DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[kraisee]

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.

[MP99]

Updated source imagery.

How should I portray the Delta Heavy Cryogenic Upper Stage?

On J-24x, would DHCUS be more likely to be used with a cargo, rather than crewed mission?

Is the single example good enough to give the idea that it could actually be utilized on any/all of the configurations?

Alternatively, show it standalone between the last J-1x0 config & JUS, and also perhaps as the first item to the right of EDS.

Would it be worthwhile to show Altair in the J-246 CLV & CaLV configs, and the J-130 CaLV config?

cheers, Martin

[Paul Adams]

If this proves out and you information is correct, those that spend time trying to discredit other proposals should be sought out and made to justify their actions.

They are not paid to spend time and effort compiling any documents, let alone bogus ones, that discredit other proposal unless they are part of an impartial review. And we know that they cannot be impartial.

I hope those involved realize that there should be  - and hopefully will be - consequences for such actions.

This kind of thing really is sad and makes even us space nuts rather jaded.

[mars.is.wet]

Maybe it is a valid critique that needs to be addressed?  Did your source tell you it was an "attack" ... or simply a concern?  The bunker mentality is decidedly not helpful on either side.

[fotoguzzi]

I think I got all that :)

1) I think the second red arrow is redundant.
2) I think the text in the green arrows is fine, and references to SSME can be removed from the blue arrow.

I believe 93% of people will get it. and the other 58% won't be able to do the math, anyway.

Oh, and note to MagDes and Ross.  Most of the Pratt and Whitney literature shows RL10B-2 (only one hyphen). 

Good work, MagDes, no matter how many arrows and paragraphs of text this visual aid ends up with!

[WellingtonEast]

Hi,

Without seeing a picture - I am confused why there is a risk of regarding the EDS attachment mainly because as I am having difficulty seeing  how the EDS - Altair - Orion will stack together.

In my limited knowledge, using the orginal apollo - LEM architecture as a starting point, I have presumed the following on the premise that Jupiter can loft larger masses than Aries 1- ( but less than Saturn V)

Option 1- For a one jupiter launch cargo only trip to the moon,  - the EDS docks to Altair using the same mechanism as Orion and performs the EDS and LOI. Compared to apollo, the weight saving would be no capsule, or earth return capacity hence enabling a larger Altair dedicated to the landing role.

Option Two - Looks exactly like apollo on steroids - The Service Module would be beefed to the max to cater for the larger CM and Altair dedicated to landing role.

Also I was thinking in the above scenario - the altair wouldnt risk beeing top heavy on landing with most of the fuel used up for EDS.


Pardon for being long winded, but if someone could point out the flaw in my logic - understanding, that would be helpful.

cheers
 

[kraisee]

Maybe it is a valid critique that needs to be addressed?  Did your source tell you it was an "attack" ... or simply a concern?  The bunker mentality is decidedly not helpful on either side.

No question about it -- its another attack, in the spirit of "getting rid of those meddling kids".

We have a variety of engineering options for making the rear-docking work -- and a number of options which don't even need it (especially if CxP are going to include prop transfer anyway!).

But since when were facts allowed to get in the way of a good round of FUD?   

Ross.

[adamsmith]

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.

Dear Ross,

There is some quality leadership in this country, but it is not in
Washington.  NASA has many good people, but as an organization it died when Challenger blew up and it failed to correct itself.  During Bush I, serious consideration was given to a total rebuild of the organization but since then it has turned into a high tech jobs program.  That is what I like about Direct, it takes a bad situation and turns it around by reusing technically sound components.

To play with your pigs metaphor, pearls from swine.

Stanley

[MP99]

Maybe it is a valid critique that needs to be addressed?  Did your source tell you it was an "attack" ... or simply a concern?  The bunker mentality is decidedly not helpful on either side.

You're aware of the history of DIRECT + NASA + PT?

Can I just remind everyone that a DIRECT two-launch with PT from the "fuel launch" into the JUS under CLV / CaLV actually has greater performance than DIRECT's existing baseline? It removes the fundamental performance restriction of DIRECT - that you can't push more payload than a single EDS launch can manage, leaving some inaccessible payload on the CLV / CaLV launch. Now that can be more fuel & cargo (less mass of PT hardware).

If NASA are opening the door to PT, DIRECT just got even more attractive.

Quite frankly, if those details are correct, that's a stupidly inept way to try to kill DIRECT.

cheers, Martin

[dnavas]

Maybe it is a valid critique that needs to be addressed?

We have a variety of engineering options for making the rear-docking work ...

Presumably this has something to do with the "blind" docking?
If so, regardless of the motivation, I can see where a reasonable person might express concern.

[MP99]

Anyway, apparently CxP are 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.

There's a much more obvious way to achieve that goal, but unfortunately, it needs EDS docking.

cheers, Martin

[clongton]

Maybe it is a valid critique that needs to be addressed?

We have a variety of engineering options for making the rear-docking work ...

Presumably this has something to do with the "blind" docking?
If so, regardless of the motivation, I can see where a reasonable person might express concern.

It's not blind docking. It's automated docking. The Russians have been doing it for decades and the ESA just did it. The only fundamental difference is this one doesn't involve an airlock. That actually makes it easier.

[gladiator1332]

While the inaccuracies of the New Scientist article, as well as the latest FUD anger me. I think it could be taken as a good sign. Cx is getting desperate.

To continue the Titanic analogy, the ship is starting its final plunge, all of the lifeboats have left, and we're down to deck chairs.

So the particular docking mode supposedly doesn't work. How does that kill the entire launch vehicle? The last time I checked, the possibilities are pretty much endless with Jupiter.

Direct has the upper hand right now. If Ares I is indeed dead, they can't attack an inline configuration too bad, as it will also kill Ares V.

[MP99]

Hi,

Without seeing a picture - I am confused why there is a risk of regarding the EDS attachment mainly because as I am having difficulty seeing  how the EDS - Altair - Orion will stack together.

This diagram is on the directlauncher website:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg

It's a hangover from DIRECT 1.0, but I believe it's pretty close to the current plan (although this shows Altair + Orion launching on a J-130, when it would now launch on a J-24x). Also, launch is currently planned to 130x130nmi, instead of 160x160.

cheers, Martin

[rv_rocket]

Ross, Chuck,
The new base arrangement really looks good!

Also big thanks to the guys working on the Wiki, it's really coming along nicely, Great job!

Danny Dot, how about shooting an email to Charlie letting him know about how his Cxp engineering staff are spending their time!?
No wonder the project is so far behind and over budget!

On second thought, if NASA engineers really want to spend some time working on Direct..... move a few key managers out of the way,  and let em go!

[Ronsmytheiii]

Hi,

Without seeing a picture - I am confused why there is a risk of regarding the EDS attachment mainly because as I am having difficulty seeing  how the EDS - Altair - Orion will stack together.

This diagram is on the directlauncher website:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/DIRECT_Lunar_Mission_Model_3.jpg

It's a hangover from DIRECT 1.0, but I believe it's pretty close to the current plan (although this shows Altair + Orion launching on a J-130, when it would now launch on a J-24x). Also, launch is currently planned to 130x130nmi, instead of 160x160.

cheers, Martin

last time I checked Orion does not dock to altair first, instead they ride "Eyeballs out" the Orion/Altair combination stays inline, separates from the second stage, then docks the end opposite of Orion to the EDS

[cro-magnon gramps]

ok, a FUD attack is at hand!
why panic... they have a sinking ship, and crap careers going down the toilet...
 my big question is this, where is John Shannon's 'surprise' now regarding Steve's comment at the Augustine hearing... is he going to comment...
is it time to get an ASBOs out on this crew... Charlie's first order of business has to be to clean house... this cannot pass un-noticed by either of them...

modify - definition: ASBOs (Anti-Social Behavioral Orders) are explicitly intended to deal with bad juvenile behaviour ...

[Lab Lemming]

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.

[cixelsyD]

Can someone clarify this for me.

Jupiter-130 Crew + Cargo LV w/ 10.0m dia x 10.0m long fairing, to 30x130nmi, 29.0°

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

Is this version of Jupiter supposed to be launched with this one, to have a lunar mission?

Jupiter-246 EDS LV w/ minimal fairing, to 130x130nmi, 29.0°

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.08001_EDS_090606.pdf

I mean you have all these options, i'm just not sure which are supposed to be used with what for a lunar mission.

If you use a: Jupiter-246 Crew + Cargo LV w/ 10.0m dia x 5.6m long fairing, to 130x130nmi, 29.0°

What's the cargo,  and EDS? Altair? It just looks like there's a lot of extra volume that's not in use.

[Lancer525]

ok, a FUD attack is at hand!
why panic... they have a sinking ship, and crap careers going down the toilet...
 my big question is this, where is John Shannon's 'surprise' now regarding Steve's comment at the Augustine hearing... is he going to comment...
is it time to get an ASBOs out on this crew... Charlie's first order of business has to be to clean house... this cannot pass un-noticed by either of them...

modify - definition: ASBOs (Anti-Social Behavioral Orders) are explicitly intended to deal with bad juvenile behaviour ...

Gramps:

Bolden's a Marine. He understands the old Navy saying "A new broom sweeps clean" pretty well, I think. It should only be a matter of time.