Author Topic: "DIRECT" Goes Live  (Read 353305 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #40 on: 10/27/2006 05:44 PM »
After,
   I agree.   I think *ultimately* a commercial vendor could come up with something cheaper, more powerful etc.   But that in and of itself, does not solve all of NASA's problems.   NASA has other things which it must also balance:   Such as keeping its political master happy - it is after all a government agency.

   One of NASA's biggest, yet least-publicised, concerns in retiring Shuttle and moving into the VSE has been "Workforce Retention".

   Each of the major space states (TX, CA, AL, MS, FL, DC, UT etc) has many Senators, House Reps and Governors who sit on NASA's various budget appropriations committees.   If NASA were to kills 10,000 jobs in someone's state, there's no way that state's representatives will vote to increase NASA's budget the next year - they'll probably be after blood instead.

   So NASA has to balance pure cost and technical requirements against this situation aswell.   They must have a solution which guarantees the workforce remains largely intact, and one which can prove it.

   The best way to retain the current workforce is to continue utilizing most, if not all, of the current facilities and launch hardware and just replace the stuff which we have found to be problematic (read, the "Orbiter" element).

   Ares offers such a transition, albeit a very expensive one.   DIRECT also offers such a solution to all these factors, at half the cost of Ares.   The Delta, Atlas or even Falcon derived solutions do NOT address the political aspect of NASA's problem.   Sure they would cost less than Ares or even DIRECT, but that cost saving comes PURELY from reduced staffing levels.   The figures I have seen is they would result in 10,000 job losses in Florida, 80,000 job losses in Texas, 70,000 job losses in Alabama, and many, many more in the other states affected.   250,000+ new unemployed people becomes a national economy problem - which is far bigger problem to the government.

   NASA must juggle this important issue, in amongst all the others, when making far-reaching decisions like this.

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

Offline koraldon

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #41 on: 10/27/2006 05:49 PM »
Good luck, seems like a solid proposal.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10592
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 1001
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #42 on: 10/27/2006 10:30 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2006  4:55 PM
I agree with you Meiza, this isn't primarily designed for sat. launches (although it is capable of lifting 5 replacement TRDS satellites to GEO in one shot), no.   DIRECT's primary purpose is to enable the manned program of exploration of our solar system
The agreement with DoD in the first place mandates that all government sat launches of 20 mT or less be done with EELV.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10592
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 1001
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #43 on: 10/27/2006 10:44 PM »
Quote
JIS - 26/10/2006  1:43 PM
Ross, very very similar approach was considered in ESAS.
Actually, a very similar approach was NOT considered in ESAS. Direct's approach is an ET-derived core stage WITH SRB's. Page 383 of the ESAS report SPECIFICALLY states that the ET-derived core WITHOUT SRB's was considered and rejected. But the ET-derived core WITH SRB's (Direct concept) was not considered at all.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10592
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 1001
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #44 on: 10/27/2006 11:06 PM »
Quote
rumble - 27/10/2006  9:00 AM
Jim, I thought about docking to extract the payload, but is there enough time after MECO and before the 1st circularization burn to turn around & pull it out?  Or should we allow the core to become orbital (60X160 or something), then put retros on it to make it suborbital again after the CEV extracts the payload?

The other idea I had is having a small kick stage just behind the payload module so it could perform the 1st post-MECO burn, buying more time before the CEV had to dock with it.
I considered both these options. In the case of #1, I don't think there's enough time to cover any anomolies. In the case of #2, why carry fuel to orbit and just use it to dump the ET? Why not just don't let the ET get into orbit? My thought with the cargo cage between the CM & SM is that MECO would be just shy of orbital velocity, allowing the ET to dump itself into the atmosphere, because at MECO, the velocity would still be suborbital. The SM engine behind the cargo cage (or even the basic Orion configuration without cargo) would provide the final kick for LEO insertion. Just like Shuttle does now with the OMS. Problem solved.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10592
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 1001
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #45 on: 10/27/2006 11:50 PM »
Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2006  11:42 PM
Consider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.
Ross.
Ross, Shuttle has carried lots of military and DoD payloads to orbit. Do you think the DoD and/or the USAF would be interested in a "Destiny Science Module" sized orbital "object"? Perhaps this concept needs to find it's way to these agencies, showing this "possibility", manned or unmanned.
Chuck
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10592
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 1001
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #46 on: 10/27/2006 11:55 PM »
Quote
Jim - 27/10/2006  7:34 AM
It causes most of the load to be "hung" vs axial compression.
How is that different from Shuttle?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10592
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 1001
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #47 on: 10/28/2006 12:39 AM »
Quote
clongton - 27/10/2006  7:38 PM

Quote
Jim - 27/10/2006  7:34 AM
It causes most of the load to be "hung" vs axial compression.
How is that different from Shuttle?
Further on this. I should have mentioned that the payload would be secured in the cargo module in exactly the same manner as Shuttle; it would be secured in axial compression at the bottom end of the canister, and stabilized axialy along the spline. Any excess length to the cargo module would be compensated for by having different length modules available for use, in 5 meter length increments, to help keep the overall distance, nose to tail, at a minimum. That improves RCS functioning by keeping the CG within specific ranges. Jim is right; to secure the payload in the axial direction only would not be a good thing. Mounting different length Orion-C's (Orion-Cargo) in the SLA would be by having matching sets of Cargo Cannisters and SLA mounting platforms, maintaining a constant overall length and solid mounting at all times.
BTW, the cargo module does not necessarily need to be an enclosed container. It could also just be a "cage" configuration, provided that it was properly strengthened. Less costly, since it will be disposed of anyway, along with the SM.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10592
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 1001
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #48 on: 10/28/2006 01:57 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2006  11:42 PM
Consider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.
Ross.
Pure practicality also requires that we consider the possibility of another loss of a Shuttle, with or without loss of crew.
Nobody wants to even think about it, but it COULD happen.

IF it does, the Shuttle program will be dead, right then and there, period. It will never fly again.
Unless the ISS is already finished, there will be no way to finish it, or to service Hubble, unless NASA decides soon to replace Ares I/V with Direct.

Direct could finish construction of the ISS. The development of both Direct and Orion would be speeded up by the transfer of funding from the cancelled Shuttle program to the ongoing Direct, and would be online in (relatively) short order.

Once online, Direct could do the Hubble servicing mission.
Direct could maintain the health of the station by flying the very heavy replacement parts, like the gyros, for example.
With Ares I, the station is doomed to die as soon as it starts to wear down, because there will be no other LV capable of flying them.

If NASA stays with the Ares, and the unthinkable happens again, the station will be unfinished and all but useless, and Hubble will die an unnecessary death. The American manned space program will be crippled for 25 to 30 years.

Ares I/V is simply the WRONG thing to do.
Even without another Shuttle accident, it cripples the American manned space program.

Direct prevents that.
Direct is the RIGHT thing to do, for all the right reasons, and also for reasons nobody wants to talk about or think about.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 485
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #49 on: 10/28/2006 02:17 AM »
OK, I can envision something like - an ISS module cargo 'cage' with a bare, passive CBM at one end, and an Orion dock at the other. That 'cage' would also need enough power by itself to supply launch-to-ISS-docking heating and health data transmission via some kind of relay to MCC.

So in summary, the integrated vehicle launches, the Orion CM/SM docks with the ISS cargo 'cage', then goes through ISS rendezvous and station-keeping for CBM docking via SSRM, Orion undocking from the 'cage' and doing its own ISS docking, then removing the ISS module (via SSRM) from the 'cage' for its own mating. At the end of the mission, Orion re-docks with the 'cage', the CBM is released, then Orion follows a re-entry procedure that releases the 'cage' for it's own re-entry disposal before it re-enters itself.


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10592
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 1001
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #50 on: 10/28/2006 03:16 AM »
Quote
MKremer - 27/10/2006  10:00 PM
OK, I can envision something like - an ISS module cargo 'cage' with a bare, passive CBM at one end, and an Orion dock at the other. That 'cage' would also need enough power by itself to supply launch-to-ISS-docking heating and health data transmission via some kind of relay to MCC.

So in summary, the integrated vehicle launches, the Orion CM/SM docks with the ISS cargo 'cage', then goes through ISS rendezvous and station-keeping for CBM docking via SSRM, Orion undocking from the 'cage' and doing its own ISS docking, then removing the ISS module (via SSRM) from the 'cage' for its own mating. At the end of the mission, Orion re-docks with the 'cage', the CBM is released, then Orion follows a re-entry procedure that releases the 'cage' for it's own re-entry disposal before it re-enters itself.
What I envision is similar, but without the separate Orion/Cargo Cage docking maneuver.

1. Power to the cage would be supplied by the SM.
2. The integrated vehicle launches, and Orion-C rendezvous with ISS to a station-keeping position, without demating; CEV in front, cargo cage behind it, SM at the end.
3. The cargo cage (CC) opens its sides, and the station captures and removes the payload with the station arm.
4. The cargo cage closes its sides and Orion proceeds to dock with the station.
5. At end of mission, the intigrated Orion-C undocks, does the de-orbit burn, jetisons the SM/cage combination and re-enters the atmosphere. SM & cage burn up.

The Orion-C configuration never reconfigures itself until the de-orbit burn. It stays in the launch configuration; CM/CC/SM. It's less complicated that way. Otherwise Orion has to uncouple itself after MECO, rotate 180 degrees, dock with the CC/SM, and then prepare for the circularization burn. It only has 1/2 orbit to do this. If ANYTHING doesnt go perfect, the entire mission is jepordized. This is unnecessary. Just leave everything configured as it is at launch, do the final orbit insertion & circularization burn, and rendezvous with ISS. Consider the Orion-C as a single spacecraft consisting of a recoverable front (CM) and disposable rear (CC/SM). Think of the CC as an extension of the SM.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 485
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #51 on: 10/28/2006 04:14 AM »
Quote
clongton - 27/10/2006  9:59 PM

Quote
MKremer - 27/10/2006  10:00 PM
So in summary, the integrated vehicle launches, the Orion CM/SM docks with the ISS cargo 'cage', then goes through ISS rendezvous and station-keeping for CBM docking via SSRM, Orion undocking from the 'cage' and doing its own ISS docking, then removing the ISS module (via SSRM) from the 'cage' for its own mating. At the end of the mission, Orion re-docks with the 'cage', the CBM is released, then Orion follows a re-entry procedure that releases the 'cage' for it's own re-entry disposal before it re-enters itself.
What I envision is similar, but without the separate Orion/Cargo Cage docking maneuver.
Um, regardless of whether the ISS module goes up on its own or rides with the CEV booster, you *will* need a docking maneuver between the CEV and the ISS module 'cage' once everything gets to orbit. How else would it get from the launch orbit to the ISS orbit and into SSRMS capture station-keeping?

Quote
1. Power to the cage would be supplied by the SM.
2. The integrated vehicle launches, and Orion-C rendezvous with ISS to a station-keeping position, without demating; CEV in front, cargo cage behind it, SM at the end.
3. The cargo cage (CC) opens its sides, and the station captures and removes the payload with the station arm.
4. The cargo cage closes its sides and Orion proceeds to dock with the station.
5. At end of mission, the intigrated Orion-C undocks, does the de-orbit burn, jetisons the SM/cage combination and re-enters the atmosphere. SM & cage burn up.

Sure, but -
1) Won't allow any temp or health data from pre-launch to docking (quite important) without its own power source (likely batteries) and transmitter.
2) Agreed - Orion stays docked until CBM/ISS connection is complete.
3) Don't see a need for "sides" - the cargo 'cage'/cargo carrier should be completely open once the LV outer fairing is gone. No need for any additional enclosure.
4) Again, no need for "sides" - there's just the cargo 'cage' with Orion docked to one end.
5) Agreed. Once the 'cage' is empty it serves no other useful purpose, so Orion re-docks to the 'cage', the 'cage' is released from the CBM port, then Orion moves it into a disposal orbit on the way to its own re-entry.

Offline AndyMc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 240
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #52 on: 10/28/2006 09:41 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2006  10:42 PM

Here's a novel concept which DIRECT could offer as a performance upgrade.

Our very own Chuck Longton from this forum, suggested this idea to me earlier this evening.   A quick bit of tinkering with the artwork, and I can show it to you all now...

It is basically a "cargo bay" squeezed in between the Crew Module and Service Module of the CEV.


Even the basic variant of DIRECT certainly has more than enough performance to lift such an item as this to the ISS.

It does not change the aerodynamic profile for the CLV, although there is no reason it could not be lengthened if required.

A transmission tunnel running up the spine of the new module connects the CM and SM together largely as normal.

This would immediatly offer the ability to deliver the remianing ISS elements which are no longer planned to fly, and are simply gathering dust, and any other valuable hardware which will be relegated to the scrapheap with Ares-I.


Consider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.

Ross.

From your diagram Ross, it looks to me as though an airlock module could fit behind the CM, which fitted with a hatch in the heatshield, would enable EVAs for fixing Hubble and the like without de-pressurizing the CM.

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 493
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #53 on: 10/28/2006 12:32 PM »
Quote
AndyMc - 28/10/2006  4:24 AM
From your diagram Ross, it looks to me as though an airlock module could fit behind the CM, which fitted with a hatch in the heatshield, would enable EVAs for fixing Hubble and the like without de-pressurizing the CM.

Why would you need such a complication like a tunnel through the heatshield?  All you'd need to do is carry it up cradled behind, then perform a transposition and docking to pick it up.  Something like this was done... but wasn't used as an airlock... the ASTP docking adapter/tunnel.   A CEV version would probably look alot like this... but could be beefed up to carry MMUs the EVAers could don before egress so  they wouldn't have to be restricted by umbilicals.


Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10592
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2697
  • Likes Given: 1001
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #54 on: 10/28/2006 02:17 PM »
Quote
MKremer - 27/10/2006  11:57 PM

Quote
Um, regardless of whether the ISS module goes up on its own or rides with the CEV booster, you *will* need a docking maneuver between the CEV and the ISS module 'cage' once everything gets to orbit. How else would it get from the launch orbit to the ISS orbit and into SSRMS capture station-keeping?
No docking maneuver is required because the CC is already physically attached between the CM and the SM. It is a “cargo bay” of sorts, like in Shuttle. Together these 3 items CM (Command Module), CC (Cargo Cage) and SM (Service Module) form 1 single ship, just like Shuttle. Likewise, the Orion-C (Orion-Cargo) is one single spacecraft, consisting of 3, solidly connected modules.

Orion is a 2-module spacecraft (ignoring the abort tower), consisting of CM & SM. Think of the CC as a "cage", an extension on the fwd side of the SM, PERMANENTLY attached to the SM. For Orion-C, a 3-module spacecraft, the CM attaches to the fwd end of the CC in the same manner as it does to the SM in the 2-module version. The basic Orion delivers crew to some destination. Orion-C is optimised to deliver crew AND cargo to some destination. That cargo can be in a pressurized OR unpressurized module, mounted in the CC "cage", and secured at the CC aft end and along the axial spline/tunnel.

Together this integrated spacecraft does the circularization burn using the SM engine, arrives at ISS to a station-keeping position, where the SSRMS extracts the payload. The Orion-C spacecraft then moves to a docking port and docks, all 3 modules together, with the "cage" now empty.

Quote
Quote
1. Power to the cage would be supplied by the SM.
2. The integrated vehicle launches, and Orion-C rendezvous with ISS to a station keeping position, without de-mating; CEV in front, cargo cage behind it, SM at the end.
3. The cargo cage (CC) opens its sides, and the station captures and removes the payload with the station arm.
4. The cargo cage closes its sides and Orion proceeds to dock with the station.
5. At end of mission, the integrated Orion-C undocks, does the de-orbit burn, jettisons the SM/cage combination and re-enters the atmosphere. SM & cage burn up.

Quote
1) Won't allow any temp or health data from pre-launch to docking (quite important) without its own power source (likely batteries) and transmitter.
I think you’re assuming that the SM has no batteries, only solar cells. I’m not clear on that. If true, then you are correct. But if batteries are onboard the SM, like I think they are, then power can come from them, which would be the preferred method. It keeps the CC as simple as possible. All the required data monitoring devices can be built into the CC and connected to the power/data tunnel going the length of the CC from SM to CM. These should be standard "off-the-shelf" instrumention which can be mounted in the CC, connected to the payload, and plugged into the tunnel.

Can someone else on this thread speak to this? Does the SM have batteries onboard as part of it’s power system?

Quote
3) Don't see a need for "sides" - the cargo 'cage'/cargo carrier should be completely open once the LV outer fairing is gone. No need for any additional enclosure.
4) Again, no need for "sides" - there's just the cargo 'cage' with Orion docked to one end.
The “sides” form the physical structure and connection from the CM to the SM. My personal preference would be for some type of "cage" structure, not solid sides. Something like the cage that goes around a ladder attached to the side of an industrial building. Just enough "structure" to provide connection and strength. The “space” in between IS the CC, where the cargo/payload is secured. Together, this is a single spacecraft consisting of crew, cargo and propulsion/power modules.

Quote
5) Agreed. Once the 'cage' is empty it serves no other useful purpose, so Orion re-docks to the 'cage', the 'cage' is released from the CBM port, then Orion moves it into a disposal orbit on the way to its own re-entry.
No "re-dock" is required, because it never "docks" in the 1st place. The entire 3-module integrated spacecraft docks at the ISS, stays for the duration, undocks from ISS, does the de-orbit burn, then Orion CM sheds the SM/CC combination and re-enters the atmosphere.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32425
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11164
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #55 on: 10/28/2006 02:44 PM »
Quote
clongton - 27/10/2006  7:33 PM

Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2006  11:42 PM
Consider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.
Ross.
Ross, Shuttle has carried lots of military and DoD payloads to orbit. Do you think the DoD and/or the USAF would be interested in a "Destiny Science Module" sized orbital "object"? Perhaps this concept needs to find it's way to these agencies, showing this "possibility", manned or unmanned.
Chuck

The DOD doesn't want deal with a manned spacecraft, again.    

The EELV's can carry a "Destiny Science Module" or bigger.

NASA can build the CaLV because the DOD has no need for it. (part of the agreement)

The big  DOD ones are on the west coast and the east coast are HEO missions.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32425
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11164
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #56 on: 10/28/2006 02:47 PM »
Quote
clongton - 27/10/2006  7:38 PM

Quote
Jim - 27/10/2006  7:34 AM
It causes most of the load to be "hung" vs axial compression.
How is that different from Shuttle?

You have the "SLA" attaching near the base of the CM and the rest of the cargo and SM (the load) are behind this attach point and "hung"

You misunderstood me.   Axial is the way to go, like all other LVs'
Other than modules, the shuttle attach design mucked up spacecraft design  and they had to use ASE which added weight

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32425
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11164
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #57 on: 10/28/2006 03:02 PM »
You are making unnecessarily complicated.
1.  You are mixing cargo and crew - a lesson learned no-no from shuttle
2.  The CEV can't abort to orbit easily with the  cargo (too heavy)
3.  The cage is a kluge.  Let the payload sit on its aft like all payloads
4.   Orion-C mucks up the CEV design, increasing its costs
5.  Do the Apollo T&D and have the CEV pull it out and take it along
Edit:  

Biggest problem
6.  The RCS on the SM is too far away from the CG of the vehicle for docking.  You would need a fwd RCS system.

Take everything to orbit just like Apollo"
1.  The CEV stays the same and it can abort to orbit easily
2.  LIDS provides crew access to the cargo
3.  The LIDS can provide the data interface to the cargo after docking
4.  The CEV and cargo doesn't have to dock with the ISS.  The SSRMS can berth the two or the cargo.

There is maybe only one ISS module on the ground, the CAM, otherwise everything else is a new build, so shuttle legacy attachment is not needed.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32425
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11164
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #58 on: 10/28/2006 03:07 PM »
"All the required data monitoring devices can be built into the CC and connected to the power/data tunnel going the length of the CC from SM to CM. These should be standard "off-the-shelf" instrumention which can be mounted in the CC, connected to the payload, and plugged into the tunnel."

No such a thing.

The CEV is going to have a data link with the LSAM thru the LIDS, use this

Offline Jon_Jones

  • Orthogonal
  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • "Thank God for unanswered prayers," he said humbly
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "DIRECT" Goes Live
« Reply #59 on: 10/28/2006 03:23 PM »
I don't think I saw anyone mention this yet, but since the DIRECT idea seems to offer a large payload, and pressumably capable of launching a larger and heavier CEV, could one make room to attach a robotic arm on said larger CEV? perhaps have it folded up and tucked into the SM somewhere like the Apollo experiments bay?
Speed = Life iff Life = Speed

Tags: