Author Topic: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1  (Read 1228120 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #300 on: 06/04/2009 06:31 pm »
zap, please edit your post or I will ask the moderators to remove it.

We want to take the high ground here and I'm asking all our supporters to come with us on that high road and keep all of their comments civil, please.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 06:33 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #301 on: 06/04/2009 06:38 pm »
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again.  No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:

http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #302 on: 06/04/2009 06:38 pm »
My understanding of the conclusions which were in the Aerospace report (and note that I have not seen the actual document, merely spoken to people who have) is that they determined that the current RS-68 powered Delta-IV Heavy could lift the current Orion with nice comfortable margins and flying a blackzone-safe trajectory.   However it would apparently take the RS-68A engines, due in 2012, to be able to lift a heavier Orion including such things as the ~1400lb of Land Landing hardware.

I don't have the precise payload performance figures to hand, but I'm pretty sure that the Commission members will have access to this document.

Ross.

Here is a quote from an article from this site:

"The results for both the Delta IV-H and Atlas V-H are encouraging, and point towards large margins on both the ISS and Lunar Orion vehicle. However, that is only part of the story.

ISS (requirement of 19.2 t). Delta IV-Heavy = 24.2 t. Atlas V Heavy = 25.4 t. Lunar (requirement of 21.8 t). Delta IV-H = 26.3 t. Atlas V-H = 27.3 t,” noted information acquired by L2.

The Delta IV-H numbers include use of the RS-68A, which is an upgraded version of the current RS-68 - currently undergoing testing and due to come into service in a few years time."

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/04/study-eelv-capable-orion-role-griffin-claims-alternatives-fiction/

On talking about Ares in front of the Commission, I don't think Direct should say a word, except maybe to compare your cost and schedule to theirs.  I think its warts are very visible to all.

Danny Deger
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 06:41 pm by Danny Dot »
Danny Deger

Offline ChuckC

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #303 on: 06/04/2009 06:39 pm »
This approach how will LEO docking with EDS be done? Using Orion’s docking port or one under the Lunar landar.

Offline zapkitty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #304 on: 06/04/2009 06:42 pm »
zap, please edit your post or I will ask the moderators to remove it.

We want to take the high ground here and I'm asking all our supporters to come with us on that high road and keep all of their comments civil, please.

Ross.

Serious question: what part(s) of the post?
 

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #305 on: 06/04/2009 06:49 pm »
Serious question: what part(s) of the post?

The last paragraph is out of order.

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

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #306 on: 06/04/2009 06:51 pm »
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again.  No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:

http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/

I never knew anything about it until two minutes ago.   I'm listening to it right now for the first time.   Doesn't seem so bad.   Wish they had contacted me for an interview as I could have provided more comprehensive answers.

Who is "Jeph"?

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 06:56 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline ChuckC

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #307 on: 06/04/2009 06:52 pm »
Politically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.

1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle.  This point alone should convince Obama.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #308 on: 06/04/2009 07:04 pm »
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again.  No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:

http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/

I never knew anything about it until two minutes ago.   I'm listening to it right now for the first time.   Doesn't seem so bad.   Wish they had contacted me for an interview as I could have provided more comprehensive answers.

Who is "Jeph"?

Ross.

he is claiming first manned jupiter flight would be 2016.....(Jeph)

Offline zapkitty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #309 on: 06/04/2009 07:32 pm »
Politically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.

1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.

Obama didn't want us to go to the moon.

Obama originally wanted to divert the money to education for 5 years... i.e. until he would have been safe from repercussions.

Quote
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.

NASA and contractors aren't exactly a Democratic-leaning hotbed of leftist socialism... /snark

Quote
3. It gives him a chance to outstage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle.  This point alone should convince Obama.

Obama outstages Bush by breathing. That's not a concern of his. And he's still got a full platter of godawful messes left by Bush he that has to somehow clean up without actually having Bush tried and convicted.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #310 on: 06/04/2009 07:49 pm »
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again.  No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:

http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/

I never knew anything about it until two minutes ago.   I'm listening to it right now for the first time.   Doesn't seem so bad.   Wish they had contacted me for an interview as I could have provided more comprehensive answers.

Who is "Jeph"?

Ross.

I listened to this a few days ago when searching for ISDC coverage online.  I didn't find what I wanted, but I did find this.

It was not really bad, and Jeph was trying to be informative, but it could have gone better.

I left a long comment to try and clear things up, and included a link to directlauncher.com.   Sorry if I messed anything up, but I just wanted to leave a short summary for casual readers and a link for the more curious.

They have a Thursday night show (tonight) if you want to call in and give them any clarifications.

Mark S.

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #311 on: 06/04/2009 07:59 pm »
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again.  No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:

http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/

I agree.  It is one thing for me as an outsider to say NASA picked Griffin's pet rocket, but Direct needs to stay above this.

Maybe you can say NASA might have over reacted to safety in picking Ares I, but that was before trust oscillation and control problems were known and Direct mitigates these problems very well.   This is the truth.  I have first hand knowledge Scott Horowitz loved his stick 100% for crew safety.  And I can tell you at the time, we didn't have a clue about TO or the control problems.  You might also mention Ares I was picked based on a 4 segment SRB and an airstart SSME.
Summary response, "NASA probably made a good decision based on what they knew at the time, but things have changed and Ares I is not as good as it once was."

On safety, it is simple to point out having an abort system and putting the capsule on the top is a big improvement to shuttle.  On the Challenger comments, Direct can survive a joint leak.  I would recommend adding an off the shelf IR or UV sensor to look up the side of the SRBs and look for a leak.  This is very common technology for aircraft to look for incoming missiles.  I don't like the implication in the podcast that joint leaks are rare and therefore "OK".  Detect the leak and abort off of it.

On Jupiter being "smaller" than Ares V, the response was not good.  Simply say Ares V also requires a launch of Ares I for the crew and Direct is going to use 2 Jupiters that combined carry more than an Ares I and V and combined cost a lot less.  Use the size of Ares V against it because it requires new SRBs and a new upperstage engine.  Trying to say a single Jupiter can lift more than a single Ares V is not a good idea.  If you do have an advanced growth idea that can carry more, state it as that.   Stick with the baseline to get us to ISS and the moon.

As a person that used to sell technical systems, I recommend having a response to "What is the down side of your design?"  Everyone you brief may ask this.  Maybe that Ares V can send a cargo mission to the moon with a single launch, and the fact that Ares I uses a single SRB while you use 2.  How about the extra LEO docking required.  BTW single launch for cargo to go to the moon is not as important now that outposts are off the table.

I hope this helps y'all polish your brief. 

Danny Deger
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 08:24 pm by Danny Dot »
Danny Deger

Offline cixelsyD

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • San Diego, CA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #312 on: 06/04/2009 08:17 pm »
I believe Ross might have said earlier that the Ares V internally now has grown in size due to inefficiencies in the RS68, not to mention it needs 7 engines instead of 5. I think the biggest problem with Ares right now is that it just gets bigger, more expensive and delayed by YEARS. If you point out that Ares isn't over it's delays I think it would be hard not to choose an alternative. It's highly suggestable that with Ares we won't reach the moon by 2020 no matter what is done. Getting there by 2020 I think was the main critera that Obama wants.

I mean Ares V can't get any bigger now according to Ross's interview, or else the VAB won't be big enough. That means any more problems, and payload sizes will have to decrease.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #313 on: 06/04/2009 08:32 pm »
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

Should we 'pack' our dates and make them a "no brainer"?

I'm concerned with the possibility of some factions pushing the "their schedule is unreasonable" card, even though *we* are totally confident.   Problem is that mud always tends to stick...   ...So perhaps we should get even more conservative specifically for this presentation -- just to head that accusation off at the gate?

It would certainly be better to say "5 years" and then have Hawes come back with "yeah its doable in 4 actually" instead of saying "3 years" and Hawes coming back and saying "nope, your too optimistic, its going to take longer, more like 4".

Same result from Hawes could produce two completely different reactions, all because of our claims going in...

Thoughts?

Ross.



You also have other contenders out there. If you pad the schedule too much, it could do the reverse and give the upper hand to your opponent (not likely, based on ALL that Direct has going for it). There is always a balancing act, and I think it's balanced very well. Maybe adding 2-3 months, but nothing more than that (imo).

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #314 on: 06/04/2009 08:32 pm »
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.

What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.

Ross.

No if you are confident of the schedule then say so. Schedule is one of the reasons we support direct and one of the drivers for adopting direct.

I'd suggest including conditions in the schedule however, such as "funding for this must start then", " Dependant on this" etc. Then there is complete openness on the possible reasons for delays.

Considering this can lead to the development of a real wort case scenario schedule that assume nothing goes as planned.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline fotoguzzi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Phobos first!
  • PDX, Oregon, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #315 on: 06/04/2009 09:00 pm »
2019?
heads.
implement.
Let Ares speak for itself or not, as an outside/underground concept DIRECT has to be ultra-credible and professional in its own right regardless of what EELV/Ares do or not do.
I agree.  I think, however, that DIRECT, while outside/underground is also parallel to the Ares programmes.  So, if Ares said they can prepare the J-2X or RS-68 in nn months for nn dollars, then DIRECT has incorporated those assumptions into its plans.  Similarly when NASA has upgraded a facility. DIRECT 3.0 is now a lot different than Ares, but it did not get like that in an isolated way.

I wonder if it is fair to compare budget, schedule, and infrastructure advantages.  In other words, if DIRECT shows it's advantages with an apple-to-apple comparison, is that unprofessional?  It is possible that the other systems might present their information in a way that is hard to compare, and one of DIRECT's selling points is not detected?

I will leave the touchy subject of performance comparisons to others.

Modify: typo


« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 09:29 pm by fotoguzzi »
My other rocket is a DIRECT Project 2

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #316 on: 06/04/2009 09:08 pm »
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

Should we 'pack' our dates and make them a "no brainer"?

I'm concerned with the possibility of some factions pushing the "their schedule is unreasonable" card, even though *we* are totally confident.   Problem is that mud always tends to stick...   ...So perhaps we should get even more conservative specifically for this presentation -- just to head that accusation off at the gate?

It would certainly be better to say "5 years" and then have Hawes come back with "yeah its doable in 4 actually" instead of saying "3 years" and Hawes coming back and saying "nope, your too optimistic, its going to take longer, more like 4".

Same result from Hawes could produce two completely different reactions, all because of our claims going in...

Thoughts?

Ross.



You also have other contenders out there. If you pad the schedule too much, it could do the reverse and give the upper hand to your opponent (not likely, based on ALL that Direct has going for it). There is always a balancing act, and I think it's balanced very well. Maybe adding 2-3 months, but nothing more than that (imo).

We have seen with Ares I which was supposed to be a simple and soon concept how quickly delays can mount up to unforeseen problems. They should take the Von Braun approach and seriously err on the side of margin caution. 3 years to me for a new rocket, even with existing reconfigured parts, sounds like a wind in your sails job, it could be done but everything would have to go more or less to plan.  Just say it took 5 for some reason, on a 3 year schedule that's a 66% overrun, on a 4 year schedule that's a 25% overrun. Which would lead to less recriminations ?
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 09:11 pm by marsavian »

Offline adamsmith

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • chicago, IL USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #317 on: 06/04/2009 10:33 pm »
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.

That raises a very interesting point...

Should we 'pack' our dates and make them a "no brainer"?

I'm concerned with the possibility of some factions pushing the "their schedule is unreasonable" card, even though *we* are totally confident.   Problem is that mud always tends to stick...   ...So perhaps we should get even more conservative specifically for this presentation -- just to head that accusation off at the gate?

It would certainly be better to say "5 years" and then have Hawes come back with "yeah its doable in 4 actually" instead of saying "3 years" and Hawes coming back and saying "nope, your too optimistic, its going to take longer, more like 4".

Same result from Hawes could produce two completely different reactions, all because of our claims going in...

Thoughts?

Ross.



You also have other contenders out there. If you pad the schedule too much, it could do the reverse and give the upper hand to your opponent (not likely, based on ALL that Direct has going for it). There is always a balancing act, and I think it's balanced very well. Maybe adding 2-3 months, but nothing more than that (imo).

We have seen with Ares I which was supposed to be a simple and soon concept how quickly delays can mount up to unforeseen problems. They should take the Von Braun approach and seriously err on the side of margin caution. 3 years to me for a new rocket, even with existing reconfigured parts, sounds like a wind in your sails job, it could be done but everything would have to go more or less to plan.  Just say it took 5 for some reason, on a 3 year schedule that's a 66% overrun, on a 4 year schedule that's a 25% overrun. Which would lead to less recriminations ?

IMHO, Don't disappoint the customer... Much.  While the 3 year schedule has built-in the knowable unknowns, in project management, it is legitimate to schedule an arbitrary period of unknowable unknowns. So I would create a 4 year schedule which is what the Orion team really needs and use the additional available funds to start development of the Really big payoff item which is the Fuel Depots.

I am enamored with the EML Architecture as expounded in Direct V2.0.  Using fuel depots, it is "easy" to create an efficient transportation network throughout cislunar space and onto mars.  The smaller delta-v's from one depot to the other allow very good mass ratios allowing conservative designs.  I believe in KISS.

Stan 

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #318 on: 06/04/2009 11:17 pm »
Politically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.

1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle.  This point alone should convince Obama.


It should, but it's hard to say if it will.

1) Obama hasn't shown that he really cares much about the space program, and in fact, candidate Obama said a few discouraging things.
With any luck, this changes and he does the right things, but it's hard to be overly optimistic.

2) Like Zap said, his left-wing liberal base aren't exactly the people who are invested and big supporters of the space program.  He can earn a lot for grace with them by putting as much money as possibly into social engineering, "green" programs, education, unions, etc.  The Democrat bread and butter areas.

3)  While Obama seems to take an unprecidented stance at trying to berate his predecessor, likely to divert attention away from his own controversial spending and social engineering policies, he doesn't need NASA to do that.  The media pretty much let him do it ad nausium without an ounce of scruteny.
Although Zap seems to wonder off into a rant about Bush, despite his failure to follow up on the VSE, the VSE itself only exists because of Bush, and in fairness, Bush took the most interest in the Space program since probably LBJ.  He didn't follow up on it and let it head a wrong direction with Ares (and a pox on him for that), but at least he did try to get something new going after the Columbia accident.  Obama or Clinton would have probably moved to let manned space exploration wither on the vine and die as it's in danger of now.

And for the record, Obama was in the Senate for 4 years, two of those with a large Democrat majority in Congress, so he and his party had as much a hand in many of the "messes" we have now as the Bush Administration does.
He was "handed" very little he and the democrats didn't already have their fingers in prior to January 20th.
Both sides have screwed the pootch on a lot of things, but lets be fair about it.


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #319 on: 06/04/2009 11:50 pm »
Politically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.

1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle.  This point alone should convince Obama.


It should, but it's hard to say if it will.

1) Obama hasn't shown that he really cares much about the space program, and in fact, candidate Obama said a few discouraging things.
With any luck, this changes and he does the right things, but it's hard to be overly optimistic.

2) Like Zap said, his left-wing liberal base aren't exactly the people who are invested and big supporters of the space program.  He can earn a lot for grace with them by putting as much money as possibly into social engineering, "green" programs, education, unions, etc.  The Democrat bread and butter areas.

3)  While Obama seems to take an unprecidented stance at trying to berate his predecessor, likely to divert attention away from his own controversial spending and social engineering policies, he doesn't need NASA to do that.  The media pretty much let him do it ad nausium without an ounce of scruteny.
Although Zap seems to wonder off into a rant about Bush, despite his failure to follow up on the VSE, the VSE itself only exists because of Bush, and in fairness, Bush took the most interest in the Space program since probably LBJ.  He didn't follow up on it and let it head a wrong direction with Ares (and a pox on him for that), but at least he did try to get something new going after the Columbia accident.  Obama or Clinton would have probably moved to let manned space exploration wither on the vine and die as it's in danger of now.

And for the record, Obama was in the Senate for 4 years, two of those with a large Democrat majority in Congress, so he and his party had as much a hand in many of the "messes" we have now as the Bush Administration does.
He was "handed" very little he and the democrats didn't already have their fingers in prior to January 20th.
Both sides have screwed the pootch on a lot of things, but lets be fair about it.



Gawd! You know - the election is OVER - EIGHT months ago - so can we please get past this stuff? Let it go already. This thread is NOT about Obama vs. Bush and it is NOT about Left vs. Right or about Democrat vs. Republican so *get back on topic* - please.

(Slowly pulling my finger away from the alert button - one time only)
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags:
 

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