DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[Mark S]

Mark, you said that the 246 sends the crew and altair into orbit, I think there's a 130 that's configured for Altair+Crew, can you use that as well? I'm a bit confused, why would use a 246 when a 130 can do the job?

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J130-41.4000.10050_CLV_30x130nmi_29.0deg_090608.pdf

Edit: I just saw on the baseball cards, the 246 lifts all of that to a much higher orbit.

But still, why have a 130 that can lift an altair + orion?

From what I understand, the J-130 actually could launch both, but not with the margins that DIRECT has committed to. They would have to each do their own circularization burns after the Core is jettisoned, and that is not SOP.

Personally, I think that would be a great time to test the Altair's systems, including the main descent engine. Otherwise, you won't find any possible engine failures until the LOI burn.

Mark S.

[cixelsyD]

Oh ok, I guess I got confused because it has the J130 with Altair and Orion in the "Official Recommended Option" in the media section of directlauncher.com

[kraisee]

Here are the two different mission modes I was talking about above.

The J-24x remains the baseline Crew Launch Vehicle for now though.

And there is a further option whereby the EDS performs the LOI instead of the Altair (allowing its Descent Module to be made a lot smaller), but that's a different discussion.

Ross.

[Mark S]

Oh ok, I guess I got confused because it has the J130 with Altair and Orion in the "Official Recommended Option" in the media section of directlauncher.com

It sure does.  I think that picture is a little misleading, and they (DIRECT) meant to show the cargo capability of the 10x10m fairing, using the Altair as example cargo.  Not so much the ability to launch the Altair in particular, just any large and heavy cargo.

Here is the recommended Lunar Mission configuration, a little further down the page:

Configuration Option 2c : Jupiter-246 (RL-10B-2) – [Official Recommended Option]
Jupiter-246 EDS LV w/ minimal fairing, to 130x130nmi, 29.0°
PDF | JPEG
Jupiter-246 Crew + Cargo LV w/ 10.0m dia x 5.6m long fairing, to 130x130nmi, 29.0°
PDF | JPEG

Mark S.

[kraisee]

Oh ok, I guess I got confused because it has the J130 with Altair and Orion in the "Official Recommended Option" in the media section of directlauncher.com

Really?   I'll have to get that fixed with our web guru.

Ross.

[fotoguzzi]

Oh ok, I guess I got confused because it has the J130 with Altair and Orion in the "Official Recommended Option" in the media section of directlauncher.com

Really?   I'll have to get that fixed with our web guru.

Its alright to have official single-stage and dual-stage options.  I think on the same page it might be good to describe an official ESAS dual-launch lunar mission.

Whether by text or another illustration, I'm not sure what to recommend.

I'm not sure if there is an official single-launch specification (or even a single launch vehicle!).  There are a lot of possible orbits and payloads.

Modify: comma; more words

As long as you have your Committee homework done first!

[kraisee]

I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.

Ross.

[Scotty]

Never assume the side on the attack will win, but also never assume the side on the defense will loose.
Face it, engineering is mostly black or white, with very little gray in between. On the other hand, politics is all about shades of gray, with very little ever being simply black or white.
What is going on right now with the upper levels of Constellation Management has nothing to do with win or loose, engineering or politics; it is now strictly pure survival.
Constellation Management is now depending upon your point of view, either been pushed back into a corner, or they have painted themselves into the corner. It does not really matter how they got there, what is important to realize is that they are in the corner, with no way out.
They have their careers and professional reputations on the line; naturally they will not go down with out a fight.
Yes, they do see Team Direct as a bunch of meddling trouble makers. Put yourself in their position and how would you rationalize things?
Direct has a chance of winning, and being the recommendation to the White House from the Augustine Panel. But we have not won yet, and in the end we may not win.
I for one, will continue pushing for Direct, and will continue to support Direct right up until the decision is announced by the White House. At that time, the fight will be over one way or the other.
If the White House makes a sound, rational decision, all will be well and the US will have a good chance to once again travel out of LEO. On the other hand, if the decision is a poor one, the US will have lost the opportunity, and will be doomed to go around and around in LEO for the next 20 years.

[kraisee]

Personally, I think that would be a great time to test the Altair's systems, including the main descent engine. Otherwise, you won't find any possible engine failures until the LOI burn.

There is a concern doing that though... Having been operated, an engine has to be purged of any remaining fuel/oxidizer/carbon buildup/whatever.

If it is planned to be used again, the purge has to be even more thorough because any residual material could cause major problems during a re-start.   And that can be made even more complex due to the constant heat/cold soaking during loitering in LEO, then on the 3-day voyage to the moon, and any loitering at that end too. Its not a show-stopper or anything, but it is a technical concern which is focused upon engine reliability, so needs to be very carefully traded against all other options.

Simple guideline: If you can get the chance to avoid it, you should.

Ross.

[dnavas]

I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.

Yep, that's probably the way to go.  And while for cargo you're still going to have to get over the automation hysteria barrier, I wouldn't think the astronaut corps would throw up a flag if you've got manual aborts and controls.

-Dave

[Mark S]

I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.

Ross.

So are you against automated docking of Altair with the EDS?  If so, how the Cargo Altair be handled?

I know that pilots like to fly, but this is more like pushing a loaded railroad car around in orbit with three degrees of freedom. Should pilots' preferences take precedence over safety and practicality?

Mark S.

[kraisee]

Nope, automated docking is an important feature.   But I recognize that the Astronaut Corp is almost certainly going to want an astronaut to fly the manoeuver if there is one on-board.

And given that its always their asses which are on the line, they get the final say regarding all safety issues.   End of discussion.

Ross.

[Ronsmytheiii]

I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.

Sounds like a periscope, like on Soyuz

[kraisee]

I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.

Sounds like a periscope, like on Soyuz

That's one of the options, yes.

Ross.

[Lab Lemming]

BUMP!
(technical question getting buried by FUD talk)

Question about the new trust structure:

Will the strengthening required for the 4 SSME thrust make the core strong enough to stand on its own?  If not, how much additional strengthening would that require?

It would be a good, forward-thinking idea to build the core in a way that the SRBs can be replaced without having to re-engineer the entire vehicle.

[robertross]

I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.

Ross.

Wow. Three hours go by and I had 5 pages to peruse. Yikes! We're gonna hit 250 in no time at all!

More FUD. I'm not surprised. Management probably had none of that designing their 'stick' 

Any chance someone made up an AIAA paper on this Altair docking method yet? Would be a great link to post on the website, or even as a follow-on document.

Saving bandwidth: Yes, this place is more addictive than chocolate! I better be careful during the day or I'll loose internet at work.

[kraisee]

BUMP!
(technical question getting buried by FUD talk)

Question about the new trust structure:

Will the strengthening required for the 4 SSME thrust make the core strong enough to stand on its own?  If not, how much additional strengthening would that require?

It would be a good, forward-thinking idea to build the core in a way that the SRBs can be replaced without having to re-engineer the entire vehicle.

Thanks for the bump.

The structure will certainly be strong enough to support itself.

The issue is that until you know what the configuration you wish to support is, you can not design the launcher, let alone the specific launch infrastructure elements needed to support it.

So you really have to decide which vehicle design you want and then build things to suit it. At that point changing things will, unfortunately, always incur costs.

Also, if you design things for 'hypothetical' situations which might or might-not happen in the future, you will incur penalties into this design which will inevitably increase its costs and lower its performance.   Better to optimize the design for the "here and now" and then deal with any future changes whenever they become necessary -- if at all.

Ross.

[rsp1202]

I also want to point out that there are a number of different ways to allow a crew to handle the "reverse docking" of the Altair onto the EDS themselves -- and without having to rely upon any technology like cameras or screens too.

These docking concerns were raised two years ago and answered with assurances that it would not be a problem. If NASA decides to finally make a stink about it, I do hope Direct has its ducks in order.

[kraisee]

I gotta say, if the rear docking of the LSAM to the EDS is the "worst" thing they can find about DIRECT, I think that we have done a pretty good job of putting together a very workable package!

This smacks of a last gasp from CxP management.   At this point, I really think they should probably be more focused on updating their resume's -- it'll do them more good.

Ross.

[JMSC]

Not sure yet Paul.   Still gathering information.

Apparently this is all because they were told -- two weeks ago -- that Ares-I is dead (still trying to confirm where that order came from) and so CxP's management are now desperately running around like headless chickens trying to come up with some sort of alternative "2-launch Ares-V-Lite" option in order to protect their already-doomed careers.

And they want to remove us as the leading competition.

Mind you, this does seem to fit perfectly with the other information we've been getting recently:   That CxP have been very quietly  trying to move all of the Ares-I staff over to Ares-V for about two weeks now...   The "effect" becomes clear with this "cause".


Anyway, according to multiple sources who attended a recent TIM, CxP management are now trying to promote another ridiculously expensive 2-launch LOR mission architecture, but with a docking in LEO first, to transfer extra propellant from the Orion's EDS to the Altair's EDS.

Talk about trying to polish a pig!!!


Either way, they see DIRECT as their biggest "threat", so they are trying to pull something out of the hat to try to discredit us -- again -- while they try to get that new architecture "established".

Looks like the same old, same old bullsh*t all over again.   What ever happened to quality leadership in this country?

Ross.

Ross/Chuck,

Wasn’t one of the CxP programs primary objections to Direct 1.0 your initial proposal to transfer propellant between upper stages?  I thought they considered this an unacceptable risk and continued to hammer at it and criticize DIRECT for the maneuver long after it was removed from DIRECTs baseline mission profile.  If they are adopting this option after publically calling it dangerously unacceptable the directors at CxP must really be desperate.

Also, didn’t you say in the past using an LOR mission profile would reduce payload by 20 percent.  I am starting to get very conspiratorial in my thinking, but it seems like using an underperforming LOR mission is the only way they can still justify building a big 10m core rocket to accomplish a 2-launch mission, and that Griffin’s ghost is still running the show over at CxP constantly saying, “No make it big, it has to be bigger than the Saturn V or else  …”

John