NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

HLV / SLS / Orion / Constellation => Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV/SLS) => Topic started by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 10:16 PM

Title: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2009 10:16 PM
Opening this new thread to take over from Thread 2.   Will be locking the older thread now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/13/2009 10:52 PM
RE:  JIM

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.

Lobo:
I understand the ET won't leave LEO, but it was never designed to carry a load that would like it will be used for now.
Like I said, maybe it's not a major obsticle.  Just pointing out some  other consideration that people might not be thinking about, especially when they all get excited about their own ideas.

Just trying to bring some question from ouside the pro-Direct box.  In college, I had to take a Human Factors class.  It was basically a study of psychology and ergonomics in engineering.  And one very interesting thing I learned there that I see all the time in life outside of engineering is the concept of getting married to your original idea.  It's human nature, not an insult.  But the first real idea we get, we tend to cling to and dismiss new data and information which could either improve your original idea, or replace your orginal idea with a better one.  The human brain instinctively clings to the first idea.  It's just our nature, and we'll sometimes irrationally get upset when someone questions our idea.
Now, there's a case to be made that the hanchos at NASA are suffering from this, by clinging to Ares when there might be a better way (and yes, I understand they exampled several designs before settling on Ares, but the basic Ares idea could have been settled on early, to the disregard of other ideas, or it didn't really become THEIR idea until that inital evaluation was done.  Then the blinders go up and that design is clung to.)
However, this can happen with DIRECT supporters too.  Because DIRECT is someone's idea that you guys then grap ahold of and cling to.  Especially the original team who came up with it.  Ares wasn't -their- idea, Direct was. So, it can get clung to in as irrational way as many of you probably think NASA is doing.

I am merely currious if that's the case given some of the hostility I've read in some of the posts here (not towards me per se, but on some of the other comments I've read)  And that's perfectly normal, but if the DIRECT design is the best, then you should be able to succesfully defend it againt questions, without throwing out hypothetical or ad hominem retorts. 

To say Ares V will never be built it hypothetical.  NASA seems to think it will.  To say it's better to use existing tech is hypothetical, as often you need new tech and designes to progess and evolve.  The Titan/Gemini program was completely new from Atlast/Mercury, and Saturn/Apollo was new again.  They weren't trying to use heritage tech from the Titan booster when they built Saturn.

The point is you guys should be able to defend DIRECT as the better option on it's merits and performance (Ross has done this very well to his credit) and not out of just clinging to it because it's -your- baby.

Just something to think about.

And as an Aside, as the DIRECT supporters have often pointed out, Ares would mostly be a new vehicle, so it'd obviously be designed from day one to lift payloads on it's nose and have the rocket engines be attached to the bottom of the tank.  The current ET is designed to have the enngines on a separate module, and attached to 3 side points.  I don't know myself, but maybe you'd have to do major redesign work to shift the structural strength from those connection points to the bottom of the tank, or else the RS-68's will crush the tank like a beer can. 
Maybe that modification will more expensive than people think.  Maybe it will be relatively simple, and even save costs in the future because that layout is easier to make strong than the side layout they currently have to keep the Shuttle from ripping the side out of the tank.

My guy tells me the latter should be true...but are these things that have all been absolutely accounted for?  Can we even know until a buildable blueprint for the new ET has been done?
*shrug*
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Alpha Control on 01/13/2009 10:57 PM
Darn! I was the first person to post on Thread 2, and I just missed it here  :)  Chuck, you missed it again too!

David
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: imcub on 01/13/2009 11:25 PM

To say Ares V will never be built it hypothetical.  NASA seems to think it will.


The fact that there are many enthusiastic "anything space is great" supporters here that think Ares V is to expensive tells me that the President Elect, Congress, and the general public will frown once they see its total cost of Ares V when compared to some other more frugal options.  Just a thought ...   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/13/2009 11:48 PM
From Jim:

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

Lobo:

First:  Any idea of how much it would cost to man-rate the Delta 4?
Sounds like it can lift a bit more than Ares 1.  But can it carry Orion and the SM dimensionally?
The Delta 4 is 16.4 ft dia, and Orion is 16.5 ft. at it's widest.
doesn't seem like much, but how much modification to the Delta 4 would be needed to fit the Orion?

Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?  And if so, could they go back to the old cheaper foam because it wouldn't matter that it sheds?
I know the old pictures of the Saturn taking off with literally tons of ice breaking off.  Seems like those could potentiall cause enough problem of striking the SRB gimbles or just the lower part of the stack, or even damaging the pad that you'd probably want to stick with some type of foam.  But could there be some savings to be had there for either Jupiter or Ares?

Lastly, to one of you guys who have all the numbers at your finger tips, could there be even a scaled down version of Jupiter 120 for launching Orion and the SM to the ISS?
What I mean by that is could you actually forgo the SRB's for a core with 3 RS68's?  Would they even produce enough thrust to get off the ground?
Just seems that if Jupiter 120 can lift 45 tons or whatever, but only needs to lift around 20 tons of Orion and SM, could the SRM's be eliminated completely, and just a "slick" Jupter with 3 RS-68's?
I get varing data on the RS68's depending on the std, A or B versions.  The Jupiter 232 will use the B versions, right?  Around 790,000 lbs of thrust each?  The regular is around 700,0000 and the A is around 751,000 lbs of thrust?
How much will the ET with Orion and the SM weigh?
The current SLWT ET is 1,665,400 lbs.  Add the Orion to that with some fairings and the engines, and how much is that?
Can 3 RS68's, A or B do it?  (3 RS68B's would be about 2,370,000 lbs of thrust, based on 790,000 lbs/thrust each)
Could they do it with a 4 engine config?
Would a 3 or 4 engine slick Jupiter be less expensive per flight than the Jupiter 120 for a mission when all you want to do is get Orion to the ISS for a crew rotation or supply run.
Obviously you expend 1 or 2 additional RS68's, but you save the SRB propellant, refurbishing, recover, and transportation costs.
Anyone know the costs for that?  I don't.  But I'd heard even though the SRB's are "reusable" they actually have to go through them to the point to where it's not much cheaper than building new ones.
Is that true?

Just thinking that there's not much need to launch a configuration to the ISS that can carry 45+ tons when all you need is to get 20+ tons there.
The Jupiter 120 could be used for ISS component replacement and large resupply missions.
If a "Slick" Jupiter "130" could be used to just get Orion up there and back, would there be further saving to be had there?
Probably be a little smoother ride for the Astronauts too.

I suppose this would defeat the idea of manrating the Delta 4 and using that for Orion only missions, but it was just a thought.  Especially if you can get it lifted with the same 3 engine endcap as the 232.  Be like a fatter Delta 4

Maybe it's already been thought of, if so, would like to hear what was said about it.

-Lobo
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/13/2009 11:48 PM
Ah, that nice fresh smell of a brand new Direct thread.  ;D

As was announced towards the end of the last thread, the Direct facebook group is up and running!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=45545713366
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/13/2009 11:52 PM
Darn! I was the first person to post on Thread 2, and I just missed it here  :)  Chuck, you missed it again too!

David

Darn. I was engrossed with the intricacies of my slide rule. :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gospacex on 01/13/2009 11:55 PM
I understand the ET won't leave LEO, but it was never designed to carry a load that would like it will be used for now.
Like I said, maybe it's not a major obsticle.  Just pointing out some  other consideration that people might not be thinking about, especially when they all get excited about their own ideas.

So you think people, which are working on DIRECT project for 2 years now, somehow "might not be thinking about" whether it is feasible of making ET-derived tank to support this weight.

Surprise! They did think about it, and found out that it is possible, and not even hard.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/13/2009 11:56 PM

To say Ares V will never be built it hypothetical.  NASA seems to think it will.


The fact that there are many enthusiastic "anything space is great" supporters here that think Ares V is to expensive tells me that the President Elect, Congress, and the general public will frown once they see its total cost of Ares V when compared to some other more frugal options.  Just a thought ...   


Agreed.  Just having a gentleman's discussion here.  :-)

Careful of the new President and Democrat Congress.  They'll be more interested in buying votes with handouts than funding NASA.
My biggest fear is that a change in direction now could allow Congress to come in and rob funds for social engineering programs.
I'm very VERY nervous about that with this crew coming in.

Oh, as a note, maybe you guys could just tell NASA if they go with DIRECT, they can still call it "Ares", and then they can save some face.
heheheh
;-)

The Jupiter 232 could be the "Ares IV", and the 120 could be the "Ares II"
A slick Jupter, less the SRB's could be the new "Ares 1".
Those rocket scientist and their fagile egos and all...

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/13/2009 11:59 PM
I understand the ET won't leave LEO, but it was never designed to carry a load that would like it will be used for now.
Like I said, maybe it's not a major obsticle.  Just pointing out some  other consideration that people might not be thinking about, especially when they all get excited about their own ideas.

So you think people, which are working on DIRECT project for 2 years now, somehow "might not be thinking about" whether it is feasible of making ET-derived tank to support this weight.

Surprise! They did think about it, and found out that it is possible, and not even hard.

Point taken.

But there's a lot on the forum who seem to think the NASA crew hasn't thought about some relatively innocuous things, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander...as they say.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gospacex on 01/14/2009 12:02 AM
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.

Quote
I know the old pictures of the Saturn taking off with literally tons of ice breaking off.  Seems like those could potentiall cause enough problem of striking the SRB gimbles or just the lower part of the stack, or even damaging the pad that you'd probably want to stick with some type of foam.

Pad built strong enough to withstand SRB exhaust is damaged by ice? I don't think so.

Quote
Lastly, to one of you guys who have all the numbers at your finger tips, could there be even a scaled down version of Jupiter 120 for launching Orion and the SM to the ISS? What I mean by that is could you actually forgo the SRB's for a core with 3 RS68's?

Answered (a few times I think) n the old thread. No, it can't be used like this without major redesign (=> major $$$), because in DIRECT configurations the tank is supported by SRBs on the pad. It can't stand like that on its own.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/14/2009 12:07 AM
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.

Quote
I know the old pictures of the Saturn taking off with literally tons of ice breaking off.  Seems like those could potentiall cause enough problem of striking the SRB gimbles or just the lower part of the stack, or even damaging the pad that you'd probably want to stick with some type of foam.

Pad built strong enough to withstand SRB exhaust is damaged by ice? I don't think so.

Quote
Lastly, to one of you guys who have all the numbers at your finger tips, could there be even a scaled down version of Jupiter 120 for launching Orion and the SM to the ISS? What I mean by that is could you actually forgo the SRB's for a core with 3 RS68's?

Answered (a few times I think) n the old thread. No, it can't be used like this without major redesign (=> major $$$), because in DIRECT configurations the tank is supported by SRBs on the pad. It can't stand like that on its own.

Another reason not to scale down Direct is that everything smaller than the 120 could easily be replicated with the Delta IV. I remember the suggestion of a "Baby-Jupiter" with 1 RS-68, but it was found that at that point, the Delta IV Heavy would be much better.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/14/2009 12:08 AM

Quote
Lastly, to one of you guys who have all the numbers at your finger tips, could there be even a scaled down version of Jupiter 120 for launching Orion and the SM to the ISS? What I mean by that is could you actually forgo the SRB's for a core with 3 RS68's?

Answered (a few times I think) n the old thread. No, it can't be used like this without major redesign (=> major $$$), because in DIRECT configurations the tank is supported by SRBs on the pad. It can't stand like that on its own.

Ahh, Makes since.  I didn't read all of the previous threads.  Didn't ahve 2 years go kill.  Heheheh

Sounds like the Delta 4 Heavy would be a viable option for basic ISS runs for Orion then, once it was man rated and modified to carry Orion.

Anyone have any cost estimates of a Delta 4-heavy launch, vs. a Jupiter 120 launch vs. the Current shuttle launch, vs (and I know I'm asking a loaded question for this forum) how much the Ares 1 per launch?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/14/2009 12:32 AM

My guy tells me the latter should be true...but are these things that have all been absolutely accounted for?  Can we even know until a buildable blueprint for the new ET has been done?
*shrug*


Yes and yes.  Look at the NLS document Ross posted
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/14/2009 12:35 AM
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.


Incorrect, it is needed.  LH2 will not become stable in the tank without it
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/14/2009 12:40 AM
Incorrect, it is needed.  LH2 will not become stable in the tank without it

Does that mean it will be at a full rolling boil without it?  Would that cause foam or what (besides losses)?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Alpha Control on 01/14/2009 12:44 AM
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.


Incorrect, it is needed.  LH2 will not become stable in the tank without it

Jim, is that why Saturn S-1C stage didn't have external foam insulation, because it was kerosene fuel instead of LH2?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/14/2009 12:53 AM

First:  Any idea of how much it would cost to man-rate the Delta 4?
Sounds like it can lift a bit more than Ares 1.  But can it carry Orion and the SM dimensionally?
The Delta 4 is 16.4 ft dia, and Orion is 16.5 ft. at it's widest.
doesn't seem like much, but how much modification to the Delta 4 would be needed to fit the Orion?

Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?  And if so, could they go back to the old cheaper foam because it wouldn't matter that it sheds?


Less than 500 million

Dimensionally is not a problem.  An adapter can be made to fit it to the D-IV

All LH2 vehicles need insulation and the current foam is the best there is.  The older foam is more expensive and less efficient and also comes off

See Delta IV and Centaur
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/14/2009 12:53 AM
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.


Incorrect, it is needed.  LH2 will not become stable in the tank without it

Jim, is that why Saturn S-1C stage didn't have external foam insulation, because it was kerosene fuel instead of LH2?

yes
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gospacex on 01/14/2009 12:59 AM
Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?

Well, if you are ok with *liquid air* forming on the tank, not counting huge masses of ice... then no, not really.

Incorrect, it is needed.  LH2 will not become stable in the tank without it

My comment was tongue in cheek  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: robertross on 01/14/2009 01:09 AM
Incorrect, it is needed.  LH2 will not become stable in the tank without it

Does that mean it will be at a full rolling boil without it?  Would that cause foam or what (besides losses)?

Not just a rolling boil as a major issue, but the engine(s) rely on a stable flow of fluid for proper combustion. Having turbulence & vortices could cause major hiccups in the turbines, injector, and also creates line losses (restriction) which affects the expected movement of sufficient fuel. Lack of fuel destroys engines, which is why they run fuel rich.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/14/2009 01:14 AM
Lack of fuel destroys engines, which is why they run fuel rich.

I thought they also ran fuel rich to reduce the average molecular weight of the exhaust, which increases ISP.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/14/2009 01:20 AM

My guy tells me the latter should be true...but are these things that have all been absolutely accounted for?  Can we even know until a buildable blueprint for the new ET has been done?
*shrug*


Yes and yes.  Look at the NLS document Ross posted

Well, yes and no. The NLS showed that a particular Shuttle derived vehicle could be built, and doing that would require changes and choices that required over 600 pages even to summarize.

The Jupiter designs are quite different vehicles from NLS. Instead of a mere 80 ton payload atop the ET, they have to be able to support a honking enormous upper stage, with sometimes a massive payload atop that. So a similar design effort would be needed for the new assumptions.

Is the Jupiter core buildable? Absolutely. Is it just a matter of a few minor modifications to the existing ET? Well, read the NLS report and decide for yourself.

Now remember that the Jupiter proposal really hinges on the integrated Jupiter 232. Jupiter 120 is just the Jupiter 232 core and boosters with an RS-68 removed.

For the Jupiter 232 design to close, the ultralightweight upper stage has to meet the ambitious goals set by the Direct team and their anonymous engineers.

Before a contractor started building the Jupiter core, there would need to be a lot of detailed design work as NASA and the contractors figured out if the design could achieve its goals and what it would cost if it could.

That's the Achilles' heel of the Direct proposal. Ares now has a three year head start, and the gap is widening every day. A two launch solution was a fairly attractive option three years ago. Now, changing horses in midstream is a lot more expensive.





Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lars_J on 01/14/2009 01:43 AM
Another reason not to scale down Direct is that everything smaller than the 120 could easily be replicated with the Delta IV. I remember the suggestion of a "Baby-Jupiter" with 1 RS-68, but it was found that at that point, the Delta IV Heavy would be much better.

It's kind of interesting that a Jupiter 110 would be *very* similar to the Ariane 5, both in look and payload capability.  :) (I'm not sure about the external dimensions, though)

But I certainly understand why you don't want to scale down the 120 further... and it would be nice to have a launcher that wouldn't have such tight mass margins.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/14/2009 01:54 AM
I just wanted to jump in here, and say that I expect to have the plans and notes for the Jupiter Models ready to publish pretty soon.

:)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/14/2009 02:49 AM
Another reason not to scale down Direct is that everything smaller than the 120 could easily be replicated with the Delta IV. I remember the suggestion of a "Baby-Jupiter" with 1 RS-68, but it was found that at that point, the Delta IV Heavy would be much better.

It's kind of interesting that a Jupiter 110 would be *very* similar to the Ariane 5, both in look and payload capability.  :) (I'm not sure about the external dimensions, though)

But I certainly understand why you don't want to scale down the 120 further... and it would be nice to have a launcher that wouldn't have such tight mass margins.

It would make a nice "What If?" scenario, where NASA is able to develop a launch vehicle that can be used commercially. I would like to see how a Jupiter-110 would have fared against the EELVs and Ariane V.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/14/2009 02:58 AM
It would make a nice "What If?" scenario, where NASA is able to develop a launch vehicle that can be used commercially. I would like to see how a Jupiter-110 would have fared against the EELVs and Ariane V.

NASA is forbidden by law to compete in the commercial area. Shuttle pretty much wiped out the US commercial launch industry, no reason to do so again.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/14/2009 03:13 AM
For the Jupiter 232 design to close, the ultralightweight upper stage has to meet the ambitious goals set by the Direct team and their anonymous engineers.

I may not be reading these numbers right, but what's so ambitious about it?  According to the baseball cards it weighs 47,367 pounds, and carries under 800,000 pounds of propellant, while the ET weighs 58,500 pounds (23% more) and carries over 1,600,000 pounds (over 100% more) of propellant.  It sound's as if the current ET is much more ambitious from those numbers, and it has to side-mount the orbiter, support the beam from the SRBs, and it's not a common-bulkhead design.

What am I missing?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/14/2009 03:17 AM
It would make a nice "What If?" scenario, where NASA is able to develop a launch vehicle that can be used commercially. I would like to see how a Jupiter-110 would have fared against the EELVs and Ariane V.

NASA is forbidden by law to compete in the commercial area. Shuttle pretty much wiped out the US commercial launch industry, no reason to do so again.

I know this. I meant, this in a "what if?" where that law does not exist. Just an apples to apples comparison between the vehicles.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lars_J on 01/14/2009 04:11 AM
I don't think a Jupiter 110 could compete very well in such a hypothetical scenario... It would be a bit over-engineered for the purpose. It's parts cost would probably exceed the EELVs by quite a margin. Then add in all the extra workforce...
(but it would look cool) :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/14/2009 05:12 AM
I understand the ET won't leave LEO, but it was never designed to carry a load that would like it will be used for now.
Like I said, maybe it's not a major obsticle.  Just pointing out some  other consideration that people might not be thinking about, especially when they all get excited about their own ideas.

So you think people, which are working on DIRECT project for 2 years now, somehow "might not be thinking about" whether it is feasible of making ET-derived tank to support this weight.

Surprise! They did think about it, and found out that it is possible, and not even hard.

Easy mater! :)

Many of us have been over this question before, but Lobo's question *is* still a valid one for all those folk who weren't here 6 months ago -- or 24+ months ago.

We have spent a great deal of time investigating the procedures, facilities and design involved in converting the ET into a Core Stage.

Back on the old Thread 2 I posted a link to one of the many hundreds of documents about the NLS (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930007493) -- a system which bears a lot of similarity to Jupiter.   That document certainly requires updating, but it shows precisely how MSFC wanted to perform precisely this sort of modification to the ET back in 1993.   The document is part 1 of three, making a complete set of Trade Studies which were together, completed within the 9 month period from May 1991 to January 1992.   This was the "Structures" book.   The other two parts of the set are Avionics and Systems (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930013987) and Propulsion (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930014526).

Our small group has been gradually trying to update this study and create something similar for Jupiter.   We're in a position today where we have plans for implementing the first DAC and have almost got a fully-integrated baseline design ready to enter that process "running" -- although we also acknowledge that none of our work will actually ever be used.   It will all have to be redone "officially" anyway, but we have at least helped 'clear the path' and we've already tackled a number of the hurdles so we know it can be done.

Without doubt, this is most definitely "rocket science", or perhaps more precisely "rocket engineering".   We (and I'm talking about our engineers, not myself here -- While I'm a quick learner, I've still got a long way to go myself!) are fully-aware of what's involved to get this right.

We do have the benefit that a lot of what we're proposing has its roots firmly in existing flight hardware.   But even with that advantage, nobody is claiming that this is "simple", "easy" or "minor" -- nothing in this business ever qualifies for those terms except when it is used exclusively a relative statement.

The design of any new rocket is a major effort, an engineering challenge, a costly endeavor and a careful balance of risk.   But, like with many things in life, there are comparatively easier paths and comparatively more difficult ones which can be taken.   We are convinced that DIRECT's Jupiter launcher represents a much simpler and less costly approach than the Ares duo.   We are also convinced that Ares is not fiscally responsible enough and that it will ultimately lead the way to joining so many other NASA projects which have been canceled prematurely due to cost.   It is DIRECT's hope to change direction before that happens and prevent the Vision For Space Exploration from becoming yet another wasted effort to reach for the stars.


The DIRECT approach attempts to reuse as much existing proven flight hardware, with the least possible number of changes, to create a new fiscally-responsible system able to perform the tasks which we are planning to do.

What we're proposing is still a major project.   Jupiter-120 is a $9.5 billion development program -- but that's roughly $5 billion less than Ares-I will cost.

Where we really save money though, is by removing the full development of the second launcher (Ares-V) from the equation.   We remove the need for another set of SRB's and the requirement for manufacturing and launch infrastructure for all that too.   Of course, we still need the EDS, but the total cost savings of re-using the Core of the J-120 again as the basis for the J-232 saves over $10 billion more in development costs.   That's some really serious money we're talking about there.


While I started out really simply some ~30-something months ago, the initial very rudimentary concept has been seriously fleshed-out over the last few years by the hard volunteer efforts of a group of experienced professionals from across the whole industry.   Today The DIRECT Team have a very mature proposal with a lot of substance behind it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/14/2009 05:50 AM
Lack of fuel destroys engines, which is why they run fuel rich.

I thought they also ran fuel rich to reduce the average molecular weight of the exhaust, which increases ISP.

Yes and no. Running stoichiometric (burn everything equally) means maximum energy is extracted from the chemical reaction. Running fuel or oxidiser rich means you are chucking more mass overboard for less chemical energy per unit mass... hence a lower collective exhaust velocity. However, it also means that the thermal energy is more efficiently distributed amongst molecules. It's easier to plunk thermal energy into H2 because it has one bond. H2O has 3 bonds so it gets squished out in the interactions.

(Real rocket engineers please feel free to correct me wherever I foul up).

Tankage is also an issue. I believe US rockets run a tankage ratio of 4.5 to 1 for LH/LOX combos when stochiometric is like 8 to 1 (mass ratio). It's all very fuzzy really. That's why you see the LH tank is something like 4x the size of the LOX tank instead of 2x the size.

edited for accuracy and spelling. stoichiometric! always forget the i!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: madscientist197 on 01/14/2009 07:21 AM
I think it's closer to 6:1 oxidiser/fuel for most LH/LOX engines today. 4:1 is approximately the ratio for the maximum possible ISP, but it takes too much tanking to be worth it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/14/2009 07:30 AM
I'd have to go look it up to be certain, but I'm pretty sure J-2X uses a 5.5 : 1 mixture ratio.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gospacex on 01/14/2009 08:26 AM
That's the Achilles' heel of the Direct proposal. Ares now has a three year head start,

...during which it has slipped four years to the right. Today Ares is looking far worse than three years ago.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gospacex on 01/14/2009 08:35 AM
Lack of fuel destroys engines, which is why they run fuel rich.

I thought they also ran fuel rich to reduce the average molecular weight of the exhaust, which increases ISP.

Yes and no. Running stoichiometric (burn everything equally) means maximum energy is extracted from the chemical reaction. Running fuel or oxidiser rich means you are chucking more mass overboard for less chemical energy per unit mass... hence a lower collective exhaust velocity. However, it also means that the thermal energy is more efficiently distributed amongst molecules. It's easier to plunk thermal energy into H2 because it has one bond. H2O has 3 bonds so it gets squished out in the interactions.

(Real rocket engineers please feel free to correct me wherever I foul up).

I think you are wrong. Energy is not important, impulse (speed) is. Running LOX/LH non-stoichiometric gives you free H2 in the exhaust, which has highest possible speed of all gases at any given temperature. Thus, even though energy per kg of exhaust is not maximized, impulse (Isp) is.

IIRC Isp-optimal ratio for LOX/LH is 4:1 by mass, IOW, to use twice as much hydrogen compared to stoichiometric (which would be 8:1). Due to LH tankage inefficiencies, in practice ratios close to 6:1 are used.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/14/2009 08:40 AM
For the Jupiter 232 design to close, the ultralightweight upper stage has to meet the ambitious goals set by the Direct team and their anonymous engineers.

I may not be reading these numbers right, but what's so ambitious about it?  According to the baseball cards it weighs 47,367 pounds, and carries under 800,000 pounds of propellant, while the ET weighs 58,500 pounds (23% more) and carries over 1,600,000 pounds (over 100% more) of propellant.  It sound's as if the current ET is much more ambitious from those numbers, and it has to side-mount the orbiter, support the beam from the SRBs, and it's not a common-bulkhead design.

What am I missing?

Discussed extensively in the old thread. But arguments for/against the feasibility of the Jupiter Upper Stage are as follows:

For:
- Less ambitious than ET mass fraction
- LM Centaur engineer says it is possible, even conservative (see Popular Mechanics article) (this pretty much convinces me :) )

Against:
- more ambitious than SII, SIVB, or Ares-V EDS
- NASA are squeezing more performance from Ares-V yet have not suggested such a high-performance upper stage as part of this
- Steve Cooke says it isn't possible.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ugordan on 01/14/2009 08:45 AM
For the Jupiter 232 design to close, the ultralightweight upper stage has to meet the ambitious goals set by the Direct team and their anonymous engineers.

It doesn't get any more anonymous than Bernard Kutter, Manager of Advanced Programs at ULA - Lockheed-Martin publicly saying the JUS is verging on conservative, does it?

I suppose that once you make up your mind about something, no amount of authority in the field will convince you otherwise. You wouldn't be forgetting this point that was brought up to you earlier otherwise. Sure, believe Steve Cook, he's an expert on cryo upper stages.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Nathan on 01/14/2009 09:28 AM
For the Jupiter 232 design to close, the ultralightweight upper stage has to meet the ambitious goals set by the Direct team and their anonymous engineers.

It doesn't get any more anonymous than Bernard Kutter, Manager of Advanced Programs at ULA - Lockheed-Martin publicly saying the JUS is verging on conservative, does it?

I suppose that once you make up your mind about something, no amount of authority in the field will convince you otherwise. You wouldn't be forgetting this point that was brought up to you earlier otherwise. Sure, believe Steve Cook, he's an expert on cryo upper stages.

I think we all just want to know why the tech used in the JUS isn't used in the Ares-V vehicle and if it was then what would the performance of the Ares-V be? NASA does consullt with Boeing & Lockheed regularly so the tech cannot be unknown to them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/14/2009 09:41 AM
I have a question about the EDS.

It will have been sitting in orbit for a while when LSAM / CEV comes to dock with it. Is there any possibility that it will be tumbling by this point?

If so, how does the EDS stablise itself to allow docking to proceed? I don't see any thrusters in the EDS diagrams, nor any mass allocation (eg in figure 36 of http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf)).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/14/2009 10:08 AM
For the Jupiter 232 design to close, the ultralightweight upper stage has to meet the ambitious goals set by the Direct team and their anonymous engineers.

It doesn't get any more anonymous than Bernard Kutter, Manager of Advanced Programs at ULA - Lockheed-Martin publicly saying the JUS is verging on conservative, does it?

I suppose that once you make up your mind about something, no amount of authority in the field will convince you otherwise. You wouldn't be forgetting this point that was brought up to you earlier otherwise. Sure, believe Steve Cook, he's an expert on cryo upper stages.

Well it's still very new news. Up until a couple of days ago I would have sided with Will on this one- I was very worried about the JUS numbers. So give him a chance to change his mind based on new evidence...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/14/2009 10:09 AM
I have a question about the EDS.

It will have been sitting in orbit for a while when LSAM / CEV comes to dock with it. Is there any possibility that it will be tumbling by this point?

If so, how does the EDS stablise itself to allow docking to proceed? I don't see any thrusters in the EDS diagrams, nor any mass allocation (eg in figure 36 of http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf)).

cheers, Martin

AFAIK there will be an RCS on the stage. It would be impossible to achieve a docking without it. The same will apply for the Ares EDS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ugordan on 01/14/2009 10:25 AM
Well it's still very new news. Up until a couple of days ago I would have sided with Will on this one- I was very worried about the JUS numbers. So give him a chance to change his mind based on new evidence...

This "evidence" was pointed out by several people to him several days ago. Chuck even offered a couple of papers showing the kind of work that guy was involved in w/respect Centaur.

How long exactly does it take for something to sink in? I rather get the impression it's choosing not to believe rather than changing one's mind. If not, I'll shut up now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/14/2009 10:58 AM
I have a question about the EDS.

It will have been sitting in orbit for a while when LSAM / CEV comes to dock with it. Is there any possibility that it will be tumbling by this point?

If so, how does the EDS stablise itself to allow docking to proceed? I don't see any thrusters in the EDS diagrams, nor any mass allocation (eg in figure 36 of http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf)).

cheers, Martin

AFAIK there will be an RCS on the stage. It would be impossible to achieve a docking without it. The same will apply for the Ares EDS.

Ah, thanks, I see them now (eg on figure 25).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/14/2009 11:15 AM
I'd have to go look it up to be certain, but I'm pretty sure J-2X uses a 5.5 : 1 mixture ratio.

Ross.

I think you are right. Shuttle IIRC also uses 5.5:1
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/14/2009 11:19 AM
Lack of fuel destroys engines, which is why they run fuel rich.

I thought they also ran fuel rich to reduce the average molecular weight of the exhaust, which increases ISP.

Yes and no. Running stoichiometric (burn everything equally) means maximum energy is extracted from the chemical reaction. Running fuel or oxidiser rich means you are chucking more mass overboard for less chemical energy per unit mass... hence a lower collective exhaust velocity. However, it also means that the thermal energy is more efficiently distributed amongst molecules. It's easier to plunk thermal energy into H2 because it has one bond. H2O has 3 bonds so it gets squished out in the interactions.

(Real rocket engineers please feel free to correct me wherever I foul up).

I think you are wrong. Energy is not important, impulse (speed) is. Running LOX/LH non-stoichiometric gives you free H2 in the exhaust, which has highest possible speed of all gases at any given temperature. Thus, even though energy per kg of exhaust is not maximized, impulse (Isp) is.

IIRC Isp-optimal ratio for LOX/LH is 4:1 by mass, IOW, to use twice as much hydrogen compared to stoichiometric (which would be 8:1). Due to LH tankage inefficiencies, in practice ratios close to 6:1 are used.

Energy is lost in the vibrational modes in more complex molecules. That's the reality of it, and that's why extra LH is injected. There is a much better web page than this on the whys and wherefores of this argument, but for now Wikipedia will have to suffice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_fuel#Mixture_ratio
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/14/2009 11:26 AM
Discussed extensively in the old thread. But arguments for/against the feasibility of the Jupiter Upper Stage are as follows:

For:
- Less ambitious than ET mass fraction
- LM Centaur engineer says it is possible, even conservative (see Popular Mechanics article) (this pretty much convinces me :) )

Against:
- more ambitious than SII, SIVB, or Ares-V EDS
- NASA are squeezing more performance from Ares-V yet have not suggested such a high-performance upper stage as part of this
- Steve Cooke says it isn't possible.

Steve Cook says it isn't possible because it's the best his crew can come up with. His crew has not designed an upper stage and have no experience with it.

I think that partly explains his stance.

As for more ambitious, the Stick forerunner was called the worst shuttle-derived booster ever. They are trying to make it fly.  :P And yet propellant transfer is too risky? What?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/14/2009 11:28 AM
I have a question about the EDS.

It will have been sitting in orbit for a while when LSAM / CEV comes to dock with it. Is there any possibility that it will be tumbling by this point?

If so, how does the EDS stablise itself to allow docking to proceed? I don't see any thrusters in the EDS diagrams, nor any mass allocation (eg in figure 36 of http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2007-6231-LowRes.pdf)).

cheers, Martin

AFAIK there will be an RCS on the stage. It would be impossible to achieve a docking without it. The same will apply for the Ares EDS.

Ah, thanks, I see them now (eg on figure 25).

D'oh!

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/14/2009 12:26 PM
Ross,

Remember when you where looking for additional missions for direct and everyone told you to stick to the base line.

Looks like someone in NASA is looking for additional uses for the Ares V along the same lines...

From today's NASA Science news :
Quote
NASA Science News for January 14, 2009

NASA's next great Moon rocket promises to do more than land astronauts on the Moon. In its spare time, it could revolutionize the science of astronomy.

FULL STORY at

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/14jan_rocketastronomy.htm?list77474
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/14/2009 12:26 PM
That's the Achilles' heel of the Direct proposal. Ares now has a three year head start, and the gap is widening every day. A two launch solution was a fairly attractive option three years ago. Now, changing horses in midstream is a lot more expensive.

And there in lies the ingenius stroke of sticking with the stick even though there were performance and TO problems 18 and 24 months ago. 

Too many government programs are compromised because of this idea of having gone too far with a bad idea.  Since we are still looking at a 6 years till first flight, I think there is time to change.

Sticking with a bad idea long enough that other options become unacceptable is a horrid way to manage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/14/2009 12:30 PM

For the Jupiter 232 design to close, the ultralightweight upper stage has to meet the ambitious goals set by the Direct team and their anonymous engineers. ... That's the Achilles' heel of the Direct proposal.

Will, did you not read the PM article, specifically p57 4th and 5th paragraphs from the bottom?

The engineering team that advised on the JUS design and analyzed the final product is not anonymous. Please stop saying they are. With ULA Lockheed-Martin permission, the manager of the Atlas Advanced Systems team, Barnard Kutter, has opened the window on their involvement. The man is among the most respected upper stage designers in the world! The Achilles heel no longer exists.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: alexterrell on 01/14/2009 12:50 PM
Lastly, to one of you guys who have all the numbers at your finger tips, could there be even a scaled down version of Jupiter 120 for launching Orion and the SM to the ISS?
What I mean by that is could you actually forgo the SRB's for a core with 3 RS68's?  Would they even produce enough thrust to get off the ground?

What you could do is dispense with the ET, and use just a single SRB. Then put an upper stage on top the SRB.

That way, you'd get a Jupiter 110.

But the whole idea sucks and would cost billions, so no one in their right minds would even consider it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/14/2009 12:53 PM
Playing catchup from thread #2...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg353981#msg353981
Quote from: gladiator1332
   Just wondering, would it be possible to provide the image that is currently the background at directlauncher.com?
Really great image.

I don't do too much with images myself ;) but would this be what you mean?

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct//graphics/homebanner2.jpg
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: beb on 01/14/2009 12:55 PM

[snip]
 It's easier to plunk thermal energy into H2 because it has one bond. H2O has 3 bonds so it gets squished out in the interactions.

Just a nit, but H20 has only two bonds. Three atoms but only two bonds.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/14/2009 01:13 PM
I think we all just want to know why the tech used in the JUS isn't used in the Ares-V vehicle and if it was then what would the performance of the Ares-V be? NASA does consult with Boeing & Lockheed regularly so the tech cannot be unknown to them.

It was a decision Griffin made early on. He wants to rebuild the NASA “in-house” design force so that NASA can function independently from the contractors. He has assembled an impressive team of design engineers. They are top shelf designers but do not consult with the contractors in the manner you assume. The knowledge of how to do this is locked away in the contractor design engineers' heads and the knowledge base with hardware know-how is proprietary. There is no one on the teams, that I’m aware of, that has the upper stage design experience that either Boeing or Lockheed-Martin has. The contractors have 40+ years of experience designing and flying cryo upper stages. The in-house designers just do not know how to do what the contractors can do. Over the years the contractors have developed a knowledge base that simply does not exist at NASA. As good as they are, the NASA designers simply do not know how to do what the contractors can do. They are on the bottom end of the learning curve wrt cryo upper stage design ability. That’s not to be interpreted as a slap on them; it’s just a simple statement of fact. You can’t assemble a top-shelf team of designers and expect that to magically make 40 years of specialized experience advantage go away.

The guys at NASA that claim the JUS doesn't work have NEVER successfully designed a cryo upper stage in their lives.
The contractor design engineers that say the JUS DOES work have been designing and flying cryo upper stages for decades. They even had a major hand in the JUS design.

It comes down to credability.
Do you believe the guys with or without the appropriate qualifications?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: sandrot on 01/14/2009 01:52 PM
[...]

The guys at NASA that claim the JUS doesn't work have NEVER successfully designed a cryo upper stage in their lives. [...]

Where are the Ares' upper stages coming from? Any inspiration from S-IVb? Was that such a horrid US?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/14/2009 02:01 PM

For the Jupiter 232 design to close, the ultralightweight upper stage has to meet the ambitious goals set by the Direct team and their anonymous engineers. ... That's the Achilles' heel of the Direct proposal.

Will, did you not read the PM article, specifically p57 4th and 5th paragraphs from the bottom?

The engineering team that advised on the JUS design and analyzed the final product is not anonymous. Please stop saying they are. With ULA Lockheed-Martin permission, the manager of the Atlas Advanced Systems team, Barnard Kutter, has opened the window on their involvement. The man is among the most respected upper stage designers in the world! The Achilles heel no longer exists.

Is Bernard Kutter willing to state on the record that the JUS design will not require pressurization during assembly, transport, stacking or rollout?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/14/2009 02:30 PM

For the Jupiter 232 design to close, the ultralightweight upper stage has to meet the ambitious goals set by the Direct team and their anonymous engineers. ... That's the Achilles' heel of the Direct proposal.

Will, did you not read the PM article, specifically p57 4th and 5th paragraphs from the bottom?

The engineering team that advised on the JUS design and analyzed the final product is not anonymous. Please stop saying they are. With ULA Lockheed-Martin permission, the manager of the Atlas Advanced Systems team, Barnard Kutter, has opened the window on their involvement. The man is among the most respected upper stage designers in the world! The Achilles heel no longer exists.

Is Bernard Kutter willing to state on the record that the JUS design will not require pressurization during assembly, transport, stacking or rollout?

What's the difference? Do you personally have the engineering qualifications to pass judgement on either the JUS design or his unqualified support for it? There are only a handful of design engineers in the world with his level of expertise. If you are one of them then I would like to meet you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/14/2009 03:00 PM

For the Jupiter 232 design to close, the ultralightweight upper stage has to meet the ambitious goals set by the Direct team and their anonymous engineers. ... That's the Achilles' heel of the Direct proposal.

Will, did you not read the PM article, specifically p57 4th and 5th paragraphs from the bottom?

The engineering team that advised on the JUS design and analyzed the final product is not anonymous. Please stop saying they are. With ULA Lockheed-Martin permission, the manager of the Atlas Advanced Systems team, Barnard Kutter, has opened the window on their involvement. The man is among the most respected upper stage designers in the world! The Achilles heel no longer exists.

Is Bernard Kutter willing to state on the record that the JUS design will not require pressurization during assembly, transport, stacking or rollout?

What's the difference?

It has implications for ground processing. Pressure stabilization is an important ingredient of current and past Centaur stages. If he believes and will state that the JUS can achieve Centaur-like mass fraction without any use of pressure stabilization in ground handling, that's important information for a layman evaluating the practicality of the design.

If he is assuming that there *will* be some use of pressurization, that's important information as well. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/14/2009 03:57 PM
It has implications for ground processing. Pressure stabilization is an important ingredient of current and past Centaur stages. If he believes and will state that the JUS can achieve Centaur-like mass fraction without any use of pressure stabilization in ground handling, that's important information for a layman evaluating the practicality of the design.

If he is assuming that there *will* be some use of pressurization, that's important information as well. 

But why and how is pressurization relevant? Surely you can tell us now... it's not as if Chuck can declare it one way or the other depending on your answer at this stage.

*(unless that's the secret to one vs. two JUS engines :) )

And at this point some reassurance that you have valid concerns and are not seeking a strawman to pin opposition to Direct on would be welcome.

Sorry, but your obtuseness to certain corrrections made in answer to you have left a denialist aroma behind.

Playing "gotcha" with word games is a childish antic I might pull when I'm bored with a hopelessly outmatched opponent... it's not a basis for continued debate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: jarmumd on 01/14/2009 04:06 PM
What's the difference? Do you personally have the engineering qualifications to pass judgement on either the JUS design or his unqualified support for it? There are only a handful of design engineers in the world with his level of expertise. If you are one of them then I would like to meet you.

I think that everyone will agree that supporting someone's opinion without actual numbers is foolish.  I don't claim to have his level of expertise, but physics is physics and numbers don't lie (they are only interpreted).  My issue is not that the design (centaur) is invalid, rather than unless it has had a detailed loads analysis done with detailed finite element models of the actual hardware, then it's just opinion.  If you have done this analysis, please let me see your documentation (I am hoping it is in the rebuttal).

Futhermore, I think it would help DIRECT's credibility if someone could compile a list of documents which prove DIRECT's viability.  The NLS documents are a great example, if you have more LM upper stage documents proving DIRECT's suitability it would help to know that they exist (and are compiled in one place for easy reading).

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: jarmumd on 01/14/2009 04:13 PM
But why and how is pressurization relevant? Surely you can tell us now... it's not as if Chuck can declare it one way or the other depending on your answer at this stage.

If the stability of your structure is dependent on pressurization, then if the internal pressure fails, your structure may fail.  And if it is necessary the entire time after assembly, that is an issue.  Or if pressurization fails during ascent.   Or that when you apply a design concept to a much larger scale, things don't always work the way you expect them to.

I'm sure this has been answered, so forgive me, but does the DIRECT lunar architecture have enough margin for a heavier upper stage?  how much can it grow before things get bad?

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ugordan on 01/14/2009 04:16 PM
Or if pressurization fails during ascent.

This isn't just an issue with pressure-stabilized tanks. Lose pressurization of tanks in powered flight and you could get cavitation in the pumps, premature engine shutdown and LOM.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/14/2009 04:17 PM
It has implications for ground processing. Pressure stabilization is an important ingredient of current and past Centaur stages. If he believes and will state that the JUS can achieve Centaur-like mass fraction without any use of pressure stabilization in ground handling, that's important information for a layman evaluating the practicality of the design.

If he is assuming that there *will* be some use of pressurization, that's important information as well. 

But why and how is pressurization relevant? Surely you can tell us now... it's not as if Chuck can declare it one way or the other depending on your answer at this stage.


Because it gets you a lighter stage, but introduces operational headaches. Enough so that Lockheed moved away from it for the Atlas V core, in spite of accepting a performance hit.

One possibility is that Kutter is assuming a semi-structurally stable design: one in which the tank is able to support its own weight without pressurization on the plant floor, but needs pressure to support a payload on top of it.

If this was the case, it would make the JUS more credible, since that would account for some of the mysterious mass savings.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ah_mini on 01/14/2009 04:22 PM
I think that everyone will agree that supporting someone's opinion without actual numbers is foolish.  I don't claim to have his level of expertise, but physics is physics and numbers don't lie (they are only interpreted).  My issue is not that the design (centaur) is invalid, rather than unless it has had a detailed loads analysis done with detailed finite element models of the actual hardware, then it's just opinion.  If you have done this analysis, please let me see your documentation (I am hoping it is in the rebuttal).

Futhermore, I think it would help DIRECT's credibility if someone could compile a list of documents which prove DIRECT's viability.  The NLS documents are a great example, if you have more LM upper stage documents proving DIRECT's suitability it would help to know that they exist (and are compiled in one place for easy reading).

Marc

I have no connections do DIRECT, so cannot speak for the actual team, but I imagine a request such as yours will not be granted in its entirety.

Typically, complex pieces of engineering carried out by private enterprises contain boatloads of proprietary info that no company will ever let go public. If you want access you have to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), and breaking an NDA is a very bad thing. I find it a stretch to believe that companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin would want detailed numbers on their upper stage performance posted on Internet forums.

This is the dilemma facing "public interest" projects like DIRECT. They need as much publicity as possible to stand a chance in the face of much larger, resource-rich organisations, but at the same time they cannot betray their backers. The end result is that there are always doubters who claim (sometimes with justification) that the cause being presented is mere smoke and mirrors.

I believe that DIRECT's ultimate aim is a peer review of all the options (Ares, DIRECT, EELV, etc) carried out by impartial people with appropriate credentials. These people could sign NDAs and thus see all the data.

Andrew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zinfab on 01/14/2009 04:22 PM
I was fairly certain that in this context, pressurization implied "balloon tank" which Ross and Clongton assured us was NOT a part of the JUS. This is a departure from the "standard" Centaur.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/14/2009 05:24 PM
I was fairly certain that in this context, pressurization implied "balloon tank" which Ross and Clongton assured us was NOT a part of the JUS. This is a departure from the "standard" Centaur.

It could also imply something that isn't a true balloon tank that can't even support its own weight, but still relies on pressurization. Falcon 1 is described as "pressure assisted stabilized". It can be transported unpressurized, but relies on pressure to survive flight stresses. Wide Body Centaur might be something in between.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Pheogh on 01/14/2009 05:34 PM
I think that everyone will agree that supporting someone's opinion without actual numbers is foolish.  I don't claim to have his level of expertise, but physics is physics and numbers don't lie (they are only interpreted).  My issue is not that the design (centaur) is invalid, rather than unless it has had a detailed loads analysis done with detailed finite element models of the actual hardware, then it's just opinion.  If you have done this analysis, please let me see your documentation (I am hoping it is in the rebuttal).

Futhermore, I think it would help DIRECT's credibility if someone could compile a list of documents which prove DIRECT's viability.  The NLS documents are a great example, if you have more LM upper stage documents proving DIRECT's suitability it would help to know that they exist (and are compiled in one place for easy reading).

Marc

I have no connections do DIRECT, so cannot speak for the actual team, but I imagine a request such as yours will not be granted in its entirety.

Typically, complex pieces of engineering carried out by private enterprises contain boatloads of proprietary info that no company will ever let go public. If you want access you have to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), and breaking an NDA is a very bad thing. I find it a stretch to believe that companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin would want detailed numbers on their upper stage performance posted on Internet forums.

This is the dilemma facing "public interest" projects like DIRECT. They need as much publicity as possible to stand a chance in the face of much larger, resource-rich organisations, but at the same time they cannot betray their backers. The end result is that there are always doubters who claim (sometimes with justification) that the cause being presented is mere smoke and mirrors.

I believe that DIRECT's ultimate aim is a peer review of all the options (Ares, DIRECT, EELV, etc) carried out by impartial people with appropriate credentials. These people could sign NDAs and thus see all the data.

Andrew

Precisely. I would like to add further that the work being done by the DIRECT team and its backer is entirely on our own personal time and dollar. All of us have day jobs as well, although I suspect Ross doesn't actually sleep  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/14/2009 05:56 PM
Isn't the Shuttle External Tank pressurized whenever the orbiter is mated to it?  I couldn't find that information in a search, but I seem to remember something about that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/14/2009 05:59 PM
Will;
You can always contact Lockheed-Martin and ask them for the proprietary data. It’s not unheard of and has been done before. You will need to present a valid reason why you think you are entitled to the data, and after vetting your request thru corporate and legal, if they agree then you will be required to execute a series of NDA’s. At that point, if successful, you will get the data that you have asked for, and then be in a position to pass judgment on the JUS and the words of Mr. Kutter.  That assumes of course that you will understand what you’re looking at once you receive it. Even assuming that you do (and I have no reason to think otherwise), then you will still be legally enjoined from even hinting at what it might be. You’re stuck because now you will be in possession of information which informed your opinion and be unable to defend what you say. Once you mix common knowledge and proprietary data together, there is no way to separate them. You will be even more restricted in what you can say than before you signed the NDA.

Or, you could take the word of a man like Barnard Kutter that the JUS is a valid design and that the publicly stated performance margins in the DIRECT proposal are actually “conservative”. I don’t think he would make such statements in the public media unless all the questions you are asking had been carefully looked at by people who knew what they were doing.

At some point, if you want to keep questioning the stage design, you are going to have to do either one or the other. As for us, we cannot discuss details beyond what has been authorized.

Having an individual of the caliber of Mr. Kutter say the things he did about the JUS design is sufficient to satisfy any competent upper stage design engineer, he is that well known.

How you choose to respond to what a man like that has to say may be quite revealing as to what you are actually looking for in this discussion.

Don’t get me wrong; We have no problem discussing this with you as much as we can. It’s just that I get the impression, and I hope that I’m wrong, that you are trying to back us into a corner knowing full well that we cannot provide you with all the answers you want. There are limits to what we can say. That’s why Mr. Kutter’s statements in the PM article were so important to us, because that is what everyone has been asking us for. Everyone has been asking us to provide “some” indication as to why we believed the numbers we have been providing. Until Mr. Kutter was allowed by ULA to be quoted, we couldn’t even really acknowledge the Advanced Systems Group's assistance. But even that event does not relieve us of other responsibilities, which remain in force.

If we succeed in getting the impartial review of all viable alternatives, together with a fresh look at the Ares, perhaps more detailed information may be made available from that. But that is not our call.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/14/2009 06:25 PM

If memory serves even the Saturn V required pressurization during flight to keep from buckling under the loads...

So the question is really one of ground processing and not LOM/LOC.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zinfab on 01/14/2009 06:26 PM
clongton, I think you make a very valid point.

For a very long time, DIRECT took hits for using "anonymous" sources for your information. You spent a long time explaining/defending yourselves on this front. Now, you add a "named" source, and the accusation shifts to his credentials and whether or not he "missed" something.

At some point, people need to either accept or reject these things on their own terms but stop the endless triangulations. There may or may not ever be a "tipping point" that resolves the issues to the questioner's satisfaction.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Pheogh on 01/14/2009 06:40 PM
clongton, I think you make a very valid point.

For a very long time, DIRECT took hits for using "anonymous" sources for your information. You spent a long time explaining/defending yourselves on this front. Now, you add a "named" source, and the accusation shifts to his credentials and whether or not he "missed" something.

At some point, people need to either accept or reject these things on their own terms but stop the endless triangulations. There may or may not ever be a "tipping point" that resolves the issues to the questioner's satisfaction.

I have a question though regarding that. When we talk about a "fair" review of the alternatives (which DIRECT is of course a part of) how can we ensure that from NASA all the way through the contractor base that the preferences for LV aren't driven by "what does best for our business" and instead what is the best configuration in achieving the goals of the VSE.

I'm not meaning to suggest that companies shouldn't act to preserve their own business interest but what I am asking, is it possible to get a "fair" and open review where information isn't suppressed or disregarded because it doesn't serve the interest of a "single" more powerful constituent?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: DaveS on 01/14/2009 06:41 PM
Is there any updated preliminary drawings of the various pad elements? Also will the various press-lines and cable trays still exist on the Jupiter cores in the positions they do on the STS ET?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/14/2009 06:59 PM

I have a question though regarding that. When we talk about a "fair" review of the alternatives (which DIRECT is of course a part of) how can we ensure that from NASA all the way through the contractor base that the preferences for LV aren't driven by "what does best for our business" and instead what is the best configuration in achieving the goals of the VSE.

I'm not meaning to suggest that companies shouldn't act to preserve their own business interest but what I am asking, is it possible to get a "fair" and open review where information isn't suppressed or disregarded because it doesn't serve the interest of a "single" more powerful constituent?

There are no iron-clad guarantees. In the end the best that we can hope for is that in the new environment of transparency that the Obama Administration is trying to implement, that any such bias will not find its way into the deliberations. The reviewers will have too much to loose by misbehaving in the light of public scrutiny.

Assuming we get the review, which is not guaranteed, the people who perform it will likely be selected by Congress (just an opinion), who is the body charged with oversight of NASA. Ares has been such a fiasco, as the new Administrator will soon discover, that they will want to get a REAL recommendation, based on fact, so they don’t look foolish to their constituents again.  Some of their re-election prospects may hinge on that. But there are no guarantees in this. It will be what it will be and we will move forward from there with whatever system or combination of systems that the new Administration in Washington authorizes.

Remember, that while technical merrit will inform the decision, this will be a political decision, not a technical one.

The DIRECT Team has already pledged to get behind whatever decision is ultimately made, whether it’s us or not.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/14/2009 07:18 PM

First:  Any idea of how much it would cost to man-rate the Delta 4?
Sounds like it can lift a bit more than Ares 1.  But can it carry Orion and the SM dimensionally?
The Delta 4 is 16.4 ft dia, and Orion is 16.5 ft. at it's widest.
doesn't seem like much, but how much modification to the Delta 4 would be needed to fit the Orion?

Also, I read a bit back someone asking about the insulation.  Since Ares or Jupiter would be inline, is the foam neaded?  And if so, could they go back to the old cheaper foam because it wouldn't matter that it sheds?


Less than 500 million

Dimensionally is not a problem.  An adapter can be made to fit it to the D-IV

All LH2 vehicles need insulation and the current foam is the best there is.  The older foam is more expensive and less efficient and also comes off

See Delta IV and Centaur

Fair enough, I assume the Saturn Rockets didn't need it because it was kerosine/LO2 fueled rather than LH2/LO2 fueled?

Also, SpaceX put their Falcon9 upright recently.  The standard Falcon9 will launche the Dragon capsule to the ISS, but the Falcon9-Heavy will be able to lift approx 4-5 more tons into LEO than the Delta IV Heavy (according to the stat's I've been looking at).
The Falcon9Heavy be a decent amount cheaper than the Delta IV Heavy, and will be man-rated from the jump because they are designing it to launch crew in the Dragon.

With an adapter, could the Falcon9Heavy then be able to launch Orion to the ISS?

Would SpaceX be a more feasable option to the Delta IV to ferry Orion to the ISS and back, looking at options to the Ares 1?

I know the Dragon would basically serve that function, but I'm pretty sure NASA would like a way to get -their- ship back and forth to the ISS.
Then a Jupiter 120 could be used for replacement ISS components/additional components, or for "other than ISS" where they want to take Orion somewhere besides the ISS.
Then the Jupiter 232's for lunar missions or other large payload lifter.

Even if NASA were to continue with the Ares V, maybe the Ares 1 could be scrapped then...and the Ares 1 resources could go into Ares V to get it built and flying sooner?  That would be better than their current plan anyway, right?

What advantage is there to the Ares 1 vs. the Falcon 9-Heavy, other than it being an in-house design?  (partisanship aside, looking for a non-partisan answer)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: DaveS on 01/14/2009 07:37 PM
]
Fair enough, I assume the Saturn Rockets didn't need it because it was kerosine/LO2 fueled rather than LH2/LO2 fueled?
Only the S-1C and S-1/B stages were kerolox. S-II and S-IV/B were hydrolox. And the S-IVB had it's foam insulation on the inside, not the outside.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/14/2009 07:41 PM
kraisee link=topic=15541.msg354141#msg354141 date=1231913551]
I understand the ET won't leave LEO, but it was never designed to carry a load that would like it will be used for now.
Like I said, maybe it's not a major obsticle.  Just pointing out some  other consideration that people might not be thinking about, especially when they all get excited about their own ideas.

So you think people, which are working on DIRECT project for 2 years now, somehow "might not be thinking about" whether it is feasible of making ET-derived tank to support this weight.

Surprise! They did think about it, and found out that it is possible, and not even hard.

Easy mater! :)

Many of us have been over this question before, but Lobo's question *is* still a valid one for all those folk who weren't here 6 months ago -- or 24+ months ago.

We have spent a great deal of time investigating the procedures, facilities and design involved in converting the ET into a Core Stage.

Back on the old Thread 2 I posted a link to one of the many hundreds of documents about the NLS (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930007493) -- a system which bears a lot of similarity to Jupiter.   That document certainly requires updating, but it shows precisely how MSFC wanted to perform precisely this sort of modification to the ET back in 1993.   The document is part 1 of three, making a complete set of Trade Studies which were together, completed within the 9 month period from May 1991 to January 1992.   This was the "Structures" book.   The other two parts of the set are Avionics and Systems (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930013987) and Propulsion (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930014526).

Our small group has been gradually trying to update this study and create something similar for Jupiter.   We're in a position today where we have plans for implementing the first DAC and have almost got a fully-integrated baseline design ready to enter that process "running" -- although we also acknowledge that none of our work will actually ever be used.   It will all have to be redone "officially" anyway, but we have at least helped 'clear the path' and we've already tackled a number of the hurdles so we know it can be done.

Without doubt, this is most definitely "rocket science", or perhaps more precisely "rocket engineering".   We (and I'm talking about our engineers, not myself here -- While I'm a quick learner, I've still got a long way to go myself!) are fully-aware of what's involved to get this right.

We do have the benefit that a lot of what we're proposing has its roots firmly in existing flight hardware.   But even with that advantage, nobody is claiming that this is "simple", "easy" or "minor" -- nothing in this business ever qualifies for those terms except when it is used exclusively a relative statement.

The design of any new rocket is a major effort, an engineering challenge, a costly endeavor and a careful balance of risk.   But, like with many things in life, there are comparatively easier paths and comparatively more difficult ones which can be taken.   We are convinced that DIRECT's Jupiter launcher represents a much simpler and less costly approach than the Ares duo.   We are also convinced that Ares is not fiscally responsible enough and that it will ultimately lead the way to joining so many other NASA projects which have been canceled prematurely due to cost.   It is DIRECT's hope to change direction before that happens and prevent the Vision For Space Exploration from becoming yet another wasted effort to reach for the stars.


The DIRECT approach attempts to reuse as much existing proven flight hardware, with the least possible number of changes, to create a new fiscally-responsible system able to perform the tasks which we are planning to do.

What we're proposing is still a major project.   Jupiter-120 is a $9.5 billion development program -- but that's roughly $5 billion less than Ares-I will cost.

Where we really save money though, is by removing the full development of the second launcher (Ares-V) from the equation.   We remove the need for another set of SRB's and the requirement for manufacturing and launch infrastructure for all that too.   Of course, we still need the EDS, but the total cost savings of re-using the Core of the J-120 again as the basis for the J-232 saves over $10 billion more in development costs.   That's some really serious money we're talking about there.


While I started out really simply some ~30-something months ago, the initial very rudimentary concept has been seriously fleshed-out over the last few years by the hard volunteer efforts of a group of experienced professionals from across the whole industry.   Today The DIRECT Team have a very mature proposal with a lot of substance behind it.

Ross.
[/quote]

Thanks for jumping in there Ross.  Just trying to have an informative conversation, and no, I haven't been reading this forum prior to about a week ago, so I didn't have the time or energy to read through the 500 some odd pages in the first two threads in their entirety.

And thanks for all the great info Ross.  You've been very helpful in a lot of questions I've had.  I still like the idea of the big Ares V booster for future flexability, but you've made some really great arguments here for the pro's of DIRECT.

Again, I wonder if going with the Falcon 9 Heavy for the CLV, and then Ares V for the rest of the stack, and future missions of other things like telescopes, or new Space stations.
If 90% of the money going into Ares 1 were then shuffled to Ares V, and the other 10% shuffled to SpaceX to help with Falcon 9 Heavy development, man-rating, and adaptation to carry Orion (which should be relatively easy).

Perhaps it's not the perfect solution the DIRECT team would like to see, but it seems like it's -better- anyway.  Gets NASA back to the ISS much sooner to close the 5-year gap, and lessens the chance of the Ares V being cancelled because the Ares 1 gobbled up too many funds.
And the Falcon-9H basically does everything the Ares 1 will do, and it's farther along than Ares 1 is.  The Falcon 9 will fly this year, and the 9H next year.  Probably be ready before Orion is.
Also the J2X development wouldn't hold up crew launches in Orion, you wouldn't need it until a moon shot 8 years or so down the road.

Now you are back to the commonality of just 1 vehicle, the Ares V, which solves one of the big issues the DIRECT team has been mentioning, about two vehicals, and two manufacuring paths.
Perhaps the Ares V could even have an Ares IV varient, same core and boosters, but fewer RS-68's on the end cap sorta like Jupiter.
Save a little money for sub-max payloads.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: bigfootindy on 01/14/2009 07:49 PM
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but looks like new NASA leadership is on the way:

http://www.space.com/news/090113-obama-nasa-administrator.html

Anybody know anything about Gration?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gospacex on 01/14/2009 07:50 PM
Just trying to have an informative conversation, and no, I haven't been reading this forum prior to about a week ago, so I didn't have the time or energy to read through the 500 some odd pages in the first two threads in their entirety.

Consider reading part of those. Say, last 30 pages of thread #2. It's much smaller and the whole two threads, yet contains almost all questions you are going to ask. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/14/2009 07:53 PM
but the Falcon9-Heavy will be able to lift approx 4-5 more tons into LEO than the Delta IV Heavy (according to the stat's I've been looking at).
Would SpaceX be a more feasable option to the Delta IV to ferry Orion to the ISS and back, looking at options to the Ares 1?


No it isn't feasible

The performance is doubtful and the F9H is more years away than the Ares I.  The current F9 launch pad can't handle a heavy.

Delta IV Heavy exists
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/14/2009 07:56 PM
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but looks like new NASA leadership is on the way:

http://www.space.com/news/090113-obama-nasa-administrator.html

Anybody know anything about Gration?

There is a dedicated thread
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/14/2009 08:18 PM
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but looks like new NASA leadership is on the way:

http://www.space.com/news/090113-obama-nasa-administrator.html

Anybody know anything about Gration?

There is a dedicated thread

Yes it is but the decision has ramifications for DIRECT.

Small diversion (DIRECT related):
I think that he would be good for the prospects of DIRECT in the sense that he's a space-community outsider, and less likely to have a "dog in the hunt" as far as a particular architecture is concerned.

From the last few sentences of his bio, he's a qualified expert in studies and analyses for major DoD projects. He would certainly be qualified to "look under the hood" of Griffin's plans and his leadership skills are unquestionably good.

http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5605

I think he would be well suited to head-up a full study of all the options. That would put DIRECT front and center. I do believe that with this man as Administrator that DIRECT would get a fair shot - which is all we ever really wanted.

Any further discussion of this likely appointment needs to go to a new thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: robertross on 01/14/2009 08:38 PM
{snip}
Everyone has been asking us to provide “some” indication as to why we believed the numbers we have been providing. Until Mr. Kutter was allowed by ULA to be quoted, we couldn’t even acknowledge his involvement. But even that event does not relieve us of other responsibilities, which remain in force.


Very well said Chuck. I hope others take it to heart. There are some lines people simply can't cross. Having Mr. Kutter's blessing is a huge PR boost, and imo, icing on the cake for the PM article and non-believers.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Pheogh on 01/14/2009 08:43 PM
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but looks like new NASA leadership is on the way:

http://www.space.com/news/090113-obama-nasa-administrator.html

Anybody know anything about Gration?

There is a dedicated thread

Yes it is but the decision has ramifications for DIRECT.

Small diversion (DIRECT related):
I think that he would be good for the prospects of DIRECT in the sense that he's a space-community outsider, and less likely to have a "dog in the hunt" as far as a particular architecture is concerned.

From the last few sentences of his bio, he's a qualified expert in studies and analyses for major DoD projects. He would certainly be qualified to "look under the hood" of Griffin's plans and his leadership skills are unquestionably good.

http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5605

I think he would be well suited to head-up a full study of all the options. That would put DIRECT front and center. I do believe that with this man as Administrator that DIRECT would get a fair shot.

Any further discussion of this likely appointment needs to go to a new thread.


Chuck, wasn't there some connection between NLS and DoD?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: marsavian on 01/14/2009 08:44 PM
but the Falcon9-Heavy will be able to lift approx 4-5 more tons into LEO than the Delta IV Heavy (according to the stat's I've been looking at).
Would SpaceX be a more feasable option to the Delta IV to ferry Orion to the ISS and back, looking at options to the Ares 1?


No it isn't feasible

The performance is doubtful and the F9H is more years away than the Ares I.  The current F9 launch pad can't handle a heavy.

Delta IV Heavy exists

and also has same engine synergy with Ares V which makes it a no contest.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/14/2009 08:56 PM
I'm sure this has been answered, so forgive me, but does the DIRECT lunar architecture have enough margin for a heavier upper stage?  how much can it grow before things get bad?

Actually yes it does.

Right now the 2-launch J-232 baseline DIRECT Lunar architecture successfully "close" CxP's TLI payload performance targets by ~10.6 metric tons, having already accounted for all of the other margins, reserves and allowances.

So technically, yes we could still support the mission even if the US (or CEV or LSAM) were to grow substantially.

At this time though, we are confident that the CEV project is going to meet its performance targets and that the EDS will also meet its.   The only part which we are not yet confident about is the LSAM -- but we won't really know that until after its contractor is selected and the designs get to at least SRR, which is still a long way off.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/14/2009 09:03 PM
Will;
You can always contact Lockheed-Martin and ask them for the proprietary data.

Why is proprietary data required? I'm asking what are the operational assumptions behind his endorsement of the JUS mass numbers. Is it his personal opinion that a stage of that mass and that payload doesn't require pressurization at any time prior to launch, or needs it some of the time, or all of the time?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/14/2009 09:06 PM
Or if pressurization fails during ascent.

This isn't just an issue with pressure-stabilized tanks. Lose pressurization of tanks in powered flight and you could get cavitation in the pumps, premature engine shutdown and LOM.

If the pressurization fails in-flight I don't think there's a flying LOX/LH2 stage anywhere in the world which is strong enough to continue without collapsing.   With hundreds of pounds per square ft of max-Q forces and accelerations up to 4g (or more) pressurization in-flight is 100% essential to keeping the structural rigidity of the vehicle.   Lose that pressure and you will lose the mission -- irrelevant of the stage.

The only real difference is during pre-launch processing.   The question is whether the tanking structure is mechanically strong enough to support its own weight and that of whatever is stacked on top during checkout, assembly and pre-flight or does it require pressurization throughout that process in order to maintain its structural rigidity.

But from the time the tanks are fully pressurized during the launch sequence, both designs require pressurization to handle the loads during the ascent.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/14/2009 09:14 PM
Chuck, wasn't there some connection between NLS and DoD?

I'll take that:

Yes.   NLS was a joint NASA/DoD effort designed to launch large payloads.   It was envisioned to launch large parts of Space Station Freedom for NASA in order to reduce the number of assembly missions required and was intended to lift large intelligence gathering satellited which the existing Titan's couldn't handle.

In the event though, the money for developing it in addition to the continuing Shuttle Program and the continuing Titan program meant that Congress simply didn't want to pay for a third system and without funding, even though the NLS effort got through its PDR successfully, the system had to be shelved.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/14/2009 09:38 PM
Given the recent requests, Philip just gave me permission to post the full image behind the website titles.

What is pictured here is the Jupiter-120-Y Test Flight launching from Pad B in September 2011, while the Shuttle extension continues operating from Pad A all through to September 2012.

Philip's artistic talent shines yet again!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Pheogh on 01/14/2009 09:47 PM
Ross, I certainly haven't done it enough but most of the credit should go to the photographer for such a spectacular canvas to work on. For this one Photo credit: NASA/Troy Cryder
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Yegor on 01/14/2009 09:53 PM
Great picture!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/14/2009 09:55 PM
I have no connections do DIRECT, so cannot speak for the actual team, but I imagine a request such as yours will not be granted in its entirety.

Typically, complex pieces of engineering carried out by private enterprises contain boatloads of proprietary info that no company will ever let go public. If you want access you have to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), and breaking an NDA is a very bad thing. I find it a stretch to believe that companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin would want detailed numbers on their upper stage performance posted on Internet forums.

This is the dilemma facing "public interest" projects like DIRECT. They need as much publicity as possible to stand a chance in the face of much larger, resource-rich organisations, but at the same time they cannot betray their backers. The end result is that there are always doubters who claim (sometimes with justification) that the cause being presented is mere smoke and mirrors.

I believe that DIRECT's ultimate aim is a peer review of all the options (Ares, DIRECT, EELV, etc) carried out by impartial people with appropriate credentials. These people could sign NDAs and thus see all the data.

Andrew

That is extremely well put Andrew.   You hit the nail right on the head there with a very clear and concise explanation.   Thank-you.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/14/2009 10:11 PM
Great image! Would Philip mind if I posted this on the Direct facebook group?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/14/2009 11:39 PM
but the Falcon9-Heavy will be able to lift approx 4-5 more tons into LEO than the Delta IV Heavy (according to the stat's I've been looking at).
Would SpaceX be a more feasable option to the Delta IV to ferry Orion to the ISS and back, looking at options to the Ares 1?


No it isn't feasible

The performance is doubtful and the F9H is more years away than the Ares I.  The current F9 launch pad can't handle a heavy.

Delta IV Heavy exists

Yes but...

Delta-4H exists, but Orion doesn't yet, and probably won't for at least a couple more years.
Delta-4H is not man rated, and probably won't be for at least a few years (although I don't know how long tat times), and there would be expense involved in that.  Someone said 500 Million??
F9 is already designed to be man-rated already.
F9-Heavy is due to fly in 2010 per SpaceX (and they've been relatively per schedule so far, but even if they run behind schedule, it likely could be launching Orion to the ISS in the 2012-2013 range, 2-3 years ahead of Ares 1).  Launching from I assume the same Cape Canaveral pad as the regular F9?
F9-Heavy will have more lifting ability, in case the final Orion runs heavier..
F9-Heavy is about 75 million cheaper per flight (around $95 million per launch vs. roughly $170-$180 million per launch for the Delta-4H on the low side, over $200 million on the higher side)
 
Personally, try to design the Orion and SM so that either the F9H or the Delta 4H could carry it up, then you have some redundency and "safety factor" in how you get it up there.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/14/2009 11:44 PM
I just wanted to jump in here, and say that I expect to have the plans and notes for the Jupiter Models ready to publish pretty soon.

:)

Looking forward to this!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/14/2009 11:48 PM
Ahh, just saw there was a separate thread discussing Orion on the Falcon 9 heavy.
Didn't notice that before.

Anyway, design for the Delta-4H, and then entertain contracting SpaceX as a second lifter if the F9H proves out.
Doesn't seem like some redundant options hurt anything.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/14/2009 11:55 PM

1.  F9 is already designed to be man-rated already.

2. F9-Heavy is due to fly in 2010 per SpaceX (and they've been relatively per schedule so far, but even if they run behind schedule, it likely could be launching Orion to the ISS in the 2012-2013 range, 2-3 years ahead of Ares 1). 

3.  Launching from I assume the same Cape Canaveral pad as the regular F9?

4.  F9-Heavy will have more lifting ability, in case the final Orion runs heavier..

5.  F9-Heavy is about 75 million cheaper per flight (around $95 million per launch vs. roughly $170-$180 million per launch for the Delta-4H on the low side, over $200 million on the higher side)
 
6.  Personally, try to design the Orion and SM so that either the F9H or the Delta 4H could carry it up, then you have some redundency and "safety factor" in how you get it up there.


1.  Per what standard?
2.  Not going to happen and F9 is not on schedule
3.  Nope
4.  Not verified and doubtful
5.  Not verified and doubtful
6.  Again, what says F9H or F9 is successful.  Falcon 9 is not a given.  So it wouldn't be good engineering to design to F9H.  Anyways, Atlas V Heavy would be the better than those two with Atlas V Phase II being the best
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/14/2009 11:56 PM
Ahh, just saw there was a separate thread discussing Orion on the Falcon 9 heavy.
Didn't notice that before.

Anyway, design for the Delta-4H, and then entertain contracting SpaceX as a second lifter if the F9H proves out.
Doesn't seem like some redundant options hurt anything.


Altas V Heavy would be a better choice
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/14/2009 11:59 PM
Let's bring it back to DIRECT folks.
There are other threads for your discussions of non-DIRECT topics.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: robertross on 01/15/2009 12:14 AM
I just wanted to jump in here, and say that I expect to have the plans and notes for the Jupiter Models ready to publish pretty soon.

:)

SWEET :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2009 01:37 AM
Is there any updated preliminary drawings of the various pad elements? Also will the various press-lines and cable trays still exist on the Jupiter cores in the positions they do on the STS ET?

I was working on some of that imagery before the Rebuttal came along.   I've postponed that work until after this new round of performance analysis determine which configuration we will be using.   The change in J-232 EDS capacity will alter the infrastructure.   And if we were to re-baseline to the J-231 option, that would change it more.   I'm going to wait until these questions are fully determined.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/15/2009 01:45 AM
Is there any updated preliminary drawings of the various pad elements? Also will the various press-lines and cable trays still exist on the Jupiter cores in the positions they do on the STS ET?

I was working on some of that imagery before the Rebuttal came along.   I've postponed that work until after this new round of performance analysis determine which configuration we will be using.   The change in J-232 EDS capacity will alter the infrastructure.   And if we were to re-baseline to the J-231 option, that would change it more.   I'm going to wait until these questions are fully determined.

Ross.

Would a switch to the J-231 improve LOM/LOC numbers? I mean that is the big criticism against 232 right now.

I'm guessing the details you are waiting on include more on this?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: RedSky on 01/15/2009 03:14 AM
That illustration of the Direct launch with STS in the foreground is really great, but its made me wonder: will the bottom 2/3rd of the insulation on Direct get blackened like in the Delta4Heavy?  Or would the pad minimize that H2 fireball?  Might look a bit shocking to the uninitiated public as in the first D4H launch seen so well in Ben Cooper's pix:
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4-Heavy.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2009 03:30 AM
Thanks for jumping in there Ross.  Just trying to have an informative conversation, and no, I haven't been reading this forum prior to about a week ago, so I didn't have the time or energy to read through the 500 some odd pages in the first two threads in their entirety.

Understandable.   You just came in at a time when there are certain personal attacks being raised and our supporters are naturally in 'defense mode'.

It can sometimes be particularly tricky to determine, on a text-based forum like this, whether someone is open to the idea but is asking questions about perceived weaknesses or whether they are simply in opposition and are merely trying to raise trouble.

We have had a lot of both types over the years.

If you're searching for answers I am only too glad to go back over previous topics, because I'm sure there are other "new faces" who are eager to understand too.

Not sure I ever did say so before, but welcome to the site.


Quote
And thanks for all the great info Ross.  You've been very helpful in a lot of questions I've had.  I still like the idea of the big Ares V booster for future flexability, but you've made some really great arguments here for the pro's of DIRECT.

I do my best to try to help.


Quote
Again, I wonder if going with the Falcon 9 Heavy for the CLV, and then Ares V for the rest of the stack, and future missions of other things like telescopes, or new Space stations.
If 90% of the money going into Ares 1 were then shuffled to Ares V, and the other 10% shuffled to SpaceX to help with Falcon 9 Heavy development, man-rating, and adaptation to carry Orion (which should be relatively easy).

NASA isn't willing to put its eggs in the Space-X basket yet.   While they have made a most excellent start in this business, they have a long way to go still before they will be considered reliable.   My personal perspective is that they bring a breath of fresh air into the industry.   I've spoken with people at ULA and they agree -- they're hungry for the competition because it will result in new investment in new technologies and better solutions and they want that sort of challenge because it will make all their products better too.   Whether any of the New Space companies are successful or not, they are re-invigorating the entire industrial aerospace world.

I welcome the day of the fifth successful Falcon 9 launch in a row.   I believe that day will mark an important milestone in demonstrating the system's reliability.   When that will be, only time can tell, but I hope it is sooner rather than later.   But for me, until that day there are no guarantees regarding Space-X's success.   I hope they can do it -- I really do -- but I don't think it would be wise for anyone to bet the whole bank on it, not yet -- Space-X is still the Padawan Learner, not yet a Master.


Quote
Now you are back to the commonality of just 1 vehicle, the Ares V, which solves one of the big issues the DIRECT team has been mentioning, about two vehicals, and two manufacuring paths.
Perhaps the Ares V could even have an Ares IV varient, same core and boosters, but fewer RS-68's on the end cap sorta like Jupiter.
Save a little money for sub-max payloads.

I partially agree.   The problem I have with the whole 2-launch Ares-V architecture + A.N.Other CLV (be that EELV or New Space) is that the cost for that Ares-V in a world where Ares-I never gets built is still nothing short of gargantuan.

It's a $25 billion up-front cost for the single rocket.    Plus the individual price tag of $1,400 million each is a phenomenal amount to be asking to support any Lunar architecture.

Even the Shuttle costs closer to half that.   Shuttle would certainly cost a lot less if there were a way to remove the 6-months of hard maintenance work involved on each Orbiter between each flight.   And that's exactly what we're trying to do with Jupiter-120.   We remove the costs involved in maintaining a 100 ton reusable space-plane and its very complex engines, and re-develop the rest of the hardware into something which we can use much more cost-effectively.

It's never simple, but our entire approach is fundamentally 2-fold:   "Don't fix what ain't broke" and "K.I.S.S -- Keep It Simple, Stupid".


For example;   The current 4-segment SRB's have a proven track record.   I believe that the next Shuttle launch should see the 250th safe and successful back-to-back manned use of the 4-segment SRB since they were re-designed following Challenger.   They have essentially proven that they work very reliably indeed.   I would contend that the *ONLY* reason to modify them is if your launcher *must* have more performance.   We don't believe that is necessary for the Jupiter.


The SSME on the Orbiter is a fantastic engine.   It has demonstrated only 2 in-flight anomalies out of 369 manned launches (not counting Challenger).   That's a demonstrated reliability of 99.46% -- which is a testament to the design and the staff who so carefully maintain those units.   The only problem with the SSME is that they cost a lot.   To build, each one costs over $60 million (some estimates suggest up to $90m) and every time they are used they require over $5 million worth of maintenance.   On Jupiter we are planning to use the existing RS-68 from the Delta-IV.   This engine was designed to be much simpler, lower pressure, lower efficiency, but higher total thrust.   And cost was the main driver.   Currently they produce disposable RS-68's for around $12 million each.   A human-rated version would be more -- somewhere in the $20m range and will require some development work (PWR est. 3 years and $200-250m, although DIRECT has allocated $1bn to cover overruns and to try to expedite the process).   Luckily for us, the USAF are already implementing a number of improvements for the Delta-IV Program as part of the 108% thrust RS-68A development program and those engines are due to enter service around 2012.   Jupiter doesn't plan to wait for that upgrade though.   The initial versions of Jupiter-120 would initially use the existing 102% thrust RS-68 so as not to cause any delays in the schedule for getting Orion operational.   The upgraded versions would be phased-in as soon as they are mature enough.   Overall this approach of re-qualifying the RS-68 is considerably less costly and less complicated than building a new engine like Ares-I demands.


The Core Stage is obviously based on Shuttle's External Tank.   There will not actually be much of the hardware which won't be modified at least slightly.   The tank barrel sections will all be made using precisely the same processes used at present to make the LH2 tank (note that the LOX tank will be made using the LH2 tank tooling, not the current ET tooling) but the panels will all be redesigned and strengthened in order to support the extra loads.   The Tank Domes will all be made using the existing tooling, but will need to accommodate the wider diameter pipework than at present.   The Interstage will be modified to also support the extra loadings, again using the same tooling used today, but producing stronger panels with more ring-frame stiffeners.

While the Fwd Skirt/Interface will be a new item, it is the Aft Thrust Structure which will be the largest "new" part.   But every new stage requires a Thrust Structure with associated plumbing.   Make no mistake, the Ares-I's Upper Stage also requires one of these, and while smaller and only supporting a single engine, the cost and time required to develop one Thrust Structure doesn't actually vary much dependent on the physical size.


From the manufacturing side, by retaining the majority of the same tooling you save a lot of time (~1 year ripping out the old ET tooling and completely replacing it with all-new equipment) and a lot of money too -- and you also create the very real option of having no 'down time' between the two projects -- which is an important factor in trying to save the workforce at Michoud.


From the launch processing side, all but one of the work platforms inside the VAB can continue to be utilized "as is".   The top platform currently surrounding the pointed end of the External Tank is the only work platform which must be replaced to support the new Jupiter configuration.   Ares-I requires brand new platforms throughout, and Ares-V requires a whole different set in addition -- and they won't be able to share facilities.   DIRECT is planning to make the VAB High Bay's 'common' enough that either Jupiter-120's or Jupiter-232's can be processed in any available bay.   Again, this approach of re-using what we have and minimizing the costly changes both reduces the time needed to implement and also the cost.


And finally the Pad and MLP.   Without the 5-segment or 5.5-segment SRB's the Jupiter-232 is not touching the upper weight limits for either the Crawler Transporters or the Crawlerway.   And with only the standard SRB's and three RS-68's we aren't approaching the maximum thrust levels of the Pad structure either.   This means that the basic foundations of the launch infrastructure are not necessarily going to need to be replaced to support the new program.

Now, having said that there are still unanswered questions regarding how structurally sound the LC-39A and B pads actually are.   They have been sitting in a salt-water environment for over 40 years now and there are questions of whether they will need work or not.   It's too early to say right now, but it is a pretty safe bet that sooner or later they will.

Now, given the sheer size and weight of the Ares-V, that program will be forced to do such modifications before ever attempting to roll the first one out.   That's an unexpected cost which the Ares Program has recently had to accept.

For DIRECT, because neither of the launchers pushes the structural loads in anywhere near the same way, it is quite possible that this could be implemented after the Jupiter's begin flying.   That means less near-term cost -- and that directly translates to more money available for speeding up the initial deployment of Jupiter-120/Orion.   The Pad work will need doing sooner or later, but we would rather remove it from the critical path between the Shuttle retirement and the roll-out of the new vehicle.

Ares-I requires a brand-new Mobile Launcher and associated Service Tower because its configuration has nothing in common with the Shuttle.   Actually Ares-I will eventually require a second ML/LUT too.

Ares-V will ultimately require three new Mobile launchers and towers too.   The determination has already been made that the three old Shuttle MLP's are not suitable for converting for that purpose so they will be scrapped and replaced.

The Jupiter is intended to fly from a converted Shuttle MLP and will re-use the existing Fixed Service Structure located at the Pad.   Converting the existing facilities instead of replacing them is a smaller, less costly job than building everything a-new.   Ultimately it may be preferable to replace the aging MLP's entirely, but again that is a decision -- and a cost -- which can be deferred until much later and need not affect the Orion deployment schedule.

Overall, the intent behind DIRECT is to cut development costs here, cut costs there and reduce the total amount of work needed to get flying to a more realistic and affordable level.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/15/2009 03:31 AM
I thought I heard that it is possible to engineer the fireball out of the engine, however, it is more for appearances, as the fireball poses no risk to the vehicle itself.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2009 03:55 AM
Personally, try to design the Orion and SM so that either the F9H or the Delta 4H could carry it up, then you have some redundency and "safety factor" in how you get it up there.

I'm in full agreement with that notion.

The Atlas-V, the Delta-IV, the Falcon-9 and even the Ariane-V and current Proton launchers are all designed to be able to lift similar sized payloads using a fairly common payload adapter design -- one which was originally based on the Ariane's.

I see no reason at all why the interface for Orion should take a substantially different approach.   As long as the launcher can lift it, and as long as the Health Monitoring systems use the same interface between Launcher > Spacecraft I think it should be a generic 'standard' which all systems can attempt to meet.

Apart from anything else, the current ISS specification of the Orion has half the SM propellant tanks as the Lunar -- and that drops its "inserted" (to -11x100nmi, 51.6deg) mass down to 17,860kg -- and *that* is within the current performance envelope of every single one of those launch systems -- except perhaps the Ariane, I'm not sure it can lift quite that much to that orbit.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2009 04:06 AM
I thought I heard that it is possible to engineer the fireball out of the engine, however, it is more for appearances, as the fireball poses no risk to the vehicle itself.

That is absolutely correct.   The vehicle already has to have a good TPS system to handle the far worse "Plume Impingement" heating effects experienced during flight than is ever produced during the current RS-68 start sequence.   "Appearance" aside, it is not actually a safety concern.   And in fact anyone who watched a Saturn-V launch (even just on video) will note that too had an almost identical-sized flame-ball on ignition -- the only difference is that it "looks" much smaller than Delta simply because the size of the Saturn dwarved it completely.

But, as you say, the USAF-funded RS-68A upgrade development program is already working to fix the root cause anyway.

My own understanding is fairly rudimentary on the issue (so forgive me if I am not 100% accurate here) but I gather that the "flame ball" on Delta-IV is caused by the fact that the LH2 flow is started some 5 seconds before the flow of LOX starts -- specifically to ensure the internals of the engine never experience an oxygen-rich environment, which would be very bad indeed.   Anyway, with so much surplus fuel hanging around at the moment of ignition, it all burns at once -- very spectacularly.   It doesn't actually harm the vehicle, although it does 'singe' the foam quite a bit sometimes :)

Apparently the 'fix' for it could be as 'simple' (cough!) as putting some engines on the test stand and experimenting with different timings for opening the valves and finding a shorter lead-in time for the fuel -- then testing the hell out of the new setting to be absolutely *sure*.

But there are also some hardware changes which are being integrated into the RS-68A too -- although I don't know any details about those.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2009 04:11 AM
Great image! Would Philip mind if I posted this on the Direct facebook group?

I think he'd be delighted.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2009 04:15 AM
Would a switch to the J-231 improve LOM/LOC numbers? I mean that is the big criticism against 232 right now.

I'm guessing the details you are waiting on include more on this?

Exactly :)

With one less engine, the LOM/LOC is likely to improve.   Although the LOM will also take a hit because the US would no longer have engine-out capabilities during ascent nor TLI.

I'm still awaiting the numbers on it, but I suspect you'll see a smaller improvement in LOM and a slightly larger improvement in LOC.   Still, I doubt it will be a radical shift in the numbers.

Of course, our current safety analysis is being done with the new methodologies implemented since they were altered at the Ares-I IS-TIM in Nov 2007 -- and that change in methodology resulted in doubling the Ares-I's LOC numbers from 1: 1,256 to over 1 : 2,400.

So I'm really just as much in the dark as y'all are right now.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lars_J on 01/15/2009 04:20 AM
Doesn't the Ares V upper stage / EDS have two J2X's as well? or has that changed...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/15/2009 04:25 AM
Who is Charles U Farley?

Edit:  Interesting.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_Up_the_Volume_(film)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2009 04:27 AM
That illustration of the Direct launch with STS in the foreground is really great, but its made me wonder: will the bottom 2/3rd of the insulation on Direct get blackened like in the Delta4Heavy?  Or would the pad minimize that H2 fireball?  Might look a bit shocking to the uninitiated public as in the first D4H launch seen so well in Ben Cooper's pix:
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4-Heavy.html

At this point we're not sure.

As I just described, there are a number of potential 'fixes' in the pipeline -- some of which are applicable to the current variant of the RS-68 (re-working the ignition timings).   That might solve the problem at source.

If not, we have been considering a variety of physical barriers to prevent the flame-ball coming upwards.

Certainly, a high-volume water deluge system like that used by Shuttle would help.   Another idea is to place a set of small jet-powered "blowers" which would direct large quantities of airflow downward through the exhaust chamber and into the flame trench, designed to carry a lot of the LH2 away.   We could create some form of physical barrier mounted in the exhaust chamber which prevents the flames coming back upwards but which is blown away as the rocket lifts from the Pad.

Naturally, there are pro's and con's with all of the options, but we're investigating them all.

Given that it is not a safety concern, for now our baseline is 'just live with it', although we do hope that by altering the 'timings' we can reduce it to a negligible amount.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MJ on 01/15/2009 04:28 AM
Greetings Fellow Optimists,
I am a newbie to these proceedings, brought into the fold by the PM article, so please bear with me. I have no engineering expertise, but I do have 24 years in government service. I also possess a mixture of proud nostalgia and anticipation for what this country's space program has done and has the potential to accomplish. You can therefore imagine the blinding headaches I get when I read of NASA's bureaucratic mindset. In my profession, I have seen many absurd programs implemented simply because management decided it was the best course of action. Period. End of discussion. It's the mindset that will fix what ain't broke and can't seem to keep it simple. To the point, could someone please answer these questions: is Ares past the point of no return in NASA's playbook?  If that's the case, what can we as ordinary citizens do to support the Jupiter option? Is there anyone we can write to regarding this issue? Hell, if a letter-writing campaign can pull Star Trek out of the trash bin ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2009 04:29 AM
Who is Charles U Farley?

According to the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Charles%20U%20Farley) it means:

spoonerism of a societal taunt "F*** You Charley", meant to express contempt or defiance.

Dare I ask why?   No.   Never mind.   I don't want to know.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/15/2009 04:31 AM
Who is Charles U Farley?

According to the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Charles%20U%20Farley) it means:

spoonerism of a societal taunt "F*** You Charley", meant to express contempt or defiance.

Dare I ask why?   No.   Never mind.   I don't want to know.

Ross.

Yeah, turns out it was from an old film called Pump up the Volume, wow that was quite an Easter-egg.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/15/2009 04:31 AM
Just to comment on the reliability of Atlas V - and the reliability of these people to build the JUS, it would be a good idea to peruse this document:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Atlas/Evolved_Atlas_To_Meet_Space_Transportation_Needs_2005-6815.pdf

Although technically an EELV paper, when you read this, one can understand why Chuck and Ross talk about their years of experience. Nothing particularly amazing, just a lot of factoids and good reasons.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/15/2009 04:44 AM
Greetings Fellow Optimists,
I am a newbie to these proceedings, brought into the fold by the PM article, so please bear with me. I have no engineering expertise, but I do have 24 years in government service. I also possess a mixture of proud nostalgia and anticipation for what this country's space program has done and has the potential to accomplish. You can therefore imagine the blinding headaches I get when I read of NASA's bureaucratic mindset. In my profession, I have seen many absurd programs implemented simply because management decided it was the best course of action. Period. End of discussion. It's the mindset that will fix what ain't broke and can't seem to keep it simple. To the point, could someone please answer these questions: is Ares past the point of no return in NASA's playbook?  If that's the case, what can we as ordinary citizens do to support the Jupiter option? Is there anyone we can write to regarding this issue? Hell, if a letter-writing campaign can pull Star Trek out of the trash bin ...

Letter-writing didn't save Enterprise, har har har.

Greetings, optimistic newcomer! I'll field this one seeing as Ross hasn't answered yet. Basically, it is not too far from done and dusted - projects can be killed off at any stage. The Commanche was axed just before going into production, for example. X-33 got as far as engine testing and structural articles.

However NASA needs its people with the experience around to carry on the flame. They can't be fired and rehired, less than 10% of the Apollo vets came back, which is partly why NASA is making a screw-up of Constellation right now. Nobody knows how to make things "like they did in the old days." Rocket science is also rocket art, in a way.

It all really depends on what the new NASA Adminstrator thinks, and what Obama tells him to do. Handwritten letters to your senator or whatever will do the trick. The Direct fanboys and girls have been pushing hard for it and it's starting to pay off.

If I were you, I'd buy a mug or T-shirt from their website and walk around. People will ask questions and you can get talking about it. Somebody will overhear. Join the Direct Facebook group. Put it up as wallpaper. Direct just oozes cool and style even though it's just another orange rocket. Oh, and don't go flaming people no matter how much you're tempted. Direct is also a different approach (or should be) - openness and receptiveness to criticism.

Ironically, I sense Direct whipping up more public enthusiasm thanks to Phil's fantastic artwork than the whole of Constellation has to date. "What? We're going back to the moon? Whatever."

Get people excited like it's Season 2 of Firefly and it'll be Apollo fever all over again!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2009 04:51 AM
Greetings Fellow Optimists,
I am a newbie to these proceedings, brought into the fold by the PM article, so please bear with me.

Welcome to the site MJ.   Lots to see and do regarding the space programs all around the world here -- not just DIRECT conversations.   Enjoy it.

Quote
I have no engineering expertise, but I do have 24 years in government service. I also possess a mixture of proud nostalgia and anticipation for what this country's space program has done and has the potential to accomplish. You can therefore imagine the blinding headaches I get when I read of NASA's bureaucratic mindset. In my profession, I have seen many absurd programs implemented simply because management decided it was the best course of action. Period. End of discussion. It's the mindset that will fix what ain't broke and can't seem to keep it simple.

I like that:   A Government Serviceman who is able to cut to the heart of the real underlying issues in less than 3 minutes.   Real Kudos to you.


Quote
To the point, could someone please answer these questions: is Ares past the point of no return in NASA's playbook?

They're not even close.

They have a mock-up vehicle aiming for a test flight some time (October 9th is the latest I'm hearing) next year -- the Ares-I-X.   It "looks" like an Ares-I, but in reality there is nothing actually in common with the Ares-I.   It's upper stage and spacecraft are steel canisters designed only to appear correct and to approximate the mass of the real structures.   The First Stage is an old Shuttle 4-segment SRB which has an 'extender' cylinder placed on top to make it look like a 5-segment SRB.   It uses the same TVC from Shuttle, not the new one from Ares-I and it uses a custom-made avionics package which will never be used again.   It is being processed in the VAB without the Ares-I work platforms, it is being launched from a Shuttle launch platform while Ares-I's are still being designed and construction has barely started.

Yet all of the publicity material would have you believe that this is the first Ares-I launch.   General consensus of opinion here is that its mostly a political stunt to try to "prove" the program is making progress, although the real 5-seg SRB won't fly until 2013 and the real Upper Stage won't make its debut until the following year.

That's when it would be too late to change, because that's when all of the money will have been spent.

That third flight will also be the first chance anyone will really get to know if it might really work or not too.


Quote
If that's the case, what can we as ordinary citizens do to support the Jupiter option?  Is there anyone we can write to regarding this issue? Hell, if a letter-writing campaign can pull Star Trek out of the trash bin ...

Letters are a great way to show your support.

Show your support to your Congress representatives in both the House and the Senate.   Write to the chairman of the Appropriations committees in charge of NASA's budget.   Write to the obvious "Space" movers and shakers.

Rule of thumb:   A hand-written letter is worth 100 typed letters.   A typed letter is worth 100 e-mails.   An e-mail is worth 100 signatures on a petition.   A petition signature is worth 100 electronic signatures on an e-petition.

So few people write hand-written letters any more that they have become almost "unique" today.

I know of one company who received a complaint from a customer on "hardcopy" recently.   The letter ended up being passed up the chain because nobody knew what else to do with it, they just weren't setup to deal with written complaints any more.   The letter ended up on the CEO's desk -- and believe me, the complaint was dealt with then!

Please write a letter.

We have a button on our website (www.directlauncher.com) which will help you find the name and address of your own political representatives.


In addition to that, if you work *anywhere* where 'space' people often work -- print some of Philips wonderful DIRECT imagery (also on the website) and stick it up in your office for all to see.   Show off your personal support of DIRECT and get everyone else to start thinking about it too.   Just a simple picture someone sees every day over the water-cooler can get people thinking.   And we also have a set of wallpapers for your computer desktop too.

Actually there's a really good idea... See next message...

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2009 04:57 AM
Inspired by MJ's post, here is something I would like EVERYONE to take part in:

I would like EVERYONE to post a photo to this thread showing some piece of DIRECT publicity material which you have on display at your workplace (or elsewhere).

You can be in the image too if you like, but I want to see everyone 'FLYING THE COLORS'!

Show your support of DIRECT and show it to everyone else too!

C'mon -- you can all get involved in this one!!!   You know you want to... ;)

Here is my contribution:   Chuck, myself and Stephen at NASA HQ last Friday.   In the foreground are both of Lancer525's Jupiter models -- yes, we brought along the "paper rockets" I think Steve Cook keeps referring to.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MJ on 01/15/2009 05:01 AM
Thanks for your replies, gentlemen.
Well, I did receive a pen set for Christmas, so ...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Nathan on 01/15/2009 06:36 AM
I was working on some of that imagery before the Rebuttal came along.   I've postponed that work until after this new round of performance analysis determine which configuration we will be using.   The change in J-232 EDS capacity will alter the infrastructure.   And if we were to re-baseline to the J-231 option, that would change it more.   I'm going to wait until these questions are fully determined.

Ross.

I have to say I am uncomfortable with a change to J231 given that it includes a 5 segment srb. Doesn't the need to develop a 5 segment booster negate all of the advantages of direct? That booster will cost money to develop.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2009 08:07 AM
Nathan,
Let me clarify: I am NOT talking about the J-231 HEAVY.   The basic Jupiter-231 using the 4-segment boosters is what I was referring to -- that is the architecture which closes by roughly 2.4 metric tons.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/15/2009 09:43 AM
What is pictured here is the Jupiter-120-Y Test Flight launching from Pad B in September 2011, while the Shuttle extension continues operating from Pad A all through to September 2012.

An astonishing image.  You could almost believe for a moment that the Jupiter-2 really was flying. :)

Now, if Phillip is looking for ideas, there was a nice aerial photo of LC-39 a while back with Endeavour and Atalantis on their respective pads.  That gave me an idea of using this as the base plate for an image showing J-232 EDS and CLV launchers on the two pads ready for a Return to the Moon mission (I referred to that image in my idea for a video script back in the #2 thread).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ByStander on 01/15/2009 10:05 AM
I've been reading this forum for the last two - two 1/2 years now. It's dawned on me that lately I'm spending anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes a day just reading the direct forum!

How do you do it Ross? Apart from never sleeping (as mentioned in a posting above), you can't even have a life. A space-alien, perhaps, come to rescue us from remaining in Earth orbit?

Your visit to the transition team is the culmination of dedication, endurance, and above all forbearance with attacks that would make most of us react instead of calmly reponding as you do.

I'm sure we all share the gratitude I feel. I remember the moon landings, and want to see 'em again, this time in HD color.

Hand-written letters it is...

ByStander
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Mark S on 01/15/2009 11:01 AM
I thought I heard that it is possible to engineer the fireball out of the engine, however, it is more for appearances, as the fireball poses no risk to the vehicle itself.

-snip-

Apparently the 'fix' for it could be as 'simple' (cough!) as putting some engines on the test stand and experimenting with different timings for opening the valves and finding a shorter lead-in time for the fuel -- then testing the hell out of the new setting to be absolutely *sure*.

But there are also some hardware changes which are being integrated into the RS-68A too -- although I don't know any details about those.

Ross.

Doesn't the Shuttle already use some pretty hard-core "sparklers" that light up just prior to ignition for this exact purpose?  Couldn't we continue to use those with Jupiter, or are they incompatible with the RS-68 design for some reason?

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ugordan on 01/15/2009 11:07 AM
I thought I heard that it is possible to engineer the fireball out of the engine, however, it is more for appearances, as the fireball poses no risk to the vehicle itself.

-snip-

Apparently the 'fix' for it could be as 'simple' (cough!) as putting some engines on the test stand and experimenting with different timings for opening the valves and finding a shorter lead-in time for the fuel -- then testing the hell out of the new setting to be absolutely *sure*.

But there are also some hardware changes which are being integrated into the RS-68A too -- although I don't know any details about those.

Ross.

Doesn't the Shuttle already use some pretty hard-core "sparklers" that light up just prior to ignition for this exact purpose?  Couldn't we continue to use those with Jupiter, or are they incompatible with the RS-68 design for some reason?

It's not a matter of Hydrogen Burn Off Igniter (HBOI) in case of the shuttle and ROFI in case od Delta IV not igniting the hydrogen, it's the vast quantity spewed out by RS-68 that continues to burn in a fireball as it mixes with the air and rises.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Mark S on 01/15/2009 11:17 AM

Doesn't the Shuttle already use some pretty hard-core "sparklers" that light up just prior to ignition for this exact purpose?  Couldn't we continue to use those with Jupiter, or are they incompatible with the RS-68 design for some reason?

It's not a matter of Hydrogen Burn Off Igniter (HBOI) in case of the shuttle and ROFI in case od Delta IV not igniting the hydrogen, it's the vast quantity spewed out by RS-68 that continues to burn in a fireball as it mixes with the air and rises.

Wow, that is a big difference between SSME and RS-68 then.  I've never seen a hydrogen "fireball" during a Shuttle launch, so I just figured the sparklers were there "just in case" any H2 leaked out prior to ignition.

I guess that's one of the things that $40 million extra per engine buys you, the "no fireball" option.  In addition to the chrome rims, surround-sound stereo, and burglar alarm...   :)

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ugordan on 01/15/2009 11:20 AM

Doesn't the Shuttle already use some pretty hard-core "sparklers" that light up just prior to ignition for this exact purpose?  Couldn't we continue to use those with Jupiter, or are they incompatible with the RS-68 design for some reason?

It's not a matter of Hydrogen Burn Off Igniter (HBOI) in case of the shuttle and ROFI in case od Delta IV not igniting the hydrogen, it's the vast quantity spewed out by RS-68 that continues to burn in a fireball as it mixes with the air and rises.

Wow, that is a big difference between SSME and RS-68 then.  I've never seen a hydrogen "fireball" during a Shuttle launch, so I just figured the sparklers were there "just in case" any H2 leaked out prior to ignition.

Both engines always dump some hydrogen while starting up, by design. It's healthier for the engine to start fuel rich than injecting a lot of oxygen into the chamber and then the entire engine blows up on you when you ignite it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/15/2009 12:48 PM
I just wanted to jump in here, and say that I expect to have the plans and notes for the Jupiter Models ready to publish pretty soon.

Ya gots a place to put them up?  ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/15/2009 01:39 PM
kraisee link=topic=15541.msg354141#msg354141 date=1231913551]
I understand the ET won't leave LEO, but it was never designed to carry a load that would like it will be used for now.
Like I said, maybe it's not a major obsticle.  Just pointing out some  other consideration that people might not be thinking about, especially when they all get excited about their own ideas.

So you think people, which are working on DIRECT project for 2 years now, somehow "might not be thinking about" whether it is feasible of making ET-derived tank to support this weight.

Surprise! They did think about it, and found out that it is possible, and not even hard.

Easy mater! :)

Many of us have been over this question before, but Lobo's question *is* still a valid one for all those folk who weren't here 6 months ago -- or 24+ months ago.

We have spent a great deal of time investigating the procedures, facilities and design involved in converting the ET into a Core Stage.

Back on the old Thread 2 I posted a link to one of the many hundreds of documents about the NLS (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930007493) -- a system which bears a lot of similarity to Jupiter.   That document certainly requires updating, but it shows precisely how MSFC wanted to perform precisely this sort of modification to the ET back in 1993.   The document is part 1 of three, making a complete set of Trade Studies which were together, completed within the 9 month period from May 1991 to January 1992.   This was the "Structures" book.   The other two parts of the set are Avionics and Systems (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930013987) and Propulsion (http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930014526).

Our small group has been gradually trying to update this study and create something similar for Jupiter.   We're in a position today where we have plans for implementing the first DAC and have almost got a fully-integrated baseline design ready to enter that process "running" -- although we also acknowledge that none of our work will actually ever be used.   It will all have to be redone "officially" anyway, but we have at least helped 'clear the path' and we've already tackled a number of the hurdles so we know it can be done.

Without doubt, this is most definitely "rocket science", or perhaps more precisely "rocket engineering".   We (and I'm talking about our engineers, not myself here -- While I'm a quick learner, I've still got a long way to go myself!) are fully-aware of what's involved to get this right.

We do have the benefit that a lot of what we're proposing has its roots firmly in existing flight hardware.   But even with that advantage, nobody is claiming that this is "simple", "easy" or "minor" -- nothing in this business ever qualifies for those terms except when it is used exclusively a relative statement.

The design of any new rocket is a major effort, an engineering challenge, a costly endeavor and a careful balance of risk.   But, like with many things in life, there are comparatively easier paths and comparatively more difficult ones which can be taken.   We are convinced that DIRECT's Jupiter launcher represents a much simpler and less costly approach than the Ares duo.   We are also convinced that Ares is not fiscally responsible enough and that it will ultimately lead the way to joining so many other NASA projects which have been canceled prematurely due to cost.   It is DIRECT's hope to change direction before that happens and prevent the Vision For Space Exploration from becoming yet another wasted effort to reach for the stars.


The DIRECT approach attempts to reuse as much existing proven flight hardware, with the least possible number of changes, to create a new fiscally-responsible system able to perform the tasks which we are planning to do.

What we're proposing is still a major project.   Jupiter-120 is a $9.5 billion development program -- but that's roughly $5 billion less than Ares-I will cost.




Are you using then-year dollars or 2009 dollars for these numbers?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/15/2009 01:56 PM
That illustration of the Direct launch with STS in the foreground is really great, but its made me wonder: will the bottom 2/3rd of the insulation on Direct get blackened like in the Delta4Heavy?  Or would the pad minimize that H2 fireball?  Might look a bit shocking to the uninitiated public as in the first D4H launch seen so well in Ben Cooper's pix:
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4-Heavy.html

At this point we're not sure.

As I just described, there are a number of potential 'fixes' in the pipeline -- some of which are applicable to the current variant of the RS-68 (re-working the ignition timings).   That might solve the problem at source.

Ross.

If I remember correctly, ESAS assumed a man-rated Delta IV would take steps to mitigate the fireball.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: jeff.findley on 01/15/2009 02:25 PM
[...]

The guys at NASA that claim the JUS doesn't work have NEVER successfully designed a cryo upper stage in their lives. [...]

Where are the Ares' upper stages coming from? Any inspiration from S-IVb? Was that such a horrid US?

S-IVB wasn't "such a horrid" upper stage... 40+ years ago.

The point is that the state of the art of cryogenic upper stage design has progressed in those 40+ years and has done so outside of NASA.

Jeff
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/15/2009 03:12 PM
Inspired by MJ's post, here is something I would like EVERYONE to take part in:

I would like EVERYONE to post a photo to this thread showing some piece of DIRECT publicity material which you have on display at your workplace (or elsewhere).

You can be in the image too if you like, but I want to see everyone 'FLYING THE COLORS'!

Show your support of DIRECT and show it to everyone else too!

C'mon -- you can all get involved in this one!!!   You know you want to... ;)

Here is my contribution:   Chuck, myself and Stephen at NASA HQ last Friday.   In the foreground are both of Lancer525's Jupiter models -- yes, we brought along the "paper rockets" I think Steve Cook keeps referring to.

Ross.

I'll have to post something once I'm back at college. I plan to hang up some Direct stuff on my wall. Great idea though.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/15/2009 03:16 PM
Would a switch to the J-231 improve LOM/LOC numbers? I mean that is the big criticism against 232 right now.

I'm guessing the details you are waiting on include more on this?

Exactly :)

With one less engine, the LOM/LOC is likely to improve.   Although the LOM will also take a hit because the US would no longer have engine-out capabilities during ascent nor TLI.

I'm still awaiting the numbers on it, but I suspect you'll see a smaller improvement in LOM and a slightly larger improvement in LOC.   Still, I doubt it will be a radical shift in the numbers.

Of course, our current safety analysis is being done with the new methodologies implemented since they were altered at the Ares-I IS-TIM in Nov 2007 -- and that change in methodology resulted in doubling the Ares-I's LOC numbers from 1: 1,256 to over 1 : 2,400.

So I'm really just as much in the dark as y'all are right now.

Ross.

It is really a win-win situation for you guys. The LOM numbers increase, and it silences the arguments from critics, as then Jupiter's Upperstage has the same amount of engines as Ares V.
While I still think 2 is better than 1, that could just be the pilot side of me thinking. (How many passenger jets have limped home on one engine?)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Crispy on 01/15/2009 03:56 PM
The PM article made digg front page:
http://digg.com/space/Engineers_Battle_with_NASA_over_the_Future_of_Spaceflight

Informed opinions are sorely lacking in the comments...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mnewcomb on 01/15/2009 04:02 PM
The PM article made digg front page:
http://digg.com/space/Engineers_Battle_with_NASA_over_the_Future_of_Spaceflight

Informed opinions are sorely lacking in the comments...

Dugg.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: jarmumd on 01/15/2009 04:17 PM
Get people excited like it's Season 2 of Firefly and it'll be Apollo fever all over again!

you would go there....  lets just make this a Browncoats / Alliance thing instead of a Direct / Nasa thing, and you will have all the support you ever need!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: cgrunska on 01/15/2009 04:26 PM
I sent emails to my reps in congress and the senate. I was trying to take the angle of economy, jobs, education. Anyway, I'd love to do up some hand written letters as well. Who exactly is the guy overseeing NASA's budget? And do you guys have any other material off hand I could dump in a handwritten letter?

Thanks for the information. I'm looking forward to something happening in a good way to DIRECT or the New Space companies in the next 4 years.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/15/2009 05:05 PM
The PM article made digg front page:
http://digg.com/space/Engineers_Battle_with_NASA_over_the_Future_of_Spaceflight

Informed opinions are sorely lacking in the comments...

We need to watch over things like digg. It is very easy for incorrect information to get out there.
I saw on one site someone saying that Ares I is better because the military can use it.
The other problem is, on these sites you also have people who don't like anything NASA. Therefore you have to convince them A) Space flight is worth it and B) Direct is the way to go.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/15/2009 05:58 PM
The PM article made digg front page:
http://digg.com/space/Engineers_Battle_with_NASA_over_the_Future_of_Spaceflight

Informed opinions are sorely lacking in the comments...

Just posted to digg with some relavant facts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Stephan on 01/15/2009 06:04 PM
Just a bump of a question I asked on thread 2 before it was locked :

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 3
Post by: DaveS on 01/15/2009 06:07 PM
Is there any updated preliminary drawings of the various pad elements? Also will the various press-lines and cable trays still exist on the Jupiter cores in the positions they do on the STS ET?

I was working on some of that imagery before the Rebuttal came along.   I've postponed that work until after this new round of performance analysis determine which configuration we will be using.   The change in J-232 EDS capacity will alter the infrastructure.   And if we were to re-baseline to the J-231 option, that would change it more.   I'm going to wait until these questions are fully determined.

Ross.
OK, will be waiting for those then! Could you at least give a clear answer on the cable trays and press-lines?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/15/2009 06:22 PM
Slightly off topic Question for Chris B..  Have you noticed any appreciable increase in volume on this site since the PM article was released?  If so.. how much?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/15/2009 06:46 PM
Thanks for jumping in there Ross.  Just trying to have an informative conversation, and no, I haven't been reading this forum prior to about a week ago, so I didn't have the time or energy to read through the 500 some odd pages in the first two threads in their entirety.

Understandable.   You just came in at a time when there are certain personal attacks being raised and our supporters are naturally in 'defense mode'.

It can sometimes be particularly tricky to determine, on a text-based forum like this, whether someone is open to the idea but is asking questions about perceived weaknesses or whether they are simply in opposition and are merely trying to raise trouble.

We have had a lot of both types over the years.

If you're searching for answers I am only too glad to go back over previous topics, because I'm sure there are other "new faces" who are eager to understand too.

Not sure I ever did say so before, but welcome to the site.


Quote
And thanks for all the great info Ross.  You've been very helpful in a lot of questions I've had.  I still like the idea of the big Ares V booster for future flexability, but you've made some really great arguments here for the pro's of DIRECT.

I do my best to try to help.


Quote
Again, I wonder if going with the Falcon 9 Heavy for the CLV, and then Ares V for the rest of the stack, and future missions of other things like telescopes, or new Space stations.
If 90% of the money going into Ares 1 were then shuffled to Ares V, and the other 10% shuffled to SpaceX to help with Falcon 9 Heavy development, man-rating, and adaptation to carry Orion (which should be relatively easy).

NASA isn't willing to put its eggs in the Space-X basket yet.   While they have made a most excellent start in this business, they have a long way to go still before they will be considered reliable.   My personal perspective is that they bring a breath of fresh air into the industry.   I've spoken with people at ULA and they agree -- they're hungry for the competition because it will result in new investment in new technologies and better solutions and they want that sort of challenge because it will make all their products better too.   Whether any of the New Space companies are successful or not, they are re-invigorating the entire industrial aerospace world.

I welcome the day of the fifth successful Falcon 9 launch in a row.   I believe that day will mark an important milestone in demonstrating the system's reliability.   When that will be, only time can tell, but I hope it is sooner rather than later.   But for me, until that day there are no guarantees regarding Space-X's success.   I hope they can do it -- I really do -- but I don't think it would be wise for anyone to bet the whole bank on it, not yet -- Space-X is still the Padawan Learner, not yet a Master.


Quote
Now you are back to the commonality of just 1 vehicle, the Ares V, which solves one of the big issues the DIRECT team has been mentioning, about two vehicals, and two manufacuring paths.
Perhaps the Ares V could even have an Ares IV varient, same core and boosters, but fewer RS-68's on the end cap sorta like Jupiter.
Save a little money for sub-max payloads.

I partially agree.   The problem I have with the whole 2-launch Ares-V architecture + A.N.Other CLV (be that EELV or New Space) is that the cost for that Ares-V in a world where Ares-I never gets built is still nothing short of gargantuan.

It's a $25 billion up-front cost for the single rocket.    Plus the individual price tag of $1,400 million each is a phenomenal amount to be asking to support any Lunar architecture.

Even the Shuttle costs closer to half that.   Shuttle would certainly cost a lot less if there were a way to remove the 6-months of hard maintenance work involved on each Orbiter between each flight.   And that's exactly what we're trying to do with Jupiter-120.   We remove the costs involved in maintaining a 100 ton reusable space-plane and its very complex engines, and re-develop the rest of the hardware into something which we can use much more cost-effectively.

It's never simple, but our entire approach is fundamentally 2-fold:   "Don't fix what ain't broke" and "K.I.S.S -- Keep It Simple, Stupid".

Ross.

Ross,

Thanks again.  And thanks for the welcome.  :-)
I've actually been following the DIRECT concept casually for the past couple years, but only bumped into this forum recently.
When I was in the 4th & 6th grade, I had a teacher was was a big NASA/Space exploration fan (this would have been about 1981 & 1983.  My 4th grade teacher got moved to the 6th grade when I was in the 5th grade, so I was fortunate enough to get him twice) He had a whole section of the classroom dedicated to it, including a scale detailed model of the Saturn V.  We all also built model rockets and launched them (which got me into that for awhile when I was a pre-teen and early teenager).  And he told me NASA would send photos if you just write them and asked.  So I did, and did and did, and got enough photos eventually to basically wallpaper my bedroom with. 
Like many kids then, I wanted to be an astronaut, then later an Engineer for NASA.  I did get my Mechanical Engineering degree for the University of Idaho (and my EIT and last spring my PE...yay!), but things don't always work out quite the way you planned and never got to NASA.  But my love of the space program and eagerness for the next step has never diminished.  And I have that, and probably my young interest in things mechanical and technical from that teacher.  Thanks Mr. Meline!

Like most people, after the VSE was announced by Bush (kudos to the man, even if you didn't vote fore him, the first President to actually move the ball down the field with any boldness since JFK) I was pretty excited, but suffered from the delusion that the Shuttle was high tech and going back to a capsule was a step backwards.  But after a lot of reading and research, I then figured out that expendable launchers have really come into their own over the life of the Shuttle to now be much more affordable than this 100-ton truck of dead weight that had to be hauled up and down to LEO.  The STS can really put well over 100 tons in orbit, but most of that is the Shuttle.  That was ok before there was a space station to go to, beacuse the Shuttle was roomy and almost a mini-space station for doing things in orbit.  But having a permanent station to go to really negated that advantage.  And seeing the staggering number of missions the Shuttle is needing to get the ISS finished really puts an exclamation point on the inefficiency of the system for what we want to now do.  NOt to mention the incredible costs of refubishing the Shuttles between flights...for a "reusable" vehicle.

Anyway, with the Shuttle on it's way out and news ideas being kicked around, I got really fascinated and interested all over again after the VSE.
I first read about the early Ares concepts, then in late 2007, DIRECT.
I read a lot about it, but it's so hard to get unbias information, it's really hard to form quality opinions (like listening to the mainstream media about politics.  It's all so bias, you never know what the real numbers are).  So it looked like Ares was decided on and progress being made.  I was just happy -something- was going on.  I'd sorta written off DIRECT because of that, and only recently started to see it come around agian, this time with more data and numbers.  Then I bumped into this forum, and though it a good chance to actually ask direct questions about a lot of things I've been mulling around in my head for the past 2 years, about both DIRECT and Ares.
I did notice a fair bit of maybe not hosility, but defensiveness to my questions.
However, never from you Ross.  You always answered questions and did so in a very fair and relatively unbias way.  I REALLY appreciate that.

Ok,
With the history of how I got form there to here out of th way, thanks for the info on SpaceX.  They are kind of exciting to watch I hope they succeed.  Just kicking it around.  Didn't realize there was another thread dedicate to just that.  Wasn't trying to get this thread off topic or anything.  But really, the two are linked in that I think a criticism of Jupiter 120 is that it's really overkill to get Orion back and forth to LEO and the ISS, compared to Ares 1 which after all the upfront costs are out of that way, seems to most like the more economical to ferry Orion to and from the ISS and LEO.  I think you'd agree with that perception anyway.  However, if DIRECT can sorta marry itself to the concept of being able to launch Orion on an EELV like Delta4H, F9H, or AtlasV (I haven't researched the Atlas yet), I think it'd be advantagous to you guys.  Now you have a commuter car which shouldn't require much investment...in fact, you'd have 3 commuter cars in Delta, Atlas, and F9.  Triple redundancy.  Then you have a medium lifter in Jupiter 120 that gives a 4th level of reducency to Orion, and the ability of NASA to launch themselves (which you know many there prefer, an in-house option), but can also lift thing like ISS replacement components, larger satilites, etc.  Then you have your "heavy" lifter in Jupiter 232 (not as heavy as Ares V, but still, 232 would be the heaviest lifter in the world) for even larger payloads and moonshots.

Yes, maybe it's all pie in the sky to hope NASA will change gears like that, but DIRECT is just as pie in the sky at this point (not in concept, in chances of getting NASA to adopt it wholly or in part).  So in for a penny, in for a pound.

Now you have 4 levels of redundancy to get NASA astronauts to the ISS and into LEO, rather than 1 foreign option in Soyuz for 5 years, and then only 1 option in a brand new Ares 1.  From an engineering standpoint, more is always better, and then if one place is screwing you, or having quality issues, you can award your contracts somewhere else. 
You  also have at least 2 options in Delta4H and Atlas5H which flying or could very quickly, and could be hauling Orion to the ISS before even Jupiter 120.  Almost how they used the Redstone rocket for Mercury until the Atlas booster was ready.

Myself, after the VSE, I was sorta hoping for even a more progressive design, like an air-launch crew launch vehical similar to SpaceShip 1 and 2.  How much can you cut your launch costs if you can carry the rocket to 80,000+ ft before launching?  Build a couple of dedicated heavy lift, high-altidude, specially design aircraft to carry the CEV and a booster than can get it into orbit like the WhiteKnights, but much larger.  Converted C5 Galaxies or something.
Or a "reverse shuttle" concept, where your booster is a large rocket plane that can be glided back to the ground after separation from the 2nd stage that will insert the CEV into orbit.  So pretty much just that 2nd stage and the SM would all that couldn't be reused.  And since the Booster wouldn't be suffering reentry, it'd be a truly reusable vehical. 

Yea, maybe these were more non-conventional concepts, but after the announcement of the retirement of the Shuttle, it got the creative juices flowing.  Plus I think they were doing some air-launch testing concepts, which got my hopes up.

Anyway, the point is, I was open to "alternative" ideas a long time ago, so I had to beef ever with DIRECT.  It just needed to be sweet enough to convince people to change ships midstream, and that's what I didn't know.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/15/2009 07:20 PM
Personally, try to design the Orion and SM so that either the F9H or the Delta 4H could carry it up, then you have some redundency and "safety factor" in how you get it up there.

I'm in full agreement with that notion.

The Atlas-V, the Delta-IV, the Falcon-9 and even the Ariane-V and current Proton launchers are all designed to be able to lift similar sized payloads using a fairly common payload adapter design -- one which was originally based on the Ariane's.

I see no reason at all why the interface for Orion should take a substantially different approach.   As long as the launcher can lift it, and as long as the Health Monitoring systems use the same interface between Launcher > Spacecraft I think it should be a generic 'standard' which all systems can attempt to meet.

Apart from anything else, the current ISS specification of the Orion has half the SM propellant tanks as the Lunar -- and that drops its "inserted" (to -11x100nmi, 51.6deg) mass down to 17,860kg -- and *that* is within the current performance envelope of every single one of those launch systems -- except perhaps the Ariane, I'm not sure it can lift quite that much to that orbit.

Ross.

Yea, as I just said in my last, rather lengthy post, that was my thinking there.  I was about to suggest the possibility of a "light" SM for ISS missions that could lighten the load enough for the EELV's to handle if Orion and SM were a bit fat for them.  But if they have half the propellent (which makes sense, they don't need the propellent to get back from lunar orbit like they do for moonshots.) then that's basically what I was wondering.
It'd be ok if it was still to heavy for the Ariane, while you gain an extra level of reducency, you are back to a foreign source, not to mention a launch site all the way in South America.  Delta4H, Atlas5H, and F9H all launch from the Cape as I understand?  right down the street, so to speak, from Launch complex 39. 

Doesn't take away from the Jupiter 120 concept, like I said, NASA would probably like a way to launch Orion into LEO in house, But then they could primarily use Jupiter 120 for other things than just ISS ferry missions.  A service mission on a GTO satillite or orbital telescope, or possibly to ferry a replacement ISS component (or new component) to the ISS, as it can lift about double the Shuttle payload right?  So the 120 could launch Orion and an ISS module, and dock actually ferry it to the ISS.
I keep mentioning that for a reason.  Several components of the ISS have been canceled due to budget considerations, primarily of the high shuttle launch costs.  Some of these components have even been built or partially built already before they got the axe.  Including the Habitation Module (which I think now has been recycled unfortunately), Centrifuge Accomodations Module (now on display in Japan),  Alpha MAgnetic Spectrometer (cancelled, and now may get an additional shuttle flight to put on ISS, but if Jupiter 120 could get it there, then they could save the money of that last shuttle launch).
There's also a Russian module that is mostly built but has been languishing with them because of budget overruns.

So getting additional and/or replacement components to the ISS is a viable need that a vehical like Jupiter 120 could perform, in my view.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: DarthVader on 01/15/2009 09:55 PM
Inspired by MJ's post, here is something I would like EVERYONE to take part in:

I would like EVERYONE to post a photo to this thread showing some piece of DIRECT publicity material which you have on display at your workplace (or elsewhere).

Hi Ross!

Great idea :-) Here's my modest contribution. I have 2 print-out of the super images you guys did a while back, up on the board in my office at work.

Cheers,
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/15/2009 10:19 PM
Slightly off topic Question for Chris B..  Have you noticed any appreciable increase in volume on this site since the PM article was released?  If so.. how much?

Not really. We're about where we expect to be with the ramp up towards a shuttle launch. This is totally understandable, as the online article does not mention this site (and not even Directlauncher for that matter),* so there's no way to trace as X amount of people will be coming through a hard search via google.

The Magazine article apparently mentions us, so that's good, but you can't click paper ;) People would have to again physically type in the URL and that's not as good as a big clickable URL from a major site.*

I would mention that interest in Direct is already strong by numbers. The new forum software only counts a visitor once, per IP address (uniques), and won't count you again unless you click on the thread with a new IP address, and this Thread 3 has already gone through several thousand indvidual people in less than two days. That's not too shabby at all for one - continuation style - thread on the forum.


*EDIT: The Magazine version of the article is now online, so that's different. Not a clickable URL, but still helpful. If it was clickable, you'd likely see a jump in visitors. They were under no obligation to make it clickable of course, so it's a bonus for it to be on there anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mrbliss on 01/15/2009 10:42 PM
I would like EVERYONE to post a photo to this thread showing some piece of DIRECT publicity material which you have on display at your workplace (or elsewhere).

Here's my modest setup - my dual monitors with the appropriate DIRECT wallpaper.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/15/2009 10:43 PM
Slightly off topic Question for Chris B..  Have you noticed any appreciable increase in volume on this site since the PM article was released?  If so.. how much?

Not really. We're about where we expect to be with the ramp up towards a shuttle launch. This is totally understandable, as the online article does not mention this site (and not even Directlauncher for that matter), so there's no way to trace as X amount of people will be coming through a hard search via google.

The Magazine article apparently mentions us, so that's good, but you can't click paper ;) People would have to again physically type in the URL and that's not as good as a big clickable URL from a major site.

I would mention that interest in Direct is already strong by numbers. The new forum software only counts a visitor once, per IP address (uniques), and won't count you again unless you click on the thread with a new IP address, and this Thread 3 has already gone through several thousand indvidual people in less than two days. That's not too shabby at all for one - continuation style - thread on the forum.

Well, once again Chris, thanks for maintaining this site and giving us "Direct Fan Boys" a place to speak. It is greatly appreciated by all.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/15/2009 10:55 PM
Inspired by MJ's post, here is something I would like EVERYONE to take part in:

I would like EVERYONE to post a photo to this thread showing some piece of DIRECT publicity material which you have on display at your workplace (or elsewhere).


Here is my contribution:   Chuck, myself and Stephen at NASA HQ last Friday.   In the foreground are both of Lancer525's Jupiter models -- yes, we brought along the "paper rockets" I think Steve Cook keeps referring to.

Ross.

Oooh, oooh, ooh!

Can I use this picture too?

I have some T-shirt images I drew once, before I discovered the ones on Cafe Press, but I've never seen this photo before, so I'd like to ask permission to see if it can be posted at Zealot Hobby Forum and Paper Modelers forum, (the two biggest card modeling fora on the net) as "street cred" for the models, which I hope will increase interest in DIRECT.

Woooooooot!


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/15/2009 11:02 PM
I just wanted to jump in here, and say that I expect to have the plans and notes for the Jupiter Models ready to publish pretty soon.

Ya gots a place to put them up?  ;)


Actually, I have two places to put them up.

And a third would be a welcome thing. I think you can email me from here, but if not, please send me a PM, and I will send you my email, and once I get the approved construction notes back from Chuck, I'll send the model plans out to the hosts, and then make an announcement here. Thank you, Zapkitty, for offering to host the plans set.

Wow.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/15/2009 11:07 PM
I just wanted to jump in here, and say that I expect to have the plans and notes for the Jupiter Models ready to publish pretty soon.

Ya gots a place to put them up?  ;)


Actually, I have two places to put them up.

And a third would be a welcome thing. I think you can email me from here, but if not, please send me a PM, and I will send you my email, and once I get the approved construction notes back from Chuck, I'll send the model plans out to the hosts, and then make an announcement here.

Wow.

Can't wait. I have a spot on my desk back at school for the Jupiter-120
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: spacedem on 01/15/2009 11:30 PM
The PM article made digg front page:
http://digg.com/space/Engineers_Battle_with_NASA_over_the_Future_of_Spaceflight

Informed opinions are sorely lacking in the comments...

Just posted to digg with some relavant facts.


Same article is dugg here with more diggs:

http://digg.com/space/NASA_Renegades_Pitch_Obama_Team_New_Post_Shuttle_Plan?FC=PRCK2


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/15/2009 11:35 PM
[...]

The guys at NASA that claim the JUS doesn't work have NEVER successfully designed a cryo upper stage in their lives. [...]

Where are the Ares' upper stages coming from? Any inspiration from S-IVb? Was that such a horrid US?

S-IVB wasn't "such a horrid" upper stage... 40+ years ago.

The point is that the state of the art of cryogenic upper stage design has progressed in those 40+ years and has done so outside of NASA.

Jeff

In terms of structural design, the Ares EDS stage is much more like the Delta IV US. It's one of the two US LH upper stages actually flying today, and the only one that isn't a stainless steel balloon tank.

Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with balloon tanks, mind you.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: PaulL on 01/15/2009 11:54 PM
Would a switch to the J-231 improve LOM/LOC numbers? I mean that is the big criticism against 232 right now.

I'm guessing the details you are waiting on include more on this?

Exactly :)

With one less engine, the LOM/LOC is likely to improve.   Although the LOM will also take a hit because the US would no longer have engine-out capabilities during ascent nor TLI.

I'm still awaiting the numbers on it, but I suspect you'll see a smaller improvement in LOM and a slightly larger improvement in LOC.   Still, I doubt it will be a radical shift in the numbers.

Of course, our current safety analysis is being done with the new methodologies implemented since they were altered at the Ares-I IS-TIM in Nov 2007 -- and that change in methodology resulted in doubling the Ares-I's LOC numbers from 1: 1,256 to over 1 : 2,400.

So I'm really just as much in the dark as y'all are right now.

Ross.

Ross, would the lighter EDS of the J-231 also allows to save some structure mass on the rocket core stage? If yes, that should result in a slightly higher payload mass for the J-120.

PaulL
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Chris Bergin on 01/15/2009 11:59 PM

Well, once again Chris, thanks for maintaining this site and giving us "Direct Fan Boys" a place to speak. It is greatly appreciated by all.  :)

Heh, no problem at all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: rocketguy101 on 01/16/2009 12:01 AM
I would like EVERYONE to post a photo to this thread showing some piece of DIRECT publicity material which you have on display at your workplace (or elsewhere).

You can be in the image too if you like, but I want to see everyone 'FLYING THE COLORS'!

Show your support of DIRECT and show it to everyone else too!

Here I am literally flying the colors!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/16/2009 12:17 AM
Thanks for jumping in there Ross.  Just trying to have an informative conversation, and no, I haven't been reading this forum prior to about a week ago, so I didn't have the time or energy to read through the 500 some odd pages in the first two threads in their entirety.

Understandable.   You just came in at a time when there are certain personal attacks being raised and our supporters are naturally in 'defense mode'.

It can sometimes be particularly tricky to determine, on a text-based forum like this, whether someone is open to the idea but is asking questions about perceived weaknesses or whether they are simply in opposition and are merely trying to raise trouble.

Ross.

That's very true. I've felt a tone in some of the responses to my questions that makes me suspect that questions I've raised are seen as attacks on the project.

I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Kutter, and I'm glad that people like him are flying real rockets.

But the reality is that we haven't been building a lot of entirely new designs for upper stages. Boeing has flown a mostly new upper stage on the Delta IV, with heritage back to the Delta III and H-II. Lockheed has been flying variants of the classic Centaur, with an understandable disinclination to depart very far from the proven stainless steel balloon tank design.

To note that Lockheed hasn't flown a structurally stable  hydrogen powered upper stage in decades isn't a criticism of Mr. Kutter. They just weren't able to close the business case.

Likewise for Boeing. They haven't flown a common bulkhead Hydrogen upper stage in decades either.

If Bernard Kutter says the mass estimate for the JUS is reasonable, I give that opinion considerable respect. I still have to ask what the production cost penalty is for a common bulkhead design , since Boeing has rejected that alternative in spite of the obvious payload benefit on the Delta IV. Also, if pressurization is required at any point prior to launch for a Centaur derived JUS, since that has been such a fundamental feature of the Centaur design to date.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/16/2009 12:33 AM
I just wanted to jump in here, and say that I expect to have the plans and notes for the Jupiter Models ready to publish pretty soon.

Ya gots a place to put them up?  ;)


If he hasn't, I will host it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/16/2009 12:34 AM
Are you using then-year dollars or 2009 dollars for these numbers?

All these numbers are currently CY2008 adjusted figures.   We have not yet re-adjusted to CY2009.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/16/2009 12:39 AM
Just a bump of a question I asked on thread 2 before it was locked :

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.


Thanks for re-posting that.   We have the data, just not the charts yet.   I'll see what I can do, but I suffered a really bad computer crash last night and it may tale me some time to get straightened out again.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/16/2009 12:59 AM
Are you using then-year dollars or 2009 dollars for these numbers?

All these numbers are currently CY2008 adjusted figures.   We have not yet re-adjusted to CY2009.

Ross.

Thank you for the clarification.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: robertross on 01/16/2009 01:19 AM

Here I am literally flying the colors!!

Very sweet!
First confirmed flight of Direct  :)
One more image and we'd have first confirmed recovery ;)  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: rocketguy101 on 01/16/2009 01:31 AM

Here I am literally flying the colors!!

Very sweet!
First confirmed flight of Direct  :)
One more image and we'd have first confirmed recovery ;)  :)

video of the prep and flight here (http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/media/DavidStriblingFlyingJupiter/Jupiter120_Launch_17Oct2008.wmv)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/16/2009 01:33 AM
Inspired by MJ's post, here is something I would like EVERYONE to take part in:

I would like EVERYONE to post a photo to this thread showing some piece of DIRECT publicity material which you have on display at your workplace (or elsewhere).


Here is my contribution:   Chuck, myself and Stephen at NASA HQ last Friday.   In the foreground are both of Lancer525's Jupiter models -- yes, we brought along the "paper rockets" I think Steve Cook keeps referring to.

Ross.

Oooh, oooh, ooh!

Can I use this picture too?

I have some T-shirt images I drew once, before I discovered the ones on Cafe Press, but I've never seen this photo before, so I'd like to ask permission to see if it can be posted at Zealot Hobby Forum and Paper Modelers forum, (the two biggest card modeling fora on the net) as "street cred" for the models, which I hope will increase interest in DIRECT.

Woooooooot!

Yikes.   I hate photo's of myself.   You'll note that there is no image of me on the directlauncher website and on my Facebook entry there's only a low-res grainy image of me in the distance there too.   I don't want or crave the limelight and I don't think I look good in photo's.

So this is just about the only image of me anywhere on the 'net -- and you have no idea how reluctant I was posting it even here :)

But I guess once the dam has a hole in it, there's not much chance of patching it successfully :)

Go ahead.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/16/2009 01:38 AM
In terms of structural design, the Ares EDS stage is much more like the Delta IV US.

Agreed.   The conceptual design is remarkably similar.   The LH2 and LOX tanks are separate, they're different diameter, the LOX tank 'hangs' under the LH2 tank which is where it is supported by the Interstage and it has a single engine underneath.   The current Ares-V EDS design is very much what you would end-up with by scaling-up the current Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage.

And just like its EELV compatriot -- it weighs about 50% more than its Centaur-derived equivalent would.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/16/2009 01:47 AM
Ross, would the lighter EDS of the J-231 also allows to save some structure mass on the rocket core stage? If yes, that should result in a slightly higher payload mass for the J-120.

It would *theoretically* offer an improvement, yes, but only very marginally.   I've seen figures showing only ~350kg difference in total -- which would benefit the Jupiter-120 performance a little, translates to only about 50kg improvement in Jupiter-232 performance so is not what I'd call "significant".


Having said that though, our performance calculations *all* assume the stronger Core Stage, even when flying the lighter EDS.   This approach ensures maximum flexibility for the system -- It can fly either and still not require re-design or re-qualifying.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/16/2009 02:13 AM
In terms of structural design, the Ares EDS stage is much more like the Delta IV US.

Agreed.   The conceptual design is remarkably similar.   The LH2 and LOX tanks are separate, they're different diameter, the LOX tank 'hangs' under the LH2 tank which is where it is supported by the Interstage and it has a single engine underneath.   The current Ares-V EDS design is very much what you would end-up with by scaling-up the current Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage.

Ross.

The H-2A-2 and Delta III upper stages had a similar design.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/16/2009 02:15 AM

The H-2A-2 and Delta III upper stages had a similar design.

Duh, they have the same LOX tank
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/16/2009 02:19 AM

Actually, I have two places to put them up.
And a third would be a welcome thing.

... and for other Direct stuff as may be needed... okay, the mirror should be propagating... in fact it's probably sneaking up behind you as you read this...

http://somedirectstuff.nekoslovakia.net

... now all we need is stuff to put in it before it gets hungry... again...

Emailing you now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/16/2009 02:29 AM

The H-2A-2 and Delta III upper stages had a similar design.

Duh, they have the same LOX tank

Thank you for that insight. And was there another radically different LOX tank they might have chosen that would have led to a very different design? Or were the dimensions of the LOX tank influenced by the amount of LOX required to perform the mission?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/16/2009 03:56 AM

That's very true. I've felt a tone in some of the responses to my questions that makes me suspect that questions I've raised are seen as attacks on the project.

Unfortunately, and I'm sure unintentionally, you came in very much the same way that a couple of previous antagonists have -- appearing with all-guns blazing, making broad sweeping statements of what can and can't be right and beating away at topics which we had actually put to bed quite a long while ago.

The entire long-term readership here was instantly put on alert because we've seen people do exactly the same sort of thing and often with those people it became apparent really quickly that they weren't interested in listening to arguments or points which interfered with their stated beliefs, they weren't interested in examining DIRECT's claims in a reasonable manner.   Those previous antagonists quickly revealed themselves as having no other motive than to attack, attack, attack any option which wasn't Ares.   A few got so nasty with the vitriol that Chris/James have been forced to ban them permanently :(

Sadly, this has happened more than once over the last few years and each time it happens it makes us more and more 'guarded' whenever new people suddenly appear and start claiming that "this is implausible" or "that can't be right" etc etc.   We have become naturally very wary of any folk who just appear and just leap straight into making such definitive negative claims without first asking a whole bunch of questions about DIRECT and learning some of the real details.

It essentially boils down to the same difference between walking into a meeting two hours late and instantly saying "you can't do that" and being in the meeting for two hours discussing the subject and then asking "are you sure that can actually be done?".   It's a "TONE" thing -- and text-based forums like this are notoriously difficult to figure out a persons 'tone'.   In my experience you have to be 10 times more explicit with what you say in text than in speech if you want to get the 'tone' right and just typing what you're thinking without actively compensating for that will end up offending someone sooner or later.   Sadly that's just the nature of the 'net though.


Right now, I'm still trying to figure YOU out :)

While your comments sometimes come across as rather brusque and cutting, you have not revealed an anti-DIRECT "Battle-Standard" yet.   Most interestingly, we do seem to have managed to explain some facets of the plan and you seem to have accepted many of those explanations so far.   There are still a few more which we're 'doing the dance' with still, but that's okay.   All I ask is that you're still open to the "possibility".   As long as that's the case, I think we can convince you sooner or later ;)   We have been able to convince almost everyone who has approached the idea without having already made their mind up.

Forgive me, but right now I just can't tell yet whether you are merely 'cautious' or 'antagonistic'.   To me, you've managed to tread the extremely narrow tightrope between the two very well (that's a compliment actually -- that takes skill!)   And I've never been one to write anyone off without a real reason, so I keep trying to offer answers in the hope of persuading you.   I just hope you are still open to being persuaded :)


Quote
I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Kutter, and I'm glad that people like him are flying real rockets.

But the reality is that we haven't been building a lot of entirely new designs for upper stages. Boeing has flown a mostly new upper stage on the Delta IV, with heritage back to the Delta III and H-II. Lockheed has been flying variants of the classic Centaur, with an understandable disinclination to depart very far from the proven stainless steel balloon tank design.

The Centaur isn't all-new, no.   But it has not remained the same throughout the last 40 years.   There have been 12 major revisions to the design over the years, 6 of which have been made since 1990.   Each time the system has been revised the full suite of DDT&E work has to be applied.   You're certainly aware that even something as 'simple' as a tank stretch requires a full re-analysis of the entire structural load environment and a full re-certification program too.   In just the last ~6 years or so LM had to change the underlying launcher from Atlas-II/III to Atlas-V too -- and that wasn't a simple change either -- it was equally a major development program as anything else they've had to do.

But not to change the underlying concept, to make evolutionary upgrades instead of revolutionary ones, is a pretty good sign of a strong and capable underlying concept, wouldn't you agree?


It should be noted that while the current generation of Centaur is indeed Steel, their WBC/ICES designs (which DIRECT is proposing to use) is designed to use Al-Li 2195.   It seems that LM gained a great deal of experience using the friction-stir welded Al-Li for the Shuttle SLWT ET Project, and since then LM have been proposing to utilize that same proven technology for their future generations of Centaur derivatives.   Perhaps this explains why there is some confusion over this issue.[/quote]


Quote
To note that Lockheed hasn't flown a structurally stable  hydrogen powered upper stage in decades isn't a criticism of Mr. Kutter. They just weren't able to close the business case.

Actually that isn't correct.   Lockheed-Martin build the Shuttle External Tanks, which are the largest structurally stable hydrogen tanking structure in the world today.   To say they don't have experience with such systems is therefore incorrect -- they actually have experience with one of the most challenging of such systems.


Quote
Likewise for Boeing. They haven't flown a common bulkhead Hydrogen upper stage in decades either.

This is true.   But still, we should also try not ignore the fact that Boeing is contracted to produce the Ares-I US right now, which is intended to just be such a beast.   It's still very much in the design phase for sure, but I think we must be sure not to imply they currently have no experience at all.


Quote
If Bernard Kutter says the mass estimate for the JUS is reasonable, I give that opinion considerable respect. I still have to ask what the production cost penalty is for a common bulkhead design , since Boeing has rejected that alternative in spite of the obvious payload benefit on the Delta IV. Also, if pressurization is required at any point prior to launch for a Centaur derived JUS, since that has been such a fundamental feature of the Centaur design to date.

There is a higher cost during the testing phase of the development program, to ensure the common bulkhead design is stable (anyone recall the S-II common bulkhead which 'inverted' during testing?).   But it is quite marginal compared to the total development expenditure (<1%).

In production though, the materials and labor cost is actually LESS because it deletes all of the intricate hardware items which make-up the Intertank area.   Manufacturing costs can actually be cut by between 10-20% by utilizing a common bulkhead design instead of a separate-bulkhead, though again, compared to the total development cost this is pretty small.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/16/2009 04:13 AM
Not sure if anyone has posted it here already but the full Popular Mechanics article is up on their website now for all to read...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4295233.html

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: DarthVader on 01/16/2009 04:34 AM
Ah it's in the February issue! I was looking all over the newsstands for it, but it's not yet out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/16/2009 04:40 AM
Ah it's in the February issue! I was looking all over the newsstands for it, but it's not yet out.

You can find it in some places.   I know people were able to pick copies up last Friday in Providence CT, Seattle WA and Washington DC, so its 'out there' already.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: fotoguzzi on 01/16/2009 06:41 AM
now for all to read...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4295233.html

First impressions from the online version: 
1) It makes a cleaner story to ignore the NLS heritage, but that (I think) does not help DIRECT.
2) The beauty of the concept is clear when you think of hacksawing off the heavy shuttle and putting an equally massive useful payload on top.  PM seems not to have made this clear in text or illustration.
3) PM did not explain why NASA chose to rebut DIRECT after studying all those configurations.
4) PM thinks Griffin is fighting to the end for Ares I??!!!?  If you are going to speculate, speculate logically.

As others have noted, the Rebel Alliance vs. Death Star sub-theme works well for DIRECT even while the article is mostly even-handed.

I don't have a good feel for the PM audience.  A casual reader might not understand that a bunch of quivering compass needles simultaneously pointed to a single lodestone.  He might be left thinking that the ragtag, part time army has come up with the equivalent to one of the 1,700 configurations--every bit as good as the one that NASA chose--rather than followed the mysterious force lines to their logical center.

Modification:  Punctuation.
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/16/2009 11:21 AM
now for all to read...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4295233.html

First impressions from the online version: 
1) It makes a cleaner story to ignore the NLS heritage, but that (I think) does not help DIRECT.
2) The beauty of the concept is clear when you think of hacksawing off the heavy shuttle and putting an equally massive useful payload on top.  PM seems not to have made this clear in text or illustration.
3) PM did not explain why NASA chose to rebut DIRECT after studying all those configurations.
4) PM thinks Griffin is fighting to the end for Ares I??!!!?  If you are going to speculate, speculate logically.

As others have noted, the Rebel Alliance vs. Death Star sub-theme works well for DIRECT even while the article is mostly even-handed.

I don't have a good feel for the PM audience.  A casual reader might not understand that a bunch of quivering compass needles simultaneously pointed to a single lodestone.  He might be left thinking that the ragtag, part time army has come up with the equivalent to one of the 1,700 configurations--every bit as good as the one that NASA chose--rather than followed the mysterious force lines to their logical center.

Modification:  Punctuation.

Agreed. But for us, the focal point of the entire article was the statements by Mr Kutter. It allowed us to open the window just a wee bit on the caliber of assistance and/or support we have from within the professional industry itself. For almost 3 years we've been claiming that the design is professionally vetted without being able to back it up with names. Now at least some of that is visible. All I can say now is that the rest of the vehicle, representing all of the various design disciplines needed to create the design in its entirety, are supported and/or assisted by other equally qualified professionals. Our hope is to one day be able to put names to those sources as well. But as was the case with Mr Kutter, that is not our call. And please also notice, as was the case with Mr Kutter, it may not always be just an individual’s choice alone. Mr Kutter had to get permission to be quoted. Some of our remaining sources will also need the same kind of permission. For a lot of them it's not as simple as just asking them if they are willing to be identified.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/16/2009 11:26 AM

Thank you for that insight. And was there another radically different LOX tank they might have chosen that would have led to a very different design? Or were the dimensions of the LOX tank influenced by the amount of LOX required to perform the mission?

1.  don't know the trades involved
2.  yes
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: robertross on 01/16/2009 01:58 PM
Ah it's in the February issue! I was looking all over the newsstands for it, but it's not yet out.

You can find it in some places.   I know people were able to pick copies up last Friday in Providence CT, Seattle WA and Washington DC, so its 'out there' already.

Ross.

It was in Canada (Nova Scotia) at Chapters last week. To me, that means all the USA and Canada should have it ...lol  ;)
FYI, Nova Scotia seems to have a reputation of being behind the times, but maybe we need to think twice about that.

I'm so happy to have that article/issue in my 'collection'.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/16/2009 04:15 PM
Will,
I think you're starting to nit-pick a bit now. Like you, I used to sceptical about the JUS, but with the backing of Kutter I am no longer worried.
However I do think that you may have a point about the economics of the JUS, especially if it requires very delicate handling.

My other outstanding concern is that the per-unit cost for a J120 still seems too close to that of an Ares-I for a vehicle which is around twice the size. YMMV.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/16/2009 04:16 PM


Quote
If Bernard Kutter says the mass estimate for the JUS is reasonable, I give that opinion considerable respect. I still have to ask what the production cost penalty is for a common bulkhead design , since Boeing has rejected that alternative in spite of the obvious payload benefit on the Delta IV. Also, if pressurization is required at any point prior to launch for a Centaur derived JUS, since that has been such a fundamental feature of the Centaur design to date.

There is a higher cost during the testing phase of the development program, to ensure the common bulkhead design is stable (anyone recall the S-II common bulkhead which 'inverted' during testing?).   But it is quite marginal compared to the total development expenditure (<1%).

In production though, the materials and labor cost is actually LESS because it deletes all of the intricate hardware items which make-up the Intertank area.   Manufacturing costs can actually be cut by between 10-20% by utilizing a common bulkhead design instead of a separate-bulkhead, though again, compared to the total development cost this is pretty small.

Ross.


I don't think that is correct. The 2007 GAO report on Ares specifically mentions the higher manufacturing cost of common bulkhead designs, a solution the Ares I US was reluctantly forced into to meet its mass goals. As further evidence I can point to the S-II stage, which cost significantly more to produce than the much larger first stage. And to the decision of the H-2 design team to abandon an operational common bulkhead US and produce a new intertank design. That decision would be inexplicable if they didn't expect manufacturing savings.

Boeing takes a significant payload hit by not using a common bulkhead on the Delta-IV US. Unless they're incompetent designers, they have to be avoiding some pretty significant life cycle costs.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/16/2009 04:28 PM
Also, I still want to know why the Direct team think they can develop their EDS for significantly less than NASA's, considering that it's larger, more complex, and needs to absorb the cost of J-2 development.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/16/2009 04:31 PM
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/16/2009 04:40 PM


Quote
To note that Lockheed hasn't flown a structurally stable  hydrogen powered upper stage in decades isn't a criticism of Mr. Kutter. They just weren't able to close the business case.

Actually that isn't correct.   Lockheed-Martin build the Shuttle External Tanks, which are the largest structurally stable hydrogen tanking structure in the world today.   To say they don't have experience with such systems is therefore incorrect -- they actually have experience with one of the most challenging of such systems.

Ross.

The ET isn't a full stage, and if it was it wouldn't be an upper stage, since the engines it fuels start on the pad. It doesn't use a common bulkhead and it was designed decades ago.

Will,
I’m almost twice Ross’s age and have a lot less tolerance for BS than he does, so let me just cut to the chase here.

The ET isn’t a “stage” only in the sense that the engines and avionics are not attached to the tank proper. STS is a unique design configuration, unlike anything else in the world, but it still is comprised of all the same rocket elements. It’s still a stage – the 1st one. But if you look at the tank structure, and consider the tank structure of any other “stage”, you will get a feel for what Ross was trying to get across to you. Next to having reliable engines, the most difficult part of any stage is the propellant tank. It’s not just a pressurized gas bottle like folks have connected to the back of their house.

Doesn’t use a common bulkhead and was designed decades ago? These are non-qualifications for something being a stage? OMG. I’m amazed. I never knew that. Thank you. That will forever change my perspective on stage design. BTW, What did they call those upper thingmes with no common bulkheads on the rockets they launched people on decades ago?

As for your comment about when the engines are started, that just is out there. Every rocket I know of has a “First Stage” with engines that are started on the pad. Come-on. Quit looking for gotchas and join the discussion.

BTW. Do you know a guy named JIS?

Quote
Granted, there have been more recent tweeks, but they don't constitute new stage designs.

Your use of the word “tweeks” in that context is revealing. It displays a lack of knowledge beyond the superficial of what the real differences are between your grandfather’s Centaur and the one flying today. The design differences are most decidedly not “tweeks”. I suggest you ask your friends at LM to bring you up to date.

Quote
Also, I still want to know why the Direct team think they can develop their EDS for significantly less than NASA's, considering that it's larger, more complex, and needs to absorb the cost of J-2 development.

Simple; because we worked with the industry that has been doing it for 45 years knows what it’s doing and NASA doesn’t have a clue on how to design this kind of a stage. Short and to the point.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mjcrsmith on 01/16/2009 04:42 PM


That is just way too cool!!!!!

Great Job!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mrbliss on 01/16/2009 04:52 PM
  [image of J130 (?) model built from LEGO]

How cute!  And she's reading NASA.gov! ;)

Too bad Lego's never made those round bricks & cylinders in orange. Although they have shown up in brown from time to time.

Anyway, looks good!

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: bad_astra on 01/16/2009 04:53 PM
Just wanted to say the PM article is excellent. Friends of mine are already borrowing my copy and I want it back.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/16/2009 04:55 PM

Ron - that is just too kool !!!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/16/2009 05:26 PM

Quote
Also, I still want to know why the Direct team think they can develop their EDS for significantly less than NASA's, considering that it's larger, more complex, and needs to absorb the cost of J-2 development.

Simple; because we worked with the industry that has been doing it for 45 years knows what it’s doing and NASA doesn’t have a clue on how to design this kind of a stage. Short and to the point.


With Ares NASA picks a design, does a detailed review of it and hands it to the contractors to execute, then  oversees their work and adds their overhead to the project. If they decide they like your upper stage design and want to use it, the same things happens, yes? So where do the savings in executing the EDS project come from allowing it to absorb the J-2 development and still cost less?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/16/2009 05:30 PM
Upclose view of the RS-68's, which are former car exhausts:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/16/2009 05:34 PM
If they decide they like your upper stage design and want to use it, the same things happens, yes?

no
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/16/2009 05:40 PM


Quote
To note that Lockheed hasn't flown a structurally stable  hydrogen powered upper stage in decades isn't a criticism of Mr. Kutter. They just weren't able to close the business case.

Actually that isn't correct.   Lockheed-Martin build the Shuttle External Tanks, which are the largest structurally stable hydrogen tanking structure in the world today.   To say they don't have experience with such systems is therefore incorrect -- they actually have experience with one of the most challenging of such systems.

Ross.

The ET isn't a full stage, and if it was it wouldn't be an upper stage, since the engines it fuels start on the pad. It doesn't use a common bulkhead and it was designed decades ago.

Will,
I’m almost twice Ross’s age and have a lot less tolerance for BS than he does, so let me just cut to the chase here.


OK, that was nit-picking on my part. I retract it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Eerie on 01/16/2009 05:41 PM
I have this theoretical question: if you were to optimize Jupiter-120, could you reach Constellation goals with 3 launches of it?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/16/2009 05:44 PM

With Ares NASA picks a design, does a detailed review of it and hands it to the contractors to execute,

That's the way it used to be, but not under Mike Griffin.
Under his leadership, NASA is not "picking a design and doing a detailed review of it". They are doing the actual detail design using designers that have never done it before with no design input from the contractors with the experience. Don't get me wrong, these are smart designers, among the best in the world. But there is design and there is design. What Griffin has done is similar to taking a bunch of exceptionally good jet fighter aircraft designers, putting them in a room behind locked doors and telling them to design a nuclear-powered submarine. They don't know how. Will they come up with a working design? Yes. Will it be anywhere near as technically good and cost efficient as what they could get from industry directly? Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/16/2009 05:46 PM
I have this theoretical question: if you were to optimize Jupiter-120, could you reach Constellation goals with 3 launches of it?

You need to build an EDS anyway. Why not use it for an upper stage?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/16/2009 05:49 PM

With Ares NASA picks a design, does a detailed review of it and hands it to the contractors to execute,

That's the way it used to be, but not under Mike Griffin.
Under his leadership, NASA is not "picking a design and doing a detailed review of it". They are doing the actual detail design using designers that have never done it before with no design input from the contractors with the experience. Don't get me wrong, these are smart designers, among the best in the world. But there is design and there is design. What Griffin has done is similar to taking a bunch of exceptionally good jet fighter aircraft designers, putting them in a room behind locked doors and telling them to design a nuclear-powered submarine. They don't know how. Will they come up with a working design? Yes. Will it be anywhere near as technically good and cost efficient as what they could get from industry directly? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/16/2009 05:59 PM

And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?

Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expert
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/16/2009 06:09 PM

And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?

Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expert

And the one man who insisted it be done that way will no longer be there.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zinfab on 01/16/2009 06:12 PM

And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?

Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expert

And this, I suspect, more than anything else is why NASA brass are reluctant to adopt alternative solutions. It would require them, after the fact, to admit that the path they've chosen is not the most efficient. It would require them to partially abandon their goal to "reconstitute" design expertise within NASA and cede this ground to the contractors.

I believe that this is the biggest admission/change/hurdle NASA faces with the switch to Direct than any perceptions of "NIH syndrome" or "Griffin's Dream Rocket."

Again, I personally believe that this is only a perception, and not a reality. In Apollo, good ideas seemed to come from industry as well as NASA. Why can't it be the same today?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: cgrunska on 01/16/2009 08:04 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

Page 2

Direct 2.0 was mentioned in December, along with Ross in the new york times.

neat!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: GraphGuy on 01/16/2009 08:08 PM

And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?

Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expert

And this, I suspect, more than anything else is why NASA brass are reluctant to adopt alternative solutions. It would require them, after the fact, to admit that the path they've chosen is not the most efficient. It would require them to partially abandon their goal to "reconstitute" design expertise within NASA and cede this ground to the contractors.

I believe that this is the biggest admission/change/hurdle NASA faces with the switch to Direct than any perceptions of "NIH syndrome" or "Griffin's Dream Rocket."

Again, I personally believe that this is only a perception, and not a reality. In Apollo, good ideas seemed to come from industry as well as NASA. Why can't it be the same today?

I think you are looking at history through rose colored glasses.  Lets not forget that NASA was argued into the Apollo LOR mission profile by one engineer.  Even during the Apollo heyday of good ideas you had NASA being dragged into the right thing to do.  And the pure O2 environment for Apollo wasn't the best idea.

NASA made mistakes back in its glory days and had to be argued into architecture changes then as well.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/16/2009 08:16 PM


Proof that rockets can be legos!

That is amazing work!

On another note, today is Dr. Griffin's last day at NASA, now maybe we'll get that review we have all have been hoping for.  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/16/2009 08:21 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

Page 2

Direct 2.0 was mentioned in December, along with Ross in the new york times.

neat!

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.

Really? Few followers?  ???

They basically just frame Direct as a dead-end in that article. And they use a quote when NASA looked at old data, not the new and updated Jupiter data.

And most of the editor's selections for comments call for the ending of manned spaceflight, and for NASA to focus on unmanned probes.

Thanks for posting the link, I think we need to go in there and set the story straight.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/16/2009 08:23 PM
another note, today is Dr. Griffin's last day at NASA, now maybe we'll get that review we have all have been hoping for.  :)

Fingers crossed. Griffin submitted his resignation, not because he wanted to, but because all of Bush's appointees were required to. Obama has not yet announced a new Administrator, permanent or interim, and it's always possible that he'll keep Griffin in place until he does. Let's hope not. It's time for all of President Bush's appointees to leave and make way for the new administration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: robertross on 01/16/2009 08:50 PM
another note, today is Dr. Griffin's last day at NASA, now maybe we'll get that review we have all have been hoping for.  :)

Fingers crossed. Griffin submitted his resignation, not because he wanted to, but because all of Bush's appointees were required to. Obama has not yet announced a new Administrator, permanent or interim, and it's always possible that he'll keep Griffin in place until he does. Let's hope not. It's time for all of President Bush's appointees to leave and make way for the new administration.

Yes, I was going to start parading around, screaming at the top of my lungs in the -30C weather outside : Goodbye Griffin, goodbye!!!!!  :)

But I have to wait now until I hear something announced.

Hopefully Monday brings a day truly of Change, regardless. Anxious to hear if there's anything in Obama's acceptance speech. I'm sure everyone here is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Mark S on 01/16/2009 09:02 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30spac.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

Page 2

Direct 2.0 was mentioned in December, along with Ross in the new york times.

neat!

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.

Really? Few followers?  ???

They basically just frame Direct as a dead-end in that article. And they use a quote when NASA looked at old data, not the new and updated Jupiter data.

And most of the editor's selections for comments call for the ending of manned spaceflight, and for NASA to focus on unmanned probes.

Thanks for posting the link, I think we need to go in there and set the story straight.


This is an old story, I don't know if they are still accepting comments.

As it is, comments No. 7 (me) and 18 are the only two that are strongly pro-DIRECT.  Most of the rest are, unfortunately, more anti-manned-spaceflight than anything else.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: cgrunska on 01/16/2009 09:30 PM
Guess i jumped the gun there. I stopped reading it and posted it here, and then work got busy!

Oh well. The new article pretty much eradicated that quote from the new york times with that lead designer guy stating it's possible.

I sure hope we don't botch outer space for another 40 years. That'll just be depressing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Mark S on 01/16/2009 09:49 PM
Guess i jumped the gun there. I stopped reading it and posted it here, and then work got busy!

Oh well. The new article pretty much eradicated that quote from the new york times with that lead designer guy stating it's possible.

I sure hope we don't botch outer space for another 40 years. That'll just be depressing.

That's okay, I was excited when I first saw the NYT article, too.  What I didn't like was the provocative title, "The Fight for NASA's Future", paired with a NASA PR office puff piece article.  They give DIRECT two sentences, say it has little support, then dismiss it with the typical condescending quote from a NASA rep saying is not possible under the laws of physics.  Bah.

Thank goodness the PM article came out with a story that actually tries to address the subject in a rational and impartial manner.  While they do slant the article with the David-vs-Goliath angle, in the end they leave it up to the reader to make up their own minds, based on the info presented.  That's good journalism.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/16/2009 09:51 PM
Guess i jumped the gun there. I stopped reading it and posted it here, and then work got busy!

Oh well. The new article pretty much eradicated that quote from the new york times with that lead designer guy stating it's possible.

I sure hope we don't botch outer space for another 40 years. That'll just be depressing.

That's okay, I was excited when I first saw the NYT article, too.  What I didn't like was the provocative title, "The Fight for NASA's Future", paired with a NASA PR office puff piece article.  They give DIRECT two sentences, say it has little support, then dismiss it with the typical condescending quote from a NASA rep saying is not possible under the laws of physics.  Bah.

Thank goodness the PM article came out with a story that actually tries to address the subject in a rational and impartial manner.  While they do slant the article with the David-vs-Goliath angle, in the end they leave it up to the reader to make up their own minds, based on the info presented.  That's good journalism.

Mark S.


I agree. If you are going to take the time to write an article, do a little research like PM did.
Thank god for Popular Mechanics, it was a great piece and allowed the reader to draw their own conclusions (but I felt an overall pro-Direct feeling to it).

On another note, updated the Direct-STS patch in my signature using the latest 120 baseball card. It looks much better now!  :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/17/2009 12:42 AM
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?
Again, I'm sort of thinking of other missions that it could do that would be both helpful to NASA, and help make the case for DIRECT, beyond just ISS ferries and the Moon. 
Jupiter will always look kind of overkill, and thus "more expensive" than Ares 1 for just ISS missions.  (That's why I like the Idea of using en EELV for only going to the ISS).
Here's my though.  Like the Shuttle servicing the Hubble, there is a use to have the Shuttle's successor go to satellites and service or repair them.  Or possibly even go set a dead one into a decaying orbit so it'll get it out of the sky.  (It's getting pretty crowded up there, and some of these satellites are large and dead and can't be controlled.  I think a lot of new satellites have the ability to degrade their orbit and burn up, but hundreds of old ones don't)
The Nice thing about the Shuttle was it's pretty big and roomy for an extended stay in orbit where you aren't at the ISS.  Technically, the Astronauts could hang out in the Orion Spam can for a couple week mission, but having another module which could have tools, components, a manipulator arm, and habitation space would be a bonus I would think.  Something along the lines of a SpaceHab module for the Shuttle or something.  Orion could dock with it like the LSAM, and then use the SM engine to boost into the required orbit, and then drop back to LEO.  Could it not?
I was thinking something along the lines of the main Kibo Lab.  A cylinder with a view port and manipulator arm on one end.  Orion could take the unit to a wayword satellite, capture it, and do the spacewalks to service it.  The Orion capsule could be used as an airlock while the rest of the astronauts resided in the new module, just like Dave Scott did in Apollo 9.  He exited through Apollo's hatch to spacewalk over to the LEM.  (Otherwise eveyone needs to be in a suit when you depressurize the capsule)

In my opion, you only really give up three abilities by retiring the Shuttle.  1)   Habitation space for long duration non-ISS stays in Orbit (for moon shots, the LSAM acts as a habitation module, as the old LEM did for Apollo) 
2)  The ability to return cargo to Earth. 
3)  Having a vehical with it's own airlock and manipulator arm for EVA's.
Can't do much about #2 with the return to a capsule, but we would do something about #1 and #3 with an additional "service module".

Maybe there's 100 reasons this isn't feasable that I don't see because I don't understand the details of space travel as well as Ross and some others, so that's why I'm asking.  Such an ability would be a big selling point to Jupiter.  Ares 1 can barely launch Orion, and Ares V would be too big for such a mission.  But if Jupiter 120 can boost A fully fueled Orion (Lunar config weight) plus say a 20 ton "Utility module", and that bundle could boost to higher orbits and reach satellites for servicing missions, what are thre reasons that wouldn't work?  would the SM have enough fuel to boost that to a higher orbit them back to LEO? (As the Shuttle's OMS's do for Hubble servicing missiosn).
The Utility Module could be ether a low-cost expendable module, or a more robust unit meant to remain in space parked in orbit and be reused.  If it had solar panels and and OMS system, don't know why it couldn't be, but would a future Orion mission be able to dock with it and take it to a different satellite?  Or would it need an entirely different orbital path for a different satellite?  Suppose if you have enough propellent, you can go anywhere you want from anywhere.   Just don't know enough about orbital mechanics to know if this is viable or impractical for ORion's SM to do.
If there's not enough fuel in the SM to pick up the Utility Module in a parking orbit and go to another Satillite, then a cheaper, simpler unit that would be expended would be the logical way to go, and just bring it up with each Mission.  If it just had some habitation space, supplies, some simple grappler lock to the target, and could house the astronauts who weren't doing the EVA's, that could probably be done pretty inexpensively.  Not much more than the expendable SM anyway.

I mean, obviously we've used the shuttle to service satellites in the past, so there's no reason not to think we wouldn't want to do it again some time if we have the ability.  But the Shuttle has a manipulator arm, an airlock, and habitation volume (and could carry a SpaceHab module for even more room).  If you just sent Orion to service a satillite, it can't grab onto the satillite, and you have to decompress the module for EVA's so everyone would need to be in pressure suits, like Apollo or Gemini.  And if the mission is a couple weeks long, that's a long time to spend with 3 or 4 astronauts in the Orion capsule.
Seems like this would be something that would be useful.  Another arrow in the quiver for Jupiter I'd think.

Is the idea viable?  Or crazy?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jorge on 01/17/2009 12:42 AM

And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?

Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expert

And this, I suspect, more than anything else is why NASA brass are reluctant to adopt alternative solutions. It would require them, after the fact, to admit that the path they've chosen is not the most efficient. It would require them to partially abandon their goal to "reconstitute" design expertise within NASA and cede this ground to the contractors.

I believe that this is the biggest admission/change/hurdle NASA faces with the switch to Direct than any perceptions of "NIH syndrome" or "Griffin's Dream Rocket."

Again, I personally believe that this is only a perception, and not a reality. In Apollo, good ideas seemed to come from industry as well as NASA. Why can't it be the same today?

I think you are looking at history through rose colored glasses.  Lets not forget that NASA was argued into the Apollo LOR mission profile by one engineer.  Even during the Apollo heyday of good ideas you had NASA being dragged into the right thing to do.  And the pure O2 environment for Apollo wasn't the best idea.

NASA made mistakes back in its glory days and had to be argued into architecture changes then as well.

Exactly. LOR came from John Houbolt, who was NASA/Langley. Not exactly "outside", considering the STG hadn't even completely moved from Langley to Houston yet.

And the NAA/X-15 guys warned the NAA/Apollo guys about the hazards of a high-pressure O2 environment. *That* was ignored. So "not invented here" is not a new thing at NASA.

I'd really like to hear any concrete examples zinfab has to share about "good ideas from industry" that were adopted for Apollo. I doubt there were any major ones.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jorge on 01/17/2009 12:57 AM
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?

Yes, already discussed many times, search "SSPDM".
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ballew on 01/17/2009 02:45 AM
What size and type of unmanned missions would be possible to Mars or to the outer solar system using a Jupiter 120 or 130 along with an existing US as a launch vehicle that would not be possible using the launch vehicles currently available. I'm thinking that some of the later unmanned test flights could be used to send missions to deep space.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/17/2009 02:47 AM
What size and type of unmanned missions would be possible to Mars or to the outer solar system using a Jupiter 120 or 130 along with an existing US as a launch vehicle that would not be possible using the launch vehicles currently available. I'm thinking that some of the later unmanned test flights could be used to send missions to deep space.


For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/17/2009 03:11 AM

With Ares NASA picks a design, does a detailed review of it and hands it to the contractors to execute,

That's the way it used to be, but not under Mike Griffin.
Under his leadership, NASA is not "picking a design and doing a detailed review of it". They are doing the actual detail design using designers that have never done it before with no design input from the contractors with the experience. Don't get me wrong, these are smart designers, among the best in the world. But there is design and there is design. What Griffin has done is similar to taking a bunch of exceptionally good jet fighter aircraft designers, putting them in a room behind locked doors and telling them to design a nuclear-powered submarine. They don't know how. Will they come up with a working design? Yes. Will it be anywhere near as technically good and cost efficient as what they could get from industry directly? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

As I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:

1) Is two launches better than 1.5?
2) Is a common bulkhead a better solution than an intertank?
3) Should NASA do less designing and the contractors more?

Direct seems to assume that the answer to all three questions is yes, and that accepting the Direct proposal will mean that NASA capitulates on all three questions, with wonderful savings on each point.

I don't see how that follows.

For example, I could see an independent study agreeing yes to 1) but not to 2) and 3).




Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Fequalsma on 01/17/2009 03:24 AM
What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma


As I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:

1) Is two launches better than 1.5?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/17/2009 03:39 AM
What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma


As I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:

1) Is two launches better than 1.5?


I can understand your frustration, but do you have a more concise way to distinguish between:

1) two launches on the same size launcher

and

2) two launches, with one on a much larger launcher and one on a much smaller launcher?

Because the costs, LOC and LOM numbers can be very different.

Yes, they both launch twice. But what is the most convenient way to distinguish the two options?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/17/2009 04:14 AM
What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma

True.  The Ares I is not half of an Ares V.

More like 1.167
;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kenny008 on 01/17/2009 04:43 AM
What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma


As I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:

1) Is two launches better than 1.5?


I can understand your frustration, but do you have a more concise way to distinguish between:

1) two launches on the same size launcher

and

2) two launches, with one on a much larger launcher and one on a much smaller launcher?

Because the costs, LOC and LOM numbers can be very different.

Yes, they both launch twice. But what is the most convenient way to distinguish the two options?



As I understand it, some of the differences are:

1.5 Launch Architecture:
     - 2 completely separate launchers
     - 1 with a 5 segment SRB, the other with a 5.5 segment SRB
     - Each requiring new SRB development and certification
     - 1 possibly requiring completely new SRB's (composite cases, etc)
     - 1 possibly abandoning SRB recovery (and therefore failure analysis) due to current performance shortfalls
     - Each requiring separate and exclusive MLP's
     - 1 requiring completely new MLP's
     - 1 requiring new crawler
     - 1 requiring upgraded crawlerways
     - Each requiring separate and exclusive VAB bays
     - Each requiring separate manufacturing facilities (for US and core stage)
     - Each requiring separate and exclusive flight software
     - Each requiring separate and exclusive development efforts
     - 1 requiring a new US development
     - Both sharing a common J-2X Engine development
     - J-2X required prior to 1st flight
     - Human rating of RS-68 prior to first flight
     - Neither using much of the current SSP hardware or launch infrastructure


2-Launch Architecture:

     - Nearly identical core stage development
     - Nearly identical core stage manufacturing (in parallel with whatever SSP manufacturing is required)
     - Shared, non-modified, flight-proven SRB's
     - Shared, current (somewhat modified) MLP's
     - Shared, slightly modified VAB bays
     - No change to crawlerways
     - No change to crawler
     - Shared (maybe modified) flight software
     - 1 shared vehicle development
     - 1 US development
     - J-2x required for lunar mission only
     - Human rating RS-68 prior to 1st flight
     - Also a 2-Launch architecture for lunar mission (although closer to an actual "1.5" due to commonality of hardware)

Just my non-engineering observations.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/17/2009 04:50 AM
What size and type of unmanned missions would be possible to Mars or to the outer solar system using a Jupiter 120 or 130 along with an existing US as a launch vehicle that would not be possible using the launch vehicles currently available. I'm thinking that some of the later unmanned test flights could be used to send missions to deep space.


For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.

We could bring JIMO back from the dead as well. Jupiter is the perfect size for larger unmanned missions. I don't see any unmanned program having the necessary budget to get an Ares V launch.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/17/2009 07:12 AM
Just out of curiosity, was the PM article the January 15 surprise, or was there something else that we missed?

Also, a few more misc questions:

The J232 is rated to carry 100 tonnes to LEO, but all of its proposed missions are for smaller payloads farther out (Moon, Mars, NEAR, etc).   Can the stack actually support 110 tonnes through max acc. or is that a purely theoretical maximum for LEO?

Will the J120 and J232 need crew access facilities that are different to both each other and the shuttle?

Is there any plan for a cryogenic orbital transfer stage that can hold propellant for years instead of weeks, for use in large planetary missions?

Does the fuel-for-seats plan for the orbital fuel depot risk turning NASA into a space tourism company?  For example, if a very wealthy person bought enough commercial tanker rockets to put the requisite tonnage of fuel up, would that buy him a ticket to the moon?

How would losing another shuttle effect DIRECT's chances vs the alternatives?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/17/2009 07:20 AM
And one last question that I previously forgot:
The DIRECT lunar launch schedule is pretty ambitious.  Is there enough funding available to build meaningful payloads for all of those launches?  If not, you'll lose some of your economy of scale.

Just out of curiosity, was the PM article the January 15 surprise, or was there something else that we missed?

Also, a few more misc questions:

The J232 is rated to carry 100 tonnes to LEO, but all of its proposed missions are for smaller payloads farther out (Moon, Mars, NEAR, etc).   Can the stack actually support 110 tonnes through max acc. or is that a purely theoretical maximum for LEO?

Will the J120 and J232 need crew access facilities that are different to both each other and the shuttle?

Is there any plan for a cryogenic orbital transfer stage that can hold propellant for years instead of weeks, for use in large planetary missions?

Does the fuel-for-seats plan for the orbital fuel depot risk turning NASA into a space tourism company?  For example, if a very wealthy person bought enough commercial tanker rockets to put the requisite tonnage of fuel up, would that buy him a ticket to the moon?

How would losing another shuttle effect DIRECT's chances vs the alternatives?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Stephan on 01/17/2009 07:59 AM
For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
How much could a Jupiter 232 send on a trajectory to Mars ?
(that's why I asked payload Vs C3 above ;) )
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/17/2009 08:21 AM

I can understand your frustration, but do you have a more concise way to distinguish between:

1) two launches...

and

2) two launches...

You call them what you just called them.

Two launches.

You don't attempt to reinforce a failed NASA PR ploy, which is all that the "1.5 launches" wordplay is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kkattula on 01/17/2009 08:38 AM
What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma


As I understand it, you seem to be bringing together three entirely separable questions:

1) Is two launches better than 1.5?


I can understand your frustration, but do you have a more concise way to distinguish between:

1) two launches on the same size launcher

and

2) two launches, with one on a much larger launcher and one on a much smaller launcher?

Because the costs, LOC and LOM numbers can be very different.

Yes, they both launch twice. But what is the most convenient way to distinguish the two options?


Twin Launch vs Two Launch?

Dual Symmetrical Launch vs Dual Asymmetrical Launch?

Sounds Reasonable vs You Gotta Be Kidding?*


*Actually that last bit isn't quite true.  I have no problem with launching the crew on a smaller dedicated vehicle, PROVIDED you already have such a vehicle. Developing a new one specifically for the task, then having to supersize your other new vehicle to carry the rest of the payload, is just silly.

Instead of developing both a new medium LV and a new super heavy LV, design one new heavy, that can scale back to a medium-heavy when required. Saving on both development, production and support costs. No brainer really.  That's Direct in a nutshell.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kkattula on 01/17/2009 08:59 AM
For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
How much could a Jupiter 232 send on a trajectory to Mars ?
(that's why I asked payload Vs C3 above ;) )

Assuming 3.8 km/s dv from LEO, about 35 mt. Not including the JUS itself.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/17/2009 09:53 AM
Just out of curiosity, was the PM article the January 15 surprise, or was there something else that we missed?

That was it.


Quote
Also, a few more misc questions:

The J232 is rated to carry 100 tonnes to LEO, but all of its proposed missions are for smaller payloads farther out (Moon, Mars, NEAR, etc).   Can the stack actually support 110 tonnes through max acc. or is that a purely theoretical maximum for LEO?

It is rated for ascent plus burn-to-empty performance in space during burns like TLI, all with a full 110mT payload mass on top (with full 1.4FS too).   This has been done to give the system the maximum possible flexibility.


Quote
Will the J120 and J232 need crew access facilities that are different to both each other and the shuttle?

The facilities will be different to Shuttle and will be different from each other because of the differing heights to the capsule.   I have attached an *OLD* image of the modified Shuttle Fixed Service Structure approach which we are baselining.

However, be aware that this approach is under review because of the ongoing analysis of the Pad structure initiated following the loss of bricks in the flame-trench during STS-124's launch.

While that is fundamentally still our baseline recommendation, we do have a number of other alternative approaches in the pot as well -- but I haven't got any prepared imagery to show those off, sorry.


Quote
Is there any plan for a cryogenic orbital transfer stage that can hold propellant for years instead of weeks, for use in large planetary missions?

The NASA/KSC ACES contract which both Boeing and Lockheed produced designs for specified long-term storage of both LH2 and LOX propellants in orbit with less than 1% boil-off over a period of 1 year.   This study produced designs which should be acceptable for a stage with a mission duration of 5-years -- which is our target.


Quote
Does the fuel-for-seats plan for the orbital fuel depot risk turning NASA into a space tourism company?  For example, if a very wealthy person bought enough commercial tanker rockets to put the requisite tonnage of fuel up, would that buy him a ticket to the moon?

That decision needs to be made by NASA.   IMHO, anyone who can pay for 60 tons of propellant to be launched should get to decide who sits in the seat.   Anyone who's got that sort of money burning a hole in their pocket is pretty serious about their interest and should be welcomed.   Apart from anything else it helps pay for the other three astronauts to go -- and that's justification all on its own.


Quote
How would losing another shuttle effect DIRECT's chances vs the alternatives?

In my opinion it would totally de-rail the entire Vision for Space Exploration.   Moon, Mars and Beyond would be shut down as a waste of life.   And about 15 years from now we will all watch a Chinese moon landing on Super-Hi-Def TV in full 38.1 surround sound.

If we lose another orbiter and crew, Shuttle would be canceled instantly -- no more chances.   ISS would probably be messed-up too.   But the entire Shuttle workforce would probably get their redundancy notices within a few months.   And all future SDLV options would be taken off the table completely.

If the manned spaceflight program survived *at all*, it would most likely shift to an extremely limited program; probably no more than 2 launches to ISS per year, using a cut-down Orion on an EELV.

But that's the chance we have taken every time we launch -- ever since STS-114 RTF.   We are putting everything on the line every time we fly.

Wayne Hale wrote a wonderful e-mail about this very thing back in January 2004.   He recently posted a copy on his blog (http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/posts/post_1231872667823.html) -- I strongly suggest everyone check it out.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/17/2009 10:04 AM
And one last question that I previously forgot:
The DIRECT lunar launch schedule is pretty ambitious.  Is there enough funding available to build meaningful payloads for all of those launches?  If not, you'll lose some of your economy of scale.

Our budget profile assumes the Science Mission Directorate is funded to double it current FY2008 level.

Lunar experiments would be the purview of the SMD.   The choice of how to use its resources it up to them not us, but I think it would be safe to assume they will want to produce quite a lot of Lunar experiments.   In addition, partner nations are being approached currently to produc lots of equipment for the program too.   I don't think there will be any shortage of Lunar experiments for quite a while.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/17/2009 10:39 AM
For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
How much could a Jupiter 232 send on a trajectory to Mars ?
(that's why I asked payload Vs C3 above ;) )

Stephan,
I haven't got a C3 chart for you currently, but depending on the dV required for the TMI the range is roughly;

TMI 3,800m/s : 35.7mT
TMI 4,100m/s : 31.9mT


With the a top-off at an orbital Depot the size of a single J-232 Upper Stage though, the limit for TMI is above 200mT -- and the vehicle can't lift that much on a single launch.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/17/2009 10:45 AM
Yes, they both launch twice. But what is the most convenient way to distinguish the two options?

I often use the following descriptions to distinguish unambiguously between the Ares and Jupiter Lunar launch solutions:-

2-vehicle/2-launch

1-vehicle/2-launch


It may not be quite so jingoistic as the ESAS phrasing, but it is unquestionably more accurate.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Stephan on 01/17/2009 12:17 PM
TMI 3,800m/s : 35.7mT
TMI 4,100m/s : 31.9mT

With the a top-off at an orbital Depot the size of a single J-232 Upper Stage though, the limit for TMI is above 200mT -- and the vehicle can't lift that much on a single launch.
Thanks !
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Eerie on 01/17/2009 01:14 PM
With the a top-off at an orbital Depot the size of a single J-232 Upper Stage though, the limit for TMI is above 200mT -- and the vehicle can't lift that much on a single launch.

Of course, to fill the depot you`d have to launch J-232 several more times...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/17/2009 02:12 PM
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?

AFAIK, Direct have proposed a number of uses for that extra weight (whixch could be as great as the shuttle's maximum cargo payload).  These include:

* ISS resupply using an autominous re-entry version of the MPLM
* ISS or satellite maintenance using an autominous re-entry mission module based on the shuttle's Payload Suppot Frame (SSPSF), which would also be equipped with a small remote manipulator system arm, based on a squinting close consideration Phillip's illustrations of an Orion/SSPSF delivering the Advanced Microwave Spectrograph to the ISS.
* Trans-Lunar fly-around, with the Orion sitting on top of a Centaur upper stage, which would act as an EDS.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: BogoMIPS on 01/17/2009 02:22 PM
Of course, to fill the depot you`d have to launch J-232 several more times...

DIRECT's proposal, if I recall correctly, is that you would require other launches from Atlas, Delta, Soyuz, Ariane, Falcon, etc., etc. to fill your depot.

You probably need another Jupiter launch to get your depot up there to start with (though who says you couldn't launch an empty depot on a smaller launcher, too), but the point isn't to refill the depot with Jupiter launches.

---

I'm personally not sold on the depot concept yet.  I understand the reasoning, but I'm having trouble believing that having X launches to refuel a depot ends up costing less than just launching the fuel as part of the mission, especially if those fuel launches are getting spread out among a number of vendors.

i.e. Would one J-23x and ten (pick your favorite LV) fuel launches actually end up costing less that 2-J232 launches, one with all the fuel you need?

---

I'm also not sold on the "fuel for seats" concept.  If NASA says "you can have a seat to Mars if you orbit $20 worth of fuel", my response might be "can I just give you the $20?"

Now if you have a competitive contract for a company to provide depot-refueling services, I could see that resulting in lower cost.  Maybe similar to the COTS model, except they're carrying up fuel to depots rather than cargo to ISS. 

If you need 100mT of fuel for your upcoming mission, them compete out a contract to supply that fuel at your depot.  If the contract winner's proposal is for 5mT, 10mT, or 25mT fuel launches depending on the vehicle they use?  If the single contractor knows they will get X dollars for Y launches, they can build a solid business plan around that, and you might begin to see some economies in scale using smaller launchers.

- Mike
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/17/2009 02:32 PM
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?

AFAIK, Direct have proposed a number of uses for that extra weight (whixch could be as great as the shuttle's maximum cargo payload).  These include:

* ISS resupply using an autominous re-entry version of the MPLM
* ISS or satellite maintenance using an autominous re-entry mission module based on the shuttle's Payload Suppot Frame (SSPSF), which would also be equipped with a small remote manipulator system arm, based on a squinting close consideration Phillip's illustrations of an Orion/SSPSF delivering the Advanced Microwave Spectrograph to the ISS.
* Trans-Lunar fly-around, with the Orion sitting on top of a Centaur upper stage, which would act as an EDS.

Ben, I need to correct a few bits there.

We propose building a 'cradle' which we refer to as an SSPDM (Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module) which would be designed to carry one of the standard Shuttle/ISS MPLM's to orbit one last time.   The SSPDM may or may not have an integral RCS system -- specifically depending on Orion's capabilities.   The SSPDM would be a disposable unit for carrying any remaining Shuttle Payloads one last time.   Once the payload (MPLM in this case) is finished with, it would be taken away by the accompanying Orion and placed into a safe orbit where it would burn up in the atmosphere.   The Orion would safely return home alone.

The SSPDM is also planned to be the basis for launching a future Orion-based Hubble Servicing Mission somewhere in the 2014 time-frame too.   After that mission the SSPDM would either be disposed of safely, or would be fitted with its own guidance and control systems and would be placed into an orbit compatible with Hubble, but a few hundred miles distant.   There it would remain, along with all the tools needed to perform any future servicing missions, ready for an Orion crew to dock with and bring back to the telescope once again.

We always liked the idea of the un-crewed Orion being an option for cargo-only deliveries and cargo down-mass capabilities.   Theoretically at least, a cargo-only variant of Orion could still be produced -- although neither CxP nor DIRECT have a budget allocation for it in the plans at this time.   It remains an option though.

And currently our suggestion is to utilize the slightly larger Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage for the Lunar Flyby mission in December 2013 (45th anniversary of Apollo 8).   The reason being that the DIVHUS has a greater propellant load than the Centaur-V1 and therefore a higher total impulse for that mission.   A side-effect of this choice to use the Delta hardware is that together with the human-rated RS-68's, the Jupiter would cover more than half the total costs of human-rating the Delta-IV Heavy for human use -- making it a very cost-effective option to consider.

Hope that helps clarify the situation a little.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/17/2009 03:07 PM
Of course, to fill the depot you`d have to launch J-232 several more times...

DIRECT's proposal, if I recall correctly, is that you would require other launches from Atlas, Delta, Soyuz, Ariane, Falcon, etc., etc. to fill your depot.

You probably need another Jupiter launch to get your depot up there to start with (though who says you couldn't launch an empty depot on a smaller launcher, too), but the point isn't to refill the depot with Jupiter launches.

Our current proposal would be to either:

1) Launch a partially-filled Jupiter-232 Upper Stage as the Depot, outfitted with the additional equipment necessary to use as a long-duration Depot.

2) Launch a completely 'dry' Depot on a Jupiter-120.   This would be based on just the tanking of the Jupiter Upper Stage (probably stretched), but would not have any engines attached (excepting RCS system of course) and would have all the anti-boil-off hardware and the transfer hardware integrated.

Personally I think Option 2 is the better way to go overall, but YMMV.


Quote
I'm personally not sold on the depot concept yet.  I understand the reasoning, but I'm having trouble believing that having X launches to refuel a depot ends up costing less than just launching the fuel as part of the mission, especially if those fuel launches are getting spread out among a number of vendors.

You are absolutely correct.   The smaller launchers aren't necessarily as cost-effective as the larger one.   But the key is that the architecture is designed so that ultimately it won't be US tax payers paying for the Propellant launches at all -- it will be non-space-faring foreign partners paying that share (we assume Russia, Europe, Japan, China and India will all opt to lift their own propellant).

In such a commercial situation, it is illegal for NASA to offer its assets in competition to the commercial sector -- so it doesn't matter what the cost the Jupiter's are, they simply will not be available to those partners to 'purchase'.   What will be on offer is the commercial rockets from ULA, Space-X, Orbital etc -- and they will compete for the global business.   The Jupiter's can't get involved.

As far as the US tax payer is concerned this means that Propellant lift services will be a "zero cost" no matter what system the partners purchase.   Yes, perhaps the Jupiter could do it for less, but as far as the US is concerned *in practice* $0.00 is still $0.00 any way you cut it.


The purpose for doing this is two-fold:

1) The commercial space sector gets to compete for billions of dollars of foreign investment each year -- strengthening that market and reducing regular commercial launch costs significantly as a result.

2) The Jupiter production/launch rate has a maximum limit of between 12-16 launches per year.   If half of those were propellant flights, the architecture has an upper limit of 5-7 Lunar missions per year (assuming two J-120 LEO missions too).   DIRECT would prefer to open the option of using every one of those Jupiter launches as a basis for an exploration mission.   Our target is to enable 8 Lunar missions every year (4 crews, 4 cargo) and we would like the architecture to have the potential of supporting as many as one every month if the necesary funding is ever available.   But if half the Jupiter's must launch the propellant, that is no longer an option.


Quote
i.e. Would one J-23x and ten (pick your favorite LV) fuel launches actually end up costing less that 2-J232 launches, one with all the fuel you need?

If the US tax-payer is not paying the bill, and the foreign partner gets a good deal on the open launch services market, who really cares?


Quote
I'm also not sold on the "fuel for seats" concept.  If NASA says "you can have a seat to Mars if you orbit $20 worth of fuel", my response might be "can I just give you the $20?"

That works just as well.   NASA takes the money, then just contracts for those launches to the domestic commercial market itself.   The only difference is that if NASA is doing the buying, that contract is guaranteed to be won by a US company.   That's possibly an even better option for the US.


Quote
Now if you have a competitive contract for a company to provide depot-refueling services, I could see that resulting in lower cost.  Maybe similar to the COTS model, except they're carrying up fuel to depots rather than cargo to ISS.

That is how we establish the Depot.   NASA is unlikely to fly any foreign partners on the first handful of missions.   So the US government utilizes some of those early missions to drive the launch costs of *ALL* the domestic systems down to a globally competitive level.   From that springboard ULA, Space-X, Orbital etc then phase across to a partner-funded system as we gradually increase the number of seats which are available.   It would be a gradual change-over, but the cost for lifting 60 tons of cargo to LEO is a very small price for any nation to join the exclusive club of moon-walkers -- its a very small price to pay for that prestige, so there is likely to be a nice long waiting list.


Quote
If you need 100mT of fuel for your upcoming mission, them compete out a contract to supply that fuel at your depot.  If the contract winner's proposal is for 5mT, 10mT, or 25mT fuel launches depending on the vehicle they use?  If the single contractor knows they will get X dollars for Y launches, they can build a solid business plan around that, and you might begin to see some economies in scale using smaller launchers.

Yes, I totally agree.   I foresee the architecture still retaining a 'backbone' of US funding for a number of years after the Depot is established -- paying for whatever US-only crews we might wish to deploy.   This cash flow from NASA to the Commercial operators will act almost like a 'subsidy' (while not being one) and will drive the market costs for Atlas/Delta/Falcon/Taurus/whatever down to the price-point where all the US systems are finally competitive with the Proton's and the Ariane's of this world.

Combined with the level of demand for such seats being relatively high (<$300m to join the 250,000 mile high club), NASA would be in a position to use its capital to pay for more mission hardware and launch more *spacecraft* than if it had to launch the fuel as well.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Fequalsma on 01/17/2009 03:45 PM
Perhaps this qualifies as a "0.5 launch"?
F=ma


What are 1.5 launches?  Ares I = 1 launch, and Ares V = 1 launch.
1+1 = 2 launches.  I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that "1.5 launch" red herring.
F=ma

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/17/2009 03:52 PM
For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
How much could a Jupiter 232 send on a trajectory to Mars ?
(that's why I asked payload Vs C3 above ;) )

Assuming 3.8 km/s dv from LEO, about 35 mt. Not including the JUS itself.

Remember that throw weight is not the only limiting factor when sending a lander to mars. The size of the heat shield limits your down mass. Though Direct does have an 8 meter payload shroud which is bigger than the 5 meter shroud on EELV's. I remember seeing somewhere an early Viking plan that had both landers going on top of a single Saturn V launch.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/17/2009 04:05 PM
For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
How much could a Jupiter 232 send on a trajectory to Mars ?
(that's why I asked payload Vs C3 above ;) )

Assuming 3.8 km/s dv from LEO, about 35 mt. Not including the JUS itself.

Remember that throw weight is not the only limiting factor when sending a lander to mars. The size of the heat shield limits your down mass. Though Direct does have an 8 meter payload shroud which is bigger than the 5 meter shroud on EELV's. I remember seeing somewhere an early Viking plan that had both landers going on top of a single Saturn V launch.

DIRECT has both an 8.4m PLF and a 10m PLF
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/17/2009 04:05 PM
Remember that throw weight is not the only limiting factor when sending a lander to mars. The size of the heat shield limits your down mass. Though Direct does have an 8 meter payload shroud which is bigger than the 5 meter shroud on EELV's. I remember seeing somewhere an early Viking plan that had both landers going on top of a single Saturn V launch.

Just to confirm:   My figures of 31.9mT and 35.7mT were assuming the cargo-only variant of the J-232 using the 10.0m diameter PLF.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: cgrunska on 01/17/2009 04:40 PM
Reading your opinion of what might happen if a shuttle goes again...let's hope that doesn't occur. I'd like to see humanity off this rock at some point in my life.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: robertross on 01/17/2009 04:48 PM
Reading your opinion of what might happen if a shuttle goes again...let's hope that doesn't occur. I'd like to see humanity off this rock at some point in my life.

Not to nit-pick (okay, I will), but the ISS 'technically' isn't on this rock. We've been leaving this rock quite a few times these past decades to go there...

But as for the moon, unless you plan on leaving us in 15-20 years, you may have a chance. Do you understand Chinese? That's option #2 if you like to follow along... lol.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Fequalsma on 01/17/2009 04:54 PM
Can't hurt you to learn.  lol.


Do you understand Chinese? That's option #2 if you like to follow along... lol.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/17/2009 05:46 PM
Quote from: kraisee
  It would be a gradual change-over, but the cost for lifting 60 tons of cargo to LEO is a very small price for any nation to join the exclusive club of moon-walkers -- its a very small price to pay for that prestige, so there is likely to be a nice long waiting list.

Sorry, Ross, but you failed to include that it could all be done by cheap unmanned probes. Yes, you fail as a "Space is a Waste" commenter. You should go back and try again. 

Quote from: kraisee
Combined with the level of demand for such seats being relatively high (<$300m to join the 250,000 mile high club),

Too little and too late. You need to hammer home that no astronaut has ever brought back any new discoveries from the moon that couldn't have been done faster and cheaper by machines.

We await your next effort though...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/17/2009 05:58 PM
I'll refer you to Steve "Mars Exploration Rover" Squyres comments regarding Human and Robotic Surface Science:

"robotic exploration is what I do. However, I feel that the best exploration is only possible with humans"

and

"The rovers do in a day what a skilled field geologist can do in 30 seconds".

I recall seeing precisely that on NASA TV one time.   It was shortly after Spirit completed its basic 90 day mission.   They prepared a bit of rough land in the same way as the Mars-scape which Spirit had traversed, then dressed a geologist up in a space suit, gave him the tools he would need and told him what he needed to do.   He was finished in about 40 minutes having completed every single bit of science which had taken the Rover 90 days to complete.   The comment was made that a crew of 6 exploring Mars for 6 months would produce more science return than a thousand Rovers could in ten years.


But this is getting completely off the topic.

The goal of DIRECT is to create a sustainable architecture which we can afford to really use, which involves the international partners in a way that is valuable, without handing the keys over, and which works within the framework as laid out by the Presidential and Congressional authorizations.

And make no mistake; returning humans to the moon is the policy of both the White House and the Hill.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: William Barton on 01/17/2009 06:10 PM
"Machines can do it faster and cheaper" is one of the oldest and least well-thought-out arguments of the Space Age. Sure you can send a modern-day equivalent of Mariner IV to take a couple of dozen snapshots of Mars for $100mln, but you can't send a human to Mars for much under $100bln. But what would be the human equivalent of Mariner IV? Send an astronaut in a Mercury capsule with a Brownie Instamatic? And what's the machine equivalent of a manned flight to Mars? A fully autonomous robotic probe imbued with infinitely complex artificial intelligence? How much would it cost to build that machine, $100trln? Does anyone think the Soviet Luna program did more, better science than Apollo? It certainly didn't do it faster, and not a whole lot cheaper. Machines are best if you only want to do a little bit of science. Humans are best if money is no object. Those are very different goals.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/17/2009 06:37 PM
I'll refer you to Steve "Mars Exploration Rover" Squyres comments regarding Human and Robotic Surface Science:

*sigh*

Your snark detector needs work...

... in short: You might want to avoid giving the "Wasters" extra ammo in these forums by using the very phrases they use to denigrate "manned" spaceflight.

("manned" in scare quotes because of course these are evolved from the old "Space is Wasted" types... just like the "Intelligent Designers" evolved from "Creationists".)

Really... your phrasing matched theirs exactly... reading too much NY Times, lately? :)
 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/17/2009 06:44 PM
Errr... I know Direct's taken a lot a flack but see previous notes about snark detectors...

Machines are best if you only want to do a little bit of science. Humans are best if money is no object. Those are very different goals.

And while we're at it, was this a typo or just a faux pas?

"Humans are best if money is no object."

.... I can hear the Wasters speed-dialing their congresscritters now...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/17/2009 08:29 PM
"Machines can do it faster and cheaper" is one of the oldest and least well-thought-out arguments of the Space Age. Sure you can send a modern-day equivalent of Mariner IV to take a couple of dozen snapshots of Mars for $100mln,

If we didn't have those snapshots, we'd be designing the Martian LM for canal landings.

Given the crash landing rate for Mars, I'm pretty happy we haven't tried putting people there yet.

Quote
"The rovers do in a day what a skilled field geologist can do in 30 seconds".

A friend of mine who commands rovers came back with, "It may take me a day, but how long will it take your geologist to get there?"
Quote
Too little and too late. You need to hammer home that no astronaut has ever brought back any new discoveries from the moon that couldn't have been done faster and cheaper by machines.

The Russians tried to launch a robotic mission that would have returned sample before Apollo 11.  It blew up.  Try searching the geologic literature for lunar science papers, and tell me what the apollo / lunknod ratio is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/17/2009 08:38 PM
AFAIK, the only sample return mission that actually worked right was manned; Apollo 11
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jorge on 01/17/2009 08:43 PM
AFAIK, the only sample return mission that actually worked right was manned; Apollo 11

Luna 16, 20, and 24 were successful, but returned a total of only 0.326 kg of samples.

Apollo 11 alone returned 22 kg and the Apollo program returned a total of 381 kg.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Nathan on 01/17/2009 08:52 PM
Quote from: kraisee
  It would be a gradual change-over, but the cost for lifting 60 tons of cargo to LEO is a very small price for any nation to join the exclusive club of moon-walkers -- its a very small price to pay for that prestige, so there is likely to be a nice long waiting list.

Sorry, Ross, but you failed to include that it could all be done by cheap unmanned probes. Yes, you fail as a "Space is a Waste" commenter. You should go back and try again. 

Quote from: kraisee
Combined with the level of demand for such seats being relatively high (<$300m to join the 250,000 mile high club),

Too little and too late. You need to hammer home that no astronaut has ever brought back any new discoveries from the moon that couldn't have been done faster and cheaper by machines.

We await your next effort though...


If the goal is to sends humans to space you can't do that with just robots....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/17/2009 09:03 PM

A friend of mine who commands rovers came back with, "It may take me a day, but how long will it take your geologist to get there?"

The answer is approximately the same amount of time.
Trajectories are trajectories and whether it's a robot or a human crew, they all have to obey the same laws of motion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/17/2009 09:08 PM
.... I can hear the Wasters speed-dialing their congresscritters now...

They don't have any impact nor are there very many
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Khadgars on 01/17/2009 09:26 PM
Quote from: kraisee
  It would be a gradual change-over, but the cost for lifting 60 tons of cargo to LEO is a very small price for any nation to join the exclusive club of moon-walkers -- its a very small price to pay for that prestige, so there is likely to be a nice long waiting list.

Sorry, Ross, but you failed to include that it could all be done by cheap unmanned probes. Yes, you fail as a "Space is a Waste" commenter. You should go back and try again. 

Quote from: kraisee
Combined with the level of demand for such seats being relatively high (<$300m to join the 250,000 mile high club),

Too little and too late. You need to hammer home that no astronaut has ever brought back any new discoveries from the moon that couldn't have been done faster and cheaper by machines.

We await your next effort though...


Sending probes doesn't advanced the technology to send people beyond LEO.  Besides the Moon isn't a good example of probe vs human because as you said sending a probe there is quite easy.

The moon is chosen not because of it's significant but it's proximity to earth which will allow mankind to obtain the experience and know how to operate far from the earth.

Now as we move onto Mars, sending probes that travel a few feet per day or can only scoop ice directly around it doesn't compare to what a human expedition could do while they were on the surface.  Not to mention sending probes to Mars is quite expensive in it's own right and a sample return mission is through the roof. 

Never mind the technological advancements that go far beyond space programs that benefit virtually every single person on the planet are obtain through such endeavors on top of all the highly skilled jobs that are created.

The argument not to go is the one that doesn't hold much water.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: William Barton on 01/17/2009 09:46 PM
One of the false dichotomies in the manned vs. unmanned discussion is the idea that proponents of manned space exploration are opponents of unmanned space exploration. In fact, I don't know of anyone who thinks humans should go to Mars who is opposed to precursor robotic probes. The point of the difference is, there *are* some thing unmanned probes do better. One of those things is getting initial baseline data relatively cheaply. Sample return is probably not one of those things, though.

The flip side, though, is there are many unmanned proponents who are adamantly opposed to manned spaceflight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/17/2009 09:49 PM
Quote from: zapkitty
.... I can hear the Wasters speed-dialing their congresscritters now...
They don't have any impact nor are there very many

Perhaps. And the current crop of Wasters whose battle cry is "Unmanned!" have certainly been forced by reality to shift from the "Space is Waste" meme of their forebears...

And hopefully it will stay that way but... returning to the thrust of my original snark...

Words matter. With Americans still basically unaware of the extent of the megatons of economic crap that's scheduled to hit their collective fan in the next few years, distressed folks will be a fertile breeding ground for the Wasters.

So perhaps caution in any wording exhorting the eliteness and exclusivity of space flight would be prudent. Especially if your actual goal is to expand spaceflight and reduce the cost of access.

Yes, national prestige will be enhanced, but there are ways of describing it that won't piss off economically pressured citizens quite so much.

Griffin is (should be) over. Bush is (should be) over. But if chance strikes up a populist proxmire movement as ill-informed as the Wasters...

And you could have actual proxmires... perhaps gerrymandering the contractor states might not be enough to keep off some new-fledged congresscritters ready to score a few hundred cheap shots off of Good Ole NASA...

If... maybe... but as Direct should (hopefully) have a shot at a fair hearing now it would seem to be a good idea to be more careful in wording. An eye to the future you might say. 



Edit: robertross pointed out that if I meant a full review I should have said so instead of using the phrase "fair hearing". True! :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: robertross on 01/17/2009 10:25 PM
{snip}
If... maybe... but as Direct should (hopefully) have a shot at a fair hearing now it would seem to be a good idea to be more careful in wording. An eye to the future you might say. 


They already did. They met with the transition team for NASA. If you meant a full review, that's different.

As a personal clip, I'm glad Jim is putting some correctness in here.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/17/2009 11:12 PM
They already did. They met with the transition team for NASA. If you meant a full review, that's different.

Nothing else than a full review matters.

Quote from: robertross
As a personal clip, I'm glad Jim is putting some correctness in here.

"They don't have any impact nor are there very many"

... which didn't have much to do with my admonishment to Ross to try and not repeat their rhetorical flourishes akin to "exclusive club for the privileged few"...

... but that was fun to riff on anyways :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: robertross on 01/17/2009 11:53 PM
They already did. They met with the transition team for NASA. If you meant a full review, that's different.

Nothing else than a full review matters.


Well that's NOT what you said...

"...but as Direct should (hopefully) have a shot at a fair hearing now..."

A hearing relates to being heard. They were heard.
Having a review means reviewing the documentation. And taking it one step further...

Having a fair an independent evaluation of all the best alternatives reviwed against the Ares I/V architecture, including EELV & Direct (and any other that comes close to what will work). Essentially a focused ESAS report with CORRECT figures and facts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/18/2009 12:12 AM
Quote from: zapkitty
Nothing else than a full review matters.

Well that's NOT what you said...

"...but as Direct should (hopefully) have a shot at a fair hearing now..."

A hearing relates to being heard. They were heard.
Having a review means reviewing the documentation. And taking it one step further...

Ah, You are correct. I was unclear, although a full review was what I meant.

I stand corrected.

Quote from: zapkitty
Having a fair an independent evaluation of all the best alternatives reviewed against the Ares I/V architecture, including EELV & Direct (and any other that comes close to what will work). Essentially a focused ESAS report with CORRECT figures and facts.

... and I've understood that to be the goal of the Direct team as well, and have said so in comments... actually there's a bit of evidence in my favor on that small caveat from prior to this thread.

http://digg.com/space/NASA_Renegades_Pitch_Obama_Team_New_Post_Shuttle_Plan?t=22306281#c22484326

Of course I was not and am not fond of Griffin for reasons from before I joined this forum and it tends to show a bit :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 01/18/2009 12:35 AM
Quote from: zapkitty
Nothing else than a full review matters.

Well that's NOT what you said...

"...but as Direct should (hopefully) have a shot at a fair hearing now..."

A hearing relates to being heard. They were heard.
Having a review means reviewing the documentation. And taking it one step further...

Ah, You are correct. I was unclear, although a full review was what I meant.

I stand corrected.

Quote from: zapkitty
Having a fair an independent evaluation of all the best alternatives reviewed against the Ares I/V architecture, including EELV & Direct (and any other that comes close to what will work). Essentially a focused ESAS report with CORRECT figures and facts.

... and I've understood that to be the goal of the Direct team as well, and have said so in comments... actually there's a bit of evidence in my favor on that small caveat from prior to this thread.

http://digg.com/space/NASA_Renegades_Pitch_Obama_Team_New_Post_Shuttle_Plan?t=22306281#c22484326

Of course I was not and am not fond of Griffin for reasons from before I joined this forum and it tends to show a bit :)


Remember zapkitty.... Words matter.   ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/18/2009 01:06 AM
Remember.... Words matter.   ;D

Arrrh! robertross hath seen to it that I'm hoisted by me own petard!  :D

Now, is anyone still confused that my "go unmanned!" comments at notrobert Ross were also snark?

Some interesting commentary in that regard, but as it happens I'm also of the "pro human exploration with whatever works best for the situation" opinion.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Khadgars on 01/18/2009 01:18 AM
I may have missed it else where in this thread, but Ross what are your intuitions regarding the possibility of a full review of how VSE can be implemented based on what you've seen in the past week.  With Obama being sworn in in the next few days I hope we hear some good news. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/18/2009 03:43 AM
Well here it is, my penultimate version of the J-232:
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/18/2009 04:26 AM
It is a common point of discussion inside NASA HQ that there will be a review of transportation options starting in February, but it is fully expected that it will be done by HQ itself.  I've heard it called the "100 day study" but duration is TBD.

If the answers come up jelly-side-down for DIRECT, is it safe to assume that cries of bias, incorrect figures, or incompetence would follow?

The only open question is if the transportation architecture study will be done vs. the current requirements (retire Shuttle ASAP, ISS to 2020, Moon by 2020, workforce) or against a new set (pick your own -- I'm guessing technology investment, SSP, increased Earth science, extend Shuttle ISS to 2020+, Moon is deferred). 

And don't worry about "laws" that are on the books.  Obama could draft legislation and have those changed given where we are with the economy and other issues.  Outside of a few individuals in Congress who are more focused on jobs than accomplishments, the Vision was a creation of the Whitehouse. Much as I'm not a fan, without W, there would be no Vision.  That makes it vulerable to all sorts of redirection (although there may not be enough interest to do any more than lift the goal of 2020 ... and defer the Moon indefinitely).

To be clear, I'm betting the transportation study will be vs. some morphed set of the requirements of the Vision (Moon stays in), but that's a hunch and not backed up by real sources.  Continuation of the Vision is in no way a sure thing, especially given Congress's other priorities and impact the loss of Griffin will have on those who thought he was the only man to "save" NASA. 

I'm also betting congressinal confidence in NASA hits an all-time-low in the next 12-18 months ... not the sort of environment you want to be changing either the plan or designs in.  Yes, like it or not, Griffin was both trusted that much by Congress and meant that much to NASA's credibility. (and that is from well place sources both on E St. and on the Hill)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/18/2009 05:03 AM
While it is great that NASA is going to conduct a review, I really think one done by HQ will once again try to prove that Ares I (and ESAS) are right.
Instead of being a fair review, it will only be to try to prove that Ares I is the right way to go.
That is not a review and it would also be a complete waste of time and resources. If we are going to review the launch vehicle selections, then let's do it the right and fair way, and have an independent group conduct the analysis.

Unless, those engineers at NASA who have long spoken against Ares I will have a voice in this review.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/18/2009 05:08 AM
It is a common point of discussion inside NASA HQ that there will be a review of transportation options starting in February, but it is fully expected that it will be done by HQ itself.  I've heard it called the "100 day study" but duration is TBD.

HQ itself!... and a review! But a review by who under who? :)

Quote from: mars.is.wet
If the answers come up jelly-side-down for DIRECT, is it safe to assume that cries of bias, incorrect figures, or incompetence would follow?

Is it safe to assume that cries of bias, incorrect figures, or incompetence would not follow?

If not, why not?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Khadgars on 01/18/2009 05:29 AM
Quote
Unless, those engineers at NASA who have long spoken against Ares I will have a voice in this review.

Why would you assume they would not be included in the review?  Even if NASA stays with Ares it does not mean DIRECT wasn't given a fair review.  As I've always said DIRECt is great but a lot of time has passed and you can't act as if the past 3 years didn't happen. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kkattula on 01/18/2009 05:43 AM
For starters, a REAL Mars Sample Return.
How much could a Jupiter 232 send on a trajectory to Mars ?
(that's why I asked payload Vs C3 above ;) )

Assuming 3.8 km/s dv from LEO, about 35 mt. Not including the JUS itself.

Remember that throw weight is not the only limiting factor when sending a lander to mars. The size of the heat shield limits your down mass. Though Direct does have an 8 meter payload shroud which is bigger than the 5 meter shroud on EELV's. I remember seeing somewhere an early Viking plan that had both landers going on top of a single Saturn V launch.

DIRECT has both an 8.4m PLF and a 10m PLF

It's not an essential part of a sample return mission to land everything on the surface of Mars. An Apollo style "Mars Orbit Rendezvous" could leave the TEI fuel and vehicle in orbit. This would mandate an automated docking, increasing risk to the project. On the other hand it would reduce the size & weight of the descent & ascent vehicles. Most importantly it would greatly reduce the size of the Mars entry heat shield, decreasing other risks.

A trade-off, but one deserving serious consideration, since it increases mass of the science payload.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/18/2009 06:20 AM
Why would you assume they would not be included in the review?  Even if NASA stays with Ares it does not mean DIRECT wasn't given a fair review.  As I've always said DIRECt is great but a lot of time has passed and you can't act as if the past 3 years didn't happen. 

Yeah, but on the other paw... after Ares' three years of existence it's now 4 years behind schedule? Development pains are one thing but a purported SDLV with 33% negative schedule adjustments combined with severe negative payload impacts already affecting the rest of the Constellation program... that's gonna stand out in any honest evaluation.

Three years wasted. Harsh... but is there a sane way out that does not involve ditching Ares-1?

Edit: one/third iz 33% more or less... and my speil-checker can't tell Ares from Aries... :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/18/2009 09:18 AM
Except that the robot is already there.

There's a launch window this year- wanna sent somebody up?  Otherwise you're looking at a launch in late '11 or early '12.


A friend of mine who commands rovers came back with, "It may take me a day, but how long will it take your geologist to get there?"

The answer is approximately the same amount of time.
Trajectories are trajectories and whether it's a robot or a human crew, they all have to obey the same laws of motion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/18/2009 10:19 AM
Would that be a powered depot?  If so, what happens when it gets far from the sun?

Any chance of making a smaller cheaper one for use with the J120 to enable Gas giant missions?


Quote
Is there any plan for a cryogenic orbital transfer stage that can hold propellant for years instead of weeks, for use in large planetary missions?

The NASA/KSC ACES contract which both Boeing and Lockheed produced designs for specified long-term storage of both LH2 and LOX propellants in orbit with less than 1% boil-off over a period of 1 year.   This study produced designs which should be acceptable for a stage with a mission duration of 5-years -- which is our target.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: William Barton on 01/18/2009 10:40 AM
Certainly disingenuous enough. How much money and time would it cost to retrieve one of the MERs and move it to a location 400km to the west? Probably not much less than it would cost to move an astronaut from Florida to the site in question. So your robot isn't "already there," it's merely "somewhere." Of course, a new robot will be cheaper than either option, but you're going to have to hurry to make that 2011 launch window...

Except that the robot is already there.

There's a launch window this year- wanna sent somebody up?  Otherwise you're looking at a launch in late '11 or early '12.


A friend of mine who commands rovers came back with, "It may take me a day, but how long will it take your geologist to get there?"

The answer is approximately the same amount of time.
Trajectories are trajectories and whether it's a robot or a human crew, they all have to obey the same laws of motion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/18/2009 11:28 AM
Quote
Does the fuel-for-seats plan for the orbital fuel depot risk turning NASA into a space tourism company?  For example, if a very wealthy person bought enough commercial tanker rockets to put the requisite tonnage of fuel up, would that buy him a ticket to the moon?

That decision needs to be made by NASA.   IMHO, anyone who can pay for 60 tons of propellant to be launched should get to decide who sits in the seat.   Anyone who's got that sort of money burning a hole in their pocket is pretty serious about their interest and should be welcomed.   Apart from anything else it helps pay for the other three astronauts to go -- and that's justification all on its own.

...

Ross.


Ross,

with all the discussion about orbital propellent depots, I'd always assumed that the original "propellent transfer" proposal in DIRECT v1.0 included some version of this - transferring fuel from CLV's upper stage into the EDS before TLI.

I could understand how this would be too technologically challenging, but I now realise you wanted to build additional tanking into the middle of the EDS / LSAM / CEV stack. Much simpler! (To be honest, I had this "wouldn't it be great if..." idea, and was then very disappointed to find it was actually the part of DIRECT v1.0 which was deemed unworkable!)

I have to say I don't understand why you proposed a complicated scheme to transfer fuel under microgravity, rather than simply cross-feed fuel from the aux tanks during the TLI burn. Sort of "Propellent Cross-Feed" instead of "Propellent Transfer".

I realise that dredging this subject up may be as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit (sorry!) at the moment, but I wondered what were NASA's technical objections to this? It just seems so obvious, and one almost wonders whether the real objection was that it couldn't be done with a 1.5 launch architecture.

With 25mT of "spare" lift on the CLV, this should allow ~12mT of propellent & ~12mT of other mass (ie tanking + additional payload).

Given that LSAM's descent stage contains 19mT of propellent and only weighs 6.7mT (including engines, landing gear and lunar surface life support & power generation), a fair bit of that 12mT could be payload.

What were the objections?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/18/2009 12:55 PM
BTW, forgot to say in the post above...

NASA may have said that Propellant Transfer (did they consider Propellant Cross-Feed?) was a step too far back in the day of DIRECT 1.0.

If PT (or PCF) was available today to Ares as an alternative to 6-seg SRBs or 6xRS-68s, do you think they would still consider it the more complicated of the two options?

DIRECT obviously doesn't need any extra capacity at the moment, but this could still be useful as a growth option (headroom) in case it becomes desperately needed.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/18/2009 01:00 PM

Ross,

with all the discussion about orbital propellant depots, I'd always assumed that the original "propellant transfer" proposal in DIRECT v1.0 included some version of this - transferring fuel from CLV's upper stage into the EDS before TLI.

I could understand how this would be too technologically challenging, but I now realize you wanted to build additional tanking into the middle of the EDS / LSAM / CEV stack. Much simpler! (To be honest, I had this "wouldn't it be great if..." idea, and was then very disappointed to find it was actually the part of DIRECT v1.0 which was deemed unworkable!)

I have to say I don't understand why you proposed a complicated scheme to transfer fuel under microgravity, rather than simply cross-feed fuel from the aux tanks during the TLI burn. Sort of "Propellant Cross-Feed" instead of "Propellant Transfer".

I realize that dredging this subject up may be as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit (sorry!) at the moment, but I wondered what were NASA's technical objections to this? It just seems so obvious, and one almost wonders whether the real objection was that it couldn't be done with a 1.5 launch architecture.

With 25mT of "spare" lift on the CLV, this should allow ~12mT of propellant & ~12mT of other mass (ie tanking + additional payload).

Given that LSAM's descent stage contains 19mT of propellant and only weighs 6.7mT (including engines, landing gear and lunar surface life support & power generation), a fair bit of that 12mT could be payload.

What were the objections?

cheers, Martin

Martin;

Disclaimer: legally this is just my opinion, to which I am entitled, even though I have credible sources to back up every single word. But for now, this is IMHO.

First, DIRECT v1.0 was not unworkable. It would have worked just fine. It got FUD'd by Doug Stanley, who, by the way, later retracted THE #1 main argument against it, the RS-68 engine specs we used. It turns out that his stated objections were to an engine spec that we did not specify. He built a house of cards and then blew it down, falsely claiming that it was DIRECT's engine when in fact it was not. The engine specs we specified were supplied to us directly by PWR engineers and Stanley deliberately did not use them. But his FUD attack was so cleverly "worded" that it took a while for us to figure out what he had actually done and by then the damage to DIRECT's credibility was done. And when we tried to expose what he had done we were not able to because he had already requested the thread to be frozen. As the originator of the thread he had that right so we were quite literally "frozen out". His timing was impecable. His thread was open just long enough to dump the FUD and answer a few quick questions from others but not long enough to allow it to be exposed. He was gone, leaving DIRECT falsely accused and unable to defend - as intended. We had also succumbed to his reputation and spent the time trying to figure out where we had made the mistake, when in fact we had not. But by the time we realized that it was too late; the thread had been frozen and he was gone.

Second, NASA's objection to DIRECT had nothing to do with DIRECT. There was one reason and one reason only why they objected; it wasn't Ares. The edict had come down from on high that no alternative launch vehicle proposals would be tolerated under penalty of severe consequences to careers or contracts. Some individuals and companies backed off and shut up because they had contracts to protect. Some individuals at various places inside NASA didn't believe that and kept pushing for some alternative. They found out the hard way that Griffin was serious about the consequences. Some are no longer employees of NASA and some have very different careers now. But we wouldn't toe the line because we did not work there. We became a thorn in Griffin's side.

So Dr Stanley was dispatched to "assist us" to shut up. He did a fine job. Dr Stanley had a fine reputation and no one believed he would do such a thing. "Dr Stanley said it, so it must be true", they all mused, even us. And DIRECT v1.0 died on the back of a deliberate deception.

Having said all that, I do not wish to dwell on the past, so please don't keep this going. I answered only because you asked. It's done and gone and there is nothing we can do about it now so let's just move on. We have a much better launch vehicle now than before because of that FUD attack (something Stanley never anticipated) so let's remain focused on where we go from here with the Jupiter-120 and the Jupiter-232.

I end this the same as I began. All this is IMHO. YMMV
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/18/2009 01:17 PM
Propellant depots in LEO and elsewhere will become the gateway to the solar system, not just for DIRECT, but for everyone. A 2-launch Jupiter-232 mission to the moon does not need a propellant depot in order to be able to accomplish a full ESAS lunar mission, but the DIRECT architecture does call for depots to be the next step. Both Boeing and LM have done a great deal of work on these and are in a position to begin solid efforts towards development and deployment once they are given a contract to do so.

I don't believe, personally, that you will ever see an Ares-V/PD mission, because a PD completely negates the need for an Ares-V. We quite simply would never need a launch vehicle that big ever again, at least not as long as we are confined to chemical engines. And that is a different story.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/18/2009 02:03 PM
It was good to see the successful launch of the D4H last night, providing a full-up test of the Jupiter-120 engine. All three engines performed superbly, in the same "inline" configuration as they will be flown on the Jupiter-232.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Eerie on 01/18/2009 03:11 PM
Clongton, I think that refueling PD by Ares-V will be cheaper than by 20mt LVs. Ares-V is how many Ariane-5`s? Seven?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/18/2009 03:16 PM
Clongton, I think that refueling PD by Ares-V will be cheaper than by 20mt LVs. Ares-V is how many Ariane-5`s? Seven?

1. The sheer cost of the Ares-V will negate any savings in using it to lift propellant to a depot.
2. Ares-V costs so much money that NASA would not waste one to lift propellant to a depot.
3. With a propellant depot we can do bigger missions, more often, for far less money than would ever be possible with an Ares-V based architecture.
4. It is a violation of US law for NASA to compete against the commercial launch services. The only way an Ares-V could be used for depot filling is if the depot was for NASA use only, and that is NOT what the depot is for. The depot is designed to open a commercial market in space.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/18/2009 03:22 PM
Clongton, I think that refueling PD by Ares-V will be cheaper than by 20mt LVs. Ares-V is how many Ariane-5`s? Seven?


If Ares-V costs $10 billion to develop and there are 100 flights (unlikely!) that's $100 million additional cost per flight.

Surely that makes it more expensive?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Eerie on 01/18/2009 03:27 PM
Compare the cost of one Ares-V launch to seven Ariane-5 launches.

Also, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?

Anyway, we are off-topic.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/18/2009 03:29 PM
Having said all that, I do not wish to dwell on the past, so please don't keep this going. I answered only because you asked. It's done and gone and there is nothing we can do about it now so let's just move on. We have a much better launch vehicle now than before because of that FUD attack (something Stanley never anticipated) so let's remain focused on where we go from here with the Jupiter-120 and the Jupiter-232.


No problem.

Thanks for filling in some of the background that I wasn't aware of. It explains the anonymity that many of your contributors must work under.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ugordan on 01/18/2009 03:32 PM
It was good to see the successful launch of the D4H last night, providing a full-up test of the Jupiter-120 engine. All three engines performed superbly, in the same "inline" configuration as they will be flown on the Jupiter-232.

While I agree this is a confidence builder, I wouldn't call this a full-up Jupiter 120 engine test. The Delta IV Heavy engines are slightly farther apart than in the Jupiter configuration (correct me if I'm wrong) and the Jupiter will have two very large and *loud* SRBs sitting in their vicinity.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/18/2009 03:37 PM
Compare the cost of one Ares-V launch to seven Ariane-5 launches.

Also, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?

Anyway, we are off-topic.

I think it's possible that someone like SpaceX will pick this idea up and do it as a completely private project.

Build the depot, run the launches, sell the fuel at an attractive price.

Launch market is getting crowded, this is a market that they could own, and set their own price as long as it's still attractive vs existing options.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/18/2009 03:41 PM
Quote
Unless, those engineers at NASA who have long spoken against Ares I will have a voice in this review.

Why would you assume they would not be included in the review?  Even if NASA stays with Ares it does not mean DIRECT wasn't given a fair review.  As I've always said DIRECt is great but a lot of time has passed and you can't act as if the past 3 years didn't happen. 

What I meant is that Ares has been the company line for the past 3 years, and everyone has been forced to follow that. Will they still have to fear speaking out against Ares, or will all options have a fair chance.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/18/2009 03:58 PM

Also, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?

Anyway, we are off-topic.

First, "in general" it is not off topic because it is part of the DIRECT architecture. See the AIAA paper.

Second, I said "create" the market. The benefits of a depot are indisputable, but the initial development and deployment/testing is cost prohibitive without a NASA contract to make it possible. Once operational however, there are several nations that will line up to take advantage of it because they cannot launch big spacecraft now because of the mass penalty of lifting all the mission propellant with the spacecraft. A single-launch Jupiter-232 mission that stopped at the depot before TLI for the mission propellant could easily triple the size of the mission hardware sent thru TLI to the moon. India, for example, could certainly send a really sophisticated lander/orbiter to Mars if it could fill its tanks in orbit before departing. Similar to you stopping at a gas station before heading out across country in your car. There will be lots of nations and corporations that will take advantage of the new availability of the "gas station" in orbit, and lots of commercial companies competing to deliver the propellant to the depot.

The DIRECT architecture isn't just the Jupiter Launch Vehicles. It is an entire approach to getting as many nations as possible out into the Solar System. It's about "enabling" mankind to take that step.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/18/2009 05:26 PM
A love song to Aries-1 with a bit of "all launch vehicles have this level of trouble" kool-aid... but at least there's also a link to the Direct wikipedia article in the diary, and at least one comment on it from a NSF forum member:
 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/18/91759/9529/
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/18/2009 07:02 PM
Point about a potential 100-day study of transportation options was that if HQ does do one of those (which it looks like they will), there likely won't be an indendent study any time soon ...

What's the plan if that happens?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/18/2009 07:03 PM

What I meant is that Ares has been the company line for the past 3 years, and everyone has been forced to follow that. Will they still have to fear speaking out against Ares, or will all options have a fair chance.

At this point in time, and considering all FUD and downright lies that NASA has dumped on us, both within NASA and publicly in the media and in sworn testimony to Congress, I would not trust an "internal" NASA study as far as I could throw it. In my mind, such an internal effort would be a waste of time and money. Somebody that has nothing to gain needs to be able to look under the hood with unbiased eyes. If they do not have the GUTS to subject the review of Ares and all the alternatives to an independent body, then there is no way in hell they will ever make me believe it was fair and impartial, with the single caveat that the only way I would actually believe that is in the totally unexpected event they actually selected DIRECT.

Having said that, if the study were conducted by an outside agency or firm, with no skin in the game and no dog in the hunt, then I would believe it, even if it selected Ares. I personally would get behind and support whatever decision came out of such an independent body. But it needs to be fair and impartial.

That's all we have ever wanted. We believe we have the best overall solution under the circumstances and all we ever wanted was an open, fair and impartial review of the proposal; a fair shot. Let the chips, and rockets, fall where they may.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 01/18/2009 07:51 PM
Chuck,

Surely, you're not naive enough to think that an organization (any organization) or an individual for that matter - when attacked or challenged publicly would not respond accordingly?

If NASA is the lying untrustworthy organization you paint it to be then let's shut the whole thing down right now. If it's the organization you say, then even in the event of an external review why would such an organization react honorably or appropriately after the fact regardless of the outcome?

This attitude amongst some of the Direct group is perhaps the one largest objection I have. Yes, I'm not an insider and I don't know any of these people. But my sense is that Griffin and NASA made a decision.  Griffin (whether you like him or not) was put into that position to make decisions.  They looked at alternatives and chose a plan of action that they believed in.  Then after, a long period of time, well intentioned passionate people came up with what they thought was a better idea.

Let's say Direct is chosen come March 09. Decisions are made, engineering commences, test begin, prototypes are made, people are assigned.  Then in 2011 a group of well-intentioned "renegades" propose an alternative. They pick apart all the work that's been done to date.  They highlight and nitpick every issue that arose.

Given this circumstance, wouldn't you expect there to be some resistance?  Isn't it only natural for people to respond negatively to something that they devoted years of their life to? If we're not going to have a NASA administrator that makes these crucial decisions - then let's just turn over the decision making to an Internet poll and whatever plan wins, then its NASA job to implement.

Look, I'm not saying Direct or Ares is good or bad, I'm just saying that I believe Griffin and NASA made a choice and decided to stay the course. I don't consider that evil or that these people are outright liars.  Who in their right mind would want a position where every decision they made had the possibility of being overturned?

I've said this before, I believe both Direct and Ares can work. I think the biggest impediment to any manned program is the lack of funding continuity over the long term (i.e. spanning multiple administrations).  Direct could be chosen and let's say you save all the money you think you're going to say.  Well, mark my words, that saved money won't be used to fly more missions or do more cool things in space, no, I believe the politicians will just use that new reduced spending as their new baseline from which to cut.

The problem isn't the J2-X or the whether or not to use the SSME or RS-68 - the problem is political.  And regardless of whether it's going to be Ares, Direct, EELV or some combination you can expect budget cuts will be de riguer and we all better hope for a NASA administrator who can make tough decisions and stand up to the politicians.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/18/2009 08:00 PM
And that's the point Griffin has been making all along.  The same thing happens (actually magnified 10x) in Science.  Rather than pulling together, each area of science rips apart the others (both planned and ongoing), and the sum its parts is far less than the potential of its parts. 

Unfortunatly, it is obvious that several people on this board believe what is holding human space flight from its full potential is inside of NASA instead of outside.  And even if Direct is chosen, we will see the same type of sniping 2-3 years hence ... all the while Congress and other decision makers lose confidence in NASA.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/18/2009 08:01 PM
Given this circumstance, wouldn't you expect there to be some resistance?  Isn't it only natural for people to respond negatively to something that they devoted years of their life to?

Absolutely not!  These people are scientists and engineers.  Such folks are trained to, and expected to follow the data wherever it leads.

One time I spent a year of my life trying to demonstrate a contention I had.  My analysis proved that I was dead wrong.  So, I published the resulting data and analysis so people would know the correct answer.  That resulted in some significant improvements in my industry, three Ph.Ds, and one patent.

That's how it goes when you follow the data - sometimes it goes how you think it will, and sometimes it doesn't, but mother nature doesn't care a bit for your pre-conceived notions, it only cares for the truth, and the truth often leads you down the best path.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ballew on 01/18/2009 08:29 PM

Let's say Direct is chosen come March 09. Decisions are made, engineering commences, test begin, prototypes are made, people are assigned.  Then in 2011 a group of well-intentioned "renegades" propose an alternative. They pick apart all the work that's been done to date.  They highlight and nitpick every issue that arose.

Given this circumstance, wouldn't you expect there to be some resistance?  Isn't it only natural for people to respond negatively to something that they devoted years of their life to? If we're not going to have a NASA administrator that makes these crucial decisions - then let's just turn over the decision making to an Internet poll and whatever plan wins, then its NASA job to implement.


If Direct has issues of the magnitude that the Ares I & V have then I would fully expect that the NASA administrator and the rest of the agency had better step back and objectively evaluate the issues and alternatives and if a better choice is available that would not significantly delay the completion of the overall objectives, they better make the correct choice. If not, then the wrong people are in charge.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/18/2009 08:50 PM
We have a much better launch vehicle now [than v1.0].


Would it be possible to elaborate in which ways the launch vehicles have been improved since v1.0?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: robertross on 01/18/2009 08:59 PM
I'll say this: NASA will only get one shot at this. If Congress believes them, and they follow through with Ares-I up until first Orion ISS launch, say 2013, since that's about all their going to get, and it fails to deliver? We can say failure is not an option, but it doesn't make it so. Unless they make the commitment to spearhead some alternative (Direct or EELV) to develop in parallel, we could be in some pickle for ISS. A lunar mission can wait, should Ares-I be a bust; there's nothing yet there to support. But it would be the biggest black eye to NASA: not being able to deliver on a promise to get to the moon as mandated, based on their 'chosen' architecture.

Is the USA willing to put all their eggs into one basket for a launcher that has already fallen behind in schedule, has some question of its abilities, is limitied by its ability to lift an Orion that has grown in mass?

If they make the commitment to stay the course, then everybody better be willing to give up on the ISS, and the hundreds of billions invested in it, because I fear shuttle will not be an option by then (covered on others threads, please not here). And handing the job to Russia for launches would be a political embarassment. Congress better be sure of their next move. Having a fair, impartial, and independent review is in everyone's best interests.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Eerie on 01/18/2009 09:13 PM
Another theoretical question: how much Jupiter-120\232 can lift if it will use SSME?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: BogoMIPS on 01/18/2009 09:33 PM
Another theoretical question: how much Jupiter-120\232 can lift if it will use SSME?

Theoretical answer, based on CEPE spreadsheet (thanks PaulL):

J-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.
J-232 with SSMEs lifts ~5% less than J-232 with RS-68s.

Remember... DIRECT's goal is to maximize the J-23x configuration, and then re-use it with as few changes as possible for the J-120.

Maximizing the J-120, then adjusting to maximize the J-23x later, costs more.  The higher-thrust, lower Isp RS-68 is a better first stage engine (probably the best hydrolox option available).  The lower-thrust, higher Isp SSME is a better SSTO engine, and would have made an outstanding air-start upper stage engine if they could have sorted that bit out.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: spacenut on 01/18/2009 09:44 PM
How much could the Direct Core with three RS-68 engines lift without the solids?  Can it do the same as the Delta IV heavy with 3 engines?  Would it need a second stage to complete the trip to orbit?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/18/2009 10:18 PM
How much could the Direct Core with three RS-68 engines lift without the solids?  Can it do the same as the Delta IV heavy with 3 engines?  Would it need a second stage to complete the trip to orbit?

It would have a liftoff thrust-to-weight ratio right around 1 without a payload or upper stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Khadgars on 01/18/2009 10:34 PM

Also, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?

Anyway, we are off-topic.

First, "in general" it is not off topic because it is part of the DIRECT architecture. See the AIAA paper.

Second, I said "create" the market. The benefits of a depot are indisputable, but the initial development and deployment/testing is cost prohibitive without a NASA contract to make it possible. Once operational however, there are several nations that will line up to take advantage of it because they cannot launch big spacecraft now because of the mass penalty of lifting all the mission propellant with the spacecraft. A single-launch Jupiter-232 mission that stopped at the depot before TLI for the mission propellant could easily triple the size of the mission hardware sent thru TLI to the moon. India, for example, could certainly send a really sophisticated lander/orbiter to Mars if it could fill its tanks in orbit before departing. Similar to you stopping at a gas station before heading out across country in your car. There will be lots of nations and corporations that will take advantage of the new availability of the "gas station" in orbit, and lots of commercial companies competing to deliver the propellant to the depot.

The DIRECT architecture isn't just the Jupiter Launch Vehicles. It is an entire approach to getting as many nations as possible out into the Solar System. It's about "enabling" mankind to take that step.

Why are you able to use propellant depots with Jupiter but not Ares?  Jupiter would be under the same law prohibiting it for commercial use.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/18/2009 10:47 PM

Also, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?

Anyway, we are off-topic.

First, "in general" it is not off topic because it is part of the DIRECT architecture. See the AIAA paper.

Second, I said "create" the market. The benefits of a depot are indisputable, but the initial development and deployment/testing is cost prohibitive without a NASA contract to make it possible. Once operational however, there are several nations that will line up to take advantage of it because they cannot launch big spacecraft now because of the mass penalty of lifting all the mission propellant with the spacecraft. A single-launch Jupiter-232 mission that stopped at the depot before TLI for the mission propellant could easily triple the size of the mission hardware sent thru TLI to the moon. India, for example, could certainly send a really sophisticated lander/orbiter to Mars if it could fill its tanks in orbit before departing. Similar to you stopping at a gas station before heading out across country in your car. There will be lots of nations and corporations that will take advantage of the new availability of the "gas station" in orbit, and lots of commercial companies competing to deliver the propellant to the depot.

The DIRECT architecture isn't just the Jupiter Launch Vehicles. It is an entire approach to getting as many nations as possible out into the Solar System. It's about "enabling" mankind to take that step.

Why are you able to use propellant depots with Jupiter but not Ares?  Jupiter would be under the same law prohibiting it for commercial use.

You are missing the point.
1. With Ares, there will never be a propellant depot. Ares costs too much to allow the funding to deploy one.
2. Using the depot as a customer is not the same as competing to fill the depot. Jupiter would BUY propellant from the depot and pay the commercial owner for the propellant. Jupiter would be a customer, not a supplier. If Ares costs were not so high, Ares could do the same thing.

A NASA Jupiter/Ares/Whatever can USE the depot by purchasing its product, but NASA cannot compete against the commercial launch services that are making a business out of propellant delivery. NASA is and must remain a customer, not a competitor.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lars_J on 01/18/2009 11:12 PM
You are missing the point.
1. With Ares, there will never be a propellant depot. Ares costs too much to allow the funding to deploy one.

Never? :D - Are you supposing that manned space flight will end in the next few years?? Let's have a *little* foresight here...

I personally don't see orbital fuel depots happening anytime soon, no matter what architecture is chosen for Moon flights. Ares doesn't need one. Direct doesn't need one. EELV/HLV doesn't need one. EELV doesn't need one.

In the *near* future, sending up multiple smaller and stackable and expendable departure stages will be cheaper. IMO again.

I don't think propellant depots will happen until there are commercially funded missions beyond Earth orbit. Why? Because government missions will always build a bigger launch vehicle if they need one, even if it makes no sense. A commercial enterprise will not develop a larger booster unless it has to, or it is cheaper.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/18/2009 11:36 PM
Well here it is, my penultimate version of the J-232:

I think that's awesome.   I used to love my Lego sets!   I want one of those!!!   :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/18/2009 11:41 PM
If the answers come up jelly-side-down for DIRECT, is it safe to assume that cries of bias, incorrect figures, or incompetence would follow?

Point blank:   Even without Griffin at the reins, folk like Doug Cooke, Jeff Hanley and Steve Cook are still fully-paid-up members of Griffin's inner-circle.   If they have *any* way of influencing such a review it can not and will not be unbiased.   Period.

This is not a criticism of NASA as an agency.   There are an extremely large number of dedicated and skilled people within the agency whom are not biased, whom we would trust.   In point of fact, the bulk of the DIRECT Team is made from the ranks within NASA -- they *are* us.   Our key concerns focus on the cluster of people whom Mike Griffin placed in senior positions who all tow his particular chariot.   As long as these people, and a select group of others, remain in their decision making positions we feel that the rest of the agency is effectively being held hostage to a management team who have a track-record of doing everything in the book to discredit every other option -- ours inclusive.

Given the number of times each of those people has trash-talked both the DIRECT and the EELV solutions over the past three/four years, I have no faith what-so-ever that these people are capable of leading an unbiased study.   They may have been towing Griffin's line, or they may believe -- but there is just no way to differentiate.

Therefore I am willing to predict that the results *WILL* be called into question by one or more groups -- even if our isn't one of them.

This is why I believe Congress needs to order a fully Independent Study conducted outside of NASA and utilizing people who have no horse in this race.

Without that degree of true Independence, it is GUARANTEED that there will be cried of bias from whoever doesn't get selected.

Only if there is an Independent Review would all of the rival teams be able to accept the results -- even grudgingly.


My personal opinion is that CBO or GAO need to be given charge of the Review.   They have the ability to calculate the fiscal and the scheduling aspects.   They can bring in an independent company to calculate the technical aspects.   For that, we believe someone like RAND, Aerospace Corporation or Analex would be suitable.   SIAC is an option too, but they have had profitable contracts with both ATK and NASA regarding the Ares-I, so there are possible questions which can be raised regarding their impartiality.

Personally I would like a panel formed to perform the review, maybe using CAIB as a template.   I think there should be a representative on-hand from each of the factions within the panel.    As a check & balance they should be able to review the evidence of all the other teams to ensure nobody is playing unfairly and they should be able to flag any suspicious claims.   That's how I would do it if I could.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Integrator on 01/18/2009 11:57 PM
MSFC Engineering proper is independent of the Ares and Constellation Project.  Let us have a crack at it and let NESC, GAO and IG keep them out of our knickers while we do our jobs. (Existing management hasn't dared to enlist us in that level of trade because they fear what will probably happen in that scenario.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 12:13 AM
If the answers come up jelly-side-down for DIRECT, is it safe to assume that cries of bias, incorrect figures, or incompetence would follow?

Point blank:   Even without Griffin at the reins, folk like Doug Cooke, Jeff Hanley and Steve Cook are still fully-paid-up members of Griffin's inner-circle.   If they have *any* way of influencing such a review it can not and will not be unbiased.   Period.

...

Only if there is an Independent Review would all of the rival teams be able to accept the results -- even grudgingly.

Ross.

Fair enough.  But if the new administration calls for or even allows HQ to run a transportation study, the likelihood of an indendent review in the next 12-24 months goes to just about zero.

And as many on this board have pointed out, even if DIRECT is selected by some outside group, it will have to be developed by many of those same folks and their hand-selected deputies.  Its not like 10's of Cx launch system managers will be released or reassigned to junior roles and more competent/friendly (by DIRECT standards) will be appointed.  You can't dispose of mid-level civil servants like Kleenex.

(although I'm sure everyone will say "first things first" ;-)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 12:14 AM
MSFC Engineering proper is independent of the Ares and Constellation Project.  Let us have a crack at it and let NESC, GAO and IG keep them out of our knickers while we do our jobs. (Existing management hasn't dared to enlist us in that level of trade because they fear what will probably happen in that scenario.)

See, everyone has their own version of "independent".  Well said!

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/19/2009 12:26 AM

And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?

Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expert

And the one man who insisted it be done that way will no longer be there.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that Direct will benefit from a radical and coincidental change in how NASA operates, so that development costs will be much lower than the current model.

This seems unreasonable. The radical change may not happen. You yourself suggest that even if Griffin leaves, others of a similar mindset will remain.

And even if such a radical change happens, the benefits would not apply solely to direct. Savings in development costs will also benefit other approaches, such as Ares I/V. Or even keeping Ares I but avoiding a 100 ton to LEO HLV entirely.

If propellant depots are cost effective, then an uprated Delta or Atlas in the 27-50 ton to LEO range may be a better solution on a life cycle basis.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/19/2009 12:40 AM
If the answers come up jelly-side-down for DIRECT, is it safe to assume that cries of bias, incorrect figures, or incompetence would follow?

Point blank:   Even without Griffin at the reins, folk like Doug Cooke, Jeff Hanley and Steve Cook are still fully-paid-up members of Griffin's inner-circle.   If they have *any* way of influencing such a review it can not and will not be unbiased.   Period.

Ross.

And yet the Direct team repeatedly argues that the engineering judgement and experience of Lockheed and other contractors is superior to that of NASA, and should trump their conclusions. But why should we expect a disinterested and unbiased opinon from the very companies that would benefit from a particular decision?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: tnphysics on 01/19/2009 12:45 AM
Would it be possible to add strap-on boosters (in addition to the 2 SRBs) to the Core?

Something like a A5 CCB or a smaller solid.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 01:16 AM
Clongton, I think that refueling PD by Ares-V will be cheaper than by 20mt LVs. Ares-V is how many Ariane-5`s? Seven?


If Ares-V costs $10 billion to develop and there are 100 flights (unlikely!) that's $100 million additional cost per flight.

Surely that makes it more expensive?

cheers, Martin

Current cost of Ares-V is more like $25-30 billion.

Current flight cost of Ares-V is more like $1,400m each.

Amortizing the development cost cross 100 flights will make Ares-V cost more like $1,650m each -- about twice the cost of Shuttle.

At a estimated cost of about $180m each for the Ariane-V's, you could afford 9 Ariane-V's.

Given the low flight rate of Ares-V I think it would take at least 25 years to achieve that flight rate though.

And this isn't how it actually works.   The development costs for Ares-V will actually have to be paid up-front before the first flights.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/19/2009 02:27 AM
If the answers come up jelly-side-down for DIRECT, is it safe to assume that cries of bias, incorrect figures, or incompetence would follow?

Point blank:   Even without Griffin at the reins, folk like Doug Cooke, Jeff Hanley and Steve Cook are still fully-paid-up members of Griffin's inner-circle.   If they have *any* way of influencing such a review it can not and will not be unbiased.   Period.

Ross.

And yet the Direct team repeatedly argues that the engineering judgement and experience of Lockheed and other contractors is superior to that of NASA, and should trump their conclusions. But why should we expect a disinterested and unbiased opinon from the very companies that would benefit from a particular decision?

If I recall, the team has called for a review by an outside group...not connected to aerospace in anyway.

And they never said that Lockheed's judgement is superior to NASA, as there are also NASA engineers working on the Direct project.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 03:07 AM
Why are you able to use propellant depots with Jupiter but not Ares?  Jupiter would be under the same law prohibiting it for commercial use.

One word:   Money.

Firstly, Ares-I and Ares-V together will cost over $30 billion to develop.   The two Jupiter's can be fielded for roughly half that figure.   That alone gives you a lot more resources to be able to fund other work.


Operationally there is also a large cost difference.   Just to meet the baseline requirement of 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew and 2 Lunar Cargo missions CxP requires a $3-4 billion increase to NASA's yearly budget.

That also assumes we've closed down ISS and redirected all of its ~$2bn/yr towards Lunar funding for FY2017.   If Congress mandates ISS is to be kept beyond 2016, NASA will actually need $5-6bn more every year to cover the planned costs of the Ares-based architecture.

Worse:   If that extra money doesn't turn up, we will not be able to afford to go *anywhere*.

To add development of a Depot on top of those major increases would require even more money -- The simple question is "where is that extra money to come from?


While I would love to see more money for NASA I don't think anyone seriously expects this to happen.   Congress has already refused -- for four years running now -- to supply the 'more money' which was actually promised for the VSE.   And, unfortunately, there is no sign of that changing either.


Now, during the campaign, Obama promised $2bn for NASA.   But people make the mistake of thinking that would be a yearly increase -- it isn't.   That is intended as a single one-time "shot-in-the-arm" to try to speed up Orion.

We might still get that 'shot' if we're very lucky.   But you'd have to be seriously naive to think we're ever going to get the sort of money CxP needs.

What Ares is setting up is "Apollo-Redux".   The very best scenario CxP is creating right now is a short-lived funding of Lunar missions for a few years.   The initial landings will be a big deal, but they will be followed by the inevitable fall-off in public & political support (just as we saw during Apollo) and then the questions will be raised why we are funding a program which launches only 8 Lunar astronauts, yet costs $12 billion every year.   That argument is not a winnable one: Apollo teaches us this lesson very clearly, but Ares proves some people have failed to learn the lesson.


So what we really *NEED* is a program which can afford to place 48 Astronauts on the Lunar surface every year, but which costs just $8 billion per year.   That would create a far more politically justifiable program.   Most especially if 24 of those Astronauts are from other countries.   *THAT* capability would give the US a helluva lot of political "soft power" with other world governments.



And on an $8bn budget, the Human Spaceflight Program could still afford to develop other technologies too:   Depot's, new engines, Nuclear Propulsion Systems, ISRU technologies, NEO missions and Mars missions are some of the more obvious candidates to direct funding towards.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2009 03:11 AM

And yet the Direct team repeatedly argues that the engineering judgement and experience of Lockheed and other contractors is superior to that of NASA, and should trump their conclusions. But why should we expect a disinterested and unbiased opinon from the very companies that would benefit from a particular decision?

Because LM's (ULA) work speaks for itself.  NASA hasn't design a launch vehicle in over 30 years
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Marsman on 01/19/2009 03:13 AM
Just clarifying Ross' point above. Basically, the reason Jupiter can develop the depot is because it saves so much money versus Ares (on the order of ~20 billion thru 2020). Some of this extra money will be redirected towards the propellant depot and other sectors of NASA (Aero, Science, etc)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 03:17 AM
And yet the Direct team repeatedly argues that the engineering judgement and experience of Lockheed and other contractors is superior to that of NASA, and should trump their conclusions. But why should we expect a disinterested and unbiased opinon from the very companies that would benefit from a particular decision?

Will, you haven't done your research properly.   You're making incorrect assumptions.

If you were to check the archives you will see that we have talked about this a number of times previously on the various NSF DIRECT threads.   You would also see that we have *NEVER* proposed contractors like Boeing or Lockheed-Martin be the ones performing such a review -- everyone knows that wouldn't be "Independent" either.

Everybody's work needs to be Judged fairly.   We are asking for a fair Judge to be appointed.   Any Judge with ties to Ares, EELV or DIRECT needs to recuse him-/her-self from the proceedings entirely or this simply can not be fair.

My complaint with NASA performing the review is that many people in NASA's Upper Management today have proven themselves to be in one of those camps and viciously opposed to all the others.   Therefore they are proven to be biased.   Therefore they can not be involved, or this will be patently un-fair for all involved.   If this happens it will be a dreadful waste of tax-payers money and a total waste of time for everyone involved.   In the full meaning of the phrase:   We need an "Independent Review".


Will, you should not assume such things or try to put words in our mouths.   Doing so only makes you look like one of those 'antagonists' which I talked about previously.   Unless you want to be one of those, please refrain from jumping to such conclusions in the future.

You would be better-off trying to asking us what we mean when we say such things -- get the information from the horses mouth, as it were.   The Team have generally thought these issues out very thoroughly and have almost certainly got an answer for you if you bother to ask.

You're welcome to challenge the facts, in fact I hope people will.   But challenging false assertions like you did above, does nobody any favors.   Be careful, because people will quickly get the wrong idea about you if you do it too often.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 01/19/2009 04:37 AM
Quote
My complaint with NASA performing the review is that many people in NASA's Upper Management today have proven themselves to be in one of those camps and viciously opposed to all the others.   Therefore they are proven to be biased.   Therefore they can not be involved, or this will be patently un-fair for all involved.   If this happens it will be a dreadful waste of tax-payers money and a total waste of time for everyone involved.   In the full meaning of the phrase:   We need an "Independent Review".

Ross,

In all fairness, it comes off as if you're accusing NASA of malfeasance or doing something almost illegal.

Bias?  All organizations and individuals are biased in one way or another. There's nothing inherently wrong with being biased.

Unfair? Who said life, business, politics, management decisions is fair?

I just don't understand how any technical organization can be run effectively when they're always being second-guessed and mistrusted.  Every NASA administrator was appointed to make difficult and tough decisions.  It would be different if Griffin was caught stealing money or forging documents or blackmailing people to see his POV.  But, as I understand it, Griffin and his team reviewed hundreds (maybe more than 1,000) of designs and variations before settling on Ares/Orion/Constellation. Our government entrusted them to make a decision and they did.

Now we can disagree with the decision they made, we can present alternative designs, and perhaps the new administration will change direction. That is their prerogative.  But, my word at some point at the end of the day there has to be someone in charge that makes a decision.

But many the statements I keep hearing go well beyond looking at a new direction or design. The statements I keep hearing that concern me are the ones that are accusatory. Heck, there are some here that now wouldn't even want to take a class taught by Griffin or be in the same school where Griffin might wind up.

You and the other Direct people have done a pretty incredible thing. It was done on your own time and own dime.  Bravo.  I believe that you guys honestly believe this is the best way to move forward.  I don't believe you guys have an axe to grind or are looking to become famous. 

But I also believe (from what I've read and heard) that Griffin made a decision that he and many others at NASA believed to be the best path forward.  I also believe that decided to stay the course because they honestly felt it still was the best path.  And yes, I also think they were probably dismissive of your proposals and could have handled it better and provided a more clear and specific reason why they rejected your alternative. 

Still, I think when you guys demand independent reviews and cast such aspersions onto Griffin/NASA that it only hurts the organization.  As I said before, if you really don't trust NASA to do a new impartial review, why would you trust them to do anything?

NA
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/19/2009 06:15 AM
(Pokes nose in...)

So from the comments by mars.is.wet can we assume that a push is being made by NASA admin for an in-house review. And mars.is.wet seems to think this is well-nigh inevitable... or at least is being ginned up to appear inevitable. And double-checking... this effort was something that was started on Griffin's watch? (Sophistry, of course, as it's still Griffin's watch.)

Now in the course of my observations I'm going to mention a hot-button political issue as a reference... but the analogies I will draw from it really do apply to... "apolitical"... NASA in this situation, so please bear with me.

High-level officials lying at NASA is nothing new, whether they're from the central administration or from one of the component organizations. In fact it would be somewhat absurd to be astonished at this.

So "I can't believe NASA would lie!" overlooks both the fact that NASA is not a monolithic block and the fact that humans do lie.

But a lot of this "controversy" evokes memories of well-intentioned people who protested the earliest accusations against Bush and company by asking "How could you say these respectable people are lying?!"... when the actual question should have been "How can we be sure these respectable people are telling the truth?"

And the result? Just a few acknowledged facts: Iraq. We torture captives. We spy on Americans at home without reason or warrant. A self-admittedly politicized Justice Department corrupred from top to bottom... and so much more. Hell of a mess isn't it?

This has not been a political rant, merely an illustration of one of the more... omnipresent... examples of what happens when you don't question assumptions. One that I think will become so common that it will become a cliche over the decades.

And would it be surprising to learn that a *lot* of government agencies with questionable legacies have launched "in house" reviews of one variety or another in the past few months? Reviews outside the normal end-of-year and new-administration routines.

Some of these reviews may be honest attempts, and the others may have some very honest people involved... but quite a few of these "see, don't mind us we're self-regulating!" reviews are emitting that oh so familiar "fox-inventorying-the-henhouse" aroma.

*(The Election Assistance Commission is being especially ridiculous in this regard... look it up as an example of an small agency that makes NASA look like a well-run utopia.)

So... application to the current situation:

Did NASA admin lie?
 
If the answer is yes (and the answer is "yes" even apart from Ares v. Direct) then should NASA admin statements and actions involving core agency projects be investigated by an independent party?

"Yes." would have to be the answer to that question if the U.S. and congress are to have any confidence in the agency and its projects going forward.

Y'see, mars.is.wet, "Don't rock the boat or congress will get us!" isn't applicable, as NASA was definitely in the gunsights the minute Obama was talked into doing a 180 on his original "Gut NASA!" policy.

Best to have a strong alternative ready, and Direct fits the bill perfectly.

And that's all.

Caveat:
This has not been snark and if Jim or others want to take me to task on my meandering I'll be happy to listen ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Eerie on 01/19/2009 07:49 AM
J-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.

Now this is interesting.

How much will an optimized J-120 with SSMEs lift?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/19/2009 08:26 AM
Quote from: BogoMIPS
J-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.

Now this is interesting.

How much will an optimized J-120 with SSMEs lift?

Hmmm... Wouldn't the question then come down to how much more lift would you get if the equivalent J-120-SSME money was poured into buying additional standard J-120 launches...?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 08:41 AM
Ross,

In all fairness, it comes off as if you're accusing NASA of malfeasance or doing something almost illegal.

In all fairness, I would be campaigning for a full Congressional Investigation if I didn't think it would also ruin all our chances of getting back to the moon.

And Moon, Mars & Beyond is my overriding agenda here.

Griffin's already off the radar.   Forget him.   We need to be focusing on fixing the mess he left behind.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 08:50 AM
Quote from: BogoMIPS
J-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.

Now this is interesting.

How much will an optimized J-120 with SSMEs lift?

Hmmm... Wouldn't the question then come down to how much more lift would you get if the equivalent J-120-SSME money was poured into buying additional standard J-120 launches...?

Well identified.   Good kitty ;)

The thing I'm still trying to work out is which specific cost profile NASA is considering?

Are they planning to simply build current-spec SSME's (RS-25d) at ~$60m each, or are they planning a re-development first (~$500m) to turn them into 'expendable' SSME's (RS-25e) costing more like ~$30m each?

If it's the second, then they'll need 4-6 years to do the development & testing and they won't hit the 'break even' point until the 17th production engine (which would be on the 6th Jupiter-130 flight).   That sounds worthwhile to me.   I just don't know what NASA is thinking on this issue yet.


A third option might be to re-start production of the RS-25d and while those are being made, fund the development of the RS-25e, then phase those in whenever they are ready.   But funding both in parallel is quite an expensive option.


Its these sorts of things which have to be answered and then fed into the calculations to find out what's good value and what's not.

One thing is for certain though:   Individual SSME's are each more expensive than RS-68's.   And a greater number of SSME's are required to produce the same sort of performance as RS-68's in the larger Ares-V/Jupiter-232 configurations which are flying Upper Stages.   RS-68's are considerably better value there.

This is why DIRECT continues to favor the RS-68.   But if there were a technical show-stopper -- like for example if the ablative nozzle could never be utilized with the SRB's -- then we would have to put the SSME's back in the mix again -- along with the development cost for adding a Regen to the RS-68.   But there hasn't been a single bit of data to indicate such a problem exists, even with the unpleasant Base Heating effects on Ares-V.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/19/2009 09:48 AM
Quote
Let's say Direct is chosen come March 09. Decisions are made, engineering commences, test begin, prototypes are made, people are assigned.  Then in 2011 a group of well-intentioned "renegades" propose an alternative. They pick apart all the work that's been done to date.  They highlight and nitpick every issue that arose.

If, by 2011, the Jupiter 120 launch date has slipped from 2012 to 2015, then these renegades would be on fairly solid ground to criticize.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lab Lemming on 01/19/2009 10:26 AM
Instead of arguing manned vs unmanned exploration, how about the following consideration:

Ares does nothing for unmanned spaceflight.  For an unmanned, deep space launch, Ares 1 underperforms a D4H.  Since flagship missions generally have 1-2 gigadollar budgets, the Ares V would consume the entire mission budget, with no spacecraft attached.

The J232 would probably also be a bit pricey for probe launches.  But the J120, would be cheap enough to use and big enough to enable high delta-V missions, like icy moon orbiters or landers.  It would be even better if the DIRECT system developed a small EDS-type stage that could loiter for a few years, instead of weeks. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 10:28 AM
Sure they would.

But lets look at the reasons WHY Ares-I's schedule has slipped so:-

1) Low Performance.

The Ares development program and the Orion development programs have been going round and around in circles continually trying to shave a little weight off here and a little weight off there just to get the spacecraft to fit on the launcher.   They have spent over a year, and nearly a billion dollars extra, fighting this single issue and to-date they are still ~4-5% off where they need to be.

Would Jupiter-120 have this issue?

No.   In fact Jupiter-120 has sufficient performance to lift two Orion spacecraft at the same time.   There is no need to continue this never-ending cycle of mass reduction.   What is designed now is good enough to pres on with.   If necessary, it can still be improved in an evolutionary fashion once the spacecraft is operational.


2) Thrust Oscillation.

The unique SRB-In-Line configuration of the Ares-I has caused an astonishing amount of work to be necessary to solve this issue which has simply never been an issue on Shuttle, because its strap-on mountings can handle TO quite easily.   This problem has only been compounded further by increasing the size and performance of the SRB by 25%, creating a 5-segment version.   This issue alone has cost another billion dollars and remains the #1 safety/performance/schedule Risk, since it was confirmed in April 2006.

Would Jupiter-120 have this issue?

No.   Jupiter-120 retains the same 4-segment SRB's and the same *proven* dampening system used in the External Tank to damped the TO forces from the side-mounted SRB's.   This system now has over 120 safe human flights under its belt.   Don't fix what ain't broke.


3) Induced Environments.

Again, the choice of a 5-seg First Stage for Ares-I has created a vehicle which blasts through the first two minutes of flight with an astonishing amount of thrust.   Unfortunately this coincides with the portion of the flight which takes place inside the thick atmosphere.   The two result in Max-Q pressures more than 35% higher than Shuttle experiences, they result in acoustic shocks on the structure which are twice as powerful as anything Shuttle ever experiences and it induces bending loads on the long, thin structure which no vehicle in history has had to be designed for.

Would Jupiter-120 have this issue?

No.   The flight profile of the Jupiter-120 is very similar to that of the proven Shuttle, actually marginally less daunting.   Max-Q is below 720psf and Jupiter-120 would also experience a slightly lower acoustic shock environment than Shuttle too.   This would not require a shift in understanding, it would not require an endless series of studies to see how these previously-never-experienced-before environments interat with each other.   It would require only a fairly routine study of the environment and its effects in a territory with which we have 40 years of experience already.



4) Engine selection dictates schedule.

The choice of the all-new J-2X engine is the long-pole for getting the Orion flying in 2015 and operational in 2016.   The engine doesn't exist, it has never been on a test stand, it has never been human-rated, it has never been qualified.   Similarly, the choice of the 5-segment SRB First Stage requires a whole new design, development, Testing and Evaluation cycle all of its own too.

Does Jupiter-120 have the same issues?

No.   The current 4-segment SRB's are retained unchanged.   They are already human-rated and proven with 198 successful launches since they were fixed following Challenger.   There is a zero impact to the schedule for these.

The RS-68 engine exists.   It is in-production right now and is fully flight certified.   We aren't increasing it's performance, so there is a zero impact to the schedule for "developing" the engine.   It requires human-rating, and the associated testing, but this can be accomplished for a fraction of the time, money and effort needed to get the J-2X operational.   An RS-68 engine can actually be on the test-stand within 3-4 months to begin the hard work, and the entire DDT&E effort will be over in less than 3 years.



So, Jupiter-120 knocks the ball out of the park 4 for 4 on the issues which have caused the delays to Ares.

Without those issues, Ares might actually have been on-time.

For Jupiter, the engine problems are a far smaller concern because we have working examples qualified and in-production right now.   Performance is certainly not a problem.   And the environmental situation is less daunting than Shuttle, not considerably worse.   Further, the manufacturing is mostly in place to do it all, so too is most of the launch infrastructure -- relative to Ares, almost none of that costly equipment needs replacing before we can get operational.

These things together -- especially having working engines already -- remove an enormous amount of 'unknowns' from the development program.   And it is the unknowns which hurt your schedule.   There will always be some issues, but because of the high degree of commonality to Shuttle, the Jupiter-120 essentially has most of its hardware already proven in some fashion or other.   This makes things *far* easier to predict accurately -- and that reduces the number of things which can come back and bite you in the a$$.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 01:07 PM
The transition team and DA-to-be are charting the course.  This is not a legacy-directed study.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 01:16 PM
The transition team and DA-to-be are charting the course.  This is not a legacy-directed study.

Okay, *that* is potentially a very different thing.   I didn't think of that possibility.

If it's coming out of the new DA's office (I'm assuming that will be Lori Garver) and if all the managers with clear Ares agendas can all be kept at arms-length from it, that might very well be able to qualify as "independent" for the purposes of such a study.

I'd like to hear a lot more about this -- particularly what safeguards will be put in place to ensure managers can't sway the results at all.

I don't want to get my hopes up, but you just posted what might just be the most encouraging news I've heard in quite a long while.   Thank-you.

Ross (sitting here with every finger and every toe crossed!)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2009 01:17 PM

But, as I understand it, Griffin and his team reviewed hundreds (maybe more than 1,000) of designs and variations before settling on Ares/Orion/Constellation. Our government entrusted them to make a decision and they did.

It would be helpful if you reviewed all the posts from previous threads on this subject before you made statements like this, because it is completely false. This subject has been covered multiple times.

One part of the ESAS was SUPPOSED to examine all possible launch vehicle combinations and select the one that provided the best way forward for the VSE. It did not. ESAS was a document designed to present Griffin's personal view of the best way to replace Shuttle, go back to the moon and move on to Mars, formulated a long time before he ever came to NASA. There are many documents available all over the internet from places like The Planetary Society, etc, which clearly show this. There is virtually no difference from what Griffin proposed a long time ago to what ultimately became the ESAS "recommendation". Here's one such paper, published in 2004, among others that are available. http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/aim_for_mars/study-report.pdf (http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/aim_for_mars/study-report.pdf)   Mike Griffin decided a long time ago how he would do this if he ever got the chance. Well he got his chance and he immediately implemented it and called it ESAS.

Additionally, we have statements from at least one person who was supposed to be on the ESAS team who declined to participate and withdrew because he was told specifically that there would be no actual "study", that the decision had already been made by Griffin in advance and that his job on the ESAS team would be to assist the team and the technical writers to present it in a plausible manner.
Malfeasance? I don't know - you tell me. I won't characterize it.

More than 1,000 possible launch vehicle combinations? I think not. NASA is on record as making this statement, and also as stating that a configuration very much like DIRECT was among those. NASA is also on record as stating that *all* these possible combinations are detailed in Appendix 6, which was not released with the official ESAS study. That statement is also printed in the ESAS itself, in the section on launch vehicles. So we, along with many other interested parties not affiliated with us in any way, filed FOIA requests to obtain the Appendix. NASA promptly slapped the ITAR restriction on it. But the FOIA still stands and to date NASA has flatly refused to comply, even to people that are entitled to see ITAR documents. The only reason I haven't taken NASA to court over this is the expense - I can't afford it.

IT JUST SO HAPPENS however, that one of our contacts inside NASA has actually seen the Appendix document and while this person cannot get us copies or they'd loose their job, this person has told us a couple of interesting things:
1.  Contrary to NASA's public assertions, there are not over 1,000 different possible combinations of launch vehicles in the Appendix. There are approximately 70. That's lie number 1.
2. Contrary to NASA's public assertions, nothing resembling DIRECT is included. That's lie #2.
Malfeasance? I don't know - you tell me. I won't characterize it.

For purposes of this post I define "NASA" as Mike Griffin and his hand-picked team of managers. In that vein do I trust NASA with Griffin and *ANY* of his hand-picked managers still there? Not as far as I can throw them. No way - No how.

I will be a happy camper when Mike Griffin and all his hand-picked team are gone from NASA because then, in my opinion, it will have the opportunity, after years of Griffin-gate, to have some quality leadership for a change.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/19/2009 01:51 PM
Why are you able to use propellant depots with Jupiter but not Ares?  Jupiter would be under the same law prohibiting it for commercial use.

One word:   Money.

Firstly, Ares-I and Ares-V together will cost over $30 billion to develop.   The two Jupiter's can be fielded for roughly half that figure.   That alone gives you a lot more resources to be able to fund other work.


Operationally there is also a large cost difference.   Just to meet the baseline requirement of 2 ISS, 2 Lunar Crew and 2 Lunar Cargo missions CxP requires a $3-4 billion increase to NASA's yearly budget.

That also assumes we've closed down ISS and redirected all of its ~$2bn/yr towards Lunar funding for FY2017.   If Congress mandates ISS is to be kept beyond 2016, NASA will actually need $5-6bn more every year to cover the planned costs of the Ares-based architecture.

Worse:   If that extra money doesn't turn up, we will not be able to afford to go *anywhere*.

To add development of a Depot on top of those major increases would require even more money -- The simple question is "where is that extra money to come from?


While I would love to see more money for NASA I don't think anyone seriously expects this to happen.   Congress has already refused -- for four years running now -- to supply the 'more money' which was actually promised for the VSE.   And, unfortunately, there is no sign of that changing either.


Now, during the campaign, Obama promised $2bn for NASA.   But people make the mistake of thinking that would be a yearly increase -- it isn't.   That is intended as a single one-time "shot-in-the-arm" to try to speed up Orion.

We might still get that 'shot' if we're very lucky.   But you'd have to be seriously naive to think we're ever going to get the sort of money CxP needs.

What Ares is setting up is "Apollo-Redux".   The very best scenario CxP is creating right now is a short-lived funding of Lunar missions for a few years.   The initial landings will be a big deal, but they will be followed by the inevitable fall-off in public & political support (just as we saw during Apollo) and then the questions will be raised why we are funding a program which launches only 8 Lunar astronauts, yet costs $12 billion every year.   That argument is not a winnable one: Apollo teaches us this lesson very clearly, but Ares proves some people have failed to learn the lesson.


So what we really *NEED* is a program which can afford to place 48 Astronauts on the Lunar surface every year, but which costs just $8 billion per year.   That would create a far more politically justifiable program.   Most especially if 24 of those Astronauts are from other countries.   *THAT* capability would give the US a helluva lot of political "soft power" with other world governments.


Ross.

You are, unfortunately, not likely to get $8 Billion, even if you can deliver that many astronauts. Especially since a 24 man base on the surface is going to add considerable cost on top of that.

I suspect that Congress is only going to be willing to pay $4 Billion a year in 2009 dollars for the manned space transport system.

Based on the 2009 budget, that would get you two Ares I Orion flights to ISS, and one manned and one cargo flight to the moon. That would support a six month expedition a year.

That's actually a lot of exploration. It's a 120 Apollo missions worth of man-days on the lunar surface.

Note that half of that is Orions, Altairs and EDS, so even if Direct is a lot cheaper than Ares to LEO, the high cost of the in-space elements is going to be a major constraint on what you do.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 02:00 PM

IT JUST SO HAPPENS however, that one of our contacts inside NASA has actually seen the Appendix document and while this person cannot get us copies or they'd loose their job, this person has told us a couple of interesting things:
1.  Contrary to NASA's public assertions, there are not over 1,000 different possible combinations of launch vehicles in the Appendix. There are approximately 70. That's lie number 1.
2. Contrary to NASA's public assertions, nothing resembling DIRECT is included. That's lie #2.
Malfeasance? I don't know - you tell me. I won't characterize it.


1.  The wider study did include 1000's of combinations, if you can call it that.  As with all studies of this type, it was necked down (by a rigorous but inherently limited process) to unique configurations to the 70 you (don't) see in the ESAS report Appendix.  There are unpublished "option trees" with entire branches cut off using coarse judgements of similarity and ground rules.  Everyone, whether manually or via computer, does version of this.

2.  While DIRECT was in the 1000's, it was eliminated by a criterion that I am not aware of.  I can say, unequivocally, that it was not eliminated by a sense of bias or knowledge that it would win if included.  Sometimes with studies of this type, the coarse filter throws away gems.

Given the requirements, analyses, and results of the time, this MAY have been a biased process (we do all have biases), but not an intentional direction to a pre-selected answer as snidely suggested over and over again.

Contrary to the allegations here, Griffin is NOT that type of engineer.  He was bound by the team that they had (and NASA largely still has), the biases of the time (the mythology? of separating crew and cargo to the MAXimum extent possible?) and his interpretation of the presidential vision for the future.

It is disingenuous to see the possible flaws in a complex study 3 years in the past and attribute it to intentional bias, corruption, and ambition.   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 02:04 PM
Will, you're totally off with your estimates.

A fully operational Shuttle Program (not the one we have today which is half-way into Shutdown mode, I'm talking prior to STS-107) cost approximately $5 billion each year.   ISS another $2 billion/yr.   That was $7 billion *routinely* for the human spaceflight program.

The LSAM alone is going to be at least a $3 billion program annually.

And $4 billion wouldn't even cover the fixed costs of the Ares-I and Ares-V together, let alone the flight costs for any launches or spacecraft.

Trust me when I say that $8 billion is the lowest you're going to get a useful Lunar Exploration Architecture operating for, and that's about $4 billion below the current CxP estimates.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/19/2009 02:06 PM
With reference to Will's comments about budget, I must say that I hope COTS-D is a success so that as much work as possible with the ISS can be dealt with by partner nations or commercial service providers.  This would allow for far more money to be diverted to lunar exploration.

I think that a good initial lunar mission rate would be about two or three 'footprints in the dust' ~14-day stays per year.  Later on, we could look for one or two long-term 4- to 6-month missions based out of a surface habitat every year.

I also feel that, as an initial goal, a permanent outpost is probably premature.  Let's do this in phases: First, initial short-stay surveys (the work started by Apollo), then longer-term evaluation of various likely outpost and resource sites over the Moon's surface.  The permanent outpost would be a huge undertaking, even if not permanently crewed, and should not be set in stone (well, titanium and plastic, actually ;) ) until as ideal a site as possible has been identified.

This is all based on no significant budget changes, of course.  Who knows, we may get the mythical 1% per year, but I wouldn't hold my breath...

[EDITED for grammar and clarity]
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2009 02:12 PM

Given the requirements, analyses, and results of the time, this MAY have been a biased process (we do all have biases), but not an intentional direction to a pre-selected answer as snidely suggested over and over again.

Mars;
Respectfully, that does not jive with this:
Quote
Additionally, we have statements from at least one person who was supposed to be on the ESAS team who declined to participate and withdrew because he was told specifically that there would be no actual "study", that the decision had already been made by Griffin in advance and that his job on the ESAS team would be to assist the team and the technical writers to present it in a plausible manner.

I know of no other way to interpret that. If you have information to the contrary I am certainly open to it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 02:14 PM
Trust me when I say that $8 billion is the lowest you're going to get a useful Lunar Exploration Architecture operating for, and that's about $4 billion below the current CxP estimates.

If the architecture ops costs come in at 65-75% confidence, your numbers are pretty close.  If they come in udner 50-50, you can do it for $8B.  But we aren't allowed to (or should) believe in that fairy.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/19/2009 02:16 PM

Given the requirements, analyses, and results of the time, this MAY have been a biased process (we do all have biases), but not an intentional direction to a pre-selected answer as snidely suggested over and over again.


It is incredibly easy to bias an outcome just by the way you "pose" a question, and the weighting factors you assign before a study. 

Who posed the questions and assigned "penalty" factors? 

Speaking of COARSE filters.. If air-start SSME was thrown out  ahead of time, as it should have been(how hard was it to really figure out that wasn't going to work well?), would we have a very different architecture today?

All I want is for NASA to end up with a robust, safe, sustainable(affordable) system for manned space exploration.. I don't care what it looks like. I support DIRECT because I don't see Ares ever delivering on those goals.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 02:19 PM
It is incredibly easy to bias an outcome just by the way you "pose" a question, and the weighting factors you assign before a study. 


Of COURSE it is easy to do so.  I'm just saying that from my vantage point, it wasn't done intentionally or with malice of forethought. 60 (then 90) days is barely enough time to sharpen your pencils, much less look at every option objectively. 

There is a difference between possible bias or preference (also called engineering judgement in many circles) and steering the results.  The former was used in excess, the later was nonexistent from where I sit.  Please stop with the ad hominem attacks, that is, demonizing the man and the institution.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 02:22 PM
Ben,
The Lunar Outpost is critical.   A 4-person team on a short-duration "sortie" mission can produce somewhere about 336 man-hours of real work during their mission.

But the same 4-person team able to stay for a 6-month expedition could perform 8,640 man-hours of equivalent work during their stay.

They both use the same launchers, the same spacecraft, but you get an order of magnitude more return on investment courtesy of the outpost.

There should be a couple of test flights following sortie mission profiles to figure out the systems.   But starting the Outpost as soon as possible is critical.

What we would like is to have a minimum of four Cargo deliveries and two Crews to the moon each year until the outpost can be permanently staffed.   After that it would go to 3/3 and then 2/4 or even 1/5.   If the International Partners pay for the fuel as we've suggested, that would free-up sufficient NASA funding to be able to add one or two extra missions each year.   This plan aims to have the Outpost started in 2017, operational by 2020 and completed by 2022.   Outpost Complete marks the point where we can start putting serious money into the Mars program -- and we want to get on with that as soon as is humanly feasible.   If we do it at half that rate, it will be 2030 by the time we can start investing in the Mars hardware.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/19/2009 02:24 PM
Will, you're totally off with your estimates.

A fully operational Shuttle Program (not the one we have today which is half-way into Shutdown mode, I'm talking prior to STS-107) cost approximately $5 billion each year.   ISS another $2 billion/yr.   That was $7 billion *routinely* for the human spaceflight program.

The LSAM alone is going to be at least a $3 billion program annually.

And $4 billion wouldn't even cover the fixed costs of the Ares-I and Ares-V together, let alone the flight costs for any launches or spacecraft.

Trust me when I say that $8 billion is the lowest you're going to get a useful Lunar Exploration Architecture operating for, and that's about $4 billion below the current CxP estimates.

Ross.

They aren't my estimates, they are NASA's.  ISS isn't transport. Of course, a Lunar base would be on top of that, as ISS is today. Ground, flight and mission operations seem to be about an addition billion dollars.

Once developed, in 2020, LSAM is given as about a $ 1 billion dollar program, and Ares I and V, not counting ground flight and mission operations, about $2 billion. At a fairly low flight rate.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2009 02:42 PM
Mars;
The information I have indicates that the ESAS team steered the "study" toward the "option" that was favored by Griffin. How that process actually worked internally I have no idea, nor does it really matter at this point. I have no interest in demonizing anyone; I only state what I know and where that leads my thought process and let others respond as they will, such as yourself. I understand what you're saying, but that still leaves me with the statement I paraphrased above which leads me to a different conclusion. If you have something to add to that that can shed more light on it I am not opposed to hearing it. In fact I am certainly interested in hearing it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/19/2009 02:51 PM

Also, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?

Anyway, we are off-topic.

First, "in general" it is not off topic because it is part of the DIRECT architecture. See the AIAA paper.

Second, I said "create" the market. The benefits of a depot are indisputable, but the initial development and deployment/testing is cost prohibitive without a NASA contract to make it possible. Once operational however, there are several nations that will line up to take advantage of it because they cannot launch big spacecraft now because of the mass penalty of lifting all the mission propellant with the spacecraft. A single-launch Jupiter-232 mission that stopped at the depot before TLI for the mission propellant could easily triple the size of the mission hardware sent thru TLI to the moon. India, for example, could certainly send a really sophisticated lander/orbiter to Mars if it could fill its tanks in orbit before departing. Similar to you stopping at a gas station before heading out across country in your car. There will be lots of nations and corporations that will take advantage of the new availability of the "gas station" in orbit, and lots of commercial companies competing to deliver the propellant to the depot.

The DIRECT architecture isn't just the Jupiter Launch Vehicles. It is an entire approach to getting as many nations as possible out into the Solar System. It's about "enabling" mankind to take that step.

Why are you able to use propellant depots with Jupiter but not Ares?  Jupiter would be under the same law prohibiting it for commercial use.

You are missing the point.
1. With Ares, there will never be a propellant depot. Ares costs too much to allow the funding to deploy one.


In a $100 Billion program, it's impossible to find funding for a depot?

You could defer the start of major spending on LSAM and EDS. That would cause a schedule slip, but they are unlikely to get enough funding to meet the arbitrary 2020 deadline anyway.

And if a fuel depot works, you can cut Ares V back in size, at a minimum eliminating the extra half RSRM segment and the sixth RS-68. The development and production synergy savings on that alone would more than pay for the depot.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Swatch on 01/19/2009 02:54 PM

60 (then 90) days is barely enough time to sharpen your pencils, much less look at every option objectively. 


Well.... that's government schedules for you....
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/19/2009 02:55 PM
Ben,
The Lunar Outpost is critical.   A 4-person team on a short-duration "sortie" mission can produce somewhere about 336 man-hours of real work during their mission.

But the same 4-person team able to stay for a 6-month expedition could perform 8,640 man-hours of equivalent work during their stay.

Ross.

I agree with you entirely on this. However, the benefits of moving from that to a 365 days a year permanently occupied outpost are less compelling.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 02:56 PM
They aren't my estimates, they are NASA's.  ISS isn't transport. Of course, a Lunar base would be on top of that, as ISS is today. Ground, flight and mission operations seem to be about an addition billion dollars.

Once developed, in 2020, LSAM is given as about a $ 1 billion dollar program, and Ares I and V, not counting ground flight and mission operations, about $2 billion. At a fairly low flight rate.

I think I know part of what you're missing.   You aren't including the Program Integration and Operations costs in your figures.

The NASA Budget Request for 2009 lumped all those various costs together in one rather ambiguous lump -- my assumption is that they did so hoping it would not catch people's attention and it would help make everything look lower cost.   Well, that tactic seems to have worked to a degree.

But those PI&O costs are actually a conglomeration of another layer of costs which are actually still part of the costs for all the other individual elements -- and they account for a fairly large percentage actually.   It took me ages to get the underlying data though, but that clarifies it very well.

It is really amazing what they got away with in the FY2009 Request documents.   Its all there if you know what to look for, but who's going to go through that document with a fine toothed comb except a geek like me :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: William Barton on 01/19/2009 03:05 PM
Mars;
The information I have indicates that the ESAS team steered the "study" toward the "option" that was favored by Griffin. How that process actually worked internally I have no idea, nor does it really matter at this point. I have no interest in demonizing anyone; I only state what I know and where that leads my thought process and let others respond as they will, such as yourself. I understand what you're saying, but that still leaves me with the statement I paraphrased above which leads me to a different conclusion. If you have something to add to that that can shed more light on it I am not opposed to hearing it. In fact I am certainly interested in hearing it.

I sometimes wonder if the inclusion of weighted technical merit in these studies may not be a mistake. A two-axis decision matrix might give a better (or at least more easily defended) result. Expensive:Cheap and Hard:Easy? It'd give you a number anyone could understand. Then make the decision between architectures with similar numbers on relative technical merit. (This is more or less how I create software proposals for presentation to prospective clients whose in-house expertise is inadequate to judge technical merits of various solutions. I sell the architecture on those axial numbers, then make my own how-to decisions on relative technical merit.)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 03:16 PM
I sometimes wonder if the inclusion of weighted technical merit in these studies may not be a mistake.

Agreed.   My Science prof beat it into us that if you ever show weighted scores, you had to also provide all the raw data in addition.   That way you guarantee to be 100% clear to everyone, every time.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/19/2009 03:17 PM
They aren't my estimates, they are NASA's.  ISS isn't transport. Of course, a Lunar base would be on top of that, as ISS is today. Ground, flight and mission operations seem to be about an addition billion dollars.

Once developed, in 2020, LSAM is given as about a $ 1 billion dollar program, and Ares I and V, not counting ground flight and mission operations, about $2 billion. At a fairly low flight rate.

I think I know part of what you're missing.   You aren't including the Program Integration and Operations costs in your figures.

The NASA Budget Request for 2009 lumped all those various costs together in one rather ambiguous lump -- my assumption is that they did so hoping it would not catch people's attention and it would help make everything look lower cost.   Well, that tactic seems to have worked to a degree.

But those PI&O costs are actually a conglomeration of another layer of costs which are actually still part of the costs for all the other individual elements -- and they account for a fairly large percentage actually.   It took me ages to get the underlying data though, but that clarifies it very well.

It is really amazing what they got away with in the FY2009 Request documents.   Its all there if you know what to look for, but who's going to go through that document with a fine toothed comb except a geek like me :)

Ross.

Fair enough. Is PI&O under "Constellation Operations"? Or somewhere else?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: BogoMIPS on 01/19/2009 03:18 PM
Quote from: BogoMIPS
J-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.

Now this is interesting.

How much will an optimized J-120 with SSMEs lift?

Hmmm... Wouldn't the question then come down to how much more lift would you get if the equivalent J-120-SSME money was poured into buying additional standard J-120 launches...?


Quite right... The per-unit cost of a 2-engine SSME core is considerably higher than a 2-engine RS-68 core, so thinking about payload-per-launch isn't the whole answer.

To answer your question, CEPE suggests J-120 (SSME) would put up 54.8mT, compared to 47.9 mT with RS-68s.

All well and good, but the point is that in this configuration the RS-68s are a better long term choice from a cost and growth (i.e. J-23x) perspective.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/19/2009 03:20 PM
Quote from: BogoMIPS
J-120 with SSMEs lifts ~14% more J-120 with RS-68s.

Now this is interesting.

How much will an optimized J-120 with SSMEs lift?

Hmmm... Wouldn't the question then come down to how much more lift would you get if the equivalent J-120-SSME money was poured into buying additional standard J-120 launches...?

Well identified.   Good kitty ;)

The thing I'm still trying to work out is which specific cost profile NASA is considering?

Are they planning to simply build current-spec SSME's (RS-25d) at ~$60m each, or are they planning a re-development first (~$500m) to turn them into 'expendable' SSME's (RS-25e) costing more like ~$30m each?

If it's the second, then they'll need 4-6 years to do the development & testing and they won't hit the 'break even' point until the 17th production engine (which would be on the 6th Jupiter-130 flight).   That sounds worthwhile to me.   I just don't know what NASA is thinking on this issue yet.


A third option might be to re-start production of the RS-25d and while those are being made, fund the development of the RS-25e, then phase those in whenever they are ready.   But funding both in parallel is quite an expensive option.


Its these sorts of things which have to be answered and then fed into the calculations to find out what's good value and what's not.

One thing is for certain though:   Individual SSME's are each more expensive than RS-68's.   And a greater number of SSME's are required to produce the same sort of performance as RS-68's in the larger Ares-V/Jupiter-232 configurations which are flying Upper Stages.   RS-68's are considerably better value there.

This is why DIRECT continues to favor the RS-68.   But if there were a technical show-stopper -- like for example if the ablative nozzle could never be utilized with the SRB's -- then we would have to put the SSME's back in the mix again -- along with the development cost for adding a Regen to the RS-68.   But there hasn't been a single bit of data to indicate such a problem exists, even with the unpleasant Base Heating effects on Ares-V.

Ross.

In the area of safety...do SSME's increase the LOM/LOC numbers? Then again, if we have to go with an expendable version of the SSME, the commonality with the Shuttle goes out the window anyway.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/19/2009 03:21 PM
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?

Yes, already discussed many times, search "SSPDM".

Ok, will do.  Thanks.  Didn't know it had been previously discussed (before I got on this forum).
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 03:23 PM
Fair enough. Is PI&O under "Constellation Operations"? Or somewhere else?

Off the top of my head, its somewhere under Exploration Systems > Constellation Systems.

Gads, that can't be good.   I've memorized it.   :(

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 03:40 PM
In the area of safety...do SSME's increase the LOM/LOC numbers? Then again, if we have to go with an expendable version of the SSME, the commonality with the Shuttle goes out the window anyway.

That is an excellent question.

It all depends on how you wish to quantify the figures.

Technically, PWR say that RS-68 should be more reliable than SSME because it has considerably fewer parts and operates at lower internal pressure levels.

The specific figures PWR quote are .9983 reliability for SSME and .9987 reliability for RS-68.

Those equate to one failure every 588 uses for SSME and 1 in 769 for RS-68.

The SSME figure seems about right given the improvements made since the two in-flight failures we have had.   The RS-68 figure is impossible to tell for sure though, because we haven't had nearly enough flights or even tests to get sufficient data points yet.   All we do know is that they haven't had a failure in flight yet and even when they abused the engines quite a bit on the test stands the 68's just kept on tickin' -- which is certainly quite encouraging, but isn't really 'proof' yet.   If we still haven't had an RS-68 failure after 769 of them have flown, I would say we're right on the money.   Until then its really just an educated guess -- albeit a good one from a highly experienced source.   In the absence of any other data, you've got to go with it.


Now, obviously if you have to have 3 SSME's in order to do the equivalent work of 2 RS-68's on the smaller vehicle, the presence of an extra engine is going to skew the figures negatively for that configuration.

The mere presence of an extra engine would constitute a far larger impact to LOM/LOC than the individual engine failure rates do in this particular example.

So, to answer the original question, PWR indicates that the SSME would slightly reduce the LOM/LOC, not improve it compared to the RS-68.   And the presence of additional engines would reduce it even more significantly.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/19/2009 03:56 PM
Fair enough. Is PI&O under "Constellation Operations"? Or somewhere else?

Off the top of my head, its somewhere under Exploration Systems > Constellation Systems.

Gads, that can't be good.   I've memorized it.   :(

Ross.

On this chart, would it be under "Constellation Operations" I don't see either Exploration Systems or Constellation Systems listed.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg352417#msg352417
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2009 04:01 PM

The mere presence of an extra engine would constitute a far larger impact to LOM/LOC than the individual engine failure rates do in this particular example.

So, to answer the original question, PWR indicates that the SSME would slightly reduce the LOM/LOC, not improve it compared to the RS-68.   And the presence of additional engines would reduce it even more significantly.

Ross.

Unless after a certain point in the powered portion of the mission you could continue the mission with just 2 engines at higher thrust level. That gives you an engine-out capability which actually improves LOM/LOC.

For example, the Jupiter-120 can continue to orbit on a single engine after ~45 seconds of 2-engine power - instead of aborting.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mnewcomb on 01/19/2009 04:04 PM
I've asked about SSME a few times before. I think the ONLY reason to use SSME is if you want to fly ASAP. If you have more $$$ than time.

So, all you really have to do is modify the ET to support a payload on top and some [unmodified] SSMEs on the bottom. It's more expensive, but all you are doing is modifying the ET structure and building some avionics.

But, since Orion is the long pole in the tent, there is no need to fly ASAP.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/19/2009 04:17 PM
Hey,
Not to get off topic, but I had a question about Jupiter120.
It can boost about 45ton into LEO right?  Roughly twice the weight of Orion?
Could it launch Orion, fully fueled, with another 20 ton "service module"?

AFAIK, Direct have proposed a number of uses for that extra weight (whixch could be as great as the shuttle's maximum cargo payload).  These include:

* ISS resupply using an autominous re-entry version of the MPLM
* ISS or satellite maintenance using an autominous re-entry mission module based on the shuttle's Payload Suppot Frame (SSPSF), which would also be equipped with a small remote manipulator system arm, based on a squinting close consideration Phillip's illustrations of an Orion/SSPSF delivering the Advanced Microwave Spectrograph to the ISS.
* Trans-Lunar fly-around, with the Orion sitting on top of a Centaur upper stage, which would act as an EDS.

Ben, I need to correct a few bits there.

We propose building a 'cradle' which we refer to as an SSPDM (Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module) which would be designed to carry one of the standard Shuttle/ISS MPLM's to orbit one last time.   The SSPDM may or may not have an integral RCS system -- specifically depending on Orion's capabilities.   The SSPDM would be a disposable unit for carrying any remaining Shuttle Payloads one last time.   Once the payload (MPLM in this case) is finished with, it would be taken away by the accompanying Orion and placed into a safe orbit where it would burn up in the atmosphere.   The Orion would safely return home alone.

The SSPDM is also planned to be the basis for launching a future Orion-based Hubble Servicing Mission somewhere in the 2014 time-frame too.   After that mission the SSPDM would either be disposed of safely, or would be fitted with its own guidance and control systems and would be placed into an orbit compatible with Hubble, but a few hundred miles distant.   There it would remain, along with all the tools needed to perform any future servicing missions, ready for an Orion crew to dock with and bring back to the telescope once again.

We always liked the idea of the un-crewed Orion being an option for cargo-only deliveries and cargo down-mass capabilities.   Theoretically at least, a cargo-only variant of Orion could still be produced -- although neither CxP nor DIRECT have a budget allocation for it in the plans at this time.   It remains an option though.

And currently our suggestion is to utilize the slightly larger Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage for the Lunar Flyby mission in December 2013 (45th anniversary of Apollo 8).   The reason being that the DIVHUS has a greater propellant load than the Centaur-V1 and therefore a higher total impulse for that mission.   A side-effect of this choice to use the Delta hardware is that together with the human-rated RS-68's, the Jupiter would cover more than half the total costs of human-rating the Delta-IV Heavy for human use -- making it a very cost-effective option to consider.

Hope that helps clarify the situation a little.

Ross.

Great minds think alike.  Figured I wouldn't be the first to think of such a thing.   On a different thread, a guy was hassling me saying we wouldn't need to take any more components to the ISS after the Shuttles.  Which I thought was silly.  The AMS is only tenatively scheduled for another Shuttle launch, money's not been allocated for it last I heard.  There's a few other modules that were partially built and then cancelled that could possibly be finished and sent up.  Or, if they'd been scrapped and recycled, perhaps they could be built again.  The plans have already been done, all the engineering has been done, and in some cases, they were already partially built (Crew Hab Module, Centrifuge module, and there's a Russian modules or two).  Not to mention of one of the existing modules has a catestrophic failure, there would logically be a need to send up a replacement module.  Also, perhpas a new, not yet developed module could be added?  One of those Bigelo inflatable habitation modules or something?

Just seems silly that a space station designed to have components of Space Shuttle cargo bay size, with Space Shuttle abilities wouldn't have some need to be able to replecate those sizes and abilities.

So I was very happy to see the SSPDM concept. 

I was thinking more along the lines of not so much a cargo delivery system, but a utility module for satillite servicing and/or longer durration orbital missions that won't visit the ISS.  The Orion just seems prety small for anything of any duration. Like a SpaceHab module for example.  Something with some elbow room, and perhaps a better viewport arrangement for operation of the manipulator arm (although I suppose with cameras, you don't necessarily need viewports).  It could have an airlock, or Orion itself could be the airlock, and EVA's could exit via Orion's door visa vi Apollo 9.

And could such a unit be parked into an orbit that would allow it's reuse on future satillite servicing/long duration Orion missions?  Or would it have to be discarded?

Just interesting to speculate on the additional options the extra 20mt of launching ability of the J120, as well as boistering the argument for the DIRECT path because of those options and flexability.
The Shuttle gave us that ability due to it's already fairly generous habitation space, and then with the addition of a SpaceHab module in the cargo bay.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 04:17 PM
On this chart, would it be under "Constellation Operations" I don't see either Exploration Systems or Constellation Systems listed.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.msg352417#msg352417

The PI&O costs are actually split across a number of categories there.   For example, Flight Ops are under Operations, Facility Construction is under Development.

Actually, it's even more complex than that.   Some actually change part-way through, for example Ares-I Flight Operations are initially part of Constellation Development because the test flights are part of the Development Program, but once the system goes operational, they actually move over into the Constellation Operations category.

Jeez, I recall when we managed to pull all this stuff together last April, I remember we spent *weeks* getting it all organized correctly for Oberman.   It gave me such a headache trying to understand it with half-a-dozen of the financial guys all cross-talking at the same time!   We just started work on this years, so I've got it all to look forward to again! :D LOL

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 04:22 PM
I've asked about SSME a few times before. I think the ONLY reason to use SSME is if you want to fly ASAP. If you have more $$$ than time.

So, all you really have to do is modify the ET to support a payload on top and some [unmodified] SSMEs on the bottom. It's more expensive, but all you are doing is modifying the ET structure and building some avionics.

But, since Orion is the long pole in the tent, there is no need to fly ASAP.

Agreed.   You've got it.   The one proviso I can see:   If the ablative nozzle were to prove problematic given the external heating in that region, then other solutions need to be considered.

It is therefore nice to be prepared to switch to SSME as a "Plan B" should some unforeseen showstopper ever land in RS-68 land for any reason.   I don't believe there will be such a problem, but its always nice to have options 'just in case'.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: jarmumd on 01/19/2009 04:26 PM
3) Induced Environments.
This would not require a shift in understanding, it would not require an endless series of studies to see how these previously-never-experienced-before environments interat with each other.   It would require only a fairly routine study of the environment and its effects in a territory with which we have 40 years of experience already.

Ross, I'm not trying to start another fight - I'm sure many of you probably think I'm drinking the Ares cool-aid, but I'm just interested in getting the facts right.

Ares doesn't have a problem with aerodynamic bending loads, the max loads (added to together with factors) is 10% lower than design loads.  I'm not sure what are the "endless" studies, we have design cycles, where we increase the fidelity of our models and our analysis tools.  Do we have 40 years of experience? - yes in people and shuttle data, but our analysis tools are poor and need to be updated and upgraded.  This will have to be done for Direct, just as it is being done for Ares.  Direct isn't shuttle, and many of the old analysis tools don't apply to a vehicle with a different configuration.

An example, the ET.  The shuttle Critical Math Model (CMM) of the ET is a stick model whose properties are "tuned" to match the data from experimental analysis.  If you make the new Jupiter core, you will need a new model and match it to new experimental data, and you may need to re-write your analysis code to handle the new model - or if you remove old assumptions.

I work in the loads analysis world, perhaps one of the Direct engineers does as well, but from my view it's just not as simple as doing a "routine" study of the loads environment - the level of analysis which will need to be done will be the same be it Direct or Ares.

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 04:46 PM

60 (then 90) days is barely enough time to sharpen your pencils, much less look at every option objectively. 


Well.... that's government schedules for you....

SO easy to be critical in hindsight.

At the time the existing Cx had been plowing along for almost 2 years without a movement on a specific design.  While I agreed with (and probably still agree with) the EELV-like parallel path that Steidel was following, Congress was getting impatient.  And not in a good way.

Significant funding for Cx and possibly the Vision were saved by Griffin's direction and willingness to press into a 90-day study that provided a definitive answer.  If he had SOME idea of where the study would end up, that is not uncommon the engineering or business world.  I did not see him "steer" the study except to put requirements that were his to decide on (crew safety by conceptual PRA methods available and need for a 130mT lifter).  These are in the same category as 4 crew to the surface, all-time return, and polar access ... none of which had been decided on 2 YEARS into the process with Steidel. Even if it was the right path (and again, I liked it), everyone (incl the Whitehouse) was impatient at that point, because so little visible progress had been made.

Again, easy to say "there goes the government again" -- running a 90-day study on something so important.  And Griffin "was biased" and "had his thumb on the scale".  Makes for a great story, but that is not how it played out.

Anyone that left the ESAS team may not have liked the Level 0 requirements Griffin put forward.  But in speaking with him and others on this topic, those requirements were NOT with an answer ... but instead what he wanted to accomplish in mind.  There is a world of difference between "build me a system because I like ATK" and "build me a system with these requirements" that then favors what we got.  The former didn't happen.  The latter was the very definition of his job.

Revisionist history is easy to write when it fits your world-view and plays into the idea that outgoing NASA leadership is inept, corrupt, or both.  It doesn't make it any more true.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/19/2009 04:56 PM
It is therefore nice to be prepared to switch to SSME as a "Plan B" should some unforeseen showstopper ever land in RS-68 land for any reason.   I don't believe there will be such a problem, but its always nice to have options 'just in case'.
Ross.

Okay, so what level of commonality is there between the Jupiter structural an plumbing layouts for RS-68 v. SSME?... :)

I'm assuming that you have to choose engine type before bending metal for any particular stage, right? But how late in the process could a switch be made and could extant stages be retrofitted for less than the cost of a new stage?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/19/2009 04:58 PM
And yet the Direct team repeatedly argues that the engineering judgement and experience of Lockheed and other contractors is superior to that of NASA, and should trump their conclusions. But why should we expect a disinterested and unbiased opinon from the very companies that would benefit from a particular decision?

Will, you haven't done your research properly.   You're making incorrect assumptions.

If you were to check the archives you will see that we have talked about this a number of times previously on the various NSF DIRECT threads.   You would also see that we have *NEVER* proposed contractors like Boeing or Lockheed-Martin be the ones performing such a review -- everyone knows that wouldn't be "Independent" either.

Ross.

I didn't say that you proposed that the contractors should do the review, and I didn't mean to imply that.

What I do  mean is that, while Direct has plenty of skepticism about NASA, there's much less displayed about the contractors, and perhaps not enough.

The existing contractors have in the past sometimes oversold as yet unflown designs. Exhibit A: X-33.

Second, it isn't in their interest to draw your attention to any places where their particular design tradeoffs may have drawbacks. GM is not going to advertise the limited trunk space in a Corvette or the difficulty in parking a big Cadillac.

So I think that it's important to be diligent in digging out details like the production cost impact of a common bulkhead, and whether there are any other operational considerations that would affect a design scaled up from a Wide Body Centaur.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 05:11 PM
So I thing that it's important to be diligent in digging out details like the production cost impact of a common bulkhead, and whether there are any other operational considerations that would affect a design scaled up from a Wide Body Centaur.

I can't agree more.

While the government had its problems in specifying requirements, I have specific knowledge that contractor overstatements and underestimates of difficulty directly resulted in the overruns and cancellation of NASP, X-33, and the NASA version of the X-37.  I'm not blaming the contractors, I'm simply agreeing that it is the contractor's role to push the envelope of the possible and the government's role to apply realism to the process. 

That is the push-pull of the government-industrial system we work in.  Without it, sometimes you succeed spectacularly (recent shoe-string small sats have been remarkably successful at demonstrating advanced technologies and cost containment) ... but MOST of the time you fail ignominiously (based on my personal tally).  Cost and risk are probabilities, not certainties.

Although it might sound cycnical, Rule #1 is, if you want a high probability that it will work, trust but verify everything the contractor says or does.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/19/2009 05:13 PM
"Machines can do it faster and cheaper" is one of the oldest and least well-thought-out arguments of the Space Age. Sure you can send a modern-day equivalent of Mariner IV to take a couple of dozen snapshots of Mars for $100mln, but you can't send a human to Mars for much under $100bln. But what would be the human equivalent of Mariner IV? Send an astronaut in a Mercury capsule with a Brownie Instamatic? And what's the machine equivalent of a manned flight to Mars? A fully autonomous robotic probe imbued with infinitely complex artificial intelligence? How much would it cost to build that machine, $100trln? Does anyone think the Soviet Luna program did more, better science than Apollo? It certainly didn't do it faster, and not a whole lot cheaper. Machines are best if you only want to do a little bit of science. Humans are best if money is no object. Those are very different goals.

Agreed,

I've heard this argument a lot and I think it's bogus for a few major reasons.  And some of them are more "intagibles" that can't be assigned a direct dollar value.

1)  Humans can adapt much better to an unexpexed situation or repair a problem than a robot.  With a robot, if there's a failure, the robot has to live with it if it's not critical, and the whole mission is a scub if it's more critical.  Sure, there can be a critical failure resulting in the loss of live, but your margin goes way up.  A slight miscalculation in the landing program can be manually correct in decent visa vi Neil Armstrong in Apollo 11.  With a robot, you have a crater visa vi Beagle II, Mars Polar Lander, and any number of previous robotic landing craft.
Not to mention if one of the MER landing craft pedals hadn't opened fully, that mission would be over and the rover never would have left the pad.  With humans, you could go manually "unstick" that pedal and open it.
There's  a million little failures that humans can fix that would hinder or scrub a robotic mission.

2)  THe human experience.  The Apollo Astronauts (and Gemini and Mercury) came home and could describe personally what it was like to "be there".  For the Apollo Astronauts, they could speak to people, to schools, to kids, and describe what it was like stand on the moon.  To "wiggle their toes in the sand" so to speak.  And that inspired the next generation of scientist and engineerings (including me) in a way that a robot never could.  That's why the entire Earth Celebrated when Apollo 11 landed and Neil and Buss walked on the Moon, but there wasn't much more than passing interest in the Surveyor landers that preceeded Apollo.
The Surveyor landers could tell kids in a 4th grade class what is was "really like" on the moon.  That's an intangible that you just can't put a price tag on.
As another note, Apollo 12 landed near Surveyor 3, detached it's arm and camera and brought them back to Earth.  You couldn't get a more stark contrast in the abilities of a manned mission vs. that of a robotic mission.
The robot can sit there can take pictures.  The man can go and fix or disassemble that robot.  Another robotic mission couldn't have done that.

Robotic missions have there place.  They make good expendible scouts to check out a location and get preliminary data so that a manned mission can be planned to try to account for the local conditions.  But you have to get boots on the ground at some point if you are every going really explore and/or excite the folks back home about it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/19/2009 05:39 PM
The big problem with the SSME is that it is expensive to just toss it away after each mission.
Is there any way to recover the SSME? Jupiter has all of that extra lifting capability, couldn't some type of recovery system be developed? I'm thinking along the lines of having the SSMES attached to a pod on the bottom of Jupiter that would then be jettisoned from the core.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mnewcomb on 01/19/2009 06:24 PM
Okay, so what level of commonality is there between the Jupiter structural an plumbing layouts for RS-68 v. SSME?... :)

I'm assuming that you have to choose engine type before bending metal for any particular stage, right? But how late in the process could a switch be made and could extant stages be retrofitted for less than the cost of a new stage?

In a PnP world, you could just plug in your thrust structure (3 SSME, 4 SSME, 2 RS-68, 3 RS-68) along with the associated avionics package.

The plumbing to the thrust structure just has to be rated for the required flow of gas for the #/type of engines used.

That's a simpleton's view anyway ;)

The core should be built one way and that is it. That's where your savings comes in.

As a side note, are the Delta IV CCB all the same? I mean, in the Heavy configuration, did they build a 'special' version of the CCB for the central booster? Or one for the right/left? Or are they REALLY all the same.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jorge on 01/19/2009 06:29 PM
The big problem with the SSME is that it is expensive to just toss it away after each mission.
Is there any way to recover the SSME? Jupiter has all of that extra lifting capability, couldn't some type of recovery system be developed? I'm thinking along the lines of having the SSMES attached to a pod on the bottom of Jupiter that would then be jettisoned from the core.

It would be expensive to develop and, if tied to initial delivery, would delay Jupiter for years, potentially negating its advantages.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/19/2009 06:35 PM
I figured it would not be a viable option, just throwing it out there for a "what if?" discussion.

On another note, just totaled up the individual replies in all of the Direct threads...10,560 posts!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/19/2009 06:44 PM
Call me a troublemaker if you will but I honestly expect that, if there is a review, MSFC will come up with an ersatz-Jupiter and claim that, as it uses RS-25 rather than RS-68, it isn't DIRECT. :P Naturally, it would be the preferred option.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/19/2009 06:50 PM
Here's a bit of a divergent question.

I was reading the info on the Direct website, and had a question for someone with more knowledge on this than I.

I notice 4 different options for getting Orion and the LSAM into Lunar orbit.  Obviously once the LSAM assent stage is disgarded, the SM does a burn to get back into Earth Orbit (TEI?)
It mentions a growth option of of topping off the LSAM's descent stage, which is a great option.  How much propellent could be left in the EDS?  Could there be enough to fuel the return flight?  Obviously the SM doesn't hold much fule compared to the EDS, but apparently that's enough.
Could there be an option, perhaps a backup contingency plan in case there's an Apollo 13 like accient after the LSAM's assent stage has returned from the serface (thus negating the option to use the LSAM as a life boat) where Orion can use it's docking ring to dock with the EDS and use it to return to Earth?
Esspecially in configuration 4, where two EDS's are used.  Would they both use the same amount of fuel for TLI?  Would one of them have some spare propellent?  Enough for a TEI burn?
 Reading the EDS specs, it mentions 99.6K Usable Post-Ascent propellent, 5.2K Flight Performance Reserve, adn 1.7K in residuals.

So it apppears there's some spare propellent, but no idea if that's enough for a return burn.  (or if the J2/J2X engines could be restarted after a few weeks cold in orbit?  The SM engine uses an MMH/N2O4 system, so perhaps that is the case)

Is it possible?  If so, is there any reason to do it other than perhaps a contingency plan if there's a SM engine problem?
Just wondering if the EDS could be used as a ferry both ways?  Would the propellent for that require a EDS too heavy for the architecture?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/19/2009 06:59 PM
Call me a troublemaker if you will but I honestly expect that, if there is a review, MSFC will come up with an ersatz-Jupiter and claim that, as it uses RS-25 rather than RS-68, it isn't DIRECT. :P Naturally, it would be the preferred option.

You know what though, it isn't the ideal decision, but I could agree with it. I can't speak for the Direct Team, but I am sure they could live with it too.
Slap an Ares II sticker on it, call it not-Direct, whatever makes them smile at the end of the day.
The Direct Team still better get launch day tickets though.  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/19/2009 07:03 PM

60 (then 90) days is barely enough time to sharpen your pencils, much less look at every option objectively. 


Well.... that's government schedules for you....

SO easy to be critical in hindsight.

At the time the existing Cx had been plowing along for almost 2 years without a movement on a specific design.  While I agreed with (and probably still agree with) the EELV-like parallel path that Steidel was following, Congress was getting impatient.  And not in a good way.

Significant funding for Cx and possibly the Vision were saved by Griffin's direction and willingness to press into a 90-day study that provided a definitive answer.  If he had SOME idea of where the study would end up, that is not uncommon the engineering or business world.  I did not see him "steer" the study except to put requirements that were his to decide on (crew safety by conceptual PRA methods available and need for a 130mT lifter).  These are in the same category as 4 crew to the surface, all-time return, and polar access ... none of which had been decided on 2 YEARS into the process with Steidel. Even if it was the right path (and again, I liked it), everyone (incl the Whitehouse) was impatient at that point, because so little visible progress had been made.

Again, easy to say "there goes the government again" -- running a 90-day study on something so important.  And Griffin "was biased" and "had his thumb on the scale".  Makes for a great story, but that is not how it played out.

Anyone that left the ESAS team may not have liked the Level 0 requirements Griffin put forward.  But in speaking with him and others on this topic, those requirements were NOT with an answer ... but instead what he wanted to accomplish in mind.  There is a world of difference between "build me a system because I like ATK" and "build me a system with these requirements" that then favors what we got.  The former didn't happen.  The latter was the very definition of his job.

Revisionist history is easy to write when it fits your world-view and plays into the idea that outgoing NASA leadership is inept, corrupt, or both.  It doesn't make it any more true.



But don't you find it kind of strange, that ESAS basically rubber stamped the same design that the Mars Society put out when Griffin was Co-Leader?
 
Even assuming that two people got the same ideas at the same time, then why does not ESAS publish the Appendix 6A -6F?  I would really like to see the 1,000's of LV's they looked at and the assumpations, facts they used.  When someone tells me that there is no need to look under the hood, what does that tell you in the confidence and trust that you should have in the whole process. 

I think you are also forgetting, these are the same people (ESAS) that said EELV's were unsafe, but were checking in with ATK but not with Boeing or LM about EELV's?

One last question--do you think ESAS was a "fair" process?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/19/2009 07:06 PM
Call me a troublemaker if you will but I honestly expect that, if there is a review, MSFC will come up with an ersatz-Jupiter and claim that, as it uses RS-25 rather than RS-68, it isn't DIRECT. :P Naturally, it would be the preferred option.

In other words... Direct wins.

The team reps have stated several times that this could happen, that "Jupiter" could be subsumed into "Ares"... and that that would be vastly preferable to the current version of "Ares", whose prospects lead to a worse than post-Apollo dead end.

In other words they've essentially stated that they won't insist that everyone wear "Jupiter" patches... ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jorge on 01/19/2009 07:07 PM
Call me a troublemaker if you will but I honestly expect that, if there is a review, MSFC will come up with an ersatz-Jupiter and claim that, as it uses RS-25 rather than RS-68, it isn't DIRECT. :P Naturally, it would be the preferred option.

So?

DIRECT itself is based on ESAS LV-24/25 and various NLS designs from NASA. The DIRECT team has said repeatedly they don't care who gets the credit on this. If NASA resurrects one of the designs DIRECT is based on and adopts it without calling it DIRECT, the DIRECT team will still be perfectly happy with it.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/19/2009 07:13 PM

60 (then 90) days is barely enough time to sharpen your pencils, much less look at every option objectively. 


Well.... that's government schedules for you....

SO easy to be critical in hindsight.

At the time the existing Cx had been plowing along for almost 2 years without a movement on a specific design.  While I agreed with (and probably still agree with) the EELV-like parallel path that Steidel was following, Congress was getting impatient.  And not in a good way.

Significant funding for Cx and possibly the Vision were saved by Griffin's direction and willingness to press into a 90-day study that provided a definitive answer.  If he had SOME idea of where the study would end up, that is not uncommon the engineering or business world.  I did not see him "steer" the study except to put requirements that were his to decide on (crew safety by conceptual PRA methods available and need for a 130mT lifter).  These are in the same category as 4 crew to the surface, all-time return, and polar access ... none of which had been decided on 2 YEARS into the process with Steidel. Even if it was the right path (and again, I liked it), everyone (incl the Whitehouse) was impatient at that point, because so little visible progress had been made.

Again, easy to say "there goes the government again" -- running a 90-day study on something so important.  And Griffin "was biased" and "had his thumb on the scale".  Makes for a great story, but that is not how it played out.

Anyone that left the ESAS team may not have liked the Level 0 requirements Griffin put forward.  But in speaking with him and others on this topic, those requirements were NOT with an answer ... but instead what he wanted to accomplish in mind.  There is a world of difference between "build me a system because I like ATK" and "build me a system with these requirements" that then favors what we got.  The former didn't happen.  The latter was the very definition of his job.

Revisionist history is easy to write when it fits your world-view and plays into the idea that outgoing NASA leadership is inept, corrupt, or both.  It doesn't make it any more true.



But don't you find it kind of strange, that ESAS basically rubber stamped the same design that the Mars Society put out when Griffin was Co-Leader?
 
Even assuming that two people got the same ideas at the same time, then why does not ESAS publish the Appendix 6A -6F?  I would really like to see the 1,000's of LV's they looked at and the assumpations, facts they used.  When someone tells me that there is no need to look under the hood, what does that tell you in the confidence and trust that you should have in the whole process. 

I think you are also forgetting, these are the same people (ESAS) that said EELV's were unsafe, but were checking in with ATK but not with Boeing or LM about EELV's?

One last question--do you think ESAS was a "fair" process?



I have to agree with everything said here. If they had nothing to hide, why do those appendixes remain hidden?

If ESAS was this flawless process, then how come the basic vehicles it called for have completely changed? How thorough of a study could they possibly have done if only a few months after it was found the SSME would not air-start?

Also add that the very reason EELVs were rejected..."blackzones" were found to be as much of a myth as the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 07:18 PM
One last question--do you think ESAS was a "fair" process?

Yes, given the circumstances and external constraints of the time.

The people involved, while biased, were all (ALL) of the "bring me the data" ilk, that is ... if the answers were better, they wanted to see them.

Was it "fair" from a fully objective standpoint?  Probably not.  But you march with the army you have into the conditions that are, not with the army you want in to conditions of your choosing.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2009 07:22 PM
One last question--do you think ESAS was a "fair" process?

Yes, given the circumstances and external constraints of the time.

The people involved, while biased, were all (ALL) of the "bring me the data" ilk, that is ... if the answers were better, they wanted to see them.


Incorrect.  Good EELV data was not provided to them.  It was all filtered by one person
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/19/2009 07:23 PM
One thing that I think could lead to some type of Jupiter-like vehicle is if Ares V goes back to the 5 seg, 8.4m core, SSME configuration.
Then I could see NASA looking at something similar to Direct for CLV powered by SSMEs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 07:25 PM
I have to agree with everything said here. If they had nothing to hide, why do those appendixes remain hidden?

If ESAS was this flawless process, then how come the basic vehicles it called for have completely changed? How thorough of a study could they possibly have done if only a few months after it was found the SSME would not air-start?


Nobody said it was flawless.  In fact, everyone knows that 60-90 days was insufficient to do the work.  It was just what was allotted given the WH/congressional mood and the lack of apparent progress from the ongoing Cx.  That's why Griffin was put in, to get the process moving, not to hold a 6 month or 1 year study.  You want it bad, you get it bad.

The appendices remain hidden because they were not scrubbed for proprietary data and were not made compliant with disability accessibility laws.  There was no time, mood, or interest in doing that.  I have seen them, and have seen the pre-production parts of them. 

In a time-constrained and admittedly flawed study (not the outcome, but the process due to constraints) like ESAS, every time you pull back the data onion, 1000 questions are raised for every one that is answered.  In hindsight it looks shoddy, biased, and irresponsible.  Unfortunately not everyone has the benefit of hindsight in the midst of the dancing elephants.

Bottom line is, from my view, there is no smoking gun there.  But I'm just one guy with an opinion.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jorge on 01/19/2009 07:25 PM

But don't you find it kind of strange, that ESAS basically rubber stamped the same design that the Mars Society put out when Griffin was Co-Leader

Planetary Society, not Mars Society. Carl Sagan rolled over in his grave when you wrote that. :)
 
Quote
Quote
Even assuming that two people got the same ideas at the same time, then why does not ESAS publish the Appendix 6A -6F?

I have to agree with everything said here. If they had nothing to hide, why do those appendixes remain hidden?

Supposedly, because they contain company-proprietary data that is protected by NDAs.

Quote
If ESAS was this flawless process, then how come the basic vehicles it called for have completely changed? How thorough of a study could they possibly have done if only a few months after it was found the SSME would not air-start?

That is an incorrect characterization. It was already known at the time of ESAS that the SSME, as designed, could not be air-started and that modifications would be required. The ESAS study simply didn't have the level of detail to determine how expensive those modifications would be. The choice of the 4-seg+SSME CLV over the 5-seg+J-2X CLV was reportedly a close one. When more detailed engineering revealed that the air-start modifications to the SSME would cost more than ESAS predicted, it was enough to change the outcome.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: marsavian on 01/19/2009 07:39 PM
One last question--do you think ESAS was a "fair" process?

Yes, given the circumstances and external constraints of the time.

The people involved, while biased, were all (ALL) of the "bring me the data" ilk, that is ... if the answers were better, they wanted to see them.


Incorrect.  Good EELV data was not provided to them.  It was all filtered by one person

It might have been two ;)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8071.0
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2009 07:43 PM

As a side note, are the Delta IV CCB all the same? I mean, in the Heavy configuration, did they build a 'special' version of the CCB for the central booster? Or one for the right/left? Or are they REALLY all the same.

No, there are 6 versions of the Delta IV CBC (Not CCB)

Med
Med (4,2)
Med (5,2) and (5,4)
Heavy right booster
Heavy core
Heavy left booster

The Right and Left boosters are mirror images of each other
The core is strengthen and has attachments for the side booster

The Med is a lighter version

the differences between the  4 and 5 meter Medium Plus are the interstage that can't swapped at the launch site

For the Atlas V CCB, there is only one version.  Any CCB can take 0-5 solids and a 4 or 5 meter fairing.

Additionally, the Heavy was to use the basic CCB with addon kits.  And the right and left booster were the same.  The GSE on the pad was adapted "flipped" so that the same CCB could be used.

The Delta CBC variations stem from  performance loss during its development.  Having one CBC doing everything would entail too much mass in the CBC to account for everything.  A decision was made to specialize the CBC.  This means that CBC's are built per mission

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2009 07:44 PM

Anyone that left the ESAS team may not have liked the Level 0 requirements Griffin put forward. 

Like not using EELV's and use my ideas
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/19/2009 07:48 PM
Re: "Lifeboats" in general...

If we're going to have long term (months or more) lunar presence then I think a long term lifeboat is needed.

I really would like to live long enough for ships inbound from the Moon to say "Heck with the fuel margins, brake into a parking orbit, Mr. Sulu!"... but I won't.

So Orion is the lifeboat of choice because it's the only currently budgeted way to slow down when you're returning from the Moon.

As its on-orbit lifespan is only 6 months(?), the lifeboat also defaults to being the crew return vehicle. No spare. If the Jupiter EDS were based on ULA's current long-term "almost a depot!" Centaur experiments then would that also be able to loiter for 6 months?

Keeping a deactivated spare JEDS/Orion (is such "deactivation" for loiter extension possible?) in a long term orbit is currently a guessing game due to the need for masscon mapping. But such a spare would be available to any expedition with a functioning LSAM ascent stage.

Keeping it on the ground is workable if you can land it fueled and stick it on top of a fully fueled LSAM (you can stop giggling now.)

Keeping it at L1 is the only option along those (rather meandering) lines?

A JEDS/Orion with booster as an escape unit would fit perfectly with an outpost of course. (cue Thunderbirds theme... :) )

nap time...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ugordan on 01/19/2009 07:49 PM
The Delta CBC variations stem from  performance loss during its development.  Having one CBC doing everything would entail too much mass in the CBC to account for everything.  A decision was made to specialize the CBC.  This means that CBC's are built per mission

How ironic it is that they call it the Common Booster Core, then... Were the performance losses RS-68-related or generally the entire vehicle mass margins?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 07:49 PM

Anyone that left the ESAS team may not have liked the Level 0 requirements Griffin put forward. 

Like not using EELV's and use my ideas

More unsubstantiated ad hominem that do not correspond to my personal experiences with him. Any good engineering study lead has some idea where the study is going before it starts.  He/she also allows themselves to be led by new data. That is the person I have met, demonstrated on multiple occasions where the data proved his initial hypothesis to be incorrect.  MULTIPLE personal instances.

If you have no ideas of what will come about, you are talking about basic science, which is a different thing entirely.



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2009 07:54 PM

Anyone that left the ESAS team may not have liked the Level 0 requirements Griffin put forward. 

Like not using EELV's and use my ideas

More unsubstantiated ad hominem that do not correspond to my personal experiences with him.

It corresponds with my experiences with contractor execs

Explain his 180 on EELV's for manned flight.  That can't be hand waved away. 

The Planetary Society paper and hiring of Doc Horwitz doesn't pass the basic sniff test.   ESAS was a facade.  A study written to support an answer

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mars.is.wet on 01/19/2009 07:56 PM

It corresponds with my experiences with contractor execs

Explain his 180 on EELV's for manned flight


Great, you use your innuendo and personal agenda, and I'll use the data I have gathered.  One of us is right, and we'll both continue to believe that we are.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2009 07:58 PM

The appendices remain hidden because they were not scrubbed for proprietary data and were not made compliant with disability accessibility laws.

Mars;
Thousands of FOIAs have resulted in thousands of documents being made available to those persons who filed. Whenever the documents contain proprietary data, the data is redacted. And disability/accessibility laws do not apply to the release of documents to "individuals" vs. "the public" under a FOIA.

NASA has flatly refused to comply with the law. How do they get away with that? Perhaps that's the kind of thing that Dr Griffin was referring to in his famous comment to Lori Garver about "looking under the hood".

Oh, that brings up another subject that I have wanted to pass on. (switching gears here) When we were recently in DC to present DIRECT to the Transition Team, we had an opportunity to go thru the library where the conversation occurred where Griffin responded to that remark from Lori. The librarian told me personally that during the entire conversation he was no more than 10-15 feet away from Garver and Griffin for the whole time and the tone of the entire conversation was normal. At no time did anyone raise their voice or shout of make any loud pronouncements. At no time was there any indication that the conversation was anything other than a conversation. He did say that both were passionate in their views and that both were respectful of the others views. The content of the conversation being whatever it was, it was not exchanged in any type of confrontational manner. It struck him as a completely normal conversation between two professionals. So news reports to the contrary, nobody was shouting at anybody. Dr Griffin did make the remark, and the librarian heard it, but it was *not* made in the sensational manner that the media has presented it.

See? It is possible to have a conversation with someone and be at complete odds with each other and yet never behave unseemly. That's a case in point that I thought would interest everyone from a first hand witness being passed on from first hand knowledge.

Another case in point is the conversation between mars.is.wet and me. I have knowledge that apparently he does not and he has knowledge that I do not have. That puts he and I at opposite poles and yet a civil conversation ensues. That's how it should be and I, for one, appreciate that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2009 08:01 PM
Any good engineering study lead has some idea where the study is going before it starts.

No, a good one doesn't.  A good one gets all the data and then sees where is it going
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 08:01 PM
I work in the loads analysis world, perhaps one of the Direct engineers does as well, but from my view it's just not as simple as doing a "routine" study of the loads environment - the level of analysis which will need to be done will be the same be it Direct or Ares.

Marc, perhaps my use of the word 'routine' wasn't characterized quite the way it ought to have been.   What I meant by "routine" in that particular context was to expect the full range of analysis which would have to be performed as part of any new vehicle development, but nothing "extraordinary" due to very unusual circumstance caused by an unusual vehicle design.   So "routine" essentially equated to "to be expected normally" in that context.

I didn't mean to imply that it is "simple" -- I have learned to appreciate that these things are anything but.   All I was trying to do was differentiate between the *comparative* difficulty levels ranging from 'normal difficulty level' thru to 'extremely difficult level'.

We believe that due to its heritage to flying systems, that the Jupiter will fundamentally be at one end of that particular spectrum and that Ares-I will be at quite the other.


BTW, some of our engineers have already produced some low- to medium-fidelity Pro-E models of the Jupiter vehicles which they have been using for FEM work in aerodynamic and load analysis.   Exactly what & how, I don't personally know the details -- they've just told me that's what they've been doing.   I would hope that if we are ultimately selected, those models would quickly begin to 'do the rounds' so that all the other departments can start gathering some initial data just to get the ball rolling for the Pre-DAC, while higher-def versions are created.   Hopefully that will help to give everyone a step-up on the long road whenever the time comes.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2009 08:02 PM

It corresponds with my experiences with contractor execs

Explain his 180 on EELV's for manned flight


Great, you use your innuendo and personal agenda, and I'll use the data I have gathered.  One of us is right, and we'll both continue to believe that we are.


Explain the 180.    No innuendo, just facts.  NASA LSP was continually ignored and told to stand down when it came to supplying EELV data
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ah_mini on 01/19/2009 08:09 PM
I've been following this whole kerfuffle for the last 6 months. I feel that DIRECT's arguments are good, but implication that the NASA studies were rigged or that Griffin railroaded everything hurt the idea rather than promote it.

To some extent, Griffin has to motivate his work force. There will always be detractors sniping no matter what the architecture, some with better info than others. If Griffin is seen to be indecisive and flip flop back and forth, then NASA would never get anything done. Furthermore, I find arguing that various FOI requests being denied means there must be the equivalent of Roswell aliens lurking at the centre of the Ares programme, to be just as misguided as slanging Griffin.

I feel the DIRECT team argues much better when putting forward their positives. The shuttle heritage, workforce retention and re-use of existing capability and knowledge really put it head and shoulders over Ares when comparing realistic programme goals vs budget available. Detractors may argue about "Powerpoint engineering" and such, but from what I've seen, the potential problems facing DIRECT are much less than those facing Ares because of the former's naturally conservative, evolutionary approach.

ESAS was a rushed study based on some pretty lazy assumptions and lack of imagination. However, sloppiness does not translate to fraud, and the benefit of the doubt should be given unless there is concrete proof that Administration deliberately fixed the results.

Andrew
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/19/2009 08:20 PM
Clongton, I think that refueling PD by Ares-V will be cheaper than by 20mt LVs. Ares-V is how many Ariane-5`s? Seven?

1. The sheer cost of the Ares-V will negate any savings in using it to lift propellant to a depot.
2. Ares-V costs so much money that NASA would not waste one to lift propellant to a depot.

Not so. If Ares V exists, NASA is paying the fixed cost in any case. The development cost is sunk in any case. As per the ESAS report, marginal cost is under $400 million.

The happens, incidentally, with Jupiter 232 as well, if built. Both are going to be very difficult for a commercial launcher to compete with on a commercial launcher price determined by average cost plus profit.

Likewise, if NASA is using EELVs in large numbers to fill a depot, DOD is going to want NASA to pick up an appropriate share of their fixed costs.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/19/2009 08:22 PM
I think this argument on the validity of ESAS is rather useless. What happened has happened. To continue to debate whether ESAS was valid, if it is one big conspiracy, does nothing to change the future.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 08:24 PM
Here's a bit of a divergent question.

I was reading the info on the Direct website, and had a question for someone with more knowledge on this than I.

I notice 4 different options for getting Orion and the LSAM into Lunar orbit.  Obviously once the LSAM assent stage is disgarded, the SM does a burn to get back into Earth Orbit (TEI?)
It mentions a growth option of of topping off the LSAM's descent stage, which is a great option.  How much propellent could be left in the EDS?  Could there be enough to fuel the return flight?  Obviously the SM doesn't hold much fule compared to the EDS, but apparently that's enough.
Could there be an option, perhaps a backup contingency plan in case there's an Apollo 13 like accient after the LSAM's assent stage has returned from the serface (thus negating the option to use the LSAM as a life boat) where Orion can use it's docking ring to dock with the EDS and use it to return to Earth?
Esspecially in configuration 4, where two EDS's are used.  Would they both use the same amount of fuel for TLI?  Would one of them have some spare propellent?  Enough for a TEI burn?
 Reading the EDS specs, it mentions 99.6K Usable Post-Ascent propellent, 5.2K Flight Performance Reserve, adn 1.7K in residuals.

So it apppears there's some spare propellent, but no idea if that's enough for a return burn.  (or if the J2/J2X engines could be restarted after a few weeks cold in orbit?  The SM engine uses an MMH/N2O4 system, so perhaps that is the case)

Is it possible?  If so, is there any reason to do it other than perhaps a contingency plan if there's a SM engine problem?
Just wondering if the EDS could be used as a ferry both ways?  Would the propellent for that require a EDS too heavy for the architecture?

Hi Lobo,
   Those diagrams were actually produced back around the v1.0 > v2.0 switch around in early 2007 IIRC.   They're not as up-to-date as they ought to be (I need a handful of 30 hour days!).   We were very interested in the possibility of a 2-launch LOR-LOR mission around that time, but when we ran the numbers through the computer we found that in practice, the performance wasn't so hot :(

   Essentially you lose quite a lot of total performance by having to drag the mass of the second EDS thru TLI as well.   You've got a fixed CEV mass, a variable LSAM which is dependent on the propellant/EDS mass in LEO and only a finite amount of propellant.   The extra EDS mass depletes the total payload throw mass thru TLI and results in a smaller LSAM inserted into LLO.

   There were a variety of compatible propellant transfer options to make maximum use of the throw-capacity, and there were even options considered for the EDS to perform the LOI burn in some instances (for CEV, if not for the LSAM).   But the total performance never quite reached the levels of the current connect-mode EOR-LOR approach and the LEO Propellant Depot arrangement blows its sock right off, so we set the LOR-LOR architecture aside.


   The place where that mission profile is still worth keeping in the back pocket is in case we ever develop a reusable Lander.   In that future scenario, the LSAM would be launched to Lunar Orbit by a single J-232.   It can then be used 'x' times before needing to be replaced.   It would be refueled (probably by Lunar ISRU) and so the only hardware which must travel from Earth is the Orion and whatever science packages the crew is bringing along.   Each of those missions can then also be launched on single J-232's too.

   Its just one of the many different paths which we could take in the future.   But the LOR-LOR work which we did would apply quite well to it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2009 08:41 PM

This happens, incidentally, with Jupiter 232 as well, if built. Both are going to be very difficult for a commercial launcher to compete with on a commercial launcher price determined by average cost plus profit.

No commercial launcher will ever have to compete against either the Ares or the Jupiter. It is against the law for NASA to ever compete against any commercial launcher for any kind of commercial payload. None of the commercial launchers will ever have to concern themselves with this, no neither should we. It's just not in the mix and not worth bringing up.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 08:42 PM
More unsubstantiated ad hominem that do not correspond to my personal experiences with him.

It sounds like you've been lucky to have good experiences with him.

But there are plenty of people out there who have seen the other side of the coin.   I've spoken with many who have been shouted at, berated for suggesting alternatives, who have been thrown out of his office and who have had threats handed down because of him.   I've spoken with 6 different people who actually lost their jobs due to him.

I have accounts from a lot of people on our team who have witnessed an unchecked ego in what should be a professional environment where it is completely innappropriate for ego to ever be allowed to run rampant.

The infamous "I'm the smartest person in the room" meeting -- I know three people who witnessed that and they all tell the same story of a guy on a total ego-trip.

I'm glad you got to see the nice side of him.   I'm glad there *is* a nice side.   But there are too many accounts otherwise for me to think that coin is single-sided.


But this isn't a useful subject to dwell upon.   He's gone.   None of this matters any more.   End of story.   We need to get focused on the future.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: jarmumd on 01/19/2009 09:11 PM
We believe that due to its heritage to flying systems, that the Jupiter will fundamentally be at one end of that particular spectrum and that Ares-I will be at quite the other.


BTW, some of our engineers have already produced some low- to medium-fidelity Pro-E models of the Jupiter vehicles which they have been using for FEM work in aerodynamic and load analysis.   Exactly what & how, I don't personally know the details -- they've just told me that's what they've been doing.   I would hope that if we are ultimately selected, those models would quickly begin to 'do the rounds' so that all the other departments can start gathering some initial data just to get the ball rolling for the Pre-DAC, while higher-def versions are created.   Hopefully that will help to give everyone a step-up on the long road whenever the time comes.

Ross.

I suppose the distinction is in how much work you must do to a design to get it to work vs. that tool you use to do the design.  No matter what, our tools need updating regardless of chosen vehicle.  And as good as heritage is, as I said, the heritage models of the ET don't help you in analysis world, and many of the heritage SRB models have poor fidelity.  This means that even though they worked for shuttle (and under duress the could work for Direct), they really need to be updated to better represent the actual hardware.  Not to give you guys more ammo, but things on this side of the fence are really different from what many of you think... it can be scary how we even got this far...

(of course this is a detail, the real value to Direct is the heritage infrastructure needed to make these parts)

Without going into details, could you find out what parts they are making with pro-e and which parts they are using legacy FEM's for?  And if they are using an in-house code for loads analysis?

It's selfish, but if I know that your analysis was done well, that inspires confidence that there are no showstoppers in developing Jupiter.

Thanks, Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 09:18 PM
The happens, incidentally, with Jupiter 232 as well, if built. Both are going to be very difficult for a commercial launcher to compete with on a commercial launcher price determined by average cost plus profit.

But never the twain shall meet.   The Jupiter-232 won't compete with the EELV's -- it's illegal for a start.   Visa versa, the EELV's won't actually compete with the Jupiter-232 either.   It's not illegal, but it still won't happen, largely because there just isn't an existing EELV which can lift as much payload as a Jupiter-232.   They're in two totally different classes, so there is no competition anyway.   A pickup truck just isn't in the same class as an 18-wheel juggernaut.   They aren't rivals -- they actually compliment each other.

But nobody really cares because there will be more than enough work to keep everyone reasonably happy.

As my colleague Stephen Metschan said a while back;   This program shouldn't be about making any one company or even a small sub-set of companies 100% happy as was done with Ares.   It should be about making more than 80% of the industry more than 80% happy.

Everyone knows that a degree of compromise is healthy.   For example, Boeing knows that they won't ever get all the contracts.   They know that Lockheed and ATK are going to have to get a share too because the politics works behind the scenes and always will.   Visa versa all the other companies also know the same.   They know that they're fighting for the largest share they can possibly get of course, but they know there will be compromises and that the other companies are not going away.

What we're trying to do is work within that existing (largely political) framework.   We're trying to identify and present logical solutions where everybody would get a nice healthy share of the available business -- a portion they can each be happy and satisfied with, while all the others can also be happy too.

The fundamental aim is to ultimately get a collection of of companies and political support, each of which can get behind this plan as a reasonable, profitable and sound solution for their company.   If we can get each company to look at it that way, we end up with a loose consortium of like-minded companies who are willing to cooperate together in common cause, and we don't leave anyone screaming from the sidelines.   There is nothing stronger than that in this business.


Quote
Likewise, if NASA is using EELVs in large numbers to fill a depot, DOD is going to want NASA to pick up an appropriate share of their fixed costs.

That is already factored into every 'sale' already -- including all NASA flights.   The $136.2m contract to launch LRO on an Atlas-V 401 included a share to cover a portion of the fixed costs for Atlas too.   That's just SOP.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/19/2009 09:44 PM
The big problem with the SSME is that it is expensive to just toss it away after each mission.
Is there any way to recover the SSME? Jupiter has all of that extra lifting capability, couldn't some type of recovery system be developed? I'm thinking along the lines of having the SSMES attached to a pod on the bottom of Jupiter that would then be jettisoned from the core.

I'm no expert is such things, but I think the major problem with this is not designing a rocket mount that could jettison so the rocket motors could be recovered, but is that by the time you'd jettison it, you are in LEO going 17,500 MPH.  With the shuttle, the SRB's jettison really at about suborbital level, then the SSME's continue to burn with the ET to get the Shuttle to orbital velosity.  So a detatchable SSME pod at the bottom of the new ET would just burn up upon rentry.  Trying to equip it with some sort of heat shield would obviously be impractical.  With the Shuttle, you knew you could retreave the engines so you could make a more complex, high-tech engine that was expensive.

The only practical I could see to do that is to go with liquid boosters that could be throttled with expendable rocket motors, and basically the core would be burning 100% to get suborbital, with the boosters throttled back to conserve fuel, then a SSME pod could be jettisoned, and the boosters turned up for orbital insertion.  But now you can't recover your boosters as they'd burn up on reentry, so you are back to square one.
Maybe that would be a little cheaper, but likely it'd be more like a wash, with the added complexity of jettisonable engines on the core.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 09:59 PM
it can be scary how we even got this far...

I've seen some of the SRB load analysis tools used for Shuttle.   It was a really old computer simulation which must have dated back to ~1980 or so and gads knows what computer was running it, some piece of arcane wizardry no doubt.   It was pretty low-fi, but was still a mesh which you'd recognize today.   I would bet it was state-of-the-art when it was produced, but today I'm betting its one of the 'scary' things you're referring to :)


Quote
Without going into details, could you find out what parts they are making with pro-e and which parts they are using legacy FEM's for?

I've never seen it myself.   They're at MSFC, I'm in Florida.   I'm also probably not allowed to see it anyway.   But from extensive talks with the guys I understand they have worked up models for all the major elements; the SRB's, the Core Stage, the Interstage, the Upper Stage, Orion, LAS and a variety of different payload fairings too -- essentially everything we should need.   It's most definitely not detailed down to every nut & bolt, but is sub-element (LOX Tank, Intertank, LH2 tank).   Material strengths are based on current Shuttle structures, not modified ones (although the LOX tank structure is based on the LH2 tank).   My understanding is that this was done so they could get a baseline fixed in existing hardware.   They've talked me through what they're trying to do, so I 'kinda' grok it, but you probably understand the nuances of that far better than I.


Quote
And if they are using an in-house code for loads analysis?

I don't even know what those are, so I'll have to ask for you.


Quote
It's selfish, but if I know that your analysis was done well, that inspires confidence that there are no showstoppers in developing Jupiter.

I can understand that.   My only concern here is to ensure I don't give away anything which might accidentally identify them.   I don't think I have any such thing which even could, but protecting these people's identity has to be my #1 priority.   Hope you understand.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 10:07 PM
The big problem with the SSME is that it is expensive to just toss it away after each mission.
Is there any way to recover the SSME? Jupiter has all of that extra lifting capability, couldn't some type of recovery system be developed? I'm thinking along the lines of having the SSMES attached to a pod on the bottom of Jupiter that would then be jettisoned from the core.

I'm no expert is such things, but I think the major problem with this is not designing a rocket mount that could jettison so the rocket motors could be recovered, but is that by the time you'd jettison it, you are in LEO going 17,500 MPH.  With the shuttle, the SRB's jettison really at about suborbital level, then the SSME's continue to burn with the ET to get the Shuttle to orbital velosity.  So a detatchable SSME pod at the bottom of the new ET would just burn up upon rentry.  Trying to equip it with some sort of heat shield would obviously be impractical.  With the Shuttle, you knew you could retreave the engines so you could make a more complex, high-tech engine that was expensive.

The only practical I could see to do that is to go with liquid boosters that could be throttled with expendable rocket motors, and basically the core would be burning 100% to get suborbital, with the boosters throttled back to conserve fuel, then a SSME pod could be jettisoned, and the boosters turned up for orbital insertion.  But now you can't recover your boosters as they'd burn up on reentry, so you are back to square one.
Maybe that would be a little cheaper, but likely it'd be more like a wash, with the added complexity of jettisonable engines on the core.

Unfortunately all these things reduce performance and that's hurts your mission effectiveness.

We've decided to use the existing reusable boosters because they're ready-to-go and don't cost any huge sums in development terms, and the rest is (relatively) low-cost disposable hardware designed to be disposable.   It's not as fancy, but it should be reliable & safe and is intended to be affordable enough to be used a reasonably healthy number of times each year.

It might be possible to come up with a good upgrade in the future to allow J-232 Cores to be recovered, perhaps.   But we don't have to have it, so we're keeping it as simple as possible for now.   But if some bright spark figures out a way to do it without hurting Lunar performance, bring it on.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/19/2009 10:08 PM

Hi Lobo,
   Those diagrams were actually produced back around the v1.0 > v2.0 switch around in early 2007 IIRC.   They're not as up-to-date as they ought to be (I need a handful of 30 hour days!).   We were very interested in the possibility of a 2-launch LOR-LOR mission around that time, but when we ran the numbers through the computer we found that in practice, the performance wasn't so hot :(

   Essentially you lose quite a lot of total performance by having to drag the mass of the second EDS thru TLI as well.   You've got a fixed CEV mass, a variable LSAM which is dependent on the propellant/EDS mass in LEO and only a finite amount of propellant.   The extra EDS mass depletes the total payload throw mass thru TLI and results in a smaller LSAM inserted into LLO.

   There were a variety of compatible propellant transfer options to make maximum use of the throw-capacity, and there were even options considered for the EDS to perform the LOI burn in some instances (for CEV, if not for the LSAM).   But the total performance never quite reached the levels of the current connect-mode EOR-LOR approach and the LEO Propellant Depot arrangement blows its sock right off, so we set the LOR-LOR architecture aside.


   The place where that mission profile is still worth keeping in the back pocket is in case we ever develop a reusable Lander.   In that future scenario, the LSAM would be launched to Lunar Orbit by a single J-232.   It can then be used 'x' times before needing to be replaced.   It would be refueled (probably by Lunar ISRU) and so the only hardware which must travel from Earth is the Orion and whatever science packages the crew is bringing along.   Each of those missions can then also be launched on single J-232's too.

   Its just one of the many different paths which we could take in the future.   But the LOR-LOR work which we did would apply quite well to it.

Ross.

Thanks for the info Ross.  It's something I'd been thinking about, so was just wondering what the pitfalls of such an idea were.

Real quick, I keep hearing the "propellent depot" term thrown around, but must have missed the orginal discussion about it.  What's the Cliff's Note's version of that that is?  A fuel tank in LEO?  In Lunar Orbit?
Also, what are the difficulties in transferring fuel in space?  Is it done by pressure? (in which case you could only load until the tanks were equalized, leaving a lot of propellent in the source left).  Or with Turbopumps?  Would that add a lot of cost/complexity to the equipment?

The reusable Lander is an interesting idea.  No reason to expend that whole vehical every time you have a mission.  What's the status on an ISRU method of refuelling the LSAM?  A long way off?
If so, the fuel could still be brought from earth.  Perhaps the EDS could be design with enough extra propellent to refuel the LSAM upon LOR?
Meaning, if you were only boosting Orion to Lunar Orbit, would you have enough extra weight capacity on a J232 for extra tanks on the EDS for the LSAM in a single J232 launch?
That'd sure be a cost saving if you can do a full Lunar Mission with 1 launch instead of two.  And you'd forgo all LEO docking, and the whole uppersage of the J232 with EDS and Orion would boost right to LOR with the LSAM, fuel it, then jettison the EDS.
The process could be further simplified if you could fuel the LSAM through the docking ring on Orion.  Then you only need one docking maneuver on the whole trip (until returning from the surface anyway) 



Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/19/2009 10:20 PM
It might be possible to come up with a good upgrade in the future to allow J-232 Cores to be recovered, perhaps.   

Come on... you know you want to do it... you know it's the right thing to do... recycle the tanks on orbit to build a station/shipyard/depot combo near equatorial plane and scavenge the engines for reuse in orbit or to be dropped in dump boxes back to Earth... you know you want to do it...   :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/19/2009 10:34 PM

Real quick, I keep hearing the "propellent depot" term thrown around, but must have missed the orginal discussion about it.  What's the Cliff's Note's version of that that is?

Yep. The point being that it generally takes all of the propellant of the final stage of a launcher to make LEO...
but if you had prop in orbit ready to refuel that stage then it, and your very expensive spacecraft on that stage, could go a lot further a lot faster and do a lot more... a value all out of proportion to the extra cost of getting the extra fuel in orbit in the first place.

It's a very old and very simple principle, and the space scientists of 60 years ago would be shocked that we're not doing it in the 21st century... just before they died of collective apoplexy upon realizing that we still build and test our interplanetary ships on the ground.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/19/2009 10:40 PM
...there were even options considered for the EDS to perform the LOI burn in some instances (for CEV, if not for the LSAM).   But the total performance never quite reached the levels of the current connect-mode EOR-LOR approach and the LEO Propellant Depot arrangement blows its sock right off, so we set the LOR-LOR architecture aside.


Ross,

once you have a Propellant Depot, would you use this to push heavier loads through to the Lunar surface?

Would EDS then perform the LOI burn?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/19/2009 10:56 PM
But this isn't a useful subject to dwell upon.   He's gone.   None of this matters any more.   End of story.   We need to get focused on the future.


Handing down anecdotes about behaviour to underlings is one thing, but you (DIRECT) are definitely more persuasive when you stay away from past tussles.

You needed to make your point regarding an independent review, but I think you've done that now.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/19/2009 11:01 PM

This happens, incidentally, with Jupiter 232 as well, if built. Both are going to be very difficult for a commercial launcher to compete with on a commercial launcher price determined by average cost plus profit.

No commercial launcher will ever have to compete against either the Ares or the Jupiter. It is against the law for NASA to ever compete against any commercial launcher for any kind of commercial payload. None of the commercial launchers will ever have to concern themselves with this, no neither should we. It's just not in the mix and not worth bringing up.

NASA, however, is not prevented from delivering payloads to itself in LEO, and a good thing to at the current state of the art.

So NASA is still free to consider the tradeoffs between delivering propellant to a depot for its use by Ares V as opposed to other methods. If it uses the Ares V, it incurs the marginal cost. If it buys 15 Falcon 9s, it pays the price SpaceX can make a profit at, which is probably considerably more than the marginal cost of one Ares V.

EELVS will probably cost even more per ton of payload, but are operational today with demonstrated reliability, unlike Falcon 9.

This leave aside the question of tug operation between the depot and the payload delivered to LEO, which adds a lot to the cost of delivering payloads to ISS. It seems likely that 15 smaller tug missions cost more than one big one.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/19/2009 11:11 PM
Real quick, I keep hearing the "propellent depot" term thrown around, but must have missed the orginal discussion about it.  What's the Cliff's Note's version of that that is?  A fuel tank in LEO?  In Lunar Orbit?

In brief:   DIRECT's baseline mission profile uses a 'connect mode' profile in LEO.   It doesn't need any Propellant Transfer of any kind.

We plan an 'advanced upgrade' to take over as soon as the tech can be developed though.   That revolves around a Cryogenic Propellant Depot, located in LEO with a capacity somewhere between 300-400mT of LOX/LH2.

Effectively that removes the payload limitations for Lunar missions.   As long as there is sufficient fuel, you can launch more than 100mT of *dry* spacecraft on a single J-232 and fill both it and the EDS up at the Depot.   The theoretical throw-mass thru TLI is somewhere the silly side of 300mT and I can't foresee ever need the full capabilities.

But the Depot enables larger Lunar missions.   There are fair reasons to consider something like a 75mT or even a 100mT LSAM as a logical upgrade.

Better still, a Depot is a great enabler for Mars missions.   With a single Depot able to throw more than 200mT of payload at Mars, we have an architecture which will allow us to go there (and NEO's too) even before we develop any Nuclear Propulsion technologies.

Later, once we have such Nuclear Propulsion systems a slightly different Depot would be able to provide in-space refueling for them too -- allowing much greater re-usability for all the space hardware we develop purely for in-space use.   Transit Habs, Propulsion Modules, cargo containers etc. would all be reusable, not disposable.

And eventually, once we mature ISRU technologies to industrial scales, we can deploy Depot's to the moon so vehicles can top-off with LOX/LH2 there, or maybe to Mars where Methane/LOX might be a better combination.

Phobos also offers some very interesting ISRU opportunities too, and its close proximity to Mars would make it a reasonably good staging area too.


The Depot is really about creating the basic building blocks of a new infrastructure -- the National Highway System -- for accessing the entire Solar System eventually.


The best bit -- the International partners make valuable contributions by taking the costs of Propellant launches off of NASA's shoulders.   Yet the US doesn't ever have to relinquish any of the strategic 'car keys' to anyone else.   The partners all reap benefits too.   The space-faring ones in particular, also improve their own programs as well (which is their entire purpose) because they'll boost their own flight-rates too.   Everyone wins.


Quote
Also, what are the difficulties in transferring fuel in space?  Is it done by pressure? (in which case you could only load until the tanks were equalized, leaving a lot of propellent in the source left).  Or with Turbopumps?  Would that add a lot of cost/complexity to the equipment?

Apollo Applications did a huge amount of research into this.   There are quite a few different methods actually.   Each has its own set of unique pro's and con's.

The one I personally like is a simple pressure-based system.   A little of the boiled-off gas inside the tank is bled-off to be used as extremely gentle thrust (0.004g) for propellant settling to place all the fuel at one end of the tanking.   The receiver tank is essentially de-pressurized.   The delivery tank is pressurized to just 4psi -- and is maintained using helium or boiled-off gas.   By placing the receiver tank 'below' the delivery tank (in respect to the low-g thrust) and by using just a 2" OD pipe (very small indeed), this is sufficient to transfer 100 metric tons of LOX and LH2 in roughly 60 minutes.

I love the simplicity of that approach.   It wastes a tiny bit of LH2 thru the thrusting, but the forces are so small they would be of no concern to something like a CanadaArm.


Quote
The reusable Lander is an interesting idea.  No reason to expend that whole vehical every time you have a mission.  What's the status on an ISRU method of refuelling the LSAM?  A long way off?

Yes.   A long way off.   Got to get the outpost operational so they can handle all the maintenance.   Got to land the regolith sorting and storage
systems.   Got to land processing anf refinement equipment.   Got to land enough of all that so as we can make large quantities, not laboratory quantities.   Got to develop a method of getting the fuel off the Lunar surface cheaply, reliably and safely.   By the time all that is done, we can easily have the Depot ready and waiting in High Lunar Orbit.


Quote
If so, the fuel could still be brought from earth.  Perhaps the EDS could be design with enough extra propellent to refuel the LSAM upon LOR?

Leave that to commercial operators to figure out.   They'll be very innovative and cost-effective with their solutions.


Quote
Meaning, if you were only boosting Orion to Lunar Orbit, would you have enough extra weight capacity on a J232 for extra tanks on the EDS for the LSAM in a single J232 launch?

Probably not.   You could get the EDS to probably perform most, if not all, of the LOI burn though.   That's a potential efficiency to be examined more closely.


Quote
That'd sure be a cost saving if you can do a full Lunar Mission with 1 launch instead of two.  And you'd forgo all LEO docking, and the whole uppersage of the J232 with EDS and Orion would boost right to LOR with the LSAM, fuel it, then jettison the EDS.
The process could be further simplified if you could fuel the LSAM through the docking ring on Orion.  Then you only need one docking maneuver on the whole trip (until returning from the surface anyway)

The LEO Depot enables that.   It still needs to be filled -- but that's no longer a cost which the US has to pay.   In fact, it ends up being a lucrative Foreign Trade which generates new income for the US.   What's not to like? :)

The Lunar Depot is really only useful when ISRU is fully operational.   Surplus could be sent from Earth, but it ought to be self-sustaining.

Mars Depot similarly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/19/2009 11:16 PM

Ben, I need to correct a few bits there.

We propose building a 'cradle' which we refer to as an SSPDM (Space Shuttle Payload Delivery Module) which would be designed to carry one of the standard Shuttle/ISS MPLM's to orbit one last time.   The SSPDM may or may not have an integral RCS system -- specifically depending on Orion's capabilities.   The SSPDM would be a disposable unit for carrying any remaining Shuttle Payloads one last time.   Once the payload (MPLM in this case) is finished with, it would be taken away by the accompanying Orion and placed into a safe orbit where it would burn up in the atmosphere.   The Orion would safely return home alone.

The SSPDM is also planned to be the basis for launching a future Orion-based Hubble Servicing Mission somewhere in the 2014 time-frame too.   After that mission the SSPDM would either be disposed of safely, or would be fitted with its own guidance and control systems and would be placed into an orbit compatible with Hubble, but a few hundred miles distant.   There it would remain, along with all the tools needed to perform any future servicing missions, ready for an Orion crew to dock with and bring back to the telescope once again.

We always liked the idea of the un-crewed Orion being an option for cargo-only deliveries and cargo down-mass capabilities.   Theoretically at least, a cargo-only variant of Orion could still be produced -- although neither CxP nor DIRECT have a budget allocation for it in the plans at this time.   It remains an option though.

And currently our suggestion is to utilize the slightly larger Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage for the Lunar Flyby mission in December 2013 (45th anniversary of Apollo 8).   The reason being that the DIVHUS has a greater propellant load than the Centaur-V1 and therefore a higher total impulse for that mission.   A side-effect of this choice to use the Delta hardware is that together with the human-rated RS-68's, the Jupiter would cover more than half the total costs of human-rating the Delta-IV Heavy for human use -- making it a very cost-effective option to consider.

Hope that helps clarify the situation a little.

Ross.

Ross,

Thanks for the SSPDM diagram.
Quick question, would the J120 have enough power to boost it directly to the ISS?  Or would Orion specifally have to flip, dock, and boost with it's engine?  Not that that'd be problem, rather it'd be required for certain misssion profiles.  Just wondering if Orion could get there with the whole J120 upperstage in tact, dock with the ISS, then open the shrowd and the ISS manipulator arm could extract the payload from the SSPDM.
For such a mission it wouldn't need the airlock or arm then?
Just wondering if it would be easier to eliminate a docking maneuver if you could for ISS missions.  For Satillite servicing missions it'd of course need the airlock and arm.  Save those costs on an expendable SSPDM "tray" if you can was my thought.
Or would Orion need a SM engine burn or otherwise need to shed the shrowd getting to the ISS? 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jorge on 01/19/2009 11:26 PM

Quick question, would the J120 have enough power to boost it directly to the ISS?  Or would Orion specifally have to flip, dock, and boost with it's engine?

It is not an issue of "power." The J-120 is a launch vehicle, not a spacecraft. It lacks capabilities for relative navigation, rendezvous targeting, guidance, and the precise control needed to perform rendezvous and prox ops with the station. A spacecraft/tug with the above capabilities, such as Orion is required in order to bring the SSPDM safely into proximity with the station.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mike robel on 01/19/2009 11:34 PM
Well, I did a little bit of modeling,  assuming we want to fuel the Jupiter EDS with 248,000 pounds of fuel, assumeing that the Falcon 9H, Atlas 5H are now available, that the Soyuz Fregat launches from French Guina, and that the Delta II is still in service, that you could fuel the things with

1 Atlas V Heavy
1 Atlas V 551
1 Delta IV HEAVY
2 Delta 2 7920H
1 Airane v
1 Soyuz Fregat

At a launch cost of about 1.26 Billion dollars at current launch prices.  With a 15% profit, it would run you about 1.5 Billion bucks to send the fuel up.

the launch vehicles were chosen based on being able to rapid fire them to get them into orbit to minimize boil off, and minimizing the launches from one pad.

8 Falcon 9H + a Delta 7920H would cut that cost by about 1/2 billion dollars, but the launch campaign would probably require 8 Months, assuming a minimum of 30 day turnaround time.  Maybe with smart processing, it could be reduced to 4...

Just my thoughts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/20/2009 12:04 AM

Quick question, would the J120 have enough power to boost it directly to the ISS?  Or would Orion specifally have to flip, dock, and boost with it's engine?

It is not an issue of "power." The J-120 is a launch vehicle, not a spacecraft. It lacks capabilities for relative navigation, rendezvous targeting, guidance, and the precise control needed to perform rendezvous and prox ops with the station. A spacecraft/tug with the above capabilities, such as Orion is required in order to bring the SSPDM safely into proximity with the station.

Well, what I mean is this.  Just from a boosting and velosity standpoint, will the J120 give the payload enough to get it to the ISS?  Or will it require extra burns to get it there?
If not, I was wondering if you could leave the whole Orion/shroud/SSPDM assembly intact as you catch up to the ISS.  Orion's OMS would still be able to opereate to make course changes and slow down when it gets in ISS proximity.  Then it could dock with the ISS and the CanadaArm could open the shrud and remove the payload Similar to how the Shuttle does it. (unless you need a second manipulator arm on the SSPDM to do this).

And the only reason I mention this is a curiosity of the complexity of an ISS mission to deliver a new module.  Otherwise, you'd have to jettison the shrowd (or open it like Apollo did when extracting the LEM), flip the Orion and dock with the SSPDM, then flip Orion/SSPDM assembly again so Orion can use the SM engine to perform a burn.  once at the ISS, Orion would have to undock with the SSPDM, and then redock with the ISS.  Meanwhile, the ISS arm can attach to the SSPDM or the payload, but not both.  So if it captures the SSPDM so Orion can undock and redock with the station, how do you get payload out of the SSPDM?
With the Shuttle, the shuttle docks so it's payload bay is hardlocked to the ISS, then the manipulator arms of the ISS and Shuttle can remove the payload.
Of Orion is docked to the ISS, it's no longer docked to the SSPDM.  SO it seems there'd be a desire to be able to harddock to the ISS, and have the SSPDM thus locked too, so the payload can be removed.  Then the SSPDM could be jettisoned.
Perhaps the shroud could be jettisoned before it reached the ISS, but the SSPDM would still be rigidly attached to Orion, so Orion could maneuver it into the ISS.  But that wouldn't work if a main engine burn from Orion was required to get it to the ISS.

Make sense? 

Another option would be a docking ring on the opposite side of the SSPDM that could dock with the ISS while the payload was removed.  But the astronauts would be stuck in Orion while that was going on.  Then Orion would have to back out the SSPDM, jettison it, then redock with the ISS.  Seems like a lot of maneuvers overall.  Seems like it's be easier if Orion could just "tow" (not accually towing because it couldn't fire it's main engine) it to the ISS rather than "push" it there.

I know Ross was mentioning earlier that with Ares 1, Orion would have to do a SM burn to get it to the ISS.  Didn't know if that's the case with the J120.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jorge on 01/20/2009 12:40 AM

Quick question, would the J120 have enough power to boost it directly to the ISS?  Or would Orion specifally have to flip, dock, and boost with it's engine?

It is not an issue of "power." The J-120 is a launch vehicle, not a spacecraft. It lacks capabilities for relative navigation, rendezvous targeting, guidance, and the precise control needed to perform rendezvous and prox ops with the station. A spacecraft/tug with the above capabilities, such as Orion is required in order to bring the SSPDM safely into proximity with the station.

Well, what I mean is this.  Just from a boosting and velosity standpoint, will the J120 give the payload enough to get it to the ISS?  Or will it require extra burns to get it there?

In terms of pure orbital height, I'm pretty sure it can, though it may depend on the mass of the payload in the SSPDM.

But the ISS program establishes two boundaries, the Approach Ellipsoid and the Keep-Out-Sphere, within which visiting vehicles are not allowed until they meet certain requirements. And one of those requirements is that, starting with the first burn that takes the trajectory into the Approach Ellipsoid, all burns must be actively guided. That means the Orion, and not the J-120, must perform those burns. There are also rules about debris hazards that would preclude jettisoning the shroud while in proximity to ISS. So my take on it is that the shroud must be jettisoned prior to entering the approach ellipsoid.

Quote
If not, I was wondering if you could leave the whole Orion/shroud/SSPDM assembly intact as you catch up to the ISS.  Orion's OMS would still be able to opereate to make course changes and slow down when it gets in ISS proximity.

I don't think that's possible. The drawings I've seen from the DIRECT proposal is that the SSPDM would be mounted below the Orion OMS in the shroud. Therefore it would not be possible for the Orion to perform OMS burns until it has jettisoned with the shroud, transposed, and docked with the SSPDM.

Quote
  Then it could dock with the ISS and the CanadaArm could open the shrud and remove the payload Similar to how the Shuttle does it. (unless you need a second manipulator arm on the SSPDM to do this).

And the only reason I mention this is a curiosity of the complexity of an ISS mission to deliver a new module.  Otherwise, you'd have to jettison the shrowd (or open it like Apollo did when extracting the LEM),

I think you have that backward. The Apollo SLA panels only hinged open on flights without the LM. On all the LM flights the SLA panels were jettisoned to prevent them from interfering with LM extraction.

Quote
I know Ross was mentioning earlier that with Ares 1, Orion would have to do a SM burn to get it to the ISS.  Didn't know if that's the case with the J120.

It will be the case with the J120. Regardless of launch vehicle, all rendezvous burns would be performed by the Orion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/20/2009 12:56 AM
The big problem with the SSME is that it is expensive to just toss it away after each mission.
Is there any way to recover the SSME? Jupiter has all of that extra lifting capability, couldn't some type of recovery system be developed? I'm thinking along the lines of having the SSMES attached to a pod on the bottom of Jupiter that would then be jettisoned from the core.

Something like this is possible, but it's difficult to make it cost-effective. Something similar was proposed for Boeing's original EELV bid.

Making the pod separable adds mass. Adding a heat shield for the pod to survive reentry adds mass. So do parachutes. Recovery equipment to survive a salt water splashdown or allow mid-air recovery add mass. All these reduce payload.

Recovering the pod and reconditioning it for a new flight add nontrivial costs.

A recoverable pod also make development more complex and costly.

If flight rates were high enough it might pay, but no launcher company has yet been convinced that it works for them.

HLV launchers like Jupiter and Ares V will find it particularly diificult to justify high flight rates.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2009 01:36 AM
The Jupiter-120 has the ability to do either:
1. Execute MECO while still "barely" suborbital with Orion doing the final orbital insertion, just like shuttle. This allows for atmospheric disposal of the ET without a de-orbit burn on the ET. This is fine if there is no payload, such as the SSPDM. But if there is, this is problematic because Orion would only have a matter of minutes to detach, translate, dock with the payload module, extract the payload module, translate again and ignite the SM engine to do the orbital insertion burn. This can certainly be done but it is on the hairy edge of timing and would need perfect execution.
2. Insert itself and the spacecraft directly into a circular orbit of the correct altitude and inclination. This gives Orion all the time it needs to detach, translate, dock with the payload module, extract the payload module and translate again before doing a translation burn to catch up with the ISS. Ulage motors can then fire on the ET to de-orbit it for atmospheric disposal, the same as Saturn.

The SSPDM has an airlock on the end where it attaches to Orion, with a docking collar at 90 degrees to the spacecraft centerline. This is what would be used to dock to the station in exactly the same manner as Shuttle does now. Payloads would be extracted from the module in exactly the same way as they are done currently with the station arm.

When the mission is over, Orion departs the station, executes the de-orbit burn, and then jettisons the SSPDM and the SM prior to re-entry, the same way Soyuz decouples. Unlike Soyuz however, explosive bolts are not used. This is a docking collar that essentially only needs to be unlocked and pushed away with springs. That's how it is envisioned. How NASA would actually design and use the SSPDM is up to them.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/20/2009 05:00 AM
{snip}
I know Ross was mentioning earlier that with Ares 1, Orion would have to do a SM burn to get it to the ISS.  Didn't know if that's the case with the J120.

All spacecraft need to use their engines to dock.  This is similar to using first gear to pack a car.  One of the problems with Ares I is the Orion SM also has to use its engine to get to LEO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/20/2009 05:25 AM

All spacecraft need to use their engines to dock.  This is similar to using first gear to pack a car.  One of the problems with Ares I is the Orion SM also has to use its engine to get to LEO.

I was thinking that was what Lobo was recalling. But as you say the actual reference was to the fact that Ares-1, at the end of its second stage burn, delivers Orion to a final trajectory that ends up parking the Orion 11 miles underground... forcing the Orion SM to waste its own fuel doing a "third stage" burn.

Which makes for more silliness.... an actual Ares-1 third stage!... ....what?... what do you mean it's baselined for 2018?...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: sandrot on 01/20/2009 05:51 AM
[...]

Which makes for more silliness.... an actual Ares-1 third stage!... ....what?... what do you mean it's baselined for 2018?...

Delta v provided by Orion for orbit insertion is not so different from delta v provided by OMS during shuttle orbit insertion. Get your facts, no 3rd stage...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kkattula on 01/20/2009 06:25 AM
[...]

Which makes for more silliness.... an actual Ares-1 third stage!... ....what?... what do you mean it's baselined for 2018?...

Delta v provided by Orion for orbit insertion is not so different from delta v provided by OMS during shuttle orbit insertion. Get your facts, no 3rd stage...

IIRC, it's about one third greater.

However Shuttle OMS is also often used during main engine burn to augment the SSME's. So Shuttle OMS is really the third stage on this supposed SSTO. ;)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: sandrot on 01/20/2009 06:33 AM
IIRC it's closer to 1/5th greater. US must be discarded just like ET...

AND we don't like popcorns on orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/20/2009 07:19 AM
But the Ares-1 numbers at all-burnt can't-do-any-better are a perigee ~-61 miles lower than shuttle, the last 11 of those being underground (or underwater...)

The danger is not popcorns, as popcorns are not in the picture for Ares-1. The danger is groundhogs (or giant squids...)

And the shuttle numbers are voluntary, as the ET could theoretically power the orbiter all the way up to orbit at no danger to the mission. (The current mission that is, the resultant popcorns and hazards to later missions from such an action are another story...)

(Hmmm... and what are the percentages of total available delta v for the shuttle OMS vs the Aries-1 launched Orion SM that are eaten by this maneuver?)

So at this time, when the Ares-1 launched Orion is desperately evading giant squids... I still think it's a third stage :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2009 11:27 AM
Shuttle OMS burn for orbital insertion is voluntary.
Shuttle SSME with ET attached is capable of placing Shuttle into a stable orbit. STS chooses not to do that to enable a simple atmospheric disposal of the ET, but it doesn't have to.

Here's the difference:

Launched by Ares-I, Orion 1st SM burn is IN-voluntary because:
Ares-I SECO with empy tanks *cannot* place Orion into a stable orbit.
Orion 1st SM burn is designed to get Orion to the point where the 2nd SM burn can do an orbital insertion.
Therefore Orion's 1st SM  burn functions as a launch vehicle burn to make up for Ares-I inability.
Therefore Orion's 1st SM burn is a launch vehicle third stage burn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/20/2009 11:48 AM
I think the numbers are more important than the semantics.
How much SM propellant is used up in achieving a stable orbit?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/20/2009 11:58 AM
[...]

Which makes for more silliness.... an actual Ares-1 third stage!... ....what?... what do you mean it's baselined for 2018?...

Delta v provided by Orion for orbit insertion is not so different from delta v provided by OMS during shuttle orbit insertion. Get your facts, no 3rd stage...

And the OMS is a 3rd stage of the shuttle.  Get your facts straight
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/20/2009 12:31 PM
I took a few days off from reading this thread and it looks like I came back to a heated discussion about SM and OMS.

All of the speculation about Ares and Direct and Ares V changing back to SSME has had me thinking about all of the combination of equipment and problems with cost and schedule.

It leaves me, possibly as a population of 1, supporting using the NLS designs of old.  Existing 4 segment boosters, SSMEs and ET diameter and tooling.  There is nothing to develop or manrate.  The tank would be redesigned and developed but you don't need to put hundreds of millions (lets face it billions) into manrating the RS-68 or 5 segment boosters.

Over time you can evolve the SSME to a cheaper disposable model and 5 segment boosters.

It's the least amount of development.

As I posted in the Ares 1 efficiency thread, the new vehicle needs to get flying ASAP.  Delays cost money and increases questions and doubts.

That is all.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Yegor on 01/20/2009 01:08 PM
If a launch vehicle is used to do both kind of launches crew or cargo, does it increase safety?

For example Russian Soyuz LV used to launch crew but it also used to launch cargo so the crew was launched in some 1 out of 4 launches of Soyuz LV. Several years ago there was Soyuz LV accident during cargo launch. So the probability of accident during a crew launch is just 1 out of 4 or four times smaller.

Accidents happen occasionally even with US launchers - there was Atlas V Centaur accident couple of years ago.

I think that it adds to DIRECT safety.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/20/2009 01:27 PM
[...]

Which makes for more silliness.... an actual Ares-1 third stage!... ....what?... what do you mean it's baselined for 2018?...

Delta v provided by Orion for orbit insertion is not so different from delta v provided by OMS during shuttle orbit insertion. Get your facts, no 3rd stage...

And the OMS is a 3rd stage of the shuttle.  Get your facts straight

With most other systems the boosters are considered the 0 stage and the core would be the 1st stage, so wouldnt that make the OMS burn the 2nd stage?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/20/2009 01:40 PM
Well, I did a little bit of modeling,  assuming we want to fuel the Jupiter EDS with 248,000 pounds of fuel, assumeing that the Falcon 9H, Atlas 5H are now available, that the Soyuz Fregat launches from French Guina, and that the Delta II is still in service, that you could fuel the things with

1 Atlas V Heavy
1 Atlas V 551
1 Delta IV HEAVY
2 Delta 2 7920H
1 Airane v
1 Soyuz Fregat

At a launch cost of about 1.26 Billion dollars at current launch prices.  With a 15% profit, it would run you about 1.5 Billion bucks to send the fuel up.

Just my thoughts.

That gets you to orbit, but not to the depot. That final step requires a tug of some kind.

Current state of the art is an attached, single use tug, which seems to cost about as much as the launch.

A reusable tug is certainly possible, but more complex and more expensive to develop. At a high flight rate it would cost less than an expendable tug, but the operating costs are uncertain. At a minimum, you'd need to bring up more propellant to refuel the tug.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jorge on 01/20/2009 01:40 PM
Shuttle OMS burn for orbital insertion is voluntary.
Shuttle SSME with ET attached is capable of placing Shuttle into a stable orbit. STS chooses not to do that to enable a simple atmospheric disposal of the ET, but it doesn't have to.

Incorrect. That would require an SSME restart at apogee (nominal OMS-2 position) and the current SSME is incapable of in-flight restart.

There is nothing "voluntary" about OMS-2, unless you like AOA aborts.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Oberon_Command on 01/20/2009 01:46 PM
Shuttle OMS burn for orbital insertion is voluntary.
Shuttle SSME with ET attached is capable of placing Shuttle into a stable orbit. STS chooses not to do that to enable a simple atmospheric disposal of the ET, but it doesn't have to.

Incorrect. That would require an SSME restart at apogee (nominal OMS-2 position) and the current SSME is incapable of in-flight restart.

There is nothing "voluntary" about OMS-2, unless you like AOA aborts.


You're saying that the shuttle can't insert itself into orbit straight off the pad by flying a different trajectory that doesn't require an OMS-2 or equivalent burn? Why not?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2009 02:09 PM
Shuttle OMS burn for orbital insertion is voluntary.
Shuttle SSME with ET attached is capable of placing Shuttle into a stable orbit. STS chooses not to do that to enable a simple atmospheric disposal of the ET, but it doesn't have to.

Incorrect. That would require an SSME restart at apogee (nominal OMS-2 position) and the current SSME is incapable of in-flight restart.

There is nothing "voluntary" about OMS-2, unless you like AOA aborts.


I said a stable orbit, not a useful orbit. Shuttle is "capable" of achieving orbit without an OMS burn, as opposed to "requiring" an OMS burn because of the SSME/ET being incapable of it, as is the sitiation with Ares-I.

That's the difference. Shuttle does not *HAVE* to do an OMS burn to achieve orbit, but Ares-I/Orion DOES.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/20/2009 02:24 PM
I said a stable orbit, not a useful orbit.

You also said this:

Quote
Insert itself and the spacecraft directly into a circular orbit of the correct altitude and inclination.

How is that accomplished with J-120?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: William Barton on 01/20/2009 02:34 PM
I am a little confused by the 3rd-stage debate going on here. Doubtless, this is due to my deficient knowledge, so I'm asking for a little enlightenment here. I understand a cicularization burn is done often at apogee, which has the effect of raising the perigee, but is that actually required? And if required for perfectly circular orbits, certainly not for stable eliptical orbits in which the perigee is above the sensible atmosphere? Sputnik I and Atlas SCORE were both put in orbit by 1.5-stage LVs, for example. And Skylab was put aloft by a 2-stage Saturn that had no restart capability. So what am I not getting here? A two-stage LV ought to be able to follow a synergy-curve trajectory that gets it into something pretty close to a circular orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/20/2009 02:41 PM
Shuttle OMS burn for orbital insertion is voluntary.
Shuttle SSME with ET attached is capable of placing Shuttle into a stable orbit. STS chooses not to do that to enable a simple atmospheric disposal of the ET, but it doesn't have to.

Incorrect. That would require an SSME restart at apogee (nominal OMS-2 position) and the current SSME is incapable of in-flight restart.

There is nothing "voluntary" about OMS-2, unless you like AOA aborts.


Jorge - is the STS system capable of orbit (w/ET attached, since that seems to be part of the debate) without an OMS-2 if you're willing to accept an elliptical orbit?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/20/2009 02:44 PM
I said a stable orbit, not a useful orbit.

You also said this:

Quote
Insert itself and the spacecraft directly into a circular orbit of the correct altitude and inclination.

How is that accomplished with J-120?

I'm no expert (indeed, I only have minimal knowledge).  However, if someone were to ask me to plan such a flight, I'd do something like this.

I would launch the J-120 into an unstable elliptical insertion orbit that re-enters the atmosphere on the other side of apogee (say about 135nm apogee, 50nm perigee).  The apogee should be as close as is practical to the final mission orbit altitude.  The Orion seperates from the LV, coasts up to apogee and fires its SMME (Service Module Main Engine) at that point to circularise the orbit.  The J-120 and payload fairing (not to mention any loose insulation), having not changed orbit, would hit the atmosphere at a moderate angle and burn up.

The other orbit option for the J-120 is to push all the way up to the best circular orbit available, seperate and then deorbit the LV using retros (basically ulage thrusters pointing the wrong way).  The Orion, which has sufficient fuel for the ROI burn from Low Lunar Orbit, is then free to use its SMME to make whatever orbit altitude control burns as the mission plan requires.

@ William Barton

It all depends on what you want to do with the mission and what the perigee altitude is. 

As has been pointed out, the perigee after AIUS burn is actually below mean sea level on Earth, so the next burn to raise the perigee is not only desirable, it is mission critical.  On the other hand, many early manned spaceflights deliberately used lop-sided orbits with a very low perigee to ensure that, should the de-orbit retros fail, the vehicle's orbit would automatically decay and allow the crew to return in a hair-raising but survivable ballistic re-entry.

Lop-sided insertion orbits are also useful as they allow you to sneak in a much higher orbit than would normally be possible with the LV.  I gave an example above.  In summary, you launch into an unstable decaying orbit with a high apogee and use a circularisation burn at the apogee to 'steal' a higher stable orbit than would be possible with the LV alone.  The shuttle currently uses this strategy, unless I am badly misinformed.

It is true that any LV could, theoetically, offer a circular orbit at the end of its burn.  However, given that Ares-I's planned post-US trajectory will be 100 (apogee) x -11 (perigee), I would imagine that a circular or near-circular trajectory for the type would be uncomfortably deep inside the upper atmosphere.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/20/2009 03:09 PM
So what am I not getting here? A two-stage LV ought to be able to follow a synergy-curve trajectory that gets it into something pretty close to a circular orbit.

Currently the Ares-1 lofts the Orion into trajectory that winds up with the Orion crew battling either the Mole People or the inhabitants of R'lyeh.

The Orion SM OMS must burn to complete the Ares-1 task of lofting the OMS far enough to do its job... It must act as a third stage of Ares-1 before it can act as an OMS.

I think it's is a valid criticism of Ares-1 as Orion and its SM was supposed use that fuel for their tasks as a spaceship...  not as a makeshift upper stage.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jorge on 01/20/2009 03:27 PM
Shuttle OMS burn for orbital insertion is voluntary.
Shuttle SSME with ET attached is capable of placing Shuttle into a stable orbit. STS chooses not to do that to enable a simple atmospheric disposal of the ET, but it doesn't have to.

Incorrect. That would require an SSME restart at apogee (nominal OMS-2 position) and the current SSME is incapable of in-flight restart.

There is nothing "voluntary" about OMS-2, unless you like AOA aborts.


You're saying that the shuttle can't insert itself into orbit straight off the pad by flying a different trajectory that doesn't require an OMS-2 or equivalent burn? Why not?

With the current trajectory, MECO is performed at 52 nmi and post-MECO perigee is 30 nmi, both well within the atmosphere. The ascent trajectory is shaped that way not just to provide for ET disposal, but to maximize intact abort capability.

Yes, you could fly a more lofted trajectory that places both MECO and the post-MECO perigee above Min HP (85 nmi). But that would greatly increase black zones in the event of engine failures. That would never be done. Saying that OMS-2 is "voluntary" may be theoretically true but it has nothing to do with the real world whatsoever.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 01/20/2009 03:29 PM
Thanks, Jorge.  That answers my question too.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kkattula on 01/20/2009 03:32 PM
...
It is true that any LV could, theoetically, offer a circular orbit at the end of its burn.  However, given that Ares-I's planned post-US trajectory will be 100 (apogee) x -11 (perigee), I would imagine that a circular or near-circular trajectory for the type would be uncomfortably deep inside the upper atmosphere.

Yep, and there's the crux.  A circulization burn at Ares I insertion orbit apogee is NOT going to achieve a useful orbit. It would probably decay very quickly.

IIRC, Apollo used a temporary parking orbit of about 100 nm. But not for very long.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2009 03:40 PM
Shuttle OMS burn for orbital insertion is voluntary.
Shuttle SSME with ET attached is capable of placing Shuttle into a stable orbit. STS chooses not to do that to enable a simple atmospheric disposal of the ET, but it doesn't have to.

Incorrect. That would require an SSME restart at apogee (nominal OMS-2 position) and the current SSME is incapable of in-flight restart.

There is nothing "voluntary" about OMS-2, unless you like AOA aborts.


You're saying that the shuttle can't insert itself into orbit straight off the pad by flying a different trajectory that doesn't require an OMS-2 or equivalent burn? Why not?

With the current trajectory, MECO is performed at 52 nmi and post-MECO perigee is 30 nmi, both well within the atmosphere. The ascent trajectory is shaped that way not just to provide for ET disposal, but to maximize intact abort capability.

Yes, you could fly a more lofted trajectory that places both MECO and the post-MECO perigee above Min HP (85 nmi). But that would greatly increase black zones in the event of engine failures. That would never be done. Saying that OMS-2 is "voluntary" may be theoretically true but it has nothing to do with the real world whatsoever.

Jorge
That's my point.
With Shuttle it is possible to achieve orbit without an OMS burn. It's not an optimal orbit at all but is possible - direct insertion.
With Ares-I/Orion direct insertion is not possible- the LV is not capable of it.
Orion must use it's own SM engine to even reach the point where a second SM burn can do an orbital insertion.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/20/2009 03:51 PM
The Jupiter-120 has the ability to do either:
1. Execute MECO while still "barely" suborbital with Orion doing the final orbital insertion, just like shuttle. This allows for atmospheric disposal of the ET without a de-orbit burn on the ET. This is fine if there is no payload, such as the SSPDM. But if there is, this is problematic because Orion would only have a matter of minutes to detach, translate, dock with the payload module, extract the payload module, translate again and ignite the SM engine to do the orbital insertion burn. This can certainly be done but it is on the hairy edge of timing and would need perfect execution.
2. Insert itself and the spacecraft directly into a circular orbit of the correct altitude and inclination. This gives Orion all the time it needs to detach, translate, dock with the payload module, extract the payload module and translate again before doing a translation burn to catch up with the ISS. Ulage motors can then fire on the ET to de-orbit it for atmospheric disposal, the same as Saturn.

The SSPDM has an airlock on the end where it attaches to Orion, with a docking collar at 90 degrees to the spacecraft centerline. This is what would be used to dock to the station in exactly the same manner as Shuttle does now. Payloads would be extracted from the module in exactly the same way as they are done currently with the station arm.

When the mission is over, Orion departs the station, executes the de-orbit burn, and then jettisons the SSPDM and the SM prior to re-entry, the same way Soyuz decouples. Unlike Soyuz however, explosive bolts are not used. This is a docking collar that essentially only needs to be unlocked and pushed away with springs. That's how it is envisioned. How NASA would actually design and use the SSPDM is up to them.

Ahhhhhhhh....

Now I feel stupid, yea, that makes perfect sense.  Dock the SSPDM/Orion assembly at a 90 deg. angle like the Shuttle.  Then it's harddocked to the station so the CanadaArm can extract the payload, and the Astronauts can debark.  I didn't catch that on the Concept 2 Direct diagram.

As far as the burn issue, thanks for clearing that up.  I'd figured there'd be something along that lines, but not expert enough to know the finer points.  Sounds like option #2 with the Ullage motors performing the deorbit burn is the way to go as far as safety margin goes. 
How much weight to the Ulage motors add I wonder...Jupiter has enough lifting margin in it though that I wouldn't expect it to be a problem.

Conversely, you could have a autonomous SSPDM with an OMS sytem and rear engine on it that could get to the ISS without Orion, and that wouldn't need the ullage motors.  Basically a SSPDM with a SM already attached to the back, less all the life support hardware.  Then you don't need to worry about transition at all.  However, there's money to be saved by just having -one- J120 launch that'd take care of both a cargo delivery, crew rotation. (would a crewed Orion also deliver perishable supplies?) 
And if the SSPDM can deliver 18 or more tons of cargo, then it can handle any module that was delivered originally on the shuttle.  (Heck, if it could do 21 tons, it could replace anything launched on the Proton)  And something tells me that a J120 launch with Orion and an expendable SSPDM wouldn't be more than 50-60% of a Shuttle launch when you account for all the Shuttle refurbishing between flights.

As a quick aside on that (and I'm sure it's somewhere in one of the threads somewhere).  What's the average current cost of a Shuttle flight, considering all shuttle prep and refurbishing, vs. a reasonable projected cost for J120, adding in the cost of Orion?
Total cost vs. total cost, leaving out any payload costs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: sandrot on 01/20/2009 04:21 PM

Jorge
That's my point.
With Shuttle it is possible to achieve orbit without an OMS burn. It's not an optimal orbit at all but is possible - direct insertion.
With Ares-I/Orion direct insertion is not possible- the LV is not capable of it.
Orion must use it's own SM engine to even reach the point where a second SM burn can do an orbital insertion.

Before calling it, I'd check how much of the reserves of ET and respectively Ares I US you should use to reach a stable orbit.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: DLK on 01/20/2009 04:33 PM
With most other systems the boosters are considered the 0 stage and the core would be the 1st stage, so wouldnt that make the OMS burn the 2nd stage?

Perhaps, if you hear the controller say "OMS-1 required", then you could consider this to be true.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/20/2009 05:00 PM
Ah, these are the little nuggets. Someone asks the right questions when one of the DIRECT guys happens to be feeling in an expansive mood, and we get a whole load of figures and later-phase possibilities which I don't think I've seen before - 75/100mT LSAM's, 200mT to Mars, Phobos, etc.


As for the method to fill the propellant depot - that is just so simple !!!

The thrust will (more than) keep the depot boosted, too.


I do have concerns about other nations filling the depot. Lots of glory in contributing to the first flight, will the supply of fuel dwindle by the tenth?



Real quick, I keep hearing the "propellent depot" term thrown around, but must have missed the orginal discussion about it.  What's the Cliff's Note's version of that that is?  A fuel tank in LEO?  In Lunar Orbit?

In brief:   DIRECT's baseline mission profile uses a 'connect mode' profile in LEO.   It doesn't need any Propellant Transfer of any kind.

We plan an 'advanced upgrade' to take over as soon as the tech can be developed though.   That revolves around a Cryogenic Propellant Depot, located in LEO with a capacity somewhere between 300-400mT of LOX/LH2.

Effectively that removes the payload limitations for Lunar missions.   As long as there is sufficient fuel, you can launch more than 100mT of *dry* spacecraft on a single J-232 and fill both it and the EDS up at the Depot.   The theoretical throw-mass thru TLI is somewhere the silly side of 300mT and I can't foresee ever need the full capabilities.

But the Depot enables larger Lunar missions.   There are fair reasons to consider something like a 75mT or even a 100mT LSAM as a logical upgrade.

Better still, a Depot is a great enabler for Mars missions.   With a single Depot able to throw more than 200mT of payload at Mars, we have an architecture which will allow us to go there (and NEO's too) even before we develop any Nuclear Propulsion technologies.

Later, once we have such Nuclear Propulsion systems a slightly different Depot would be able to provide in-space refueling for them too -- allowing much greater re-usability for all the space hardware we develop purely for in-space use.   Transit Habs, Propulsion Modules, cargo containers etc. would all be reusable, not disposable.

And eventually, once we mature ISRU technologies to industrial scales, we can deploy Depot's to the moon so vehicles can top-off with LOX/LH2 there, or maybe to Mars where Methane/LOX might be a better combination.

Phobos also offers some very interesting ISRU opportunities too, and its close proximity to Mars would make it a reasonably good staging area too.


The Depot is really about creating the basic building blocks of a new infrastructure -- the National Highway System -- for accessing the entire Solar System eventually.


The best bit -- the International partners make valuable contributions by taking the costs of Propellant launches off of NASA's shoulders.   Yet the US doesn't ever have to relinquish any of the strategic 'car keys' to anyone else.   The partners all reap benefits too.   The space-faring ones in particular, also improve their own programs as well (which is their entire purpose) because they'll boost their own flight-rates too.   Everyone wins.


Quote
Also, what are the difficulties in transferring fuel in space?  Is it done by pressure? (in which case you could only load until the tanks were equalized, leaving a lot of propellent in the source left).  Or with Turbopumps?  Would that add a lot of cost/complexity to the equipment?

Apollo Applications did a huge amount of research into this.   There are quite a few different methods actually.   Each has its own set of unique pro's and con's.

The one I personally like is a simple pressure-based system.   A little of the boiled-off gas inside the tank is bled-off to be used as extremely gentle thrust (0.004g) for propellant settling to place all the fuel at one end of the tanking.   The receiver tank is essentially de-pressurized.   The delivery tank is pressurized to just 4psi -- and is maintained using helium or boiled-off gas.   By placing the receiver tank 'below' the delivery tank (in respect to the low-g thrust) and by using just a 2" OD pipe (very small indeed), this is sufficient to transfer 100 metric tons of LOX and LH2 in roughly 60 minutes.

I love the simplicity of that approach.   It wastes a tiny bit of LH2 thru the thrusting, but the forces are so small they would be of no concern to something like a CanadaArm.


Quote
The reusable Lander is an interesting idea.  No reason to expend that whole vehical every time you have a mission.  What's the status on an ISRU method of refuelling the LSAM?  A long way off?

Yes.   A long way off.   Got to get the outpost operational so they can handle all the maintenance.   Got to land the regolith sorting and storage
systems.   Got to land processing anf refinement equipment.   Got to land enough of all that so as we can make large quantities, not laboratory quantities.   Got to develop a method of getting the fuel off the Lunar surface cheaply, reliably and safely.   By the time all that is done, we can easily have the Depot ready and waiting in High Lunar Orbit.


Quote
If so, the fuel could still be brought from earth.  Perhaps the EDS could be design with enough extra propellent to refuel the LSAM upon LOR?

Leave that to commercial operators to figure out.   They'll be very innovative and cost-effective with their solutions.


Quote
Meaning, if you were only boosting Orion to Lunar Orbit, would you have enough extra weight capacity on a J232 for extra tanks on the EDS for the LSAM in a single J232 launch?

Probably not.   You could get the EDS to probably perform most, if not all, of the LOI burn though.   That's a potential efficiency to be examined more closely.


Quote
That'd sure be a cost saving if you can do a full Lunar Mission with 1 launch instead of two.  And you'd forgo all LEO docking, and the whole uppersage of the J232 with EDS and Orion would boost right to LOR with the LSAM, fuel it, then jettison the EDS.
The process could be further simplified if you could fuel the LSAM through the docking ring on Orion.  Then you only need one docking maneuver on the whole trip (until returning from the surface anyway)

The LEO Depot enables that.   It still needs to be filled -- but that's no longer a cost which the US has to pay.   In fact, it ends up being a lucrative Foreign Trade which generates new income for the US.   What's not to like? :)

The Lunar Depot is really only useful when ISRU is fully operational.   Surplus could be sent from Earth, but it ought to be self-sustaining.

Mars Depot similarly.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2009 05:03 PM

Before calling it, I'd check how much of the reserves of ET and respectively Ares I US you should use to reach a stable orbit.

sandrot - Ares-I cannot insert to any kind of a stable orbit, optimal or not, if the payload is an Orion spacecraft. The AIUS propellant tanks are bone dry while the vehicle is still *very* suborbital. That's why the Orion SM engine must burn to complete the ascent.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: sandrot on 01/20/2009 05:21 PM
sandrot - Ares-I cannot insert to any kind of a stable orbit, optimal or not, if the payload is an Orion spacecraft. The AIUS propellant tanks are bone dry while the vehicle is still *very* suborbital. That's why the Orion SM engine must burn to complete the ascent.

AFAIK your assertion is incorrect. There has always to be fuel left at staging.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2009 05:47 PM
sandrot - Ares-I cannot insert to any kind of a stable orbit, optimal or not, if the payload is an Orion spacecraft. The AIUS propellant tanks are bone dry while the vehicle is still *very* suborbital. That's why the Orion SM engine must burn to complete the ascent.

AFAIK your assertion is incorrect. There has always to be fuel left at staging.

"Bone Dry" may be a little subjective - there's probably a little still left in the supply line. They cut it off to prevent the engine from self distruct by a sudden loss of a correct mixture of LH2/LOX. But the premise of the post is accurate. Ares-I cannot insert Orion into LEO without an Orion SM burn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/20/2009 05:53 PM
1 Atlas V Heavy
1 Atlas V 551
1 Delta IV HEAVY
2 Delta 2 7920H
1 Airane v
1 Soyuz Fregat

At a launch cost of about 1.26 Billion dollars at current launch prices.  With a 15% profit, it would run you about 1.5 Billion bucks to send the fuel up.

It would be so much cheaper to use more flights of fewer vehicles.  Perhaps multiples of Atlas V and Delta 4 combined.  Higher flight rate drives down cost.  Ideally you would use one vehicle and fly much more often.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/20/2009 05:54 PM
Real quick, I keep hearing the "propellent depot" term thrown around, but must have missed the orginal discussion about it.  What's the Cliff's Note's version of that that is?  A fuel tank in LEO?  In Lunar Orbit?

In brief:   DIRECT's baseline mission profile uses a 'connect mode' profile in LEO.   It doesn't need any Propellant Transfer of any kind.


Ross,

Thanks a bunch for the fuel depot info.  Very interesting stuff.  Very detailed information.

As a follow up question, what would be the difficulties of robotic docking in lunar orbit?  WE can do it in EArth orbit, but didn't know of the signal delay would cause an issue in lunar orbit.
The reason I ask is this.  Until we could get to an in-situ refulled option, could we launch and construct a depo in lunar orbit.  Refuel with low-cost EELV's or something like the Falcon rocket (if there cost are indeed lower than the Delta or Atlas).
The depot could have multiple standard fuel ports and a dock for a large reusable LSAM (that you mentioned).  The LSAM could stay docked to it between missions and be refuelled.  Between missions, a few low cost EELV's could deliver fuel tanks that would be docked to the ports.
I have no idea how much fuel a 100mt LSAM would take for descent and ascent, or how much propellent mass standard or heavy EELV's could get into lunar orbit, so I'm still just pondering here.  Could a Delta-4 Heavy get enough fuel to lunar orbit for two LSAM missions?  Could a Delta 4/Atlas 5 get enough for 1 LSAM Mission?

If so, you could get a lunar mission out of a single standard EELV and a single J232, further reducing costs.  Not to mention now you have a larger, more robust LSAM for your missions.

Perhaps even the EDS used to launch the "dry" larger LSAM into lunar orbit could be the fuel depot.  The EDS tanks, once expended, could be refilled and used to fuel the LSAM that would redock with it between missiosn.  The EDS would need to be equiped with some type of OMS to maintain it's orbit and orientation, and probably solar panels to keep powered up.  The LSAM would dock with it like it would in your current prosoals for TLI. where Orion/LSAM dock with a fueled EDS for TLI.
So the top docking ring would stay open for Orion.  Orion would then detach and enter a parking orbit next to the depot until the LSAM returns and Docks.

Or even better, have two docking rings on the depot, one for the LSAM, and one for Orion.   SO Orion could dock with the depot upon LOR, and the crew would transfer to the LSAM, detach and descend to the surface.  Orion would stay docked to the depot until the LSAM returns.  After Orion returns to Earth, the next refuelling mission could dock to the open ring and refuel the depot/EDS's tanks, then jettison and deorbit.
Although the crew would transfer through the depot, you wouldn't really need any life support, as it'd be little more than a tube that'd be pressurized by Orion and the LSAM. 

Obviously, the in-situ refuelling would be the idea down the road, but with this, some money could be saved per mission both in the launch vehicles, and with a reusable (and more capable) LSAM you won't have to replace each time.
Not sure how much each LSAM costs, but I'm sure they ain't cheap.
Probably that cost savings there would make up for the EELV refuel launch.

So is that nuts?  Plausable?
And, how do you refuel the LSAM (and Depo) RCS thrusters?
Can they be refueled the same as the main engines?

And thanks for answering all these silly questions you've probably answered a hundred times before.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/20/2009 06:15 PM
I took a few days off from reading this thread and it looks like I came back to a heated discussion about SM and OMS.

All of the speculation about Ares and Direct and Ares V changing back to SSME has had me thinking about all of the combination of equipment and problems with cost and schedule.

It leaves me, possibly as a population of 1, supporting using the NLS designs of old.  Existing 4 segment boosters, SSMEs and ET diameter and tooling.  There is nothing to develop or manrate.  The tank would be redesigned and developed but you don't need to put hundreds of millions (lets face it billions) into manrating the RS-68 or 5 segment boosters.

Over time you can evolve the SSME to a cheaper disposable model and 5 segment boosters.

It's the least amount of development.

As I posted in the Ares 1 efficiency thread, the new vehicle needs to get flying ASAP.  Delays cost money and increases questions and doubts.

That is all.

While I have faith in the Direct Team that the RS-68 is the better option, I could see NASA going to something closer to NLS.

All I have read in the Ares V to SSME thread is how reliable of an engine the SSME is. It remains to be seen whether the RS-68 will be as reliable of an engine as the SSME.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: bad_astra on 01/20/2009 06:24 PM
The more RS-68 flies, the more reliable it is likely to be.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2009 06:27 PM
The NLS engine is what eventually became today's RS-68.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/20/2009 06:49 PM
Ah, you learn something new every time you log into this thread.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: sandrot on 01/20/2009 07:15 PM
Delta v provided by Orion for orbit insertion is not so different from delta v provided by OMS during shuttle orbit insertion. Get your facts, no 3rd stage...

And the OMS is a 3rd stage of the shuttle.  Get your facts straight

No mention of 3rd stage here:

http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/events/
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/20/2009 07:19 PM
Delta v provided by Orion for orbit insertion is not so different from delta v provided by OMS during shuttle orbit insertion. Get your facts, no 3rd stage...

And the OMS is a 3rd stage of the shuttle.  Get your facts straight

No mention of 3rd stage here:

http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/events/

It is called Orbital insertion

Plus your use of the reference is wrong.  Stages as is relates to ascent is a phase vs hardware description
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/20/2009 07:29 PM
The NLS engine is what eventually became today's RS-68.

Yeah, that's a fascinating story.

The NLS was to be powered by a brand-new reusable 650,000lb thrust LOX/LH2 engine called the Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) to be built by Rocketdyne (partnered by Aerojet + P&W).

Towards the end of the NLS effort, Douglas proposed to utilize this engine to power "NLS-3" -- which was to be a small diameter (~18ft/5m) Core Stage with a single STME under it, to go with an Upper Stage powered by an RL-10.

Funding for NLS was eventually canceled because Congress didn't want to pay for it while also paying for Shuttle and Titan to continue in parallel too.   They were willing to pay for two, but not a third.

But Douglas (bought by Boeing, now -- I guess -- part of ULA) continued to look at their idea and out of that was ultimately born what we call Delta-IV -- which is today powered by a disposable 650,000lb thrust LOX/LH2 engine now called RS-68.

I find it ironic that this situation may actually go full-circle and the engine which ultimately started life on a modified External Tank and later went to Delta-IV, might now go back to the ET again.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/20/2009 07:35 PM
I said a stable orbit, not a useful orbit.

You also said this:

Quote
Insert itself and the spacecraft directly into a circular orbit of the correct altitude and inclination.

How is that accomplished with J-120?

Chuck, is this actually possible?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2009 07:42 PM
Insert itself and the spacecraft directly into a circular orbit of the correct altitude and inclination.
Quote
Chuck, is this actually possible?

Altitude and inclination are easy. Circular is a little harder, but essentially yes it is.
Saturn could do the same thing.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/20/2009 07:43 PM
Altitude and inclination are easy. Circular is a little harder, but essentially yes. Saturn could do the same thing.

So, is this done by some sort of gradual pitch toward the Earth near apogee?  A "skid" if you will?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: sandrot on 01/20/2009 07:46 PM
"Bone Dry" may be a little subjective - there's probably a little still left in the supply line. They cut it off to prevent the engine from self distruct by a sudden loss of a correct mixture of LH2/LOX. But the premise of the post is accurate. Ares-I cannot insert Orion into LEO without an Orion SM burn.

I'd still take a look at what's left in the ET or AIUS at MECO/SECO.

Anyway even if AIUS couldn't actually be sent to orbit we're not talking about an underperforming launcher.

On the other hand I see the big orange tank on orbit with J-120 as a problem. I don't know how much the foam popcorning is severe but it doesn't seem nice to have popcorns around a vehicle that will soon perform one or two dockings.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/20/2009 07:48 PM
Lee Jay,
   There are two approaches.

1)   You insert directly into full & stable orbit.   You lose some performance (roughly 3mT on J-120), but the vehicle is stable, you have almost unlimited time to safely separate your spacecraft and extract any payloads.   The Core must them be actively de-orbited safely (the fuel for that is the key reason for the performance loss).

2)   You insert into a sub-orbital trajectory, heading towards your Apogee, where you will circularize the orbit.   The Core Stage continues on the sub-orbital trajectory, which is tailored specifically to dispose of it safely in one of the large oceans.   This offers a little extra performance, but severely limits the amount of time the crew have to safely extract any payloads.   The vehicle will reach apogee in no more than 45 minutes after MECO.   If you can't dock and extract the payload, your mission would then be in trouble.


Jupiter can support either option, but for missions flying both an Orion and also some sort of payload in the fairing, we strongly suggest option 1 because there is no danger of an LOM situation.

But if there are any missions which don't require that sort of tight timing, then option 2 might be preferable and would offer increases in the performance too.

Its nice to have the flexibility to do whatever best benefits your mission.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2009 07:51 PM
Altitude and inclination are easy. Circular is a little harder, but essentially yes. Saturn could do the same thing.

So, is this done by some sort of gradual pitch toward the Earth near apogee?  A "skid" if you will?

It's quite a bit more complicated than that, but "essentially" it's a balancing act between thrust vector, gravity and trajectory. The vehicle path is "shaped" on the way up. The view from 10k feet.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/20/2009 07:53 PM
Ross,

I understand, and now I'm asking two separate questions.

- What sort of trajectory gets you to a full circular orbit at MECO?  I'm just trying to envision this.
- Is there a middle ground where you inject at a high apogee and a low but stable for a few orbits perigee, extract the cargo, then at apogee reduce the perigee of the core and increase the perigee of the spacecraft?  I ask because I once suggested doing that, and doing both maneuvers with Orion's engines by reducing the perigee with the cargo still attached to the core, releasing the core and then doing the circularization burn with the Orion+cargo stack.  IIRC, you responded somewhat positively to that possibility.  Of course, the idea is to remove the need for propulsion and flight control from the core post MECO.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/20/2009 07:54 PM
Altitude and inclination are easy. Circular is a little harder, but essentially yes. Saturn could do the same thing.

So, is this done by some sort of gradual pitch toward the Earth near apogee?  A "skid" if you will?

It's quite a bit more complicated than that, but "essentially" it's a balancing act between thrust vector, gravity and trajectory. The vehicle path is "shaped" on the way up. The view from 10k feet.

Right...thanks Chuck, I think I've got it now.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/20/2009 08:02 PM
So, is this done by some sort of gradual pitch toward the Earth near apogee?  A "skid" if you will?

You could describe it that way, but the correct term is "Trajectory Shaping".

There is a slight negative pitch towards the end of the flight, but its part of the standard 'curve'.    Here, take a look at the charts from a Jupiter-120 Series 37 heading for 100x100nmi circular insertion at 28.5 degrees.   Of particular note, see the Pitch and the AOA charts.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/20/2009 08:02 PM
The NLS engine is what eventually became today's RS-68.

.....But Douglas (bought by Boeing, now -- I guess -- part of ULA) continued to look at their idea and out of that was ultimately born what we call Delta-IV -- which is today powered by a disposable 650,000lb thrust LOX/LH2 engine now called RS-68.

I find it ironic that this situation may actually go full-circle and the engine which ultimately started life on a modified External Tank and later went to Delta-IV, might now go back to the ET again.

Ross.

There would be something poetic about that if it did happen.  A 20 year wait but you essentially get the NLS, interesting.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 01/20/2009 08:02 PM
The NLS engine is what eventually became today's RS-68.

Yeah, that's a fascinating story.

The NLS was to be powered by a brand-new reusable 650,000lb thrust LOX/LH2 engine called the Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) to be built by Rocketdyne (partnered by Aerojet + P&W).

Towards the end of the NLS effort, Douglas proposed to utilize this engine to power "NLS-3" -- which was to be a small diameter (~18ft/5m) Core Stage with a single STME under it, to go with an Upper Stage powered by an RL-10.

Funding for NLS was eventually canceled because Congress didn't want to pay for it while also paying for Shuttle and Titan to continue in parallel too.   They were willing to pay for two, but not a third.

But Douglas (bought by Boeing, now -- I guess -- part of ULA) continued to look at their idea and out of that was ultimately born what we call Delta-IV -- which is today powered by a disposable 650,000lb thrust LOX/LH2 engine now called RS-68.

I find it ironic that this situation may actually go full-circle and the engine which ultimately started life on a modified External Tank and later went to Delta-IV, might now go back to the ET again.

Ross.

http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/sdv.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2009 08:07 PM
"Bone Dry" may be a little subjective - there's probably a little still left in the supply line. They cut it off to prevent the engine from self distruct by a sudden loss of a correct mixture of LH2/LOX. But the premise of the post is accurate. Ares-I cannot insert Orion into LEO without an Orion SM burn.

I'd still take a look at what's left in the ET or AIUS at MECO/SECO.

Anyway even if AIUS couldn't actually be sent to orbit we're not talking about an underperforming launcher.

We are if the original specification called for the capability. Originally, Orion was to make only 2 burns of the SM engine;
1) orbital insertion (same as Shuttle) and then
2) orbit circularization.
Now it has to make 3 because Ares-I can't get Orion to the point where it's 1st burn is orbital insertion. The SM's first burn completes the ascent and shuts down. Some time later, the 2nd burn does the orbital insertion. And later still, a 3rd burn circularizes the orbit.

Originally Ares-I was supposed to drop Orion off high enough and fast enough that only orbital insertion and later circularization was required. Not being able to actually accomplish that is called underperforming.

Quote
On the other hand I see the big orange tank on orbit with J-120 as a problem. I don't know how much the foam popcorning is severe but it doesn't seem nice to have popcorns around a vehicle that will soon perform one or two dockings.

1) the ET won't be there that long before it is de-orbited; nominally less than one orbit.
2) the vast majority of foam that is going to come off will have already done that during the ascent.
3) any residual remaining "popcorn" will be traveling at ~ the same velocity as any spacecraft in the same orbit and won't pose a problem. The "problem" is a relative velocity difference at the moment of a strike, not just the presence of popcorn.
4) any residual remaining popcorn will not remain in orbit that long. Even at orbital altitude there is still atmosphere and any remaining popcorn will fall back quickly enough.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/20/2009 08:10 PM
Thanks for the charts, Ross.  That little blip below 0 near apogee amounts to the circularization burn, and is exactly what I had envisioned when I said a "sort of gradual pitch toward the Earth near apogee?  A "skid" if you will...."

Hard to get a shape like that into simple words!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/20/2009 08:20 PM
The concern with the foam popcorning in orbit is if the tank stays up there for months.   The foam degrades *slowly* in space.

It is really only just a concern for the "use the ET to make a space station" idea where the foam would stay in orbit for months or years -- and just to be clear, DIRECT isn't supporting that.

The insertion point for Lunar missions is only 130nmi high.   That's actually pretty low.   Within 4 days the orbit will already have degraded to 100nmi.   A few days after that the tank & any foam, are coming home one way or the other.

The current plans for our ISS missions is actually to insert to 100nmi circular.   That is stable enough for at least a day, and if we can't extract the payload from the Core in that time, the mission is going to be a bust anyway.

But the Core is not planned to be up for very long -- a few hours at most.   In that time there won't be any debris to speak of, and any which does occur won't stay up for more than about a week.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/20/2009 10:14 PM
I just wanted to announce that the plans for the models of the J-120 & J-232 are now publicly available for download and construction.

They can be found in three places (so far)

Jon Leslie's Lower Hudson Valley Challenger Center website.
http://www.jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html (http://www.jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html)

As a side note, I find it immensely satisfying that they are listed under the "Real Spacecraft" section...  8)

Niels J. Knudsen's Paper Models site
http://www.nielspapermodels.com (http://www.nielspapermodels.com)

and the Yahoo Space Paper Models Group.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Space-Paper-Models/

I hope those of you who build them enjoy doing it as much as I did.

Thanks
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: HelixSpiral on 01/20/2009 11:22 PM

We are if the original specification called for the capability. Originally, Orion was to make only 2 burns of the SM engine;
1) orbital insertion (same as Shuttle) and then
2) orbit circularization.
Now it has to make 3 because Ares-I can't get Orion to the point where it's 1st burn is orbital insertion. The SM's first burn completes the ascent and shuts down. Some time later, the 2nd burn does the orbital insertion. And later still, a 3rd burn circularizes the orbit.

Originally Ares-I was supposed to drop Orion off high enough and fast enough that only orbital insertion and later circularization was required. Not being able to actually accomplish that is called underperforming.

The SM has to perform an OMS-1-type insertion burn AND and OMS-2-type circularization burn? The original plan didn't call for a direct insertion trajectory?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: tnphysics on 01/21/2009 01:03 AM
The concern with the foam popcorning in orbit is if the tank stays up there for months.   The foam degrades *slowly* in space.

It is really only just a concern for the "use the ET to make a space station" idea where the foam would stay in orbit for months or years -- and just to be clear, DIRECT isn't supporting that.

The insertion point for Lunar missions is only 130nmi high.   That's actually pretty low.   Within 4 days the orbit will already have degraded to 100nmi.   A few days after that the tank & any foam, are coming home one way or the other.

The current plans for our ISS missions is actually to insert to 100nmi circular.   That is stable enough for at least a day, and if we can't extract the payload from the Core in that time, the mission is going to be a bust anyway.

But the Core is not planned to be up for very long -- a few hours at most.   In that time there won't be any debris to speak of, and any which does occur won't stay up for more than about a week.

Ross.

Could the Core be left in orbit, given that it will decay quickly?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/21/2009 01:05 AM

Could the Core be left in orbit, given that it will decay quickly?

and where would you like it to land?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/21/2009 01:06 AM
Could the Core be left in orbit, given that it will decay quickly?

You want to know where it's going to land, not just let it land anywhere.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: DigitalMan on 01/21/2009 01:22 AM
I know the subject "what counts as a stage" has been talked to death many times here over the years, but...

Would it be reasonable to say a stage is any burn that is required to enable the spacecraft/payload to complete a full orbit ?

(regardless of the shape of the orbit)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2009 01:51 AM

We are if the original specification called for the capability. Originally, Orion was to make only 2 burns of the SM engine;
1) orbital insertion (same as Shuttle) and then
2) orbit circularization.
Now it has to make 3 because Ares-I can't get Orion to the point where it's 1st burn is orbital insertion. The SM's first burn completes the ascent and shuts down. Some time later, the 2nd burn does the orbital insertion. And later still, a 3rd burn circularizes the orbit.

Originally Ares-I was supposed to drop Orion off high enough and fast enough that only orbital insertion and later circularization was required. Not being able to actually accomplish that is called underperforming.

The SM has to perform an OMS-1-type insertion burn AND and OMS-2-type circularization burn? The original plan didn't call for a direct insertion trajectory?

No. The plan was always for the spacecraft to do the orbital insertion burn and then a circularization burn. This is the most efficient way to dispose of the upper stage. But the original plan did not call for the spacecraft to do an ascent burn BEFORE doing the insertion and circularization burns.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2009 02:53 AM
I just wanted to announce that the plans for the models of the J-120 & J-232 are now publicly available for download and construction.

They can be found in three places (so far)

Jon Leslie's Lower Hudson Valley Challenger Center website.
http://www.jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html (http://www.jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html)

As a side note, I find it immensely satisfying that they are listed under the "Real Spacecraft" section...  8)

Niels J. Knudsen's Paper Models site
http://www.nielspapermodels.com (http://www.nielspapermodels.com)

and the Yahoo Space Paper Models Group.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Space-Paper-Models/

I hope those of you who build them enjoy doing it as much as I did.

Thanks

Well done with those!

And thanks for your own contribution too.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2009 02:57 AM
Could the Core be left in orbit, given that it will decay quickly?

No.   There are some parts which will not completely burn up when it re-enters.

The SRB Thrust Beam inside the Intertank, parts of the primary Thrust Structure are big & heavy, some of the larger cast parts of the engines and bits of the large valves may all come raining down from the heavens at Mach 2.

You want to be 100% sure they never come raining down on people.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/21/2009 03:10 AM
The SM has to perform an OMS-1-type insertion burn AND and OMS-2-type circularization burn? The original plan didn't call for a direct insertion trajectory?

Actually it must make three burns:

At spacecraft separation (-11x100nmi 'insertion' at ~57nmi altitude) the Orion will actually spend between 20-30 seconds in free-fall while the Solar Arrays are deployed.

Burn 1 will raise the initial perigee (-11nmi) to 100nmi.

Burn 2, about 45 minutes later will raise the apogee to 220nmi for ISS or 130nmi for Lunar.

Burn 3, about 45 minutes later again, will raise the perigee to match.


The original plan was for the launcher to insert the spacecraft into an initial orbit which would actually have its apogee at the final intended orbit, so the spacecraft would only need to make a single circularization burn.

But the ESAS changed that and baselined a dual burn to better-suit the LV-13.1 CLV, which later became the Ares-I.   Unfortunately the current Ares-I hasn't got the available performance to do that any more, so CxP have slipped a third burn in without most people noticing.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/21/2009 04:20 AM
I just wanted to announce that the plans for the models of the J-120 & J-232 are now publicly available for download and construction.

They can be found in three places (so far)

Jon Leslie's Lower Hudson Valley Challenger Center website.
http://www.jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html (http://www.jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html)

As a side note, I find it immensely satisfying that they are listed under the "Real Spacecraft" section...  8)

Niels J. Knudsen's Paper Models site
http://www.nielspapermodels.com (http://www.nielspapermodels.com)

and the Yahoo Space Paper Models Group.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Space-Paper-Models/

I hope those of you who build them enjoy doing it as much as I did.

Thanks

Thanks for posting them!

I'll have to start building them once I can get some heavier paper. All I have in my room is computer paper, and that never works.

What kind of glue do you recommend?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Yegor on 01/21/2009 05:08 AM
I finally got my copy of "Popular Mechanics" magazine with Direct article.

I got it at "Metro" grocery story which a very big chain of 573 stores in Canada. So Direct has got a great exposure with this article.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/21/2009 09:21 AM
I just wanted to announce that the plans for the models of the J-120 & J-232 are now publicly available for download and construction.

An order to commence construction?... :)

Quote
They can be found in three places (so far)
Jon Leslie's Lower Hudson Valley Challenger Center website.
http://www.jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html (http://www.jleslie48.com/gallery_models_real.html)
As a side note, I find it immensely satisfying that they are listed under the "Real Spacecraft" section...  8)

Cool! :) Direct is easily found and accessed...

Quote
Niels J. Knudsen's Paper Models site
http://www.nielspapermodels.com (http://www.nielspapermodels.com)

The Direct models don't seem to be up there yet?

Quote
and the Yahoo Space Paper Models Group.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Space-Paper-Models/

Hmmm... members only.

Okay, I have the files from jleslie48.com and would  just toss them up on the mirror as a directory of separate files and a .zip of the directory for convenience in downloading.

In your notes with this release you spend quite some time explaining your sourcing but... no redistribution policy notice of your own?

(Something simple like "Mirror these if you want to but keep the files together and please don't change things without notice." would be nice ;) )
 
Edit: won't tell you what was edited or why
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/21/2009 11:18 AM
I have a question regarding figures 20 & 21 from the V2.0.2 update doc (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.2.pdf).

This shows LSAM performing MCC / TCM burns (I presume MCC is Mid Course Correction, not sure what TCM stands for). The diagram shows the Isp as 448s, so this is using the RL-10's in the descent stage.

This burn is only 2m/s (a couple of seconds burn at minimum throttle, I think), so this seems like a pretty small burn to go through the whole complication of starting up the RL-10's.

Is there any reason why the CEV doesn't perform this burn? It is using hypergolic engines, which would use less mass of fuel (the RL-10 is more efficient, but wastes some fuel starting up). Also the hypergolic engines are considered more reliable.

The only reason I can see is that the LSAM cannot cope with an "upside down" burn, ie a burn with opposite thrust than produced by it's own engines.

Is this correct - LSAM can't be accelerated upside down?

If not, what is the reason why LSAM performs this manouvre instead of CEV?

cheers, Martin


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Jim on 01/21/2009 11:23 AM
I have a question regarding figures 20 & 21 from the V2.0.2 update doc (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.2.pdf).

This shows LSAM performing MCC / TCM burns (I presume MCC is Mid Course Correction, not sure what TCM stands for). The diagram shows the Isp as 448s, so this is using the RL-10's in the descent stage.

This burn is only 2m/s (a couple of seconds burn at minimum throttle, I think), so this seems like a pretty small burn to go through the whole complication of starting up the RL-10's.

If not, what is the reason why LSAM performs this manouvre instead of CEV?


Trajectory correction maneuver
This is how NASA planning and Direct is doing the same thing
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/21/2009 12:04 PM
I have a question regarding figures 20 & 21 from the V2.0.2 update doc (http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_Summary_v2.0.2.pdf).

This shows LSAM performing MCC / TCM burns (I presume MCC is Mid Course Correction, not sure what TCM stands for). The diagram shows the Isp as 448s, so this is using the RL-10's in the descent stage.

This burn is only 2m/s (a couple of seconds burn at minimum throttle, I think), so this seems like a pretty small burn to go through the whole complication of starting up the RL-10's.

If not, what is the reason why LSAM performs this manouvre instead of CEV?

Trajectory correction maneuver
This is how NASA planning and Direct is doing the same thing


DIRECT seem to be explicitly standing back from the post-TLI phase of the mission, and who could blame them - how many battles do they really need to fight at once?

I'd still like to know whether NASA do it this way because they must (LSAM is designed this way), or just because that's the option they happen to have chosen?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2009 12:26 PM
After performing final ascent burn, orbital injection burn and orbital circularization burn, the remaining propellant in Orion's SM tanks needs to be reserved for the TEI burn to bring everybody home.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/21/2009 01:00 PM
After performing final ascent burn, orbital injection burn and orbital circularization burn, the remaining propellant in Orion's SM tanks needs to be reserved for the TEI burn to bring everybody home.


It's only 2m/s !

It's my understanding that hypergolic engines are extremely reliable, start very easily, and I'd have thought were quite throttle-able, too.

Cryogenic engines have complex startup procedures, waste quite a bit of fuel spinning up their pumps, and the risk of non-starting or failure during operation is somewhat higher.

A hypergolic engine seems to be absolutely ideal for this type of manouvre. Have I missed something (about suitability of that type of engine, not whether fuel happens to be available).

As you've commented, if DIRECT is chosen Orion won't need to perform the ascent. Would it then make sense for NASA to use 2m/s of Orion fuel to perform the TCM/MCC burn? Does that have any appreciable effect on LOC/LOM numbers?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2009 01:09 PM
After performing final ascent burn, orbital injection burn and orbital circularization burn, the remaining propellant in Orion's SM tanks needs to be reserved for the TEI burn to bring everybody home.


It's only 2m/s !

It's my understanding that hypergolic engines are extremely reliable, start very easily, and I'd have thought were quite throttle-able, too.

Cryogenic engines have complex startup procedures, waste quite a bit of fuel spinning up their pumps, and the risk of non-starting or failure during operation is somewhat higher.

A hypergolic engine seems to be absolutely ideal for this type of manouvre. Have I missed something (about suitability of that type of engine, not whether fuel happens to be available).

As you've commented, if DIRECT is chosen Orion won't need to perform the ascent. Would it then make sense for NASA to use 2m/s of Orion fuel to perform the TCM/MCC burn? Does that have any appreciable effect on LOC/LOM numbers?

cheers, Martin

The current lunar designs are all driven all the way back to the 1.5 architecture with an underperforming Ares-I. Ares-V is currently unable to entirely make up the difference to get everything thru TLI. Having said that, the burn allocations reflect this entire architecture approach, with both its benefits and its shortcomings. IF the DIRECT architecture is chosen to replace the 1.5 Ares, a lot of things *could* be reallocated, but it is way too premature to be going there. At this point, DIRECT's approach is to match the approaches of Ares for the lunar architecture, as it's the only way to do an apples to apples comparison.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/21/2009 01:11 PM
I just wanted to announce that the plans for the models of the J-120 & J-232 are now publicly available for download and construction.

Thanks

Thanks for posting them!

I'll have to start building them once I can get some heavier paper. All I have in my room is computer paper, and that never works.

What kind of glue do you recommend?


You're very welcome!

I used (and recommend) two different glues, depending on what I needed at each step. YMMV.

For bonds that don't have to be "shifted around" a lot, that need to tack (set) quickly, and have to be sturdy, I used Aleen's Original Tacky Glue in the gold bottle. That stuff is amazing, but it tacks fast, and is impossible to separate joints if something isn't perfect. Use it sparingly!

For bonds where you need a little shifting or adjustment time, I recommend Tombow Mono-Aqua liquid. That's one of the best all-around glues I've ever used. It makes up about 90% of the bonds in the 1/4 scale Mercury spacecraft I am building. Great stuff.

If you have any questions about the build, my email address is on the last page of the notes section.


 :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/21/2009 01:34 PM
I just wanted to announce that the plans for the models of the J-120 & J-232 are now publicly available for download and construction.

An order to commence construction?... :)

Hardly. I don't give orders. People tend to get cranky when you order them around...

Quote
Niels J. Knudsen's Paper Models site
http://www.nielspapermodels.com (http://www.nielspapermodels.com)

The Direct models don't seem to be up there yet?

I'd give Niels a couple of days on that. He's got a real life, he's building, managing a very popular website, and so is a busy guy. I'm sure he'll get to it.

Quote
and the Yahoo Space Paper Models Group.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Space-Paper-Models/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Space-Paper-Models/)

Hmmm... members only.

So? It's a free group. If you have an interest in paper modeling space-related things, then it is an excellent resource, with knowledgeable, friendly, and exceptionally helpful people. Some of the best designers and builders in the world read and post there. They only have a membership requirement to keep posts about breast enlargement, penis enhancement, and Russian mail-order brides off the message board.  ::)

Quote
Okay, I have the files from jleslie48.com and would  just toss them up on the mirror as a directory of separate files and a .zip of the directory for convenience in downloading.

In your notes with this release you spend quite some time explaining your sourcing but... no redistribution policy notice of your own?

(Something simple like "Mirror these if you want to but keep the files together and please don't change things without notice." would be nice ;) )


Sure I have a redistribution policy. The models are always to remain free to everyone, and I trust that anyone who wants to host or build them has enough common sense to know that all the files have to be kept together and used to build it. One of the very best things about paper modeling is that someone out there, who is a much better builder than I am, is going to reskin (that means recolor and redesign parts to look more accurate) those pieces, and put together a much more realistic, and better model. That's part of what this hobby is all about. People can tweak a paper model in ways that plastic modelers never could.

I don't expect that anyone would, and in fact require, that no one may ever charge for access to these files. They are now, and are always to remain free of cost to the builder. I know I designed them, and its right there in the notes file how to get in touch with me, so if anyone really wants to ask, they can email me. I'm not worried about plagiarism, because I don't think anyone would bother to "steal" something that is free to the world anyway.  ;D

I appreciate your hosting them. The more distribution and exposure, the better!

Now, if I could just take that 3ds wire-frame of the XB-70 that I have, and figure out how to convert it to flat pieces, I can finally build that big 1/48 Valkyrie I've always wanted...  :D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: simcosmos on 01/21/2009 02:29 PM
Sorry all for opening this parenthesis here but, from some time that I'm not 'comfortable' (in lack of better word) with a few things. What will write next is related with recent posts:

In order to properly address what AresI (and EELV variants, etc) might or not be capable of doing when having an Orion spacecraft as main payload I really think that all starting assumptions need to be clearly stated. This is even more truth if / when making any kind of comparisons with a Jupiter vehicle variant.


Being more explicit - and remembering the readers (+ fellow DIRECT Team members) that I'm writing all this as a *personal note* - each launch vehicle is a separated case and its injection targets might be dependent of the specific launcher configuration vs trajectory / disposal constraints, etc, etc. 


Would like to note that - focusing only in the performance aspect - there have been several past discussions of what AresI might or not be able to do as well about what the ESAS CLV was or not intended to do: in some of recent posts in this thread, it seems that several people are saying different things and some might even being doing so thinking that are saying the same thing... What I wrote just now was confusing? Well, did it on purpose only because would like to end this parenthesis with a friendly and open suggestion...




So, will leave this suggestion in the air (for separated thread(s)): if anyone wishes to discuss the eventual capabilities of a specific launch vehicle I strongly suggest that perhaps it might be better if we do like in several past occasions at nasaspaceflight forums (like, in my case, some threads where have simulated AresI conceptual variants, CZ-2F ascent trajectory or, more recently, the thread that resulted in the Ares-IB (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13824) exercise, etc, etc):

a) let's open a separated thread for a specific launch configuration musing (either it be AresI, Delta IV Heavy, an AtlasV variant, etc, etc): each thread could be called something like

[sim] launcher designation - payload

example: [sim] AresI - Orion


b) let's however agree first on a rough and – this is very important - common first order estimative for a CEV mass breakout (vs intended mission dV needs) as well lets agree in common mass values for LAS and for any other needed spacecraft adapters / covers (wich might be dependent of specific launch vehicle integration)… this might require a separated thread called [sim] Orion Specs or something like that...


c) then, once all the above (in b) is decided, we have  a minimum / maximum estimative for the launch vehicle payload at lift-off... next thing to do is to decide constraints for the jettison of LAS, covers, etc as well some other ascent rules (regarding staging / disposal events, aborts, payload / performance margins, etc)… some of such rules might be common, other might be specific of launcher configuration…


d) last but not least, it would be needed to agree in common numbers for the several components (masses of stages, thrust/ISP specs, engine thrust modes, etc) of a given launch vehicle brainstorm


Only then - with some basic assumptions and a common ground for important input data - can such input data be implemented into several independent tools / simulators and only then can the discussion about eventual divergence / convergence of 'results' be something more fruitful…

Else, without clearly showing starting assumptions and without defining common ground rules, people will always end up talking past each other… as already happened several times in the past and has it seems that it might be happening again...

António   
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/21/2009 02:43 PM
Only then - with some basic assumptions and a common ground for important input data - can such input data be implemented into several independent tools / simulators and only then can the discussion about eventual divergence / convergence of 'results' be something more fruitful…


António,

are any of these tools/simulators available as freeware? Can you point to them?

Is this one of those tools:- http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/orbiter.htm

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2009 03:02 PM
How many people on this list actually have access to/own (and can use) software that does trajectory analysis?

For those of you that don't, I would suggest that you could get yourself a copy of Orbiter. It's a free sim tool and the results it produced closely match what we have obtained for Jupiter in POST. It's just a matter of making sure, like Antonio says, that the fundamental inputs are the same.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/21/2009 03:10 PM
...

"Order to suspend construction" is a reference to an animated short feature from Japan. No reason you should be aware of it ;)

As for the notices... errrrrr... there are standardized variations of copyright notices used for such things that can cover every angle you might wish... in a much shorter format.

An ad hoc but very usable example.

"Permission is granted to redistribute these models as long as they made freely available at no charge. Permission is also granted to  modify and redistribute these models as long as you include a notice about the changes with the files."

Note the brevity... :)

As for yahoo... you wage valiant war against an opponent who's not there :D All I was doing was toting up the current availability of the files.

Now the files are also up here...
http://somedirectstuff.nekoslovakia.net
... and thank you for your hard work!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/21/2009 03:22 PM
For those of you that don't, I would suggest that you could get yourself a copy of Orbiter.

Fun note: I was using Orbiter back when the docking code was introduced (I could see the ships back then) and I was one of a lot of people who reported a bug where ships were flipped from the surface of the Earth to a zillion kilometers out in space.

When Martin and company looked at the problem they noted a common theme... all the reports were from people who tried to dock disparate ships on the ground for staging during launch. The code didn't like that.

The developers had apparently never considered that that would be the first thing folks would try with the docking code :)
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: simcosmos on 01/21/2009 03:46 PM
I use Orbiter Space Flight Simulator but attention: people need to know what they are doing when implementing designs into the simulator - in this case, when simulating launch vehicles - something that only comes with experience.

There are several ways of doing it: if you know C++ and if wish to have a more accurate / advanced simulation, then the vehicles (facilities, etc) 'performances' can be implemented via C++ (by building custom code and compiling it to produce .dll, check Orbiter's API related docs in its SDK).


If what wrote in the last paragraph is complicated (or if wanting to have slightly faster - but with still good quality - results) there are additional alternative and simpler tools that only require people to insert things like stages empty masses, engine specs, etc into structured .INI files (which can be opened with notepad) and then, such INI file will feed the data into a 'generic dll' that acts as a bridge between the file with the input data and the simulator. However, some care needs to be taken regarding what exactly is required from the input data as well about what are the limitations of such tools too (there are still manuals / forums to read). Examples:

Multistage.dll + Spacecraft.dll:
http://users.swing.be/vinka/
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=1755
(some related links in my posts of that thread)
 
Velcro Rockets:
http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3388
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3152
(see related threads in the bottom of that link)


Back to C++ / easier way of building dlls, something very interesting is in-development here:
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5378


The above is all about Orbiter. Other than that, there are tools available on the net that can help such as:
- CEPE (from a fellow NSF reader): http://www.paul.enutrofal.com/
- http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5933.0

... and people can create other tools (even if just with excel, as long as knowing the theory and, once more, being aware of constraints). There are a few other freely available goodies out there.



Concluding, each tool has its strengths: Orbiter Simulator is good for a wide range of performance estimations / replications (the order of such estimation / simulation as well the number and quality of the implemented features depends of the methods / tools used to code such features and also of other precautions, taken by the final user, when experimenting launchers + spacecraft addons, when using the navigation tools…). Orbiter also provides a nice playground for mission design (beyond allowing good eye-candy features). More about it here:
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/manual.html
(see Orbiter References, at the bottom)
 
António

(only as a side note, the DIRECT addon that have uploaded back in Dec2006 is outdated in a number of aspects).

Only then - with some basic assumptions and a common ground for important input data - can such input data be implemented into several independent tools / simulators and only then can the discussion about eventual divergence / convergence of 'results' be something more fruitful…


António,

are any of these tools/simulators available as freeware? Can you point to them?

Is this one of those tools:- http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/orbiter.htm

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Outside-The-Box on 01/21/2009 04:06 PM
Hello-

New to the forum. Now that a new President has been seated, is there any real hope that we can actually put the brakes on Ares and have a genuine review of Direct as the booster system for Orion and Moon, Mars, and Beyond? The more I read of Ares, the more it looks like Space Transportation System all over again- gut the rest of NASA's budget just to make the program minimally functional. I have sent emails, forum posts, comments anywhere I can and to every person and venue I can think of to lobby against Ares. The more I read of the innovations coming from SpaceX and Scaled Composites, and the more I read of NASA mission delays and budget over-runs, the more I am convinced that Ares is absolutely another dead-end product of NASA's broken  management/administration.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/21/2009 04:12 PM
Welcome to the NSF forum.

There's plenty of hope.  We'll see if anything pans out.  Perhaps you heard that the DIRECT team managed to meet with the Obama transition team and pitch the plan.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2009 04:24 PM
Outside-
Welcome to the forum.
All the efforts you speak of, and many more, have been ongoing for 2 years. A great deal comes down to the Transition Team's recommendations to the new President. I believe, as do many others, that DIRECT represents the best technical solution. But it's important to remember that when the decision is finally made, it will be a "political" decision, not a technical one. The technical aspects of all the different alternatives, as well as those of Ares, will inform the decision, but it will, in the end, be a political one.

We find ourselves in a fractured economy, with some persons still doing quite well for themselves, and others watching their world come apart, with the majority of us somewhere in between. But things could get worse before they get better and all that will figure in to whatever decisions the President makes, because ultimately everything feeds off of everything else. So the space program doesn't exactly exist in a vacuum ( [;-) and needs to be adressed in the context of everything else he has to do.

Thank you for what you have been doing and please continue your efforts. Ultimately it is the Congress that will be tasked with making any one approach possible or not by the funding they are or are not willing to make available. Like I said; it will be a political decision.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: dougkeenan on 01/21/2009 04:30 PM
(only as a side note, the DIRECT addon that have uploaded back in Dec2006 is outdated in a number of aspects).

António, do you plan on updating your DIRECT addon?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: simcosmos on 01/21/2009 05:02 PM
(only as a side note, the DIRECT addon that have uploaded back in Dec2006 is outdated in a number of aspects).

António, do you plan on updating your DIRECT addon?

Yes. If all went as 'expected' here, should have already done some sort of update to the outdated DIRECT v0.1 files (as well to several other addon projects) many, many moons ago.

The problem is when unexpected things happen which have impact in one or several of other factors (such as free time vs health vs economy, etc) which have impact on the availability to prepare all* what is required to release - for public to use - a coherent update for a given design iteration (all* = research about a few components details with impact on 3D models, performance implementations, components integrations, ascent guidance, mission 'tests', documentation, files structure and so on).

But yes, working on that (at least sharing a few renderings in my site's right side or at flickr), although might have to still focus the next release in selected J120 Applications and leave the heavier lift stuff + LSAM + other 'things' for yet another time... Or else, might still include the heavier upper stage / J23X configuration but do not include an updated LSAM implementation or other advanced 'things', not sure yet, it will depend all of external constraints (that is why try to avoid advancing release dates).

Work in progress,
António 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: mrbliss on 01/21/2009 05:53 PM
Reviving an old request from last October/Thread #2, around message #2485...

Quote from: mrbliss
Quote from: kraisee
    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.

And a few messages later:
Quote from: kraisee
"mrbliss - I will check with Philip about that when he gets back."

So I'm rebumping my earlier request for an exploded view of the J-232 with EDS.  Pretty please? :)

Steve
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/21/2009 07:04 PM
....the more I read of NASA mission delays and budget over-runs, the more I am convinced that Ares is absolutely another dead-end product of NASA's broken  management/administration.

I can't even imagine how much the cost for Ares 1 will balloon before it ever sees flight.  One thing you can take to the bank is that when an aerospace project is busting budgets and schedules that it keeps doing it until it's either finished or canceled.

Perhaps Ares 1 is the best solution and all of us that are wishing for another option are wrong.  But if it is then wholy cow is the problem way harder than expected.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/21/2009 07:44 PM
Outside-
Welcome to the forum.
All the efforts you speak of, and many more, have been ongoing for 2 years. A great deal comes down to the Transition Team's recommendations to the new President. I believe, as do many others, that DIRECT represents the best technical solution. But it's important to remember that when the decision is finally made, it will be a "political" decision, not a technical one. The technical aspects of all the different alternatives, as well as those of Ares, will inform the decision, but it will, in the end, be a political one.

We find ourselves in a fractured economy, with some persons still doing quite well for themselves, and others watching their world come apart, with the majority of us somewhere in between. But things could get worse before they get better and all that will figure in to whatever decisions the President makes, because ultimately everything feeds off of everything else. So the space program doesn't exactly exist in a vacuum ( [;-) and needs to be adressed in the context of everything else he has to do.

Thank you for what you have been doing and please continue your efforts. Ultimately it is the Congress that will be tasked with making any one approach possible or not by the funding they are or are not willing to make available. Like I said; it will be a political decision.

You could also argue that Direct has the advantage on the political side as well. While a switch from Ares to Jupiter would make Griffin and his close followers look bad, overall it would improve the job situation down in Florida. The best solution for keeping the STS workforce on the job is to switch to Direct.

While EELV saves time and money, we lose that workforce and heavy lift becomes more complex.
Ares  is going to cost more, take longer, and jobs will be lost. Even ATK benefits in the long run from a switch to Direct.

Griffin threw a fit over the transition team and their lack of rocket scientists, well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Jupiter is the best option we have right now.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/21/2009 07:56 PM
Ross or Chuck,

Not to branch off into too much talk of EELVs, as there are other threads for that, I have heard you guys say on here before that the Direct Team would like to see a switch to the Delta IV along with a switch to Jupiter.
How would Delta IV compliment Direct, and would a manrated Delta IV be retired once Jupiter came online, or would it remain the launch vehicle for ISS and LEO ops, while Jupiter handles the Moon.
With the Delta IV already manrated and launching crews to the ISS, wouldn't there be pressure to just skip the Jupiter 120, and progress right to the 232?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Joffan on 01/21/2009 08:11 PM
Perhaps Ares 1 is the best solution and all of us that are wishing for another option are wrong.  But if it is then wholy cow is the problem way harder than expected.
... and since the problem of manned access to space has in fact been solved before, and thus the problem is not intrinsically harder than expected, it follows that Ares I is not even close to the best solution. Not the best technically, not the best politically, and not the best economically.

Whereas Direct is pretty good technically, very good politically (on jobs), and also good economically on the combined development/operational cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2009 09:32 PM
Ross or Chuck,

Not to branch off into too much talk of EELVs, as there are other threads for that, I have heard you guys say on here before that the Direct Team would like to see a switch to the Delta IV along with a switch to Jupiter.
How would Delta IV compliment Direct, and would a manrated Delta IV be retired once Jupiter came online, or would it remain the launch vehicle for ISS and LEO ops, while Jupiter handles the Moon.
With the Delta IV already manrated and launching crews to the ISS, wouldn't there be pressure to just skip the Jupiter 120, and progress right to the 232?

I’m sure Ross will jump in with more detail when he gets a chance (very busy), but let me give an overview.

Remember, DIRECT is not just about the launch vehicle; it’s about the best way to implement the VSE. That means the appropriate use of our launch capabilities.

Jupiter is a heavy lift vehicle, even the lightweight J-120. Heavy lift is necessary for an efficient lunar and Martian program to get underway, and also for large mass/volume probes to destinations throughout the solar system. But heavy lift is not the answer for everything. In fact, for some things, it’s actually inappropriate. So a properly balanced manned space program will have the ability to address both realms efficiently, with launch vehicles that are properly suited to the lift needs. Destinations in LEO that are basically crew transfers do not NEED to use heavy lift. Tasks like that are better handled by launch vehicles in the current EELV class. Both the Atlas-V and the Delta-IV Heavy and eventually, the Falcon-9H (if it actually flies) are very appropriate launch vehicles for tasks like that. But when a crew is accompanying a heavy payload, the EELV cannot handle that, and the Jupiter-120 is perfectly suited for that kind of mission.

Check this out:
The Space Shuttle, when delivering crew only, is wasting 20mT of capacity.
The Space Shuttle, when delivering crew and payload, actually performs efficiently.
The Space Shuttle delivers a manned spacecraft and ~20mT of payload to LEO.
The Jupiter-120, when delivering crew only, is wasting 25mT of capacity.
The Jupiter-120 delivers a manned spacecraft and ~25mT of payload to LEO.
The Jupiter-120 is a nearly one-for-one replacement for Shuttle capability.
In addition to that, the Jupiter-120 puts the core of the VSE heavy lift vehicle on the launch pad, preserving the lunar, NEO and Martian goals.
If, in this economy, the lunar goals get delayed, the Jupiter being on the pad preserves the way forward for however long it takes to make the "political" decision to return to the moon.

Here’s the case for the Delta-IV:
It’s perfectly sized for personnel access to LEO.
It uses the same RS-68 engines as the Jupiter.
It uses an upper stage that the Jupiter-120 can adopt pending deployment of the JUS.
Manrating the RS-68 will mean cost-sharing with the DoD because it is the Jupiter’s engine as well.

It is the intent of DIRECT, as it is currently with NASA, to eventually turn over all LEO personnel operations to commercial launchers, which to our mind includes both EELV’s. This will free up the Jupiter’s to concentrate on moving beyond LEO, to the moon, NEO’s, Mars, and beyond. Eventually, NASA will only stop over in LEO to gas up at the propellant depot before departing.

As to your question about negating the need for the Jupiter-120, you can’t get to the Jupiter-232 without going thru the J-120. The J-120 *IS* the core stage for the J-232 (and the J-231 [different story]). The JUS will not be ready until 2016-2017. In the mean time, there is more than enough to do with both the Jupiter-120 and the EELVs to keep everyone gainfully employed and the manufacturing facilities at both MAF and Decatur very, very busy, including an Apollo-8 style mission to the moon in 2013. There is no need to lay off the majority of the operations people at KSC and the assembly employees at MAF, because they will all have lots of genuine work to do (lots of retraining). The workforce size *will* be trimmed, by a sizable amount, but if managed properly, the majority of that can be thru normal attrition.

The vision is to man rate and deploy the Delta-IVH and deploy the Jupiter-120 at approximately the same time. This will not only shorten the gap, but come very near to completely eliminating it. This approach involves (1) a Shuttle extension, to shorten the gap from the left toward the middle, (2) deployment of the Jupiter-120 to shorten the gap from the right towards the middle, and (3) deployment of a man rated Delta-IVH that will service the personnel needs of LEO after the Jupiter has begun to move beyond LEO. Whichever launcher, Delta-IVH or Jupiter-120 is ready first, gets to fly Orion first, but *BOTH* will fly Orion to the ISS. Both launch vehicles will be ready to fly Orion before Orion is ready to fly.

Once the Jupiter-232 is deployed, you probably won’t see a lot of Jupiter-120 flights. The ones that you do see will be science missions, or missions to LEO with a payload that requires a crew presence. Occasionally, even after the JUS is deployed, there will still be the Jupiter-120 mission that uses either an Atlas Centaur or Delta HDCUS stage as a mission stage, just because performance wise, a straight Jupiter-120 isn't enough and a Jupiter-232 is too much. It's nice to have options for the mission planners to select from.

So that’s what we’re about. We have really good launch vehicles in the EELVs that are perfectly suited to serving the LEO needs of crews and small payloads. But a vibrant VSE needs heavy lift and thus the Jupiter’s step up to the plate for that.

Just like the Navy has different sized ships for different missions, and the Air Force has different sized aircraft for its missions, so to NASA needs to have different size launch vehicles to select from to accomplish the specific missions called for, just like the Navy and the Air Force. We have the EELVs already flying. All we need to do is manr rate them and deploy the heavy lift family, and NASA will have all the options it needs for far less money than would have been spent just to get to a first flight of the Ares-I

This isn’t about “us vs. them”. It’s about all of us, moving forward – together.

If I may be allowed to interject something President Obama said yesterday; he said "It's not a question of if government is too big or too small. It's a question of if the government actually works". I think the comparison to launch vehicle capability is obvious. It's about what works.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/21/2009 09:45 PM
Thanks for the reply.

I think a good analogy is, the Delta IV is a 737, the Jupiter 120 is a 757, and the Jupiter 232 is the 777 (and I think Ares V would qualify as anything from the A380 to the An-225)

There are some routes where Continental would want a 737, others with a higher capacity warrant the use of the 757, and your long haul routes you use the 777.

You don't see Continental flying the 777 on ever route...they diversify their fleet for different needs.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/21/2009 11:12 PM
I know I've thrown this out there before as a reason that I think there are merits to the Ares V program.  Never got much input about it, so I don't know if people hadn't thought of it, or didn't think it valid.  But I am not alone, many folks see other potential uses for a super heavy lifter than wouldn't be possible with the J232.
That's not to discount all the financial and infrastructure advantages of Direct (and thanks do all for educating me on those), but I just wanted to point out I wasn't the only one to consider these other uses of a lifter the size of the Ares V.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090121-aresv-space-telescopes.html
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Bill White on 01/21/2009 11:17 PM
Back in the day, hadn't various individuals working on DIRECT sought information on the ESAS trade studies via FOIA? Aren't there a  few much sought after pages to an Appendix to those studies?

Today, President Obama took a strong stand in favor of increased transparency and greater compliance with FOIA. Maybe those old FOIA requests that were never responded to can be re-filed.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/day_one_new_foia_rules.php

A few minutes ago, I heard Obama himself talk about this on the car radio and immediately remembered something about DIRECT FOIA requests going unanswered for years.

From the link:

Quote
Judging from Obama’s description, the second transparency-related order seems designed to reverse President Bush’s widely reviled guidelines on how information officers should respond to Freedom of Information Act requests. In the early days of the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno issued guidance encouraging disclosure of information upon request under FOIA, unless “foreseeable harm” would result. Attorney General John Ashcroft, early in the Bush administration, issued new policies that encouraged information officers to search the full reach of FOIA exemptions before releasing requested records, a signal that many interpreted as license to deny worthy requests as long as a technical excuse for a denial could be found. By 2006, a study of Justice Department data by the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government found that FOIA requests were taking longer and were less likely to be fully fulfilled than at any point since 1998, when the relevant data started being archived.

It looks like the Obama administration, with the swoop of a pen, has quickly restored the old Clinton rules.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2009 11:38 PM
I know I've thrown this out there before as a reason that I think there are merits to the Ares V program.  Never got much input about it, so I don't know if people hadn't thought of it, or didn't think it valid.  But I am not alone, many folks see other potential uses for a super heavy lifter than wouldn't be possible with the J232.
That's not to discount all the financial and infrastructure advantages of Direct (and thanks do all for educating me on those), but I just wanted to point out I wasn't the only one to consider these other uses of a lifter the size of the Ares V.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090121-aresv-space-telescopes.html (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090121-aresv-space-telescopes.html)


There are no valid reasons to be able to lift as much as the Ares-V can lift. Two launches of a vehicle, like the Jupiter-232, can place more mass in orbit than a single launch of Ares-V, for less money than that single Ares-V would cost.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 01/22/2009 12:06 AM
Chuck,

It could be that Ares V is the only really heavy launcher for a generation.  It very well might be valuable in 10-20 years when we want to launch a large lander (either lunar or mars). 

One could even envision a larger diameter fairing and continued performance upgrades which would enable self-contained habitat landers, big rovers, etc.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/22/2009 12:11 AM
Chuck,

It could be that Ares V is the only really heavy launcher for a generation.  It very well might be valuable in 10-20 years when we want to launch a large lander (either lunar or mars). 

One could even envision a larger diameter fairing and continued performance upgrades which would enable self-contained habitat landers, big rovers, etc.

There just isn't anything that weighs more than 110mT that needs to be launched in one piece. Do you realize how big that is? Building gargantuan launchers just because you can is an obscene waste of money.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Pheogh on 01/22/2009 12:13 AM
Just for reference Chuck is there a good example of a single piece of hardware that is 110 mt. I am having a hard time visualizing a single piece of equipment. The 9 bus analogy doesn't work for me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Alpha Control on 01/22/2009 12:18 AM
Back in the day, hadn't various individuals working on DIRECT sought information on the ESAS trade studies via FOIA? Aren't there a  few much sought after pages to an Appendix to those studies?

Today, President Obama took a strong stand in favor of increased transparency and greater compliance with FOIA. Maybe those old FOIA requests that were never responded to can be re-filed.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/day_one_new_foia_rules.php

A few minutes ago, I heard Obama himself talk about this on the car radio and immediately remembered something about DIRECT FOIA requests going unanswered for years.

From the link:

Quote
Judging from Obama’s description, the second transparency-related order seems designed to reverse President Bush’s widely reviled guidelines on how information officers should respond to Freedom of Information Act requests. In the early days of the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno issued guidance encouraging disclosure of information upon request under FOIA, unless “foreseeable harm” would result. Attorney General John Ashcroft, early in the Bush administration, issued new policies that encouraged information officers to search the full reach of FOIA exemptions before releasing requested records, a signal that many interpreted as license to deny worthy requests as long as a technical excuse for a denial could be found. By 2006, a study of Justice Department data by the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government found that FOIA requests were taking longer and were less likely to be fully fulfilled than at any point since 1998, when the relevant data started being archived.

It looks like the Obama administration, with the swoop of a pen, has quickly restored the old Clinton rules.

I had the same thought when I heard this. ESAS appendices perhaps having another chance at full sunlight.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Fequalsma on 01/22/2009 12:18 AM
According to Wikipedia, the ISS is just over 227 MT as of last October.
F=ma

Just for reference Chuck is there a good example of a single piece of hardware that is 110 mt. I am having a hard time visualizing a single piece of equipment. The 9 bus analogy doesn't work for me.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 01/22/2009 12:19 AM
I know there isn't anything now but I could very easily imagine a number of payloads that could be accommodated.

For example, I think going to Mars without some kind of artificial gravity is foolish.  Such a vehicle might be very large. 

We haven't even fully designed the lunar lander and components (rover, etc).  I'm sure that any Mars lander and components could easily require one or even more Ares V launches.

Do we really want to go Mars?  And keep in mind that the VSE required NASA to think about Mars and plan for Mars.  It's funny that NASA gets all kinds of criticism about the limited Ares I capability and having to seriously trim back the CEV.  But in the case of Ares V they purposely go large to ensure sufficient margins and now you're saying it's TOO big.


Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/22/2009 12:23 AM
Just for reference Chuck is there a good example of a single piece of hardware that is 110 mt. I am having a hard time visualizing a single piece of equipment. The 9 bus analogy doesn't work for me.

If I did my math correctly, the current Orbiter weighs something like 68.58 metric tons. If this is right, then almost two Orbiters would fit the bill.

Close enough?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: bobthemonkey on 01/22/2009 12:25 AM
Just for reference Chuck is there a good example of a single piece of hardware that is 110 mt. I am having a hard time visualizing a single piece of equipment. The 9 bus analogy doesn't work for me.

Two main battle tanks, give or take.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Pheogh on 01/22/2009 12:26 AM
yep, that would be amazing to see.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/22/2009 12:42 AM
A 3-bedroom cape with 2 full bathrooms, kitchen, living and dining rooms with an attached garage, front porch,  and a screen-in deck, fully furnished with the family all moved in and the family car in the driveway doesn't even come close to 100mT. Now if I flooded it with propellant - then maybe.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/22/2009 12:50 AM
Just for reference Chuck is there a good example of a single piece of hardware that is 110 mt. I am having a hard time visualizing a single piece of equipment. The 9 bus analogy doesn't work for me.

My two story house - ~3300 square feet including the basement, with all the furnishings, plus the concrete floor in the garage and the front walkway, plus the concrete foundation and all 36 supporting concrete caissons, all together weigh about 110 tons.

Not very aerodynamic, though, and wouldn't fit well into a payload fairing!

EDIT:  About 70 of that 110 tons is the concrete.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/22/2009 01:25 AM
110mT is a huge payload. Ares-V is so big because most of that payload is propellant which is WAY cheaper to deliver by a salvo of EELVs. The examples of the houses show you the sheer size of what we are talking about. A house is mostly open space. A spacecraft is mostly open space. A spacecraft that weighed 110mT would be bigger than the average Cape Cod home, which is about 1500 sq feet. Lee Jay's home is more than double that size, but also includes immense amounts of additional concrete. When we add in all that concrete plus more than two Cape Cod homes to get to Lee Jay's house, we get to 110mT. So you see, when we are talking about 110mT of payload, unless we are talking about propellant, we are talking about an ENORMOUS spacecraft, much too large to be flown in any payload fairing imaginable.

There just is no justification for a monster the size of the Ares-V which is supposed to lift, not 100mT, not 120mT, but the latest (whispered) goal is 150mT. Just how big a house is that do you think?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: VoodooForce on 01/22/2009 01:51 AM
Maybe NASA is planning to turn some off the Huge increase in budget required to design build and fly Ares I,V into gold bullion and store it in earth orbit?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2009 02:05 AM
Hello-

New to the forum. Now that a new President has been seated, is there any real hope that we can actually put the brakes on Ares and have a genuine review of Direct as the booster system for Orion and Moon, Mars, and Beyond?

One important fact to note is that initially we aren't proposing to put the brakes on Ares.   What we're calling for is an Independent Review to identify precisely which is the best option for the US civil space program.   Ares doesn't stop while that review is conducted.   Ares doesn't get delayed by any such review, at all.

What we want is a comparison of the current plans with all of the other alternatives.   If that review determines that Ares is the best way, there will have been no delays at all.

But if that review determines that Ares is a horrible mistake, that is important information to know before we waste any more time or money on it.   That would then be the correct time for work to be halted and re-directed.

If we have an Independent Review confirming the best approach, we have solid ground from which to make appropriate changes.   Right now there is no independent evidence at all indicating which direction is better -- we're flying blind.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Mark S on 01/22/2009 02:29 AM
There just is no justification for a monster the size of the Ares-V which is supposed to lift, not 100mT, not 120mT, but the latest (whispered) goal is 150mT. Just how big a house is that do you think?

I thought the Ares-V was originally spec'd at 135 mT to LEO, which then later got 'upgraded' to 187 mT.  I don't remember seeing 120 or 150 mT anywhere before this.

I know they are still trying to figure out whether to stick with RS-68 or go back to SSME, what the arrangement of the engines would be, and whether to use 5.5 or 6 segment solids.  But haven't they at least decided on what mass of payload they actually need to be able to loft?

Don't you design to a target?  Or do you just try to figure out how to get the largest payload with a given pile of components?  Hmm...

As for me, 110 mT seems like a usable amount of material, considering that the ISS got build in chunks of 20 mT or so.

Mark S.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/22/2009 02:34 AM
That "monolithic mirror space telescope" sounds like a desperate hail mary pass. PR for Ares-V... not an actual purpose for the Bloat. Such a mirror doesn't weigh anywhere near Ares payload. It's just large in one dimension.

And guess what? Direct can carry it to.

 "The 8-meter-diameter telescope can only fit inside an Ares V payload fairing," the NRC report stated."

... or the J-232's 10 meter PLF.

So 60,000 kg to L2. I believe that's well within the capabilities of 2 J-232's... and some extras. And, of course, much cheaper than Ares.

And it's just as wrong-headed in concept. Wanna see those particular astronomers dump Ares like a day-old dog log? Just cue them into the concept of a segmented mirror so much larger than the monolith that its resolution is superior... while the savings in going segmented on Jupiter means it actually costs less than the monolith on Ares :)

Don't let them blitz you with this, Ross... it don't fly from the get-go.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2009 02:35 AM
Ross or Chuck,

Not to branch off into too much talk of EELVs, as there are other threads for that, I have heard you guys say on here before that the Direct Team would like to see a switch to the Delta IV along with a switch to Jupiter.
How would Delta IV compliment Direct, and would a manrated Delta IV be retired once Jupiter came online, or would it remain the launch vehicle for ISS and LEO ops, while Jupiter handles the Moon.
With the Delta IV already manrated and launching crews to the ISS, wouldn't there be pressure to just skip the Jupiter 120, and progress right to the 232?

Actually, it would be more the other way around :)

Both Jupiter-120 and Delta-IV Heavy launchers can be ready months before Orion possibly can be.   It doesn't really matter which flies a crew first.   Obviously we'd prefer Jupiter to make that historic maiden-flight, but it doesn't really matter.


By the 2012-2014 time-frame there will be systems on ISS which will have become unserviceable.   Jupiter would support a series of early missions delivering repairs/replacements for failed hardware, plus large quantities of logistics and also large numbers of new experiment racks.

By the time the system becomes fully operational a replacement Centrifuge Accommodations Module could possibly be ready to lift too.   All of this work would be utilized to test most of the spacecraft systems & procedures in order improve them before ever embarking on the more complex Lunar phase.

Jupiter would then also be able to perform the Lunar Flyby Mission in 2013 (using a Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage), a Hubble Servicing Mission in 2014 and it can support a few other landmark science missions too.


The Delta would be capable of supporting any routine Crew Rotation Missions where the only thing flying would be the Orion -- plus it will continue to support whatever DoD and commercial launches are planned as well.


So while we see a need for lifting quite a bit of mass to ISS immediately following the "gap", we don't expect that to be required long-term.   We would prefer to pass all of the ISS missions to the commercial operators, keeping the limited number of Jupiter units reserved for the beyond-LEO Exploration missions which really need the higher performance.   In practice, the odd Crew+Cargo mission to ISS would still be needed from time-to-time, but those would be the exception, not the rule -- maybe 1 per year, maximum.


Overall, NASA needs to concentrate more on the bleeding-edge missions which commercial operators just can't do.   NASA needs to concentrating on creating the new infrastructure which we need for exploring the solar system.   Once NASA has created each of the initial infrastructure elements, it then moves on, allowing commercial systems to move-in behind.   That way, NASA can keep blazing the trail and the commercial market will be there supporting all those activities.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/22/2009 02:50 AM
Final Ares hail mary:

"Only Ares V can loft the millions of 10 x 30 meter sunscreen rolls that form the components of the George Bush Legacy Solar Shield that will help keep global warming from rendering humanity extinct!"

Whaddya think? Now taking bets on it appearing in next Friday's news dump :)

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2009 03:59 AM
Back in the day, hadn't various individuals working on DIRECT sought information on the ESAS trade studies via FOIA? Aren't there a  few much sought after pages to an Appendix to those studies?

Today, President Obama took a strong stand in favor of increased transparency and greater compliance with FOIA. Maybe those old FOIA requests that were never responded to can be re-filed.

Thanks for that suggestion Bill.

Because you mentioned that, I have just submitted the following to:   [email protected]

---=== Start ===---

Subject:   ESAS papers Request

For the attention of:   Mr. Stephen McConnell, Principal Agency FOIA Officer & Chief, Public Liaison Officer

Dear Mr. McConnell,
   In April of 2006 I submitted an FOIA Request to NASA HQ which has never been fulfilled.

   Given President Obama's announcement today regarding greater transparency in the FOIA process, I feel that now is the best time to follow this up.   Let me start by saying that I am uninterested in pursuing a complaint.   I am simply willing to re-submit the request for your attention now.


   On 04/26/2006 the leader of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Dr. Doug Stanley, posted the following message to a public forum (message: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=2330.msg33409#msg33409):

"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)."


   Immediately following Dr. Stanley's public comments, I submitted a request for all of this material to assist me in writing a journalistic news article for the website NASASpaceFlight.com.   The request was Log #06-206 and it was being processed by LaShonda Goodwyn.   Nearly three years later, I am still waiting.

   What I am requesting is:-

1)   A full set of all the so-far unpublished "Appendices" to the ESAS Report.

2)   Disclosure of "All of the tens of thousands of pages of supporting charts and materials that were not released", as Dr. Stanley suggests.


   I would be grateful if the FOIA Office would expedite the release of the Appendices as soon as possible and please not delay their release until the full collection of "thousands of papers" can be fully compiled as that is likely to take much longer to process.

   I request that copies be electronic in as many cases as possible, to reduce any duplication charges to a bare-minimum.


   The material will primarily be utilized to write a series of articles for NASASpaceFlight.com, now intended to be an "ESAS: 4 years on" article.   Therefore I ask that FOIA Request be officially classified as a News Media request, not as Commercial.   I therefore also request it to be subject to the appropriate fee waiver for News Media under 14 CFR Sec. 1206.701, Part C.


   I would appreciate a confirmation that this Request has been submitted successfully, a reference number and a contact name for the person who will be responsible for this repeated FOIA Request.

   Many Thanks for your time and I hope this will receive your prompt attention,

Ross B Tierney
on behalf of NASASpaceFlight.com

---===  End  ==---

I will let you all know if anything comes of it.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2009 11:00 AM
There just is no justification for a monster the size of the Ares-V which is supposed to lift, not 100mT, not 120mT, but the latest (whispered) goal is 150mT. Just how big a house is that do you think?

I thought the Ares-V was originally spec'd at 135 mT to LEO, which then later got 'upgraded' to 187 mT.  I don't remember seeing 120 or 150 mT anywhere before this.

I know they are still trying to figure out whether to stick with RS-68 or go back to SSME, what the arrangement of the engines would be, and whether to use 5.5 or 6 segment solids.  But haven't they at least decided on what mass of payload they actually need to be able to loft?

Don't you design to a target?  Or do you just try to figure out how to get the largest payload with a given pile of components?  Hmm...

As for me, 110 mT seems like a usable amount of material, considering that the ISS got build in chunks of 20 mT or so.

It's a bizarre thing, but the performance for the CaLV/Ares-V differs from person to person, from week to week, all depending on what you include as part of the 'performance'.

Are you including the mass of the EDS as part of the figure, or do you count that as part of the launcher and just calculate the payload it carries?

Are you accounting for industry-standard 10% performance margins to get a NET performance figure, or do you want to talk about the raw "gross" performance which is the hypothetical maximum, but which will never be seen in real operations?

Depending on how you factor these things you can end up with four different performance figures for a single configuration.

Naturally, CxP have been doing it completely differently from everybody else.   The EELV guys, the Space Shuttle Program, Space-X, the Russians, Europeans, Japanese and Chinese will all quote you using the same technique:   NET Payload performance, after safety margins have been applied and not including any elements of the launcher.   In other words they all tell you what the real-world payload limits are.

CxP's current figure of over 185mT doesn't work that way.   That number includes all the margins and the mass of the Upper Stage as well.   It represents a 'maximum theoretical lift mass', which is interesting to know, but is not particularly useful as the vehicle can't lift that amount of real payload.

They are radically different apples-and-oranges.

Dragging it in-line with everyone else, the current Ares-V (10m, 6-engine, 5.5seg) payload performance is more like 145mT at the moment.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2009 11:10 AM
That "monolithic mirror space telescope" sounds like a desperate hail mary pass. PR for Ares-V... not an actual purpose for the Bloat. Such a mirror doesn't weigh anywhere near Ares payload. It's just large in one dimension.

And guess what? Direct can carry it to.

 "The 8-meter-diameter telescope can only fit inside an Ares V payload fairing," the NRC report stated."

... or the J-232's 10 meter PLF.

So 60,000 kg to L2. I believe that's well within the capabilities of 2 J-232's... and some extras. And, of course, much cheaper than Ares.

And it's just as wrong-headed in concept. Wanna see those particular astronomers dump Ares like a day-old dog log? Just cue them into the concept of a segmented mirror so much larger than the monolith that its resolution is superior... while the savings in going segmented on Jupiter means it actually costs less than the monolith on Ares :)

Don't let them blitz you with this, Ross... it don't fly from the get-go.


Don't worry.   We have already shown the 12m Jupiter PLF option to the world.

We even have a 15m PLF which would certainly also work -- but it starts to look a bit ugly.

I'm sure Ares-V could do those too, but there is one critical difference:   Jupiter-232 would actually be affordable and might be funded to completion while allowing these payloads to also be funded.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/22/2009 12:13 PM
Ross, presumably there is an upper limit on PLF size beyond which aerodynamic loads and the mass of the PLF itself overcome vehicle performance? Is it possible to draw up a graph showing this trade-off?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2009 12:40 PM
Depends on the vehicle too.   The taller the vehicle the greater the bending loads.   While Jupiter-232 has far more performance than Jupiter-120, it is possible that Jupiter-232 might get overloaded by something the size of the 15m PLF.   The comparatively low acceleration forces of Jupiter-232 (never exceeds 2.5g maximum thru to PLF jettison) does help the situation a great deal though.

All I've got right now is word that both vehicles will be able to handle the 12m dia x 20m long PLF quite happily.   The Jupiter-120 has the green light for the 15m too, albeit that at ~22.1mT (compared to 5.2mT for the standard 8.4x10m CaLV PLF) its weight cuts into the total performance a bit more.

The MSFC guys are still checking into the larger PLF on the Jupiter-232 though.   They want to be sure that the extra loads aren't too much for the unpressurized Interstage and the Core Intertank structures on the Jupiter-232 with that massive 15m dia x 20m long PLF.   It looks like its 'borderline' whether it would infringe the 1.4FS of the baseline hardware.

Assuming it were only ever used for Cargo flights though (I can't see it being used with a crew anyway), but the standard of 1.25FS which is used by the EELV's for cargo flights might be applicable here too.   So with that as a backup rationale, they've currently flagged it as something which would work, but which *might* require a waiver on the Jupiter-232.

And before anyone asks, yes it the giant PLF does fit through the VAB doors when mounted atop a Jupiter-232! :)

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: jarmumd on 01/22/2009 02:03 PM
Depends on the vehicle too.   The taller the vehicle the greater the bending loads.   While Jupiter-232 has far more performance than Jupiter-120, it is possible that Jupiter-232 might get overloaded by something the size of the 15m PLF.   The comparatively low acceleration forces of Jupiter-232 (never exceeds 2.5g maximum thru to PLF jettison) does help the situation a great deal though.

All I've got right now is word that both vehicles will be able to handle the 12m dia x 20m long PLF quite happily.   The Jupiter-120 has the green light for the 15m too, albeit that at ~22.1mT (compared to 5.2mT for the standard 8.4x10m CaLV PLF) its weight cuts into the total performance a bit more.

The MSFC guys are still checking into the larger PLF on the Jupiter-232 though.   They want to be sure that the extra loads aren't too much for the unpressurized Interstage and the Core Intertank structures on the Jupiter-232 with that massive 15m dia x 20m long PLF.   It looks like its 'borderline' whether it would infringe the 1.4FS of the baseline hardware.

Assuming it were only ever used for Cargo flights though (I can't see it being used with a crew anyway), but the standard of 1.25FS which is used by the EELV's for cargo flights might be applicable here too.   So with that as a backup rationale, they've currently flagged it as something which would work, but which *might* require a waiver on the Jupiter-232.

And before anyone asks, yes it the giant PLF does fit through the VAB doors when mounted atop a Jupiter-232! :)

Ross.

Nitpicking - because I really don't think it's as simple as "we have a 15m PLF too!"  Are the loads estimated only on mass and acceleration, or do you know how they have applied aerodynamic loads - did they use CFD or a historic database?  If you use a PLF with similar proportions to Ares V or NLS or etc, the I see a pretty good estimate on aerodynamic loads, otherwise without wind tunnel testing followed up with detailed bending loads analysis, I think it's a stretch to assume that this is a working design.  It's not just about payload capability, certainly Direct has the margin, but you guys are saying that you have so much ability - all without doing detailed analysis.  I would say stick to the basics and let the "options" and "upgrades" be sorted out later.  Otherwise when I see this 15m PLF can work - I think it's a joke...  there seems to be no basis to assume that it can.

Not a plug to anyone on the Direct team or the design - rather that unless you have combined CFD/WindTunnel aerodynamics, with detailed Finite Element Models from the manufacturers as well as the best analysis tools - this claim means nothing.  You can make it when it's shape is similar to what's come before it (NLS).

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/22/2009 02:10 PM
   I would appreciate a confirmation that this Request has been submitted successfully, a reference number and a contact name for the person who will be responsible for this repeated FOIA Request.

   Many Thanks for your time and I hope this will receive your prompt attention,

Ross B Tierney
on behalf of NASASpaceFlight.com


Way to go, Ross!

Thanks to Bill also for bringing this up!

Let's hope that a mounting wave of information will be generated to get a review going!

Along those lines, I read an article this morning from the AP, regarding the IG at NASA having issues.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20090110/D95K0JBG0.html (http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20090110/D95K0JBG0.html)

In this budget-conscious time, perhaps the cost-savings aspects of DIRECT need to be brought to the attention of those members of Congress who are looking at these things? Two were mentioned specifically. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and House Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, D-Tenn.

I intend to write both of them today or tomorrow, to express my doubts about the current state of budget management at NASA, and explaining the cost-savings and efficiency of the DIRECT proposal. If anyone on the team wants to contribute some solid figures for me to quote, I'll be certain to use them.

When I complete the letters, I'll post copies. Here's a chance, gang!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: gladiator1332 on 01/22/2009 02:23 PM
That "monolithic mirror space telescope" sounds like a desperate hail mary pass. PR for Ares-V... not an actual purpose for the Bloat. Such a mirror doesn't weigh anywhere near Ares payload. It's just large in one dimension.

And guess what? Direct can carry it to.

 "The 8-meter-diameter telescope can only fit inside an Ares V payload fairing," the NRC report stated."

... or the J-232's 10 meter PLF.

So 60,000 kg to L2. I believe that's well within the capabilities of 2 J-232's... and some extras. And, of course, much cheaper than Ares.

And it's just as wrong-headed in concept. Wanna see those particular astronomers dump Ares like a day-old dog log? Just cue them into the concept of a segmented mirror so much larger than the monolith that its resolution is superior... while the savings in going segmented on Jupiter means it actually costs less than the monolith on Ares :)

Don't let them blitz you with this, Ross... it don't fly from the get-go.


Don't worry.   We have already shown the 12m Jupiter PLF option to the world.

We even have a 15m PLF which would certainly also work -- but it starts to look a bit ugly.

I'm sure Ares-V could do those too, but there is one critical difference:   Jupiter-232 would actually be affordable and might be funded to completion while allowing these payloads to also be funded.

Ross.

Do you have any images of these?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/22/2009 02:26 PM

Nitpicking - because I really don't think it's as simple as "we have a 15m PLF too!"  Are the loads estimated only on mass and acceleration, or do you know how they have applied aerodynamic loads - did they use CFD or a historic database?  If you use a PLF with similar proportions to Ares V or NLS or etc, the I see a pretty good estimate on aerodynamic loads, otherwise without wind tunnel testing followed up with detailed bending loads analysis, I think it's a stretch to assume that this is a working design.  It's not just about payload capability, certainly Direct has the margin, but you guys are saying that you have so much ability - all without doing detailed analysis.  I would say stick to the basics and let the "options" and "upgrades" be sorted out later.  Otherwise when I see this 15m PLF can work - I think it's a joke...  there seems to be no basis to assume that it can.

Not a plug to anyone on the Direct team or the design - rather that unless you have combined CFD/WindTunnel aerodynamics, with detailed Finite Element Models from the manufacturers as well as the best analysis tools - this claim means nothing.  You can make it when it's shape is similar to what's come before it (NLS).

Marc

Too many people are either forgetting or ignoring what we have repeatedly said; that we are not doing these analyses ourselves. When we state that we have this or that capability, we are not providing first order magnitude numbers that we pull out of the air or extract from a home-made spreadsheet. We are providing the data that has been provided to us by the professionals at MSFC. For example, I know for a fact that carefully constructed FEA models are definitely being used, although I can’t speak for the WT.

It is fine to question the performance capabilities they provide us when this or that data point seems to be missing, but to refer to what the pros at MSFC are telling us is the results of their analyses as “being a joke” is unnecessarily demeaning to them. A little respect please, goes a long way towards a meaningful conversation.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: jarmumd on 01/22/2009 02:52 PM
Too many people are either forgetting or ignoring what we have repeatedly said; that we are not doing these analyses ourselves. When we state that we have this or that capability, we are not providing first order magnitude numbers that we pull out of the air or extract from a home-made spreadsheet. We are providing the data that has been provided to us by the professionals at MSFC. For example, I know for a fact that carefully constructed FEA models are definitely being used, although I can’t speak for the WT.

It is fine to question the performance capabilities they provide us when this or that data point seems to be missing, but to refer to what the pros at MSFC are telling us is the results of their analyses as “being a joke” is unnecessarily demeaning to them. A little respect please, goes a long way towards a meaningful conversation.


I work with many of the professionals at MSFC, this isn't about them or Direct - it is about being able to back up a claim.  I consider myself well versed in structural finite element analysis - even so, for me to design a composite part with FEA and call it "good" would be irresponsible - that's not my specialty.  Similarly, if you take aerodynamic data from a vehicle of similar proportions, that's one thing, if you start inferring loads based on incorrect assumptions about vehicle dimensions - that's another.  This isn't meant to be a personal hit clongton, please don't twist it into one just because I question the abilities of the Direct crew.  I will completely rescind such comments if you were to tell me that those who work for Direct include Aerodynamicists, FEA modelers, Loads/Dynamics Analysis, manufacturing design engineers and so on - I mean do you have the people and the tools to do analyzes on so many different designs?  If so then I am truly sorry.

I apologize for using the word "joke" - I regard with great suspicion designs for which so little detailed analysis have been performed.  If you have done a detailed analysis, where did you get the aerodynamic properties of a vehicle with the 15m PLF?  How do the bending modes of the 15m PLF affect the bending modes of the total vehicle?  Do the amplitudes of these bending modes increase or decrease the angle of attack of Jupiter as it goes through Max Q / Max G?

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/22/2009 03:13 PM
I will completely rescind such comments if you were to tell me that those who work for Direct include Aerodynamicists, FEA modelers, Loads/Dynamics Analysis, manufacturing design engineers and so on - I mean do you have the people and the tools to do analyzes on so many different designs?  If so then I am truly sorry.

All these fields are represented by pros at Marshall and elsewhere, and many more engineering fields besides. The DIRECT Team principally consists of people who do this for a living.

Quote
I apologize for using the word "joke" - I regard with great suspicion designs for which so little detailed analysis have been performed.  If you have done a detailed analysis, where did you get the aerodynamic properties of a vehicle with the 15m PLF?  How do the bending modes of the 15m PLF affect the bending modes of the total vehicle?  Do the amplitudes of these bending modes increase or decrease the angle of attack of Jupiter as it goes through Max Q / Max G?

Marc

Apology immediately accepted. All I can tell you about the details of the various analyses is that they have been done by the pros at Marshall and elsewhere and that everything that has been done for the Ares vehicles has been done for the Jupiter, excepting the WT. I don't know that the WT hasn't been done, I just have no verification of it. Personally I doubt that because this work is being done on their own time and I would be amazed if any of them actually had a WT in their basement. But then again, I know a few of these guys might just actually do that [grin]. I actually built a WT in the garage when I was flying my own RC plane designs years ago. It was a big help. Of course it couldn't create the velocities or induced environments that a launch vehicle would see. I was only 35 at the time.

These guys typically do not provide us with the details of what they actually did, other than to say that it was a full fidelity analysis and the results were thus and so, and for the same reasons that they withhold their identities from the public - for now. Hopefully that will change with the departure of Dr Griffin.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: jarmumd on 01/22/2009 03:33 PM
Hopefully that will change with the departure of Dr Griffin.

Or at the very least from the statements of President Obama

Hopefully the decisions regarding Ares will be more clear - and that a review of the current architecture (compared to Direct, EELV) will happen with certainty.

Marc
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/22/2009 03:53 PM
Chuck,

It could be that Ares V is the only really heavy launcher for a generation.  It very well might be valuable in 10-20 years when we want to launch a large lander (either lunar or mars). 

One could even envision a larger diameter fairing and continued performance upgrades which would enable self-contained habitat landers, big rovers, etc.

There just isn't anything that weighs more than 110mT that needs to be launched in one piece. Do you realize how big that is? Building gargantuan launchers just because you can is an obscene waste of money.

Actually, according to the article, they -were- saying there was visa vi the large telescopes. 

And I'm not trying to discount the other advantages of DIRECT, I think this one does go in the Ares column though.  Of course, if Ares were to truely never fly, then it's a moot point.
Also, to be fair, they are more talking about payload diameter rather than actual mass.  So it's possible you could launch a telescope with the same diameter mirror, but it would be a low enough mass that the J232 could still launch it with a 10m fairing.  The article didn't really address that, but lauded the Ares V capabilities enough that it -seemed- like any less capacity couldn't lift the telescopes they are talking about.

But to address the question that there's really nothing that needs to be launched that big in one piece?  Well, I'm not an expert in it, but telescopes are delicate enough with the precision of the mirrors that I would imagine trying to assemble one out of multiple launches would run a high risk of a multi-million (or billion) dollar piece of space junk orbiting.  (As Hubble almost was, and that was a single unit).
Otherwise why wasn't Hubble a multi-component telescope?  Or the new James Webb telescope?
They are constrained in size, and thus performance, by the launche vehicles available to launch them.  The J232 would then constrain then next gen telescopes more than the Ares V would, and so on.

But that's certainly not to discount how much more substantial telescope that the J232 could launch than anything currently available.  And while I'm sure the telescope guys would be more more happy with the Ares V, they'd also be happy with the J232 over what they have now.

It's just a point to be considered, not the definitive point to hang the whole argument either way on.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/22/2009 04:04 PM
A single-piece 8.4 meter mirror (AFAIK the largest presently producible) weighs about 18 tons.  I just can't imagine that the rest of the spacecraft would weigh over 90 tons.  Such a scope would have 3.5 times the diffraction-limited resolution as HST, which is a pretty big step up.  It seems to me that the J-232 could launch it without trouble.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/22/2009 04:06 PM
Hello-

New to the forum. Now that a new President has been seated, is there any real hope that we can actually put the brakes on Ares and have a genuine review of Direct as the booster system for Orion and Moon, Mars, and Beyond?

One important fact to note is that initially we aren't proposing to put the brakes on Ares.   What we're calling for is an Independent Review to identify precisely which is the best option for the US civil space program.   Ares doesn't stop while that review is conducted.   Ares doesn't get delayed by any such review, at all.

What we want is a comparison of the current plans with all of the other alternatives.   If that review determines that Ares is the best way, there will have been no delays at all.

But if that review determines that Ares is a horrible mistake, that is important information to know before we waste any more time or money on it.   That would then be the correct time for work to be halted and re-directed.

If we have an Independent Review confirming the best approach, we have solid ground from which to make appropriate changes.   Right now there is no independent evidence at all indicating which direction is better -- we're flying blind.

Ross.

I don't think there's any problem with giving it a review.  I want the best system to win.  Elections have consequences, both good and bad.  If Ares is a mistake, and there's a legit review, that could be a good consequence.  If they decide they need to gut NASA's budget to give welfare (although they are calling them "tax cuts") to those who don't pay taxes, so they can buy some more votes, then that is a negative consequence.

You all might get your review, but you also might get neither Ares nor Jupiter.  The Obama administration promised a lot of room at the governemnt trough to a lot of people to get elected, and now they are going to be wanting their share.  Unfortunately your average Obama supporter is less concerned about space science and exploration than they are about getting a handout from the government.  There'll be a lot more mouths to feed, so to speak.
We'll get change alright, but be careful what change you wish for.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2009 04:37 PM
Nitpicking - because I really don't think it's as simple as "we have a 15m PLF too!"  Are the loads estimated only on mass and acceleration, or do you know how they have applied aerodynamic loads - did they use CFD or a historic database?

I'll tell you what I know.   And I warn you that I'm totally out of my depth with this stuff, so I'll just regurgitate what I've been told, as best I can.

A small group of our guys at MSFC who are all working Ares-I/V, have been putting together an early series of analysis for us.

Precisely what range of tools they've been using to do this, I'm not sure.   I do know that one of the things they've created is a reasonably good CAD model in Pro E of all the major elements, but how that fits with what they're doing, I'm not sure.

They spent months -- in their spare time -- carefully setting everything up last year so that they could work through the Christmas period to get some actual results for us.

One of the things they did were a whole series of different aero comparisons, testing the J-120 CLV and CaLV configurations, also the J-232 CLV, CaLV and EDS configurations.   They also tested a series of different BPC/PLF arrangements too, with different styles of cones and ogive shapes.   They determined that we needed to change our full-ogive BPC/conical PLF arrangement to a more streamlined design to reduce shock-wave formation.   They told us that a full-ogive combined BPC/PLF was better, but so too was a partial-ogive BPC smoothly tapering into a conical PLF cone would work just as well too.   I made the call, purely on visual preference, to go with the second of those two options.

They also tested the bigger PLF's just to see if they would work.   They said that the 12m PLF had no problems at all.   The 15m, they were more hesitant about.   Apparently it doesn't create any nasty vortexes, but it does create a low pressure region below it which caught their eye.   They don't think its a major problem, but they weren't set-up to do any more testing on it and given how unlikely such a thing will ever actually be used, its just not important anyway.   So they left it after just getting their initial tests done.

They have been able to determine that the basic structure of both Jupiter-120 and Jupiter-232 have no immediate 'oh frak' issues from either an aero or loads perspective.

They've said its only a low-to-medium fidelity simulation, roughly what they would want to start a DAC-1 effort with.   They say it should have been plenty good enough to highlight any major or moderate areas of concern with the structure or with the outer mold line, but probably wouldn't highlight the minor issues very accurately.   They said both vehicles were essentially 'clean'.

One thing which they did confirm was that our new tapered Engine Compartment on the Core Stage was reasonably effective in reducing base heating recirculation during the Booster phase of the flight.   It won't make the problem go away, but they said it was in a whole different (better) class compared to what they've been seeing on Ares-V.


A computer sim is never going to be as good as real wind tunnel data, but they say that their computer simulations do tie-in pretty well with both the current Ares-I and the current Ares-V wind tunnel data, so they're reasonably confident that this is at least going to be 'representative' was the word they used.

I have no clue if they've done any CFD work as part of this, but I would hazard a guess that they probably had to do some in order to get to this level of analysis.   But I have no confirmation on that yet.

No doubt, my understanding of what they're doing as expressed here has probably made the waters even murkier! :)

I'm trying to pass on to you what I've been told (and what I managed to understand of it!) over the phone.   If I'm not making sufficient sense, forgive me -- the weakness is with my understanding, not theirs.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: jarmumd on 01/22/2009 04:57 PM

I'll tell you what I know.   And I warn you that I'm totally out of my depth with this stuff, so I'll just regurgitate what I've been told, as best I can.

...

Ross.

I very much appreciate you taking the time to find out for me - thank you!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2009 05:02 PM
It's just a point to be considered, not the definitive point to hang the whole argument either way on.

Just for the record, we've been speaking with a team at JPL and another at MIT about space telescopes.

Both groups are talking about only 40-50mT for an 8-10m diameter optical telescope as an upgrade to Hubble.   That sort of mass could probably be lifted on the J-120, let alone the J-232.

They couldn't care less that Ares-V has almost three times that mass capability or that Jupiter-232 has over twice that.   As long as it can lift up to 50mT, their only interest is getting that wide diameter PLF.   And they just can't get it via the EELV's, Space-X or Ares-I.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/22/2009 05:23 PM
Both groups are talking about only 40-50mT for an 8-10m diameter optical telescope as an upgrade to Hubble.

That makes a whole bunch more sense.  If an 8.4m monolithic mirror is 18 tons, it's just hard to imagine the rest of the spacecraft weighing more than about 20-30 tons more than that.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Oberon_Command on 01/22/2009 05:28 PM
This has probably been answered in another thread, but if there is a big review of Ares/DIRECT/EELV, and Ares comes out on top, what will the DIRECT team do? Will they disband, or will they continue pushing their alternative?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/22/2009 06:12 PM
While Ares-V may be projected to have much more "up-mass" available, doesn't it actually have significantly less potential payload "volume/length" available than Jupiter 232 due to the extreme height of the first two stages and the limited clearance to the VAB doors?

What are the longest possible fairings for Ares-V and for J-232?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: clongton on 01/22/2009 06:27 PM
This has probably been answered in another thread, but if there is a big review of Ares/DIRECT/EELV, and Ares comes out on top, what will the DIRECT team do? Will they disband, or will they continue pushing their alternative?

Although we would love to see it, it has never been our intention "to get OUR rocket" to fly. Our intention has always been to get NASA the best solution possible for the VSE. We believe that DIRECT is that best solution. To that end we have long called for an INDEPENDENT review, one where nobody has skin in the game, and one that everyone can trust. If we get that kind of a review, the members of the DIRECT have pledged to abide by and support whatever the results are.

But it has to be a fair and impartial review by experts that know what they are doing and that have nothing to gain by recommending any particular solution over the other. As long as the results are supported by real data, we will abide by and throw our complete support behind the recommended solutuion, no matter what it is.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: William Barton on 01/22/2009 06:31 PM
It's just a point to be considered, not the definitive point to hang the whole argument either way on.

Just for the record, we've been speaking with a team at JPL and another at MIT about space telescopes.

Both groups are talking about only 40-50mT for an 8-10m diameter optical telescope as an upgrade to Hubble.   That sort of mass could probably be lifted on the J-120, let alone the J-232.

They couldn't care less that Ares-V has almost three times that mass capability or that Jupiter-232 has over twice that.   As long as it can lift up to 50mT, their only interest is getting that wide diameter PLF.   And they just can't get it via the EELV's, Space-X or Ares-I.

Ross.

Have you heard any estimated costs for a space telescope that size? I keep thinking it might be $10bln, which seems like an awful lot of money to put on a single ride!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: William Barton on 01/22/2009 06:41 PM
This has probably been answered in another thread, but if there is a big review of Ares/DIRECT/EELV, and Ares comes out on top, what will the DIRECT team do? Will they disband, or will they continue pushing their alternative?

Although we would love to see it, it has never been our intention "to get OUR rocket" to fly. Our intention has always been to get NASA the best solution possible for the VSE. We believe that DIRECT is that best solution. To that end we have long called for an INDEPENDENT review, one where nobody has skin in the game, and one that everyone can trust. If we get that kind of a review, the members of the DIRECT have pledged to abide by and support whatever the results are.

But it has to be a fair and impartial review by experts that know what they are doing and that have nothing to gain by recommending any particular solution over the other. As long as the results are supported by real data, we will abide by and throw our complete support behind the recommended solutuion, no matter what it is.

There obviously a point where it's too late and you have to throw in the towel. Either way, you should be able to get a book out of the experience!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/22/2009 06:44 PM
Have you heard any estimated costs for a space telescope that size? I keep thinking it might be $10bln, which seems like an awful lot of money to put on a single ride!

The JWST is $3.5B, and it's 6.5m, infrared, segmented, and will be at L2.  A visual scope, at 8.4m, non-segmented in LEO should be less, IMHO, even though it's larger.  The Large Binocular Telescope cost $120M, and it has two scopes with two of those 8.4m monolithic mirrors.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 01/22/2009 06:53 PM
Have you heard any estimated costs for a space telescope that size? I keep thinking it might be $10bln, which seems like an awful lot of money to put on a single ride!

The JWST is $3.5B, and it's 6.5m, infrared, segmented, and will be at L2.  A visual scope, at 8.4m, non-segmented in LEO should be less, IMHO, even though it's larger.  The Large Binocular Telescope cost $120M, and it has two scopes with two of those 8.4m monolithic mirrors.

Interesting thought.. Would a Binocular(2x8.4m)  Telescope in LEO(or @L2) make more sense than trying to fabricate and fly a larger monolithic(or segmented) mirror? 

It seems there's enough throw mass available with J-232 or Ares-V to loft 2 8.4m mirrors.. Have two mirrors inline at launch and then rotate/translate out into position in orbit?  or would protecting the primary mirrors(extendable shields) be too dificult?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/22/2009 07:01 PM
I don't know if a J-232 could launch 2 scopes of that size in-line because of the length.  Even with an f2 primary, each scope would be more than 17 meters long.

I think if you were going to go to a large binocular scope in orbit, you'd use smaller scopes or more than one launch.  Perhaps the DIRECT team has thought about that and has other ideas.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: ballew on 01/22/2009 08:23 PM
I don't know if a J-232 could launch 2 scopes of that size in-line because of the length.  Even with an f2 primary, each scope would be more than 17 meters long.


What is the maximum payload length for a J-23X?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/22/2009 09:14 PM
Both groups are talking about only 40-50mT for an 8-10m diameter optical telescope as an upgrade to Hubble.   That sort of mass could probably be lifted on the J-120, let alone the J-232.

They couldn't care less that Ares-V has almost three times that mass capability or that Jupiter-232 has over twice that.   As long as it can lift up to 50mT, their only interest is getting that wide diameter PLF.   And they just can't get it via the EELV's, Space-X or Ares-I.

Ross.

Funnily enough, that sort of capability could keep the Mars lobby very happy too. To get to Mars realistically you need 10m or larger PLFs combined with c.40t throw mass, to accomodate the entry vehicles. Everything else can come up piecemeal.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/22/2009 09:54 PM

The JWST is $3.5B, and it's 6.5m, infrared, segmented, and will be at L2.  A visual scope, at 8.4m, non-segmented in LEO should be less, IMHO, even though it's larger.  The Large Binocular Telescope cost $120M, and it has two scopes with two of those 8.4m monolithic mirrors.

Why send it to LEO? The only reason HST went to LEO is because of the shuttle (and lack of a HLV that could toss it into a higher orbit). A monolithic would be better off in HEO or at an L-Spot. The thermal loads in LEO are killer, going in and out of earths shadow every 90 minutes. The tracking is worse, and you have this big blue marble you have to dodge every 90 minutes. Charge and discharging the batteries every 90 minutes. All the space junk wizzing by.

Just pay for the upper stage on the jupiter and send it into deep space. You can mostly stay out of the earths shadow, things track slowly across the sky, you can look at the same faint patch of light for days on end.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2009 10:50 PM
Have you heard any estimated costs for a space telescope that size? I keep thinking it might be $10bln, which seems like an awful lot of money to put on a single ride!

The numbers I keep hearing are between $1bn and $2bn.   I personally would expect those to grow some, as all such projects seem to.   But grow by how much?   And for what reasons?


You have to realize that JWST is running massively over-budget because they're having to fight to get a hugely complex spacecraft within relatively tight mass and volume limitations.   The cost over-runs are currently 7 times the amount of the launcher.

If the designers had been given a lot more room and weight to work with, they could have avoided a good number (not all, but a lot) of the cost increases which have plagued that program.

The same is also try of Mars Science Laboratory too.   They're essentially trying to fit a probe three times heavier and four times larger into a very similar package that sent the MER's.   Weight saving is proving to be a very costly and time-consuming part of this business.

JIMO got canned because they couldn't make it affordable to fly on a single launcher.

And Mars Sample Return has had to absorb the very uncomfortable costs of needing two separate launches to support it.


For the telescopes though, what we've been talking to the researchers about are essentially "big dumb telescopes".   They aren't extraordinarily complex.   They don't have a million mirrors which need to be unfurled and adjusted all the time.   They don't have all the latest gimmicks and gizmo's.   They're essentially a really large mirror in a frame, a beefy power supply, an RCS system (hopefully based upon an existing set of hardware such as the Orion's to keep costs down), some on-board electronics for guidance, navigation and comms, and finally a set of 4-6 removable/replaceable science instruments.    More importantly, they aren't trying to squeeze 10lb of 'you know what' into a 5lb can, they can afford to weigh more than initially planned -- With something like just Jupiter-120 they could afford some growth and still not bust their cost profiles.

The best bit though, is that once the development costs are paid and the production line is built to make the first one, it is surprisingly cheap to build a second, third or tenth unit -- roughly 12-15% of the cost of the first.   And the ability to have a fleet of these high-power space telescopes all working at the same time - and potentially together -- would create a real banquet for the astronomical science community.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: bobthemonkey on 01/22/2009 11:20 PM
I guess the limiting factor in establishing a fleet would be the rate at which you can produce the mirrors.

As I understand it, there are very few places that have that capacity. You have PerkinsElmer, Kodak and Steward University of Arizona. Steward is at maximum capacity for the foreseeable future for the Giant Magellan, and I have no idea if Kodak or PE would want to even bid for the work or be considered viable bidders respectively.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/22/2009 11:38 PM
It's just a point to be considered, not the definitive point to hang the whole argument either way on.

Just for the record, we've been speaking with a team at JPL and another at MIT about space telescopes.

Both groups are talking about only 40-50mT for an 8-10m diameter optical telescope as an upgrade to Hubble.   That sort of mass could probably be lifted on the J-120, let alone the J-232.

They couldn't care less that Ares-V has almost three times that mass capability or that Jupiter-232 has over twice that.   As long as it can lift up to 50mT, their only interest is getting that wide diameter PLF.   And they just can't get it via the EELV's, Space-X or Ares-I.

Ross.

Good to know Ross.  I'd mentioned telescopes and size limitation before, but hadn't had anyone address it.  And then I read that article on telescopes and the Ares V.  The first real info I saw addressing the issue.  And I didn't know how -wide- a payload the Jupter's could take up, which is obviously a huge constraint for telescopes.  The larger the mirror, the more powerful the telescope.   And that trying to assmeble one in space from multiple launches on smaller lifters would likely be highly undesireable.

I know the James Webb will be a multiple hex reflector, but hadn't been able to fine out much info on how that was deployed exactly, or the problems in that.  Obviously a large monolithic mirror has a greater chance of operational success because if just one of the hex's don't deploy and align -perfectly-, you have a multi-million dollar Yugo hanging out at L2 where we can't service it.
a nice wide payload fairing would allow the option of a monolithic mirror.  I'd assume (but I'd sure be interesed to know from the real brains you mentioned at MIT and JPL for sure) that given a choice, they'd prefer the monolithic mirror for that reason.  James Webb had to be segmented because of the EELV size lifters available when it was conceived.  Anything larger than another Hubble would need to be segmented.

Anyway, yea, that is good to know that the brains are thinking in their best nerdy wet dreams they only hope to have 40-50mt mass lifting capacity, and 10m dia width.
It's something I'd been wondering for awhile.  If we really want to try to find other habitable Earth class planets (which is really the holy grail of space exploration as a whole) then a new generation of large diameter telescopes are going to be what does it.  If we were to find one in the general neighborhood, then that would immediately set up the ultimate long-term exploration goal for mankind, just as traveling to the Moon did for mankind or hundreds of thousands of years prior to 1969.
And we need to not be handcuffed too badly as to the diameters that we can launch as we have been thus far.  And I wanted to know that DIRECT wouldn't do that.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/22/2009 11:40 PM
What is the maximum payload length for a J-23X?

I don't think we had ever checked.   Because you asked...

NOTE:   We are NOT actually proposing this.   But theoretically this is about as big as it could get -- although just 'eyeballing it', I'd say there would be some pretty interesting bending loads involved.

This is 12.0m (40ft) dia x 45.6m (150ft) long, with a 27.6m (90ft) long barrel section and would mass somewhere around 18.5mT.   Given that the PLF is jettisoned about 250-300 seconds into the launch, I estimate that would translate to something like 6mT lower performance to LEO than the baseline 10x10m PLF.

The same payload could also be used on Jupiter-120 too.   I would estimate it would still have over 30mT of lift capacity flying that, so there may be some potential uses.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: woyteck on 01/22/2009 11:48 PM
Hello,

This might be a fresh voice here (as I just registered).

When I heard for the first time about Ares rockets (especially Ares-V), I thought 'cool, they will use some parts from the shuttle program', but then I found out that it's not like that... That NASA has to redesign almost everything.
It keeps me wonder, in history of space flight we can clearly see two ways of doing 'the stuff'.
One of them - to create a sucessful design, use it and then abandon it in favour of something different, built from scratch (Saturn V - the most obvious example).
The other one - to create a sucessful design of a rocket, and then use it for years, decades even, with only minor changes and upgrades to the original, but still using the most parts (and facilities) unchanged. The one with a motto 'If it's good, don't change it'. (Two good examples from Russia - R-7 derivatives with Soyuz being one of them and Proton as other).
I see it this way, and I can tell that, DIRECT will use more parts from shuttle program, and I believe that there will be an easy move from Space Shuttle to DIRECT, therefore it's better.

But I also have a question.
Was there any tests for Jupiter with four Shuttle SRBs attached?
I.e. in a cross configuraton, (or just any configuration, maybe Energia like)?
Would it give an additional capacity to match Ares-V ?
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/22/2009 11:53 PM
As another note, roughly speaking, how much percent cost of the J232 is the J120 expected to be? (omitting a second stage, just assume heavy lifting to LEO...so I guess that's really be a J230??)
Seems like the J120 is a J232/0 with one less cryo engine on it.  Is there any other expenses?  How do you get twice the lifting mass with the same SRB thrust and 33% more cryo thrust?

Are the tanks larger in the J232?  The core wall thickness?  Other costs?
Otherwise seems like the price of the J120 would be the same as the J232/0, less one RS-68 engine, which would be relatively nominal given the price of the rest of the launcher.

Just wondering...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lobo on 01/23/2009 12:03 AM
Hello,

This might be a fresh voice here (as I just registered).

When I heard for the first time about Ares rockets (especially Ares-V), I thought 'cool, they will use some parts from the shuttle program', but then I found out that it's not like that... That NASA has to redesign almost everything.
It keeps me wonder, in history of space flight we can clearly see two ways of doing 'the stuff'.
One of them - to create a sucessful design, use it and then abandon it in favour of something different, built from scratch (Saturn V - the most obvious example).
The other one - to create a sucessful design of a rocket, and then use it for years, decades even, with only minor changes and upgrades to the original, but still using the most parts (and facilities) unchanged. The one with a motto 'If it's good, don't change it'. (Two good examples from Russia - R-7 derivatives with Soyuz being one of them and Proton as other).
I see it this way, and I can tell that, DIRECT will use more parts from shuttle program, and I believe that there will be an easy move from Space Shuttle to DIRECT, therefore it's better.

But I also have a question.
Was there any tests for Jupiter with four Shuttle SRBs attached?
I.e. in a cross configuraton, (or just any configuration, maybe Energia like)?
Would it give an additional capacity to match Ares-V ?


Ross or one of the other guys who are the guru's on it will give you a better answer than this, but as I understand it, the problems with the two extra boosters (I asked this same questions before) is you have to change the internal structure of the core to give it two more "hardpoints" to attach the extra SRB's.
Also, the SRB are rolled out to the pad fully fuelled and are extraordinarily heavy compared to the empty ET, which is fuelled at the pad.
So the added weight would overload the crawler, and necessitate a complete pad overhaul.  All are added costs that the DIRECT team is arguing Ares V needs but they -don't- need.

They do have some conceptuatl designs of larger vehicals using a new core, then basically adding two Shuttle ET/SRB assembly's to either side of it (except the ET's would have engine cores under them like the Jupiter's, but have the pointy nose like the Shuttle's ET).  (I think there's a pic in the "Direct Derived Vehicle" thread)

So you're core would have boosters that have boosters.  Slick idea really, as the Shuttle ET is already design to be attached to the shuttle on one side.  Those attachment points and releases are already there.  You are just attaching them to a common core rather than to a shuttle.
So you have SRB separation, then later drop your two ET's, then I imagine drop you main core.  It'd have some ungodly lifting capacity in excess of Ares V.  A good future growth option, but it'd require a massive crawler and major redesign of one of the Complex 39 pads. 
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/23/2009 12:19 AM
But I also have a question.
Was there any tests for Jupiter with four Shuttle SRBs attached?
I.e. in a cross configuraton, (or just any configuration, maybe Energia like)?
Would it give an additional capacity to match Ares-V ?

Firstly, welcome to the site!

I initially liked that exact idea -- until I looked into it more a few years ago.   The problem is that unlike liquid stages, the SRB's are fully fueled when they are stacked in the VAB.   Each segment weighs about 150mT (metric tonnes).   To put that into its correct perspective the gigantic Core Stage of the Ares-V, dry, doesn't weigh as much as a single SRB segment.   The entire Upper Stage and Payload on top of Ares-V together don't weigh as much as a single segment does.   The Shuttle Orbiter and External Tank together don't weigh as much as a single SRB segment either.

So while the SRB segments look small, they are most definitely the heaviest bits during the roll-out.

Now, the Crawler Transporters have an upper limit of what they can safely carry to the Pad.   The Pad itself also has structural limits for what it can support.

Right now Shuttle is comfortably below those limits with 8 SRB segments.

But the Ares-V currently has three extra segments (~450mT) plus the huge 400ft tall Launch Tower (~800mT) on top of the Mobile Launcher.   Together those parts are already pushing beyond the limits of the Crawler, the Crawlerway and the Pad structure.

If you want to add 8 more segments by doubling the number of 4-segment boosters, you're actually talking about adding ~1,200mT of extra weight during the roll-out.   That's going to totally breach the limits.   In order to support it you would have to replace both Pads, the Crawlers, the Crawlerway and the MLP's entirely.   By all accounts even the floor of the VAB couldn't support that weight either, so you'd need a new VAB too.

While it could be done, we're talking about some serious money to replace all that.   And the money just isn't in the budget.


BTW, if you did add an extra pair of SRB's, you'd actually only get about 15-18mT of additional performance to LEO.   There are much cheaper alternatives which could buy that sort of increase -- for example a barrel stretch of ~412" to the Jupiter Core Stage would buy you roughly 25mT more performance.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/23/2009 12:28 AM
Obviously a large monolithic mirror has a greater chance of operational success because if just one of the hex's don't deploy and align -perfectly-

Other than you have to keep the large mirror at a uniform temperature and properly mounted which is no small trick. Of course you could plan in advance to use adaptive optics to counter any distortions in the optical system.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: woyteck on 01/23/2009 12:48 AM
Thank you for detailed explanation.

AFAIK crawlers are in use since Saturn-V missions.
What is the maximum weight they can carry?
Also what's the maximum weight supported by the launchpad?

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/23/2009 12:54 AM
As another note, roughly speaking, how much percent cost of the J232 is the J120 expected to be? (omitting a second stage, just assume heavy lifting to LEO...so I guess that's really be a J230??)

Not sure what you're asking.   Could you clarify, please?


Quote
Seems like the J120 is a J232/0 with one less cryo engine on it.  Is there any other expenses?  How do you get twice the lifting mass with the same SRB thrust and 33% more cryo thrust?

No.   The Upper Stage is used to complete the ascent, not just perform the TLI burn in space.

The J-120 configuration is designed to burn the ~728mT of Core Stage propellant in about 8 minutes to reach orbit.   The SRB's assist the Core Stage to get up to around 2,400m/s velocity and about 30nmi altitude.   The Core then finishes the remaining work.

The J-232 configuration works differently:   The SRB's still help to get the vehicle up to 2,300m/s and around 22nmi altitude.   But the Core Stage is burning its fuel 50% quicker and is producing 50% more thrust too.   It's job is to lift the Upper Stage to a velocity of around 5,450m/s at around 71nmi altitude at MECO.   That's most definitely sub-orbital still.   The extra thrust of the Core helps lift a larger Upper Stage to that point, where it takes over and completes the ascent.   The Upper Stage then ignites and burns for about 5 more minutes.   It adds about 3,700m/s to the velocity and raises the altitude to the intended circular insertion point before SECO.

The Upper Stage (when flying the EDS profile, anyway) then has about 110mT of additional fuel left inside after reaching orbit.   After the LSAM/CEV dock to the EDS, that fuel is then used to perform the TLI burn and send the mission to the moon.

For non-EDS use, the Upper Stage is only partially filled (~62%) before launch.


Quote
Are the tanks larger in the J232?  The core wall thickness?  Other costs?

No.   Absolutely not.

The Core Stages are intended to be Common Core Designs.   They will be built identically and can be swapped between J-120/J-232 flights by adding/removing the central engine.   The intention being that this is a field operation which can be performed at MAF or at KSC in less than 48 hours.

The design is optimized for the J-232's Lunar performance, and is simply flown "as is" for J-120 LEO missions.   Sure, J-120 is not optimized as highly as it could be, but even un-optimized its still got roughly twice as much performance as we actually need to lift Orion -- so who cares?

The intent of making a single Common Core which will do both jobs,  is to save as much development time and money as possible.   We prefer to develop one $15bn vehicle and use it twice.   Not develop two $15bn vehicles and use each one once -- that's a FAR more expensive approach and is one of the biggest bones of contention which we have with Ares.


Quote
Otherwise seems like the price of the J120 would be the same as the J232/0, less one RS-68 engine, which would be relatively nominal given the price of the rest of the launcher.

Just wondering...


The way we do it, is we only count the number of cryo stages and engines used *during the launch* to make the Jupiter-xyz numbering scheme.

x = Number of Cryogenic Stage (SRB's are simply assumed).
y = Number of Main Engines on the Core Stage.
z = Number of Engines on the Upper Stage.


For any configurations which fly an Upper Stage which won't be used until making orbit, those are considered part of the in-space payload, not the launch vehicle.   For example, the Lunar Flyby mission will use a Jupiter-120 to launch a Delta-IV Heavy Upper Stage and an Orion spacecraft to an orbital insertion point, where the payload will take the mission around the moon.   That stage is therefore *not* strictly part of the Jupiter.

But if that same stage, on the same Jupiter-120, were to need to be used to complete the ascent, it would make the vehicle a "Jupiter-221 (DIVH)" configuration and would then be considered part of the launcher.


It's a particularly complicated distinction we're making, but the code identifies the launch vehicle elements *alone* in order to explicitly differentiate what elements are payload and which are launcher.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/23/2009 01:04 AM
Thank you for detailed explanation.

AFAIK crawlers are in use since Saturn-V missions.
What is the maximum weight they can carry?
Also what's the maximum weight supported by the launchpad?

I'd have to look the precise figures up, but off the top of my head I think it's about 12.6 million pounds or so.   Shuttle is somewhere around 10-11m lb IIRC.   Ares-V is somewhere between 13-15m lb depending on which specific configuration you're talking about.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lancer525 on 01/23/2009 03:16 AM

This is 12.0m (40ft) dia x 45.6m (150ft) long, with a 27.6m (90ft) long barrel section and would mass somewhere around 18.5mT.   

Jiminy-creepers! I may just have to model this one too!

I am just gobsmacked at how good this launcher looks.

Ross, how about a  set of dimensions for this one, just like you did for the others? All I'll need is everything above the Core.  ;D
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2009 03:16 AM

This is 12.0m (40ft) dia x 45.6m (150ft) long, with a 27.6m (90ft) long barrel section and would mass somewhere around 18.5mT.   Given that the PLF is jettisoned about 250-300 seconds into the launch, I estimate that would translate to something like 6mT lower performance to LEO than the baseline 10x10m PLF.

The same payload could also be used on Jupiter-120 too.   I would estimate it would still have over 30mT of lift capacity flying that, so there may be some potential uses.

Ross.

The 150 ft length would allow a fair sized space station, possibly split into two 19 ft high sections.

Possibly a fuel tank for a Mars transfer vehicle
(ruff inside dimensions)
volume of cylinder = pi r2h = pi * 5.52 * 45 = 4276 m3
or 4 276 000 litres or 1 130 000 US gallons
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/23/2009 03:44 AM
15m is enormous. It's as wide as the largest ISS modules are long. Even 12m is perfectly good. Seriously, short of the core of a space colony, I don't see anything need that big a PLF. Most big telescopes this days are made up of multiple element arrays and you could assemble truly huge ones in space with a modest effort towards in-space assembly.

Also, if you stage your lunar ops at L2, you have the perfect chance to service and repair your telescopes.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2009 03:56 AM
15m is enormous. It's as wide as the largest ISS modules are long.

I am sure that the Mars people will find a use for a 15m heatshield.  They will simply have to budget for a made to measure PLF.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/23/2009 05:46 AM
15m is still too small for a manned Mars lander. You are looking at 20m+ to land any useful mass on the surface. Before then, I'm sure CFD and Mars atmospheric measurements will have advanced enough to yield a biconic reentry vehicle with much better entry characteristics, or a ballute or whatever.

15m is nice but that would be a monster of a Mars rover. I think something that big would have a hard time getting funding. Perhaps a precursor ISRU experiment or Mars sample return?

If you are absolutely desperate to have a 20m heatshield, you can do what shuttle and Dreamchaser (is planned to) do, which is to fly the heatshield perpendicular. Energiya's latest crackpot Mars plans include flying the lander up strapped to an Energiya core.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/23/2009 05:54 AM
Both groups are talking about only 40-50mT for an 8-10m diameter optical telescope as an upgrade to Hubble.

That makes a whole bunch more sense.  If an 8.4m monolithic mirror is 18 tons, it's just hard to imagine the rest of the spacecraft weighing more than about 20-30 tons more than that.


Maybe a *big* helium tank for cooling? That's more for the far infra-red band, IIRC?

Fit it with a big VASIMR engine so it can propel itself back from L2 to LEO the next time it needs servicing?

Still, is that going to be more than a J-232 payload?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/23/2009 06:07 AM
Have you heard any estimated costs for a space telescope that size? I keep thinking it might be $10bln, which seems like an awful lot of money to put on a single ride!

The numbers I keep hearing are between $1bn and $2bn.   I personally would expect those to grow some, as all such projects seem to.   But grow by how much?   And for what reasons?

<snipped>

The best bit though, is that once the development costs are paid and the production line is built to make the first one, it is surprisingly cheap to build a second, third or tenth unit -- roughly 12-15% of the cost of the first.   And the ability to have a fleet of these high-power space telescopes all working at the same time - and potentially together -- would create a real banquet for the astronomical science community.

Ross.


I'd have thought DOD/NSA (not sure who does this stuff?) would be drooling at the thought.

For $10b, you could have a fleet of 30+ of those looking downwards.

"Sorry, we can't build the rockets that fast without some more investment in ground infrastructure" would be a nice problem to have.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/23/2009 06:27 AM
*warning* conspiracy theory alert - black helicopters - "is that guy following me?" *warning*

Just come across this:-

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/01/the-new-x-38-spacexs-dragon.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/01/the-new-x-38-spacexs-dragon.html)

The conspiracy bit:- CxP really wanted to ask "could Orion go up this way", but it's a lot less embarrasing to ask this first and see what answer comes back.

That would certainly be a SDV.

If anyone doubts that this is just a bit of fun on my part, go back and look at Shuttle's LOM/LOC numbers, even without carrying a fuelled-up spacecraft in the payload bay.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/23/2009 06:40 AM
Regarding popcorns, I'm getting fairly confused whether/which upper stages have the foam insulation (I guess it's shedding foam which produces the popcorns?)

This pic shows no foam insulation on CLV u/s:- http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/wallpapers/Wallpaper_Jupiter-232_800x600.jpg


But these (old) diagrams show foam insulation on CLV (which doesn't need to loiter) and no foam on the EDS (which you'd think might use it because it does have to loiter):- http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_1.jpg

Can we get clarification?

Would the non-foam configurations be popcorn free?

Thanks, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: zapkitty on 01/23/2009 07:25 AM
Would the non-foam configurations be popcorn free?

Foam is fun :)

Foam is a gas bubbled through a substance, so the bubbles are essentially pressurized gas in tiny "tanks" with thin walls.

For a foam to not "popcorn" in a vacuum would require the the bubble walls be either permeable enough to let the gas out and/or strong enough to keep the gas in without deforming.

And all that doesn't take into account whatever you wanted to formulate the foam to do in the first place.

Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/23/2009 07:40 AM
(Sorry one more!)

I'm trying to understand the LOM/LOC tradeoffs involved in J-232 vs J-231 configs. This in the context that DIRECT guys have said they're considering a switch to J-231 to improve LOM.

Background assumption (please correct if wrong) - if you need two engines to complete the mission, LOM results from an increase in gravity losses.

As I see it, there are only three points in the mission where a JUS/EDS engine failure could apply:-

* CaLV boost phase.

You've wasted a lot of money on CaLV launch & CLV launch preparation, but crew still on ground. LOC=0.

Even if the engine fails in the last few seconds of flight, you would scrub the mission.

Background question - what are the relative chances of failure of a J-2 engine during startup, vs failure in mid-burn (or shutdown)?


* CLV boost phase.

CLV flies up light, so there's a lot of margin in this flight - perhaps enough to get to the target orbit even if one engine fails during startup?

LOM - much better than a single-engine config - both engines have to fail to abort the mission vs small chance that either of two engines might cause a catastrophic failure.

LOC - as per LOM. Even if you then have to abort, you can choose when-and-where.

Background question - where does CEV come down if upper stage fails to achieve orbit?


* TLI phase

Gravity losses not quite as bad as boost phase, because EDS starts out half empty?

If J-231 has a 7mT smaller payload than J-232 (I think?) how much smaller does the payload have to be on J-232, that one-engine-fails-to-start doesn't result in LOM? (Presuming you'd design for 100% thrust from the remaining engine instead of 80%, and no LIDS issues)

Looked at another way, how far short of TLI would you be, with a full payload and one-engine-fails-to-start (you'd abort anyway, but just to give an idea how big the shortfall actually is).

If you have full engine-out capability for the TLI burn, I presume that's a considerable benefit to the LOM & LOC numbers?

Are there any abort modes possible using the remaining engine in an EDS, that are not available if the one-and-only EDS engine fails?

I guess for failure early in TLI you'd just use remaining EDS fuel, LSAM and/or SM burn(s) to get you back home, later in TLI (or after catastrophic EDS fail) you're maybe relying on an Apollo-13 style hail-Mary? What is the point-of-no-return (equivalent to V1 on aircraft takeoff)?

Many thanks for any answers.

cheers, Martin

PS I can't imagine LIDS surviving an Apollo-13 style fail.


Multiple edits: for clarity
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/23/2009 10:01 AM
I'd have thought DOD/NSA (not sure who does this stuff?) would be drooling at the thought.

Over a year ago, word was passed to me that two of the Joint Chiefs had expressed an interest in Jupiter-120.


Quote
"Sorry, we can't build the rockets that fast without some more investment in ground infrastructure" would be a nice problem to have.

I'll trade Thrust Oscillation and replacement Crawlers for that problem any day you like!

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: kraisee on 01/23/2009 10:09 AM
Regarding popcorns, I'm getting fairly confused whether/which upper stages have the foam insulation (I guess it's shedding foam which produces the popcorns?)

Martin, the Jupiter Upper Stage (both J-231 and J-232) do not use foam as the insulation material.   They use what is called MLI, or Multi-Layered Insulation.   Depending on whether you're talking about Boeing or Lockheed-Martin wares the MLI differs.   MLI is not susceptible to popcorning and produces no debris in orbit.

MLI's can also be made any colour you wish -- although White, Silver or Gold are typically preferred due to their higher heat reflectivity.   You don't want Black because that will absorb heat and transmit it into the cyro propellants better than any other colour.

Ross.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: MP99 on 01/23/2009 12:06 PM
Regarding popcorns, I'm getting fairly confused whether/which upper stages have the foam insulation (I guess it's shedding foam which produces the popcorns?)

Martin, the Jupiter Upper Stage (both J-231 and J-232) do not use foam as the insulation material.   They use what is called MLI, or Multi-Layered Insulation.   Depending on whether you're talking about Boeing or Lockheed-Martin wares the MLI differs.   MLI is not susceptible to popcorning and produces no debris in orbit.

MLI's can also be made any colour you wish -- although White, Silver or Gold are typically preferred due to their higher heat reflectivity.   You don't want Black because that will absorb heat and transmit it into the cyro propellants better than any other colour.

Ross.


By "which", I meant CLV US vs CaLV US/EDS?

Your diagram (at http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_1.jpg) clearly shows foam on the CLV US and MLI on the EDS. (I know these are very old diagrams.)

You would obviously want MLI on the EDS, since this needs to loiter, and foam shed on the way up would increase boiloff.

I could also understand why you might use foam on the CLV, since it has the same requirements as the core, ie discarded during ascent.

There must be a mass penalty for MLI, otherwise it would be used on the core (and the ET post-Columbia). Given you have plenty of margin on the CLV mass it makes good sense to just make the two JUS's as similar as possible.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: guru on 01/23/2009 12:36 PM
Quote
By "which", I meant CLV US vs CaLV US/EDS?

Your diagram (at http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_1.jpg) clearly shows foam on the CLV US and MLI on the EDS. (I know these are very old diagrams.)


It's a confusing issue in the drawing which shows the Jupiter core stage instead of the JUS immediately beneath the LSAM.  I think their intent was to differentiate between an upper stage as part of the launch vehicle and an upper stage as part of the payload.

The crew launch vehicle and the cargo launch vehicle for lunar missions are exactly the same and use the exact same upper stage in the 232 configuration.  A JUS (using MLI insulation) places both the LSAM and Orion CEV into LEO together.  Another JUS (also using MLI insulation) places itself in orbit with extra propellant left over as the payload.  The LSAM/CEV dock with the partially fueled JUS, which now acts as the EDS, and the EDS sends the whole stack through TLI.  No different upper stages, no possibility of popcorn.
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Lee Jay on 01/23/2009 12:52 PM

The JWST is $3.5B, and it's 6.5m, infrared, segmented, and will be at L2.  A visual scope, at 8.4m, non-segmented in LEO should be less, IMHO, even though it's larger.  The Large Binocular Telescope cost $120M, and it has two scopes with two of those 8.4m monolithic mirrors.

Why send it to LEO? The only reason HST went to LEO is because of the shuttle (and lack of a HLV that could toss it into a higher orbit). A monolithic would be better off in HEO or at an L-Spot. The thermal loads in LEO are killer, going in and out of earths shadow every 90 minutes. The tracking is worse, and you have this big blue marble you have to dodge every 90 minutes. Charge and discharging the batteries every 90 minutes. All the space junk wizzing by.

That's fine too.  The reason to put it in LEO is that the HST experience base is good and Orion could service it.  Of course, Orion launched on one of the Jupiters could service it at L2 as well!
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: William Barton on 01/23/2009 01:30 PM
Have you heard any estimated costs for a space telescope that size? I keep thinking it might be $10bln, which seems like an awful lot of money to put on a single ride!

The numbers I keep hearing are between $1bn and $2bn.   I personally would expect those to grow some, as all such projects seem to.   But grow by how much?   And for what reasons?


You have to realize that JWST is running massively over-budget because they're having to fight to get a hugely complex spacecraft within relatively tight mass and volume limitations.   The cost over-runs are currently 7 times the amount of the launcher.

If the designers had been given a lot more room and weight to work with, they could have avoided a good number (not all, but a lot) of the cost increases which have plagued that program.

The same is also try of Mars Science Laboratory too.   They're essentially trying to fit a probe three times heavier and four times larger into a very similar package that sent the MER's.   Weight saving is proving to be a very costly and time-consuming part of this business.

JIMO got canned because they couldn't make it affordable to fly on a single launcher.

And Mars Sample Return has had to absorb the very uncomfortable costs of needing two separate launches to support it.


For the telescopes though, what we've been talking to the researchers about are essentially "big dumb telescopes".   They aren't extraordinarily complex.   They don't have a million mirrors which need to be unfurled and adjusted all the time.   They don't have all the latest gimmicks and gizmo's.   They're essentially a really large mirror in a frame, a beefy power supply, an RCS system (hopefully based upon an existing set of hardware such as the Orion's to keep costs down), some on-board electronics for guidance, navigation and comms, and finally a set of 4-6 removable/replaceable science instruments.    More importantly, they aren't trying to squeeze 10lb of 'you know what' into a 5lb can, they can afford to weigh more than initially planned -- With something like just Jupiter-120 they could afford some growth and still not bust their cost profiles.

The best bit though, is that once the development costs are paid and the production line is built to make the first one, it is surprisingly cheap to build a second, third or tenth unit -- roughly 12-15% of the cost of the first.   And the ability to have a fleet of these high-power space telescopes all working at the same time - and potentially together -- would create a real banquet for the astronomical science community.

Ross.

Understood about Webb and its costs, but I'd be very surprised if an instrument larger than Hubble would be cheaper than Hubble. In addition to the easy reasons (inflation, if nothing else!), I would expect the same kind of project capability inflation that seems to dog almost everything that comes along. "Gee, we've got 50mT to work with!" And pretty soon, that's too small. I remember programming for a 3.5KB RAM computer and thinking what an impossible, unfillable luxury 64KB would be. Now we have operating systems that stress 4GB memory, and have to swap themselves out on terabyte hard drives (remembering back to software stored on cassette tapes!)...
Title: Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 3
Post by: Will on 01/23/2009 01:41 PM