DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1

[fotoguzzi]

I have just been told to prepare for a new round of FUD from CxP regarding our Altair > EDS docking arrangement.

Calling Dr. Pietrobon!  Dr. Pietrobon to the launchpad - Stat!

I have given this some thought, but Buzz Aldrin is your man. He did his PhD on rendezvous.

I was thinking you might have some ideas about avoiding the dock.

[MP99]

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.

John Shannon, "Not Shuttle-C" presentation to Augustine Commission (page 341 of transcript, my highlighting):-

         4                The thought being this is -- you can          12:46:01
         5      kind of see the approach, normal solid rocket           16:11:19
         6      booster separation, fairing separation, you hit         16:11:23
         7      MECO and off goes your upper stage with                 16:11:25
         8      autonomous rendezvous and docking capability --         16:11:29
         9      which actually if we would have launched this           16:11:32
        10      morning, we were going to demonstrate the               16:11:34
        11      autonomous rendezvous and docking capability.           16:11:36
        12                We put some sensors on in the payload         16:11:39
        13      bay of Endeavour and we'll demonstrate that             16:11:42
        14      software and I hope -- although doing it within         16:11:46
        15      eight flights is going to be difficult.  I hope         16:11:48
        16      to have the capability to demonstrate the               16:11:53
        17      shuttle autonomous docking to the ISS.  At least        16:11:55
        18      we'll get the sensor data and then put it on the        16:11:56
        19      ground through simulation and be able to show           16:11:59
        20      that.                                                   16:12:02

What was the system he was talking about?

It is some precursor to a system that could be used for automatic EDS / Altair docking?

STS-127 took up the SpaceX DTO, but he seems to be describing something different? Or Are NASA using the data for their own experiements in the same direction?

cheers, Martin

[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

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

I think this was mentioned as one option for launching sub-orbitally, then having Altair perform circularisation burn. But it's just one of several options.

BTW, I believe "eyeballs out" actually means "g-forces are pulling the eyeballs out of their sockets", not that "the crew are looking forwards out of the craft".

If this is correct, eyeballs-out is Orion & Altair docked nose-to-nose during TLI, as pictured in that diagram.

cheers, Martin

[brihath]

Question: When docking Orion/Altair stack to EDS, do you have to have any functional electrical (or otherer) connection at all, or will mechanical latching be sufficient? In other words, can you radio control the EDS, either from ground or from Orion for its entire part of the mission? It seems likely you can design a mechanical docking system whose radial orientation is irrelevant to its function. As long as no plugs have to be plugged, or fuel lines connected, you just have to make sure the two parts stay locked together during acceleration.

I don't think that should be any kind of technical issue.  That technology was handled over 40 years ago during the Gemini-Agena manned missions.  Perhaps someone else can weigh in on how the firing commands were handed off from Gemini to Agena.  Progress also does both fuel transfer and motor firings while docked to ISS.

[MP99]

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.

EDS = Earth Departure Stage - powers the spacecraft through TLI.
CLV = Crew Launch Vehicle - Altair + Orion. Includes LAS for crew aborts.
CaLV = Cargo Launch Vehicle - Altair only + 15mT or more of cargo.


Firstly, both crew & cargo missions launch an EDS (around 4-5 days before TLI), to a 130x130nmi, 29^o orbit:-

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

And yes, this is the card that you had identified.



For a cargo mission, the CaLV would then be this:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J130-41.4000.10051_CaLV_30x130nmi_29.0deg_090606.pdf

This requires the Altair to perform a short burn when it reaches the 130nmi altitude to circularise the orbit from 30x130 to 130x130nmi.



For a crewed mission, the CLV would be this:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.pdf

This delivers both Altair & Orion safely to 130x130nmi orbit without having to perform circ burns.

It might be possible to launch CLV on the J-130 config you identified, but it is very tight for margins, and there are issues about getting both Altair & Orion into the required circular orbit. The circularisation burns may impact on landed payload, too. The card is shown on the website because it's a "wouldn't it be nice if we could..." (and they may yet find a way).



For a cargo mission, there is also the option to perform a single launch, and use the upper stage as EDS to push as much to the Moon as possible.

This lands much less than CxP's requirement, but is a simple launch. Unfortunately, it "wastes" a very expensive Altair, so is not likely to be used:-

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/Baseball_Cards/J246-41.4004.10050_CLV_090606.pdf

Note that this cargo vehicle, is overkill for DIRECT's standard two-launch cargo mission (it can lift more to orbit, but the EDS can't then get that to the Moon). However, add in propellant transfer or High Earth Orbit Rendezvous and then you can land some very susbtantial payloads - way more than Ares V can achieve.

cheers, Martin

[Lancer525]

Can someone tell me what FUD means?

Danny Deger

It means fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

I always thought it meant "False, Underhanded, Deceitful"

Learn something new every day...

[JMSC]

I have just been told to prepare for a new round of FUD from CxP regarding our Altair > EDS docking arrangement.

Apparently they're about to try to attack DIRECT for this "fatal flaw".

I just thought I would pre-empt their attack by putting this information "out there" well ahead of their attempts.

Ross.

An idea in which direction this attack will come from? "One if by land, and two if by sea" or where?

I wouldn’t consider the CxP FUD an entirely bad sign at all.  If there is one big advantage CxP has over competing designs and organizations it is asymmetrical knowledge or insider’s knowledge of the process.  E.g. what is the Augustine council really thinking and what was Bolden really thinking when he spoke about interesting options, of which some will be politically unfeasible.  The fact that CxP wants to make such a late in the game attack would seem to indicate that DIRECT is definitely one of those interesting options and it’s also politically acceptable.  If that wasn’t the case why go to the trouble to try to discredit DIRECT so late in the game.

I think Ross hit the real nail on the head when he said where is the leadership in this.  CxPs leadership are civil servants, they aren’t even low level political appointees, and as such they have a duty to present all reasonable options for moving forward with CxP to the real decision makers, Bolden and Obama who will decide what to do about CxP, not Doug Cooke and company.  In the military, it is considered very important to bring all reasonable Courses of Action or COAs to a decision maker even if they are politically unpopular without inserting your own bias and givining the decision maker the information to make the best decision they can.  If the decision makers want to play political games that’s alright, but such blatant political games by the staff is neither encouraged nor tolerated.  I do hope that Bolden would see the attempts at sabotaging and handicapping the options presented to him for what they are, and take appropriate action.  A team that can’t honestly size up a situation is not an asset, it’s a liability.

John

[Idol Revolver]

The website has died

[MKampe]

It's too bad that Ares is tied into CxP- Orion can and should be given whole-hearted support- or else it will get down-sized, have capabilities reduced, and will wind up compromise-ridden and worthless- wait, that's already happening all in the name of "reconfiguring" (saving) Ares.

If we design and build Orion properly, it has the potential of becoming or "Soyuz"- a reliable, flexible workhorse that serves us for decades to come. If we keep downsizing the design, it will wind up as the Space Shuttle- an albatross with some amazing innovation but lethal pitfalls and hobbled capability that places crippling limits on it's applications.

Orion has to have margins- for safety, capability, upgradability, and budget. In this program, especially if you want to talk about ever going to LEOs, Mars, or other exotic trips, we simply can NOT sacrifice the capsule design for a flawed booster. The booster needs to have those same margins for the same reasons. As far as I can see, Jupiter is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.

At some point, doesn't it become logical to analyze Ares (Ares-I at the minimum) from the standpoint of most failed federal programs kept alive beyond their usefulness- Fraud Wast and Abuse? Perhaps the CxP Team should be thinking about averting a GAO Probe, rather than saving a program.

[Stephan]

The website has died

Try this :
http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/

[Idol Revolver]

Its back now. Must have been a temporary fault.

[Drapper23]

I think the latest FUD means that the Constellation people know "their dammed if they do & their dammed if they don't". They know that we're at check position on the chess board--one move away from mate--and it's becoming increasingly difficult to protect their King from being taken!!!

[Lancer525]

I think the latest FUD means that the Constellation people know "they're dammed if they do & they're dammed if they don't". They know that we're at check position on the chess board--one move away from mate--and it's becoming increasingly difficult to protect their King from being taken!!!

Problem is, their King is already gone. He's been gone since January 21. They have a new King. And they need to start doing the right thing, right now.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am absolutely infuriated that these civil servants are wasting MY taxpayer dollars with their continued efforts to do anything and everything except what they're supposed to be doing. They are supposed to be making the most efficient, flexible, and capable launch vehicle they can build. They aren't doing that. This is the kind of office-politics crap that gives NASA a bad name, and I for one am sick and bloody tired of it.

All the evidence is there. The reality of the situation is so obvious that anyone other than a complete and total dolt can see it.

[Arthur]

IIRC someone commented on a 3-5 engine base for NotShuttleC. Since DIRECT and NSC both build on STS technology, what would be the mission for a 5 SSME core? (or was it to accommodate 5 lesser engines)?

[TrueBlueWitt]

Funny how Ares-1 TO is a "resolvable technical issue"  while automated Altair Docking to EDS is a "show stopper"? 

Which of those problems would you rather tackle?

[TrueBlueWitt]

Speaking of this docking "FUD"

As an option, could you use an ISS style CBM(does it have sufficient load capacity?) for the connection between EDS and Altair? 

I'd envision a small robotic arm on Altair or EDS for capture and guidance to berth.  And to make sure CBM release isn't a failure mechanism and to minimize Altair mass.. ditch the entire CBM by using pyrotechnic bolts to detach the CBM and adapter from Altair after EDS burn.

[marsavian]

I have just been told to prepare for a new round of FUD from CxP regarding our Altair > EDS docking arrangement.

Apparently they're about to try to attack DIRECT for this "fatal flaw".

I just thought I would pre-empt their attack by putting this information "out there" well ahead of their attempts.

Ross.

This might prove as silly in hindsight as attacking docked propellant transfer. Attacking an Altair/EDS docking procedure when NASA may be forced to do such a thing in the future will make the instigators look foolish unless there are *real* concerns and not just political ones.

[jarmumd]

Ross and co,
   Have the DIRECT team considered the idea that the Orion, Altair, PLFs could all be removed as one unit, then this "ship" could be docked to the EDS (now it looks/works like apollo)?

I understand that this does not remove the total number of dockings, and add mass to the system as it leaves earth orbit, but you do remove the structural loads that would otherwise pass through altair, and don't have the time constraint of having to remove the altair in LEO (may free up orbital insertion options - rather than fully circularize).

With propellant depots, as I understand it, you would not need to do any docking/undocking until after leaving earth.  Essentially apollo with propellant transfer in LEO.

Now venturing into the realm of silly, imagine a "ship" with an interchangable engine/tank (EDS), payload bay with doors (1/2 PLF rigid, 1/2 PLF doors), and a dockable Orion/SM at the head.  Add a LLO propellant depot, and you get a reusable Payload Bay!

[engstudent]

So whats new with the DIRECT team?

[Lobo]

I think the latest FUD means that the Constellation people know "they're dammed if they do & they're dammed if they don't". They know that we're at check position on the chess board--one move away from mate--and it's becoming increasingly difficult to protect their King from being taken!!!

Problem is, their King is already gone. He's been gone since January 21. They have a new King. And they need to start doing the right thing, right now.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am absolutely infuriated that these civil servants are wasting MY taxpayer dollars with their continued efforts to do anything and everything except what they're supposed to be doing. They are supposed to be making the most efficient, flexible, and capable launch vehicle they can build. They aren't doing that. This is the kind of office-politics crap that gives NASA a bad name, and I for one am sick and bloody tired of it.

All the evidence is there. The reality of the situation is so obvious that anyone other than a complete and total dolt can see it.

Couldn’t agree more.  Unfortunately, if it’s your taxpayer dollars being wasted that you are upset about, then NASA is the least of our problems of what’s being wasted right now at various other levels of government.  Not a few billion, but –trillions-!

My frustration at NASA’s issues is more tied to them being counter-productive to getting a new, workable, affordable launch system up and running than my tax dollars being wasted.  I don’t like my tax dollars being wasted anywhere, but NASA’s the least of it.  That’s like saying we are angry about all of this shop lifting, when there’s record high rates of murder and rape going on in our neighborhood.