Author Topic: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2  (Read 895241 times)

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #60 on: 03/26/2008 03:52 AM »
Quote
jimvela - 26/3/2008  2:36 PM

Quote
Jim - 24/3/2008  4:48 PM

Quote
kraisee - 24/3/2008  3:17 PM

There is currently an agreement between NASA and DoD that NASA will not fly any commercial payloads.


Ross.

It is not a NASA/DOD agreement, it is a US law that forbids NASA from launching commercial payloads.  It is the Commercial Space Act

Jim is correct, and anyone dabbling in statements about this would do well to read the actual act.

PUBLIC LAW 105–303—OCT. 28, 1998
Commercial Space Act of 1998. 42 USC 14701.

http://corport.hq.nasa.gov/launch_services/PL_105_303.pdf


SEC. 204. SHUTTLE PRIVATIZATION.
(a) POLICY AND PREPARATION.—The Administrator shall prepare
for an orderly transition from the Federal operation, or Federal
management of contracted operation, of space transportation systems
to the Federal purchase of commercial space transportation
services for all nonemergency space transportation requirements
for transportation to and from Earth orbit, including human, cargo,
and mixed payloads. In those preparations, the Administrator shall
take into account the need for short-term economies, as well as
the goal of restoring the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s
research focus and its mandate to promote the fullest
possible commercial use of space. As part of those preparations,
the Administrator shall plan for the potential privatization of the
Space Shuttle program. Such plan shall keep safety and cost
effectiveness as high priorities. Nothing in this section shall prohibit
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from studying,
designing, developing, or funding upgrades or modifications essential
to the safe and economical operation of the Space Shuttle
fleet.


Sounds like a very different direction 10 years ago. Here it says they wanted NASA to use nothing but commercial launch services. I presume this effort fell flat on its face? It would be interesting to see a privately-run Jupiter-232 with NASA just paying for flights. I wonder how this would work.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10481
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #61 on: 03/26/2008 07:59 AM »
Quote
jimvela - 26/3/2008  12:36 AM

Jim is correct, and anyone dabbling in statements about this would do well to read the actual act.

PUBLIC LAW 105–303—OCT. 28, 1998
Commercial Space Act of 1998. 42 USC 14701.

http://corport.hq.nasa.gov/launch_services/PL_105_303.pdf


There was an amendment in 2004.   Don't forget to cross reference the changes.   The 1998 document is no longer entirely up-to-date.

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

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Liked: 536
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #62 on: 03/29/2008 05:48 PM »
From
http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/what_is_direct.htm:

    * Shorter "gap" after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
    * Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)

These two points basically follows one from another. May be interpreted as attempt to artificially inflate "good points"

    * Delete all risks associated with a second new launch vehicle
    * Delete all costs associated with a second new launch vehicle

These two points are very similarly looking. At first I even thought that they are tha same. I don't know, maybe rephrase one of them to make it look different?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10481
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2471
  • Likes Given: 872
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #63 on: 03/29/2008 06:35 PM »
Quote
gospacex - 29/3/2008  2:48 PM

From
http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/what_is_direct.htm:

    * Shorter "gap" after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
    * Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)

These two points basically follows one from another. May be interpreted as attempt to artificially inflate "good points"

    * Delete all risks associated with a second new launch vehicle
    * Delete all costs associated with a second new launch vehicle

These two points are very similarly looking. At first I even thought that they are the same. I don't know, maybe rephrase one of them to make it look different?
Shorter "gap" is a completely different issue having to do with not being required to lay off over 10,000 people. Earlier return to the moon is only partially related to the shorter gap in that returning to flight sooner does shorten the schedule, but the DIRECT architecture does several other things more efficiently than Ares which brings this about.

Risks and Costs are 2 completely different things.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10481
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #64 on: 03/29/2008 07:09 PM »
Quote
gospacex - 29/3/2008  2:48 PM

From
http://launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/what_is_direct.htm:

    * Shorter "gap" after the Shuttle retires (3 years vs. 5)
    * Earlier return to the Moon (2017 vs. 2019)

These two points basically follows one from another. May be interpreted as attempt to artificially inflate "good points"

There is certainly a relationship between the two points, but they are two separate issues.

It would be possible to say a single thing like "Reduces the entire deployment schedule by 2 years" and cover both bases, but that would assume that everyone reading it is already familiar with the dates as currently assumed by CxP.   If they aren't, there isn't any point of reference.

That is why we mention the two primary objectives of CxP right now and place them specifically in context in order to clarify what we actually get for this change-over to DIRECT.

Closing the gap is very important.   Getting back to the moon two years earlier is also very important.   We aren't managing to do just one or the other, but we get to do both.


Quote
   * Delete all risks associated with a second new launch vehicle
    * Delete all costs associated with a second new launch vehicle

These two points are very similarly looking. At first I even thought that they are tha same. I don't know, maybe rephrase one of them to make it look different?

Very good idea.   I'll have a look at it again as soon as I get a few free minuted to be creative :)

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

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Liked: 536
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #65 on: 03/29/2008 08:02 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 29/3/2008  3:09 PM
I'll have a look at it again as soon as I get a few free minuted to be creative :)

Actually I was reading PDF from the website and noticed approx. a dozen or less small typos and the like. How can I report them to the team (preferably not thru this forum)?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10481
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #66 on: 03/29/2008 10:17 PM »
We're aware of most of them.   We were seriously under the gun when producing that huge report and doing last-minute re-writes and edits right up to the point where AIAA started burning CD's for the conference! :)

Some typo's were missed, and there are a few other minor errors, but it is now too late to go back and re-do them now because the paper has been published officially thru AIAA.

We're just going to leave it "as is" and have moved on to newer documentation.

You could send a list to me by PM or via the e-mail address on the main site if you like, but I honestly don't think we're going to re-publish that document again.   You may therefore prefer not to put all that time in to do a proof-read :)

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

Offline jkumpire

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #67 on: 04/01/2008 02:53 AM »
Gentlemen,

I would ask you for a moment of patience, because I am going to ask a very simple question, since that is all I can ask:

After all the discussion about Direct vs. Ares vs EELV, vs any other alternative, why is it that NASA sticks with Ares?

After a ton of reading here and other places, Direct claims every advantage over Ares there is. I will assume your analysis is spot on. Why then is NASA sticking totally to Ares w/o even incorporating some of your ideas, or even publishing a fact sheet saying why Ares is more valid than Direct's vision or alternative?

Reading so much of the discussion leads me to say some people are not rational in the debate. Even at the beginning of STS, there was some internal logic as to why STS took the form it did. NASA won some arguments about STS over AAP/Saturn as the future of the American space program. The recent discussions are trying to prove there is no reasonable alternative to Direct that competes with it.

If Direct is the better alternative, what you are asking me and other lay people to believe is that NASA's leadership is so beholden to Ares they are willing to destroy NASA for this idea. Or, the politics are so warped in Washington that NASA is forced to follow a second-rate idea that costs more money to do less for some real or imagined political constituency. Or, that the NASA director is so  vain, that he will get rid of the opponents to Ares and surround himself with yes men to push his personal idea of VSE, even if 2009 comes and the new president dumps it, or 2015 comes and Ares doesn't work. Why would he risk America's space future on something that has holes all through it when a better alternative is bubbling around the Internet?  

I just don't understand either the engineering or the politics: Either Ares is not a dog as opposed to Direct, or NASA is blowing its foot off with a howitzer for the vision of its leader, or some political gain. It makes no sense.

I hope I have made myself clear here, help me to understand what I am reading, or missing.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10481
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #68 on: 04/01/2008 08:50 AM »
A great question.   If this becomes an off-topic discussion, I'd prefer it go in a separate thread, but let me put forth the best explanation I've heard so far for this...

The tragic loss of Columbia inspired NASA, The President and both houses of the US Congress all equally re-consider the Space Shuttle and to decide a different direction was needed for NASA after 30 years of that program.

A while before Columbia Mike Griffin and a group of colleagues had been considering alternatives outside of NASA.   Scott Horowitz had an SRB-based launcher.   Griffin wanted a big Mars rocket and needed a way to make such a $30bn rocket appeal to Congress.   But there was some common ground between the two rockets, and building the small one could offset a lot of the costs for the second.   A small team formed around this idea.

When Sean O'Keefe left, Griffin had his chance.   O'Keefe left the agency in the position of doing a lot of studies - all based upon EELV architectures which Congress was strongly against because of the jobs situation.   By all accounts they made it *very* clear they wouldn't accept an Administrator who would abandon the STS infrastructure.

Griffin put his plan forward as one which was ready to go.   A plan that didn't need two years of study to implement, and which protected the STS workforce.

While he was the third selectee, he was the first to accept the job.

He came in, threw out all of the "spiral" developments and did what he felt he had to do in order get the program moving as quickly as possible.   This approach was done for a good reason:   Because Shuttle Retirement in 2010 was fast approaching and a replacement had to be ready in double-quick time.   I really can't fault him for that train of thinking.   There's an awful lot of sense in that approach given the circumstances.

The ESAS Report was produced in order to justify the plan.   It was a wash, and everyone knew it.   Griffin quickly put his team - who were the ones most familiar with the new approach and ready to leap upon it - in the top management spots in order to get things moving fast.

Thus he set forth.

However, there have been a lot of unexpected hurdles along the way because the systems proposed changed quite a lot, and changed quite quickly.   They became very un-related to existing Shuttle hardware, and that meant both the costs and schedule impacts were very significant indeed.

And the technical problems they have encountered (low performance, TO, Orion ZBV etc) have ultimately meant we never did avoid the two years of studies anyway.   Worse though, they continue 'studying' the problems because the solutions are still evading them.   All the while, management is still trying to hustle the program through its milestones.

The program reviews are supposed to be going from milestone to milestone, shadowing the DAC.   They haven't been.   DAC-1 should take you up to the SRR milestone.   DAC-2 should take you from there through to PDR.   The DAC's are currently quite a ways behind the milestones, which is completely the wrong way around.   The engineering is behind the management - which isn't a good arrangement.

Anyway, why stick at it even given such a difficult position to fight from?

At this point, Ares-I is the *only* way for Griffin to ever get his "big rocket" - which has always been his personal goal - ask anyone who worked with him at APL or OSC or anywhere else.   He's really *driven* by rockets like Saturn-V.

If Ares-I fails, his big rocket also fails, and that would mean he also fails - at least to himself, anyway.   Of course nobody wants to fail, that's totally normal and true of Mike, you or I.   Thus, to achieve his goal, he is "sticking the course" no matter what - and essentially praying for a miracle to come from somewhere.

Even if Ares-I doesn't ever fly a crew, it still pays for J-2X and 5-segment SRB - both of which he needs for the big rocket.   He has no reason to abandon Ares-I - even if it never flies.

At this point, to do anything else would - to Griffin - bring shame down upon him personally and would bring ridicule down upon NASA as an agency from all the folk who told him two years ago that it was a poor solution.   But worse still, he believes it would shake Congress' confidence, and The President's confidence in NASA.

I don't believe he is thinking about how much worse it will be if he continues to try to drive this square peg into a round hole - only to find the whole thing is screwed up permanently and will never work properly again.    You can't strip the threads off of a bolt and expect it ever to hold something firmly again.

IMHO he has forgotten the fact that the people in Washington couldn't give a rats a$$ about what rocket NASA uses, just as long as they protect the jobs and don't waste time and money on just another bl**dy boondoggle like ISS has proven to be - which is precisely what Ares is shaping up to be.

And if there's any doubt at all, the politicians *are* watching NASA messing around with Ares right now and are not impressed at all.

It's not too late though.   Griffin's career is tied to whether he makes the *PROGRAM* work.   It is not tied to which *LAUNCHER* he makes - it never was.

I just hope his academic smarts aren't the only smarts he's got.   He needs some street smarts right now.   He's found his car is breaking down in the bad part of town late at night, and his academic savvy are just not going to help him at all here.

Ross.

=2c.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8382
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #69 on: 04/01/2008 04:36 PM »
Can the first stage of the Ares V get the Orion to the ISS?
SRB etc. optional.

Offline Takalok

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #70 on: 04/01/2008 05:45 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 1/4/2008  4:50 AM

A great question.   If this becomes an off-topic discussion, I'd prefer it go in a separate thread, but let me put forth the best explanation I've heard so far for this...

.......

I just hope his academic smarts aren't the only smarts he's got.   He needs some street smarts right now.   He's found his car is breaking down in the bad part of town late at night, and his academic savvy are just not going to help him at all here.

Ross.

=2c.

Great summary!
Life is what happens while you're waiting for tomorrow.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10481
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #71 on: 04/01/2008 09:11 PM »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 1/4/2008  12:36 PM

Can the first stage of the Ares V get the Orion to the ISS?
SRB etc. optional.

Sadly no.

You have to realize that the Core of the Ares-V is almost the same size as both the S-IC and S-II stages of the Saturn-V put together.   It's truly gargantuan.   And it weighs an awful lot - around 150mT dry and about ten times that when fully fueled.

But with five engines it drains of all its propellant before it would ever reach orbit.   And if you don't fly it with three engines - enough to make the propellant last to reach orbital speeds - it then hasn't got enough power to get off the ground.   It's a catch-22 situation.

Ares-V basically only works in a fairly similar configuration to Ares-V.   There's little flexibility to the design.   The best they came up with was Ares-IV, which used the Upper Stage of Ares-I on top of the Ares-V Core/booster package - but that made a very tall and ungainly rocket which was thrown out already.

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

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #72 on: 04/02/2008 02:04 AM »
The 6-engine Ares V (VI?) might get off the ground though, although it's heckuva expensive and ATK would want their SRBS on it.

If you're going to use an all-liquids launch then you're talking D-IV Heavy. Anything else is a waste of time. Still, could a Jupiter-232 core stage launch an Orion to ISS without SRB and J-2X? I think that's been asked before, though...
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #73 on: 04/02/2008 03:56 AM »
With a second stage, yes. Otherwise, no.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #74 on: 04/02/2008 01:37 PM »
Basically , even 5-seg or 6-seg SRB's are too small for the Ares-V core. The thing weighs nearly twice as much as a shuttle ET or Jupiter core. Separation takes place too low and slow, wasting a lot of that extra propellant. You would need 4 x 4-seg to get the same relative performance as the other two.

This is why the J-232 puts only a little less mass in orbit, despite being quite a bit smaller than Ares-V.

Offline Zachstar

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
  • Washington State
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #75 on: 04/02/2008 09:22 PM »
Direct Team

Soon I hope to start PR efforts on forums such as Democratic Underground to grow support for the hopeful Obama Administration to stop this madness with Ares 1 and go with DIRECT.

I think the fact that Direct was more or less a grassroots effort will resonate well with them and together we can go on a sensible path towards replacing the shuttle. And a path that is not nearly so easy to cancel as Ares V currently is.

Direct is a way to "Hope" in my view. Instead of relying on some distant dream later we can have the basis of travel to the moon soon and on the books now rather than 2016.

I hope those who are for McCain will do similar efforts such as on Free Republic to gain support there as well.


I think the discussion is just about over and we have our choices that we need to make. If we can't admit Ares 1 is a failure at what it was supposed to achieve and go with something different then we have no business thinking about returning to the moon.

Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #76 on: 04/02/2008 09:59 PM »
Ross, Chuck, Stephen & Co:

In a related vein to Zachstar's comment, are you folks trying to make inroads with the three remaining candidates' policymakers in this field (such as Lori Garver for the Clinton campaign)?

Seems like those would be fairly important people to be talking to right now.



Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #77 on: 04/02/2008 10:00 PM »
Hey - Direct is on the agenda for tomorrow's Ares hearing in Congress!

See here:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/house-may-attac.html

and check out page 9 of the hearing doc:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2008/Space/3apr/Hearing_Charter.pdf

What are the chances that some of the congresscritters will ask some good questions of Dr. Griffin & co and get some straight answers?

Offline rocketguy101

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 834
    • Strib's Rocket Page
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 653
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #78 on: 04/02/2008 10:49 PM »
Wow--somebody has been listening!!  Cool!
David

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10481
  • Liked: 405
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DIRECT v2.0 - Thread 2
« Reply #79 on: 04/02/2008 11:06 PM »
While the Wired article indicates its a party issue it actually isn't.   There's support for this push on both sides of the aisle.

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

Tags: