All the pieces are there on the crew launch; all you have to do is refill the upper stage, and presto - instant EDS...

If you do want to upgrade Altair later, then the difference between the two launch architectures WRT PD blurs a bit...

Interesting point I hadn't thought much about on PD's.
How do PD's really help Ares? The idea of Ares is to have a small, man-rated launcher for just the crew, and then a large, non-man rated stack for everything else.  Ares 1 can only carry the crew, and Ares V wouldn't be able to launch the crew unless they later decided to man-rate it, and basically make a Saturn VI out of it by putting the CSM on top.  But the vast majority of an Ares Moonshot is the Ares V iteself, and you are still launching it, so yea, I don't think a PD helps the Ares architecture much at all.  You are still expending 80% of your launch hardware.

With Direct you're cutting your launch hardware down by half.  So it becomes a very appearling upgrade path for Direct, but not much of a benefit for Ares.

Hmmm....  interesting.

Although, I suppose the Devil's advocate postion of that would be is a PD would mean NASA could scrap Ares 1 entirely and only need Ares V.
Put the CSM on top like Saturn, with a partially fueled EDS.  top off the tanks from the PD and off you go.  And save a bunch of money and headaches by not developing Ares 1.

Of Course...so could Direct...with a launcher 2/3 the size of Ares V...in 4-5 years less time...for a fraction of the development costs....

Hmmm....
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 06:31 pm by Lobo »

Offline adamsmith

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • chicago, IL USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #397 on: 06/05/2009 06:32 pm »
Except it isn't as obvious an upgrade path for Ares, because you'd have to upgrade Altair to get much extra performance out of a depot with a one-launch Ares V mission - Ares V already lofts 90% of the payload, and they don't seem to want to launch crew on the thing anyway.

With Jupiter, a PD turns two J-246 launches into one.  All the pieces are there on the crew launch; all you have to do is refill the upper stage, and presto - instant EDS...

If you do want to upgrade Altair later, then the difference between the two launch architectures WRT PD blurs a bit...

Interesting point I hadn't thought much about on PD's.
How do PD's really help Ares? The idea of Ares is to have a small, man-rated launcher for just the crew, and then a large, non-man rated stack for everything else.  Ares 1 can only carry the crew, and Ares V wouldn't be able to launch the crew unless they later decided to man-rate it, and basically make a Saturn VI out of it.  But the vast majority of an Ares Moonshot is the Ares V iteself, and you are still launching it, so yea, I don't think a PD helps the Ares architecture much at all.  You are still expending 80% of your launch hardware.

With Direct you're cutting your launch hardware down by half.  So it becomes a very appearling upgrade path for Direct, but not much of a benefit for Ares.

Hmmm....  interesting.



Thats the point I was trying to make.  AresI/AresV is a repeat of the Saturn V strategy with a complicating twist: Two launches.  Thats like if  back in 1969 they had required a Saturn IB launch with each Saturn V launch.  The architecture is a dead end.  With Direct, a PD is much better leveraged because the Jupiter platform covers a sweet spot in the payloads needed for both the launch of the orion/altair as well as the EDS and the Depot allowing a single launch of the Jupiter to cover the mission requirements, and we all know that Jupiter is CHEAPER.

Stan

Offline MP99

Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #398 on: 06/05/2009 06:33 pm »
Ross,

I'm currently listening to the Space Show.

One thing that I think should have been strongly pushed - that Jupiter is just a shuttle-sized version of Ares V.

In trying to persuade your audience regarding a vehicle they know little about, that's a persuasive argument - NASA chose this basic route, just a different size.

It also pushes the line that work on Ares V should be pretty applicable to Jupiter.

cheers, Martin

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #399 on: 06/05/2009 07:48 pm »
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1